“The Bloggerati response to Judge Taylor’s ruling in the NSA Case”: Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe has this guest post today at the “Balkinization” blog.

“GOP Sees Strategic Advantage in Court Loss on Wiretapping; Keeping terrorism the topic of the day is thought to exploit a vulnerability of Democrats — who’d rather talk about Iraq”: Maura Reynolds has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Washington Post reports today that “Ruling Against Wiretaps Further Sharpens Partisan Divide.”

The Baltimore Sun reports that “Bush drive for tougher terror laws picks up; Critics worry measures will weaken civil liberties.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Bush slams NSA surveillance critics.”

“Marshall gets life in jail; Federal court nixed a death sentence, but wife-murderer Robert O. Marshall gets max after emotional hearing; One son wanted mercy; another son said he should die in prison”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains this article today.

“Anti-Castro Disclosures Could Help ‘Cuban Five’; Convicted in Miami on espionage charges five years ago, the exiles may still win a new trial”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Judge vows quick decision on ballot issue; Anti-affirmative action measure’s disputed vote roils opponents, who filled federal courtroom”: The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “A federal judge on Friday promised a speedy decision on whether to remove from Michigan’s November ballot an initiative to ban affirmative action. Lawyers in a lawsuit over the ballot measure, called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, made their final arguments Friday and await a ruling from U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow.”

“Smoke but No Fire: A tobacco decision makes an important symbolic statement, but it won’t prevent smoking deaths.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post. The newspaper today also contains an article headlined “Tobacco Ruling Seen as a Win for Shareholders.”

And The New York Times on Sunday will contain an editorial entitled “Tobacco Racketeers Get Off Easy.”

“Every Executive Needs a Limit: Judge Taylor got it right on wiretapping.” Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Save the Endangered Whistle-Blower”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Ongoing misconceptions about Judge Taylor’s opinion”: Glenn Greenwald has this post today at his “Unclaimed Territory” blog.

“Using Nearly Nude Pictures, Child Sex Sites Test Laws”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“Judge: Marker can stay on lawn.” The Tulsa World today contains an article that begins, “A granite monument to the Ten Commandments planted in the soil of the Haskell County Courthouse lawn in Stigler nearly two years ago will stay there because it does not violate the constitutional divide between religion and government, a Muskogee federal judge ruled Friday.”

And The Oklahoman reports today that “Court says commandments monument can stay.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“The shocking decision in ACLU v. NSA”: Ann Althouse has now read the decision and has this post at her blog today.

“Ex-judge sentenced to 4 years”: The Tulsa World today contains an article that begins, “Former Creek County Judge Donald Thompson was led from a courtroom in handcuffs Friday to immediately begin serving a four-year prison term for indecent exposure.”

The Oklahoman reports today that “Ex-judge Thompson sentenced to four years in prison.”

And The Sapulpa (Okla.) Daily Herald reports that “Thompson sentenced to four years.”

Interesting articles recently posted online at SSRN: Law Professor John Bronsteen posted online yesterday an article titled “Against Summary Judgment” (abstract with link for download). I’m told that this blog is cited in one of the article’s footnotes.

And Law Professor Adam Mossoff on Wednesday posted online an article titled “Patents as Constitutional Private Property: The Historical Protection of Patents under the Takings Clause” (abstract with link for download). The abstract begins, “Conventional wisdom maintains that early courts never secured patents as constitutional private property under the Takings Clause. In examining long-forgotten judicial opinions and legislative records, this Essay reveals that this is a profoundly mistaken historical claim.”

“Hard to Predict 6th Circuit’s NSA Ruling”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Relatedly, the brand new installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com is headlined “Affirmance, Reversal and the NSA Wiretap Case; Ruling on domestic surveillance refocuses attention on trial court opinions’ impact on appellate proceedings.” Three paragraphs from the end of that essay, I write:

Given the intense attention that the trial court’s opinion has already received, I expect that soon attention will turn to the judges of the 6th Circuit, who have shown themselves not always to be one happy family in high-profile cases of national importance. The 6th Circuit is home to some of the nation’s most thoughtful liberal and conservative jurists, and when they serve together on a particularly divisive case it is not unusual for clashes to occur.

The link contained in that sentence in the law.com version of the essay isn’t working properly as of this moment, but in the above quotation I’ve included the proper link.

“Ethics panel admonishes Nuss”: The Wichita Eagle today contains an article that begins, ” A judicial ethics panel admonished Kansas Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss on Friday for discussing a long-running school finance lawsuit with two state senators.” In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Nuss’ bad judgment.”

The Kansas City Star reports today that “Board admonishes judge; Judicial panelists say canons of behavior were violated by state high court member.”

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that “Ethics panel scolds justice; Commission rules Nuss broke code of conduct by speaking to senators.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Kansas Justice Admonished Over Conduct.”

“Is Newman Stepping Down?” The Legal Intelligencer yesterday posted online a news update (free access) that begins, “For Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, the past year-and-a-half has brought a dramatic series of ups and downs. This past October, her husband, Julius, a renowned cosmetic surgeon, died following a lengthy illness. About a month later, Newman was elected to a second 10-year term as a justice, but it was, in many respects, something of a Pyrrhic victory.”

In somewhat related news, on Thursday The Herald-Standard of Uniontown, Pennsylvania published an interesting article headlined “Leading law expert asks state’s highest court for reforms.”

“Pataki Appoints Fifth Republican to Highest Court”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Gov. George E. Pataki nominated an upstate Republican on Friday to be his fifth appointee on the seven-member Court of Appeals, moving to assure that his imprint on the state’s highest court will last long into the next governor’s term.”

And The Buffalo News reports today that “Pigott respected on both sides of aisle; Top court appointee reflects Pataki’s politics but is widely praised as bright, fair-minded.” And Thursday’s newspaper contained an article headlined “Pigott seen as prospect for Court of Appeals; Considered strong on Pataki’s list of 7.”

The Albany Times Union reports today that “Pataki opts for a new judge; Court of Appeals nominee Eugene F. Pigott Jr. would replace lone African-American member.” And earlier this week, the newspaper reported that “Pataki urged to factor diversity in court pick.”

The Journal News of Westchester, New York reports that “Pataki denies reappointment to lone black judge.”

And The New York Law Journal reports that “Pataki Nominates Pigott for High Court; Would Be First Buffalo-Area Judge Since 1980s” (free access).

Law bloggers mentioned on the front page of today’s issue of The New York Times: Both Law Professor Jack M. Balkin of the “Balkinization” blog and I are mentioned as law bloggers on the front page of today’s newspaper of record in the opening paragraphs of Adam Liptak’s article headlined “Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision.”

I’m mentioned in the third and fourth paragraphs of the article, which state:

Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments.

“It does appear,” Mr. Bashman said, “that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.”

The best copy of today’s front page available online is a PDF copy from The Newseum. The newspaper’s own web site provides images of both the New York City edition and the national edition. And The Newseum also provides a JPEG of today’s front page.

Law bloggers mentioned on the front pages of major newspapers isn’t yet a category that Ian Best catalogues at his “3L Epiphany” blog. But Ian does have an interesting new post titled “Law Review Articles Citing Legal Blogs.”