“Supreme Court Suspends Jailed Texas AG”: The Associated Press provides this report.

You can access at this link the Order List that the Supreme Court of the United States issued today.

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral argument in Keshishian v. Gonzales”: That oral argument, which occurred last Wednesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was featured on this past Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts.” You can view the program online, on-demand by clicking here (RealPlayer required). The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Alex Kozinski, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and Jay S. Bybee.

Seventh Circuit adopts a presumptive sanction of $4,000 for a frivolous tax appeal: On July 5, 2006, I had a post titled “Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook has harsh words both for tax protesters filing frivolous appeals and for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Tax Division, which may have overstated the cost of responding to such appeals” about a ruling issued that day.

In that earlier ruling, the Seventh Circuit asked the parties to file additional memoranda concerning the legal services for which the United States must pay to defend frivolous appeals in tax-protest cases. In a follow-up ruling issued today, Circuit Judge Easterbrook has more harsh words for the Tax Division. Today’s bottom-line, as before, is that the Seventh Circuit has rejected the Tax Division’s request to set the presumptive sanction in tax-protest cases at $8,000.

“Ex-Athletic Director Loses Sex Bias Case; Judge rules Lafayette College didn’t improperly fire plaintiff”: In July 2003, Shannon P. Duffy had this article (free access) in The Legal Intelligencer. Today, a unanimous two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in most respects but reinstated the plaintiff’s claim under Title IX in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court‘s recent ruling in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education. You can access today’s Third Circuit ruling at this link.

Seven dwarfs may be more well-known than U.S. Supreme Court Justices, but judge from the Philippines who claimed to have consulted imaginary mystic dwarfs proves unable to retain his post: Recently, I linked here to a Reuters report headlined “Snow White’s dwarfs more famous than US judges: poll.”

At about the same time, from the Philippines, The Manila Standard was reporting that “Dwarfs can’t help ‘paranormal judge.’” And The Manila Times provided a report headlined “SC on ‘dwende’ judge.”

The ruling that the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued earlier this month refused to reconsider that court’s ruling from March 2006. Following the earlier ruling, the court issued a press release entitled “Judge Separated from Service Due to Psychosis.”

In other press coverage, BBC News reported on Friday that “Filipino ‘dwarf’ judge loses case; A Philippines judge who said he consulted imaginary mystic dwarves has failed to convince the Supreme Court to allow him to keep his job” (via RNLA’s “Judicial Confirmation Blog“). Agence France Presse reports that “Mystic dwarf judge sacked.” And The Washington Post Online’s “OFF/beat” blog offers these thoughts.

Finally, in coverage of the earlier ruling, The Manila Times reported that “Judge with spirit ‘pals’ dismissed.”

In today’s mail: An advance reading copy of “Confirmation Wars: Preserving Independent Courts in Angry Times,” by Benjamin Wittes.

And from The Green Bag, a certificate entitling me to one Justice Anthony M. Kennedy bobblehead doll.

“Not Qualified: The American Bar Association and its role in our confirmation process.” Ed Whelan has this essay in the August 28, 2006 issue of National Review.

Unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holds unconstitutional a Missouri criminal statute that regulates advertising by businesses offering sexually explicit entertainment or materials: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Finding a Friendly Court Is Not So Easy”: In the Week in Review section of yesterday’s issue of The New York Times, Jonathan D. Glater had an article that begins, “Planning a legal battle on a big constitutional case would seem to have little in common with making a real estate decision, but any lawyer will tell you that often the same thing matters in both arenas: location. When lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union were deciding where to file their case against the Bush administration’s policy of wiretapping the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant, they chose Detroit, more specifically the United States District Court there.”

“Alito touts ECC police academy grads; There is a moment of silence for slain detective Shields”: Last Thursday, The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contained an article that begins, “Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. yesterday called law enforcement one of the highest forms of public service and said the field has experienced marked improvement over recent years.”

“The Garter Belt,” nude dancing, and res judicata: Thanks to a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the new week begins with a nude dancing decision. Unlike most nude dancing decisions, however, this morning’s ruling principally concerns whether a state court’s rejection of a constitutional challenge to a Michigan town’s ordinance that prohibits nudity at “any establishment licensed or subject to licensing by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission” should preclude a topless dancer at the establishment (Leggs Lounge, owned by The Garter Belt, Inc.) from challenging the ordinance as unconstitutional in federal court. The majority holds that preclusion applies.

Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman‘s dissenting opinion begins, “The majority’s decision in this case leads to an unnecessarily broad and perverse result–that once the Michigan courts have determined that a state statute complies with the federal Constitution, the federal courts are precluded from ever passing on the issue.”

“Justice will grind to a halt with 9th Circuit vacancies”: This editorial appeared last Friday in The Times-News of Twin Falls, Idaho.

In today’s issue of Legal Times: The publication contains articles headlined “Has Time Softened D.C. Circuit Nominee Peter Keisler’s Partisan Edges? A Foot Soldier Of the Revolution: Keisler a Key Player in Terrorism and Tobacco” and “Judge Slams Lawyers For Role in Hiding Tobacco Risks” (both free access).

“Affirmance, Reversal and the NSA Wiretap Case: Ruling on domestic surveillance refocuses attention on trial court opinions’ impact on appellate proceedings.” The brand new installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.

“Who Owns the Back of a Baseball Card? A legal ruling hits it out of the park.” Law Professor Jack Williams has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Columbia-Educated Doctor Will Argue He Had To Help Al Qaeda”: This article appears today in The New York Sun.

“A judicial hit piece”: The Washington Times contains this editorial today.

And yesterday, The Chicago Tribune contained an editorial entitled “Eavesdropping within the law.” Also in yesterday’s newspaper, Law Professor Jonathan Turley had an op-ed entitled “NSA ruling much like a pig in parlor.”

“Lethal Injection — Still Lethal: Fighting the death penalty by calling lethal injection ‘cruel’ misses the crucial objection.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Contesting the Bar to Asylum; The Justice Department asks for review of a Congolese woman’s case; Activists say the denial implies rape is OK in investigations”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“At Guantanamo, Caught in a Legal Trap; 6 Algerians Languish Despite Foreign Rulings, Dropped Charges”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

“British Law Against Glorifying Terrorism Has Not Silenced Calls to Kill for Islam”: The New York Times contains this article today.

“1 in 8 murderers halted their appeals to speed execution”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“Blawg Review #71”: Available online here, at “QuizLaw.”

Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Weekend Edition Sunday” contained an audio segment entitled “Legal Precedent and the Bush-Gore Ruling.”

Yesterday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained audio segments entitled “Negotiator of ’98 Deal Weighs New Tobacco Ruling” and “Ruling Sounds Death Knell for ‘Light’ Cigarette.”

And Friday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Debating the Fate of Domestic Wiretapping” featuring Law Professors Jeffrey Rosen and Douglas W. Kmiec.

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Dismissal of Lawsuit Against CU Appealed”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Lawyers for a woman who alleges she was raped by University of Colorado football players or recruits in 2001 have filed an appeal of a federal judge’s dismissal of her lawsuit against the school.”

“Court: Members of Congress not immune from discrimination suits.” McClatchy Newspapers provide this report. My earlier coverage appears here.

“Blogging lawprofs, go back to your law review articles”: Ann Althouse today has a post at her blog that begins, “Over at Balkinization, lawprof Larry Tribe writes a long-winded post defending Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s opinion in ACLU v. NSA. He thinks we bloggers have gone too far criticizing her, when there’s so much reason to criticize the administration.”

Philadephia Phillies 12, Washington Nationals 10: My son and I had the pleasure of attending this afternoon’s baseball game at Citizens Bank Park. By the end of the fourth inning, the Phillies enjoyed a 10-1 lead. But that comfortable margin was not to last long, as the Nationals only trailed 10-8 after batting around in the sixth inning. And by the middle of the eighth inning, the Phillies’ lead was only one run.

The Phillies had themselves batted around in the third inning, perhaps explaining how a game that lasted only eight and a half innings took three hours and thirty-seven minutes to complete. You can access the box score at this link, while wraps are available online here and here.

Next on the baseball agenda for my son and I — attending this Thursday’s game at Camden Yards in Baltimore, where the Orioles will be hosting the Minnesota Twins. That game will feature a Melvin Mora bobblehead give-away.

“Sept. 11 plaintiffs wait for answers, resolution; Nearly 5 years later, lawsuits are stalled”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“U.S. Measures Anti-Terror Laws vs. Britain’s; Some in the GOP want a more flexible system, such as that used to uncover an alleged plot; Critics say such changes would trample rights”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“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.”