“Justice: ‘Stand up’; High court’s Thomas issues call at UGA.” This article appeared Saturday in The Athens Banner-Herald.

There’s one readily available way to decline to receive Pennsylvania’s judicial pay raise — resign from the judiciary: On Friday, I linked here to news coverage that “Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin is suing the state court system, saying court officials violated her rights by refusing to let her decline a 15 percent pay raise.”

It occurs to me that if one is seeking to increase the amount of money that remains in the treasury of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, suing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over the supposed right to refuse an approximately $17,000 annual pay raise is probably not the most cost-efficient way to go about things. The easiest way to decline the pay raise would be to resign from the judiciary altogether. That would save Pennsylvania $162,100 in salary per year until a replacement judge took the bench. Or, Judge Orie Melvin could anonymously refund the salary increase to Pennsylvania’s Department of Revenue using money orders that could not be traced back to her.

A news update (free access) from The Legal Intelligencer on Friday began, “Some might believe that Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin’s highly public bid to keep her salary at its pre-pay-raise-decision level is a sure sign that she’s planning a second run for the state Supreme Court in 2007.” But that doesn’t make very much sense, as the Pa. Supreme Court’s Justices presumably achieved pay increases in an even greater amount than Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court judges. And if the current lawsuit fails to establish the right of Pa. Supreme Court Justices to decline their pay raises, perhaps a future Justice Orie Melvin will need to file a new lawsuit if she’s elected to Pennsylvania’s highest court.

As noted here, here, here, and here, Judge Orie Melvin is no stranger to high-profile lawsuits.

Forthcoming speaking appearances: On November 16th and 17th, I’ll be at the New York Marriott Marquis Times Square Hotel taking part in a two-day “Blog Law” continuing legal education program. My panel is scheduled for the morning of Friday, November 17th. Additional details and online registration can be accomplished via this link. Notice is hereby given to “Above the Law” that a law blogger lunch with PG from the “de novo” blog is in the works.

On Tuesday, December 5th, I’m scheduled to be in New Haven, Connecticut to participate in a law blogging panel hosted by the Yale Law Federalist Society.

Finally, for those who like to plan far, far in advance, I’m scheduled to be in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to participate in a law blogging panel tentatively scheduled for Monday, May 7th, 2007.

“Just Deserts or Just Harsh”: CQ Weekly columnist Kenneth Jost provides this preview of Philip Morris USA v. Williams, the punitive damages-excessiveness case now pending on the merits for decision before the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can access the Supreme Court of Oregon‘s ruling in the case at this link.

Here’s my preview of the case, originally written to appear as a part of the October 16, 2006 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com:

The corporate world will surely focus on the Supreme Court on the morning of Tuesday, Oct. 31, given that the first case to be argued that day will see the Court returning to the issue of when a punitive damage award is unconstitutionally excessive. Once again, a ruling from the Supreme Court of Oregon will be the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court’s punitive damages inquiry.

At issue in Philip Morris USA v. Williams is whether the Supreme Court’s recent holding that the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages should seldom exceed the single digits ought to apply to certain corporate tortfeasors, such as tobacco product manufacturers, that engaged in especially egregious conduct.

In this case, plaintiff Mayola Williams, the widow of a smoker who died of lung cancer, won a punitive damages award against Philip Morris totaling $79.5 million. The jury’s compensatory damages award totaled $821,485.50, the vast bulk of which represented non-economic damages. Notwithstanding the greater than 96-to-1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, Oregon’s highest court upheld the award, finding that Philip Morris’s conduct was “extraordinarily reprehensible” and “put a significant number of victims at profound risk for an extended period of time.”

In addition to deciding whether this particular award is too large, the Court has also agreed to resolve whether the jury was properly allowed to consider the harm Philip Morris caused to other Oregon residents in deciding how great of a punitive damages award to impose in a case involving one deceased smoker.

Although any punitive damages case that the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to review is noteworthy, this case is especially so because it will be the first such case to be decided on the merits since Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the Court — and also because retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had been at the forefront of the Court’s efforts to rein in excessive punitive damages awards, while Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia had criticized the Court’s involvement in controlling the size of state court punitive damages awards. It will be interesting to see, on this issue, whether Roberts and Alito opt for the pattern set by O’Connor or will opt for the hands-off approach that Scalia continues to advocate.

If Roberts and Alito side with Scalia on the subject of punitive damages, a total of five votes will exist — counting Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — to end the Court’s involvement in regulating the size of state court punitive damages awards. Corporate America surely fears that possible outcome, even though the more likely outcome is that Roberts and Alito will adhere to existing Supreme Court precedent for which O’Connor once provided the crucial fifth vote.

“Skilling to Be Sentenced for Enron Conviction”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“Former CIA spy branded a traitor wants to clear his name; Like a story in a spy novel, Edwin Wilson is out to prove he was set up”: This article appears today in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“Order in the court: U.S. Chief Justice Roberts, panel hear student moot case.” The Daily Gamecock contains this article today.

“The horizon recedes again on Indians’ vast royalty claims”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Confirmation Wars: Ben Wittes on How to Preserve Judicial Independence.” The current issue of The Harvard Law Record contains this article.

Coincidentally, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. mentioned Wittes’s book during his talk Friday at the University of South Carolina School of Law. You can view video of that talk via this earlier post.

“Speculation on Gay Marriage Ruling Swirls in New Jersey”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

On this date in 1987: The U.S. Senate voted not to confirm Robert H. Bork to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the next day’s issue of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse had an article headlined “Bork’s Nomination Is Rejected, 58-42; Reagan ‘Saddened.'” Ultimately, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was confirmed to fill the vacancy.

Coincidentally, the 58-42 vote against Judge Bork’s confirmation was exactly the opposite of the 58-42 vote in January of this year to confirm Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the Court.

“An era ends today as Skilling learns fate; Some counting on a long sentence for ex-Enron CEO”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle, along with an article headlined “Skilling seeks to remain free during appeal.”

“The C.I.A.’s Travel Agent”: Jane Mayer has this “Talk of the Town” item in the October 30, 2006 issue of The New Yorker.

“Blawg Review #80”: Available here, at “Blawg Review.”

“Murder case renews debate on intoxication as a defense”: This article appears today in The Kansas City Star.

“The Skilling sentencing hearing”: This post appears at Tom Kirkendall’s blog “Houston’s Clear Thinkers.”

In Monday’s edition of The New York Times: Tomorrow’s newspaper will contain articles headlined “The Guidelines Now Tougher, Skilling to Face Sentence Today” and “We’re Google. So Sue Us.”

“No Exit: Judicial activism is inevitable.” Ann Althouse had this op-ed (republished at her blog) yesterday in The Wall Street Journal.

As longtime readers of “How Appealing” may recall, on this very blog site in November 2002, I too had lots to say on the topic of judicial activism.

“Injured Police Officer Dies In Hospital; New Haven Force’s Picagli Was Struck By SUV While Directing Traffic At A Construction Site”: The Hartford Courant today contains an article that begins, “The police officer who was struck at a construction site Tuesday by an SUV driven by a federal judge died Saturday at Yale-New Haven Hospital. Dan Picagli sustained head injuries when he was struck while directing traffic at a construction site near Wooster Square Park in New Haven. The SUV that hit him was driven by John M. Walker Jr., a federal judge who is a cousin of former President George H.W. Bush.”

And The New Haven Register reports today that “Youth officer loses struggle after being struck by SUV.”

“Napa Nuptials for Olson and His Lady”: The “Reliable Source” column in today’s issue of The Washington Post begins, “Top Washington lawyer Ted Olson and his fiancee, Lady Booth, tied the knot yesterday in Napa Valley, Calif., starting a happy new chapter in Olson’s personal life.”

“‘Click Fraud’ Threatens Foundation of Web Ads; Google Faces Another Lawsuit by Businesses Claiming Overcharges”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Slate Magazine Editor and Columnist to Discuss the Roberts Court for 2006 Tucker Lecture”: The Washington and Lee University School of Law issued this news release about a lecture that Dahlia Lithwick delivered on Friday. The law school has posted online both video (Windows Media format) and audio (mp3 format) of Dahlia’s lecture.

“Skilling’s case stands apart in corporate crime; Ex-Enron CEO, to be sentenced Monday, driven by business vision”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

And Reuters reports that “Ex-Enron CEO Jeff Skilling faces sentencing Monday.”

“A Columbia Expert on Free Speech Is Accused of Speaking Too Softly”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, is a natural in the classroom, guiding undergraduates through the intricacies of the First Amendment.”

“Get me rewrite! George Washington didn’t think the Constitution was sacrosanct — why do we? It’s time for a new constitutional convention.” Law Professor Sanford Levinson has this essay today in the Ideas section of The Boston Globe.

“Veil costs her claim in court; Judge: Face key in deciding truth.” This article appears today in The Detroit Free Press.

Relatedly, the blog “Religion Clause” offers a post titled “Niqab Controversies In US, Britain, Egypt.”

“Scalia Rips Judges on Abortion, Suicide”: The Associated Press provides this report.

The article reports on Justice Antonin Scalia’s remarks yesterday at the National Italian American Foundation’s 31st Anniversary Awards Gala. In advance of the event, the Foundation issued a news release titled “Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to be Honoted at Italian-American Gala in Washington, D.C.”

“Paper to be held in contempt, pending appeal; It could face fines of $1,000 a day for up to 18 months”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The Chronicle has agreed to be held in contempt of court and could face fines of more than half a million dollars if a federal appeals court decides the newspaper must disclose its reporters’ sources of information about grand jury testimony by Giants outfielder Barry Bonds and other star athletes about steroids.”

“Judge Says Indecent Exposure Law Applies to Men Only; Drops Charge Against Woman”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And at “the (new) legal writer” blog, Ray Ward addresses “What’s a draftsman drafter of legislation to do?”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

Cause and effect: In August, after I wrote about the ruling from a Detroit federal judge holding unconstitutional President Bush’s domestic wiretapping program, I was quoted on the front page of The New York Times.

More recently, after I wrote about how words alone are capable of violating federal obscenity laws, I was quoted at the web site of Adult Video News (ads not work safe).

“Free speech on Fremont OK’d; Ruling lifts city ordinances barring solicitation, setting up booths”: This article appears today in The Las Vegas Review-Journal. My earlier coverage is at this link.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Justices Discuss Judges’ Independence“; “Justice Kennedy Holds Key to High Court“; and “Justice’s Memories of World Series Loss.”

“Lawyer Convicted in Terror Case Lied on the Stand, a Juror Says”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “He was known as Juror 8, for the jury box chair where he listened silently for more than six months as the convoluted evidence unfolded in the trial of Lynne F. Stewart, the radical defense lawyer accused of aiding Islamic terrorism.”

“Witness: Sanctions ‘Illegal.'” Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “A former chairman of the Judicial Review Council and a noted expert on legal ethics both testified Friday that there is no precedent, nor authority vested in the council, to discipline former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan for secretly withholding release of a controversial Supreme Court ruling to benefit a colleague.”

And The Connecticut Law Tribune yesterday published news updates headlined “Tensions Escalate At JRC Hearing; Keefe goes from witness to Sullivan attack dog” and “Hired Gun Professor Testifies For Sullivan.”

“Supreme Court Allows Arizona to Use New Voter-ID Procedure”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports that “Arizona May Use Voter-ID Law, High Court Says; Justices Overturn Ruling That Cited Pending Lawsuit.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “High Court Allows Arizona to Enact New Voter ID Law; The ruling reverses one by the 9th Circuit; It is expected to benefit Republicans at the polls.”

The Arizona Republic contains an article headlined “Voters, bring your ID to polls.”

And The Arizona Daily Star reports that “High court clears state to enforce voter ID; Tosses lower court decision that blocked enforcement.”