Fanfan fans can fan the Sentencing Guidelines flames with a First Circuit ruling issued today: Ducan Fanfan may have been initially pleased to be half of the winning pair in the U.S. Supreme Court‘s Booker/Fanfan ruling.

Unfortunately, he eventually learned a lesson that many similarly-situated convicted federal criminal defendants have learned — that resentencing under the post-Booker regime does not always benefit the defendant. Today, in a ruling you can access here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms the 210-month sentence that Fanfan received after prevailing in the U.S. Supreme Court. At his original, pre-Booker sentencing, Fanfan received a sentence of just 78 months of imprisonment. Of course, it almost goes without saying that eleven extra years of imprisonment are a small price to pay for a U.S. Supreme Court victory.

Of Beethoven, of vodka, or of the Bill of Rights containing the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that if a criminal suspect indicates in any manner during custodial questioning that he wishes to remain silent, interrogation must cease. Today a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit resolves whether a criminal defendant’s statement, during an interrogation, that “I plead the fifth” is sufficient to invoke the right to remain silent. Complicating this question, the appeal arises in the habeas context challenging a state court conviction and is governed by the federal law whose acronym is AEDPA. The majority, in a decision that you can access here, affirms the federal district court’s denial of habeas relief.

The dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown begins, “It is likely that few Americans can profess fluency in the Bill of Rights, but the Fifth Amendment is surely an exception. From television shows like ‘Law & Order’ to movies such as ‘Guys and Dolls,’ we are steeped in the culture that knows a person in custody has ‘the right to remain silent.’ Miranda is practically a household word. And surely, when a criminal defendant says, ‘I plead the Fifth,’ it doesn’t take a trained linguist, a Ph.D, or a lawyer to know what he meant.”

“High Court Hears Abortion Ban Arguments”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood.” C-SPAN is also now providing on-demand access to the audio from the second of the two partial-birth abortion cases argued today before the U.S. Supreme Court. To access the audio, click here (RealPlayer required).

“Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Gonzalez v. Carhart.” C-SPAN is now providing on-demand access to the audio from the first of the two partial-birth abortion cases argued today before the U.S. Supreme Court. To access the audio, click here (RealPlayer required).

As The Associated Press notes here, “Authorities on Wednesday arrested an anti-abortion protester who disrupted Supreme Court arguments on the subject.” The disruption can be heard during the audio recording of the Carhart oral argument shortly after the 37 minute mark. The same-day transcript at page 34 does not directly note the disruption, although it does note the Court’s reaction to it.

The transcripts of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in the partial-birth abortion cases are now available online: You can access the transcript in Gonzales v. Carhart by clicking here, while you can access the transcript in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. by clicking here.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Kennedy vote in play on abortion.”

The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Justices Have Pointed Abortion Discourse” and “Man Arrested After Supreme Court Protest.”

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Top court considers major abortion test cases.”

“Gay Marriage Ban Rejected in Arizona”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “In a triple setback for conservatives, South Dakotans rejected a law that would have banned virtually all abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research.”

“C-SPAN has announced on their website that C-SPAN Radio will be broadcasting the audio of oral argument in today’s partial-birth abortion cases back-to-back beginning at 12:30 PM eastern.” So begins this post at “SCOTUSblog.” You can access today’s C-SPAN Radio schedule and links to listen live by clicking here.

Once this morning’s oral arguments conclude, you’ll be able to access Lyle Denniston’s report on the arguments here at “SCOTUSblog.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Considers Abortion-Ban Arguments.”

And the broadcast also contained an audio segment entitled “S.D. Rejects Abortion Ban, Missouri Backs Stem Cells.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Supreme Court to Consider Abortion Issue”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Ballot measures seen as threats to judicial independence are defeated in South Dakota and Colorado: The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota reports today that “S. Dakota voters soundly reject J.A.I.L. measure; Grand jury could have second-guessed judges.”

And The Rapid City Journal reports today that “Judicial accountability amendment crushed.”

Meanwhile, from Colorado, The Rocky Mountain News reports that “Term-limits for judges a no-go; Measure would have restricted them to 10 years of service.”

And The Denver Post reports that “Capping judges’ tenure is rejected.”

“4-foot rule’s defeat means Seattle reverts to old law”: The Seattle Times today contains an article that begins, “It looks like lap dances will remain legal in Seattle. With a no vote on Seattle Referendum 1, voters were firmly rejecting the city’s ‘four-foot rule,’ which would have banned lap dances by requiring exotic dancers and customers to keep their distance.”

And The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports today that “Attempt to restrict strip clubs failing.”

“4 states OK bans on gay ‘marriage’; four others likely”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

One of the States described in The Washington Times article as “likely” to pass such a ban is Arizona. Yet a report in today’s edition of The Arizona Republic headlined “Voters reshape legal landscape in Arizona” states that “in one of the tightest contests of the election, it appeared as of late last night that Arizona voters could be the first in the nation to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.”

The latest results from the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office show that the “Protect Marriage Arizona” proposition was defeated by a margin of 51.4 percent against, 48.6 percent in favor.

“Democratic Hopes Rest on 2 Tight Races”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Democrats claimed victory in four crucial Senate races early today and held small leads in two others that would give their party the majority — and control of both congressional chambers. The Senate majority will turn on razor-thin races in Virginia and Montana, where recounts or legal challenges could delay the final outcome for days. Democrats moved within striking distance by ousting Republicans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Missouri.”

The New York Times reports today that “Democrats Take Control of House; Senate Hangs on Virginia and Montana.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Democrats make gains, but Senate control hinges on 2 states.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Democrats take control of House; Senate hinges on race in Virginia.”

“Texas Inmates Protest Conditions With Hunger Strikes”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Likening themselves to prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, a dozen inmates on death row in Texas have staged hunger strikes over the last month to protest what they call abusive conditions, including 23 hours a day of isolation in their cells.”

“Court asked to apply sentencing rule retroactively”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“Michigan voters outlaw race, gender preferences”: This article appears today in The Detroit News.

And The Detroit Free Press reports today that “Affirmative action ban OK’d; Michigan 3rd state to nix preferential treatment.”

“S.D. rejects abortion ban; Opponents say ‘strong message sent'”: The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota contains this article today.

The Rapid City Journal reports today that “Abortion-ban opponents say facts key to win.”

The New York Times reports that “South Dakotans Reject Sweeping Abortion Ban.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “South Dakota scraps abortion ban; Voters reject the law built with little leeway; A prohibition of gay marriage passes.”

And USA Today reports that “South Dakota voters axe restrictive abortion law; 5 states pass same-sex marriage bans as culture-war issues inundate ballots.”

The latest vote tally from South Dakota shows that the matter, known as “Referred Law 6,” was defeated by a margin of 56 percent against to 44 percent in favor.

“Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments On ‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion Ban”: This article appears today in The New York Sun.

The Virginian-Pilot reports today that “Christian-based group in Beach files briefs in 2 abortion cases.”

The Roanoke Times contains an editorial entitled “Chief Justice Roberts’ delayed litmus test; During his Senate confirmation hearing, John Roberts sidestepped the abortion litmus test; The chief justice begins that exam today.”

USA Today contains an editorial entitled “Congress claims an M.D.: Justices will decide whether politics can set medical facts.” In response, Jay Sekulow has an op-ed entitled “Keep ‘partial-birth’ ban: Congress already found proof this procedure isn’t necessary.”

I previewed the cases being argued today before the U.S. Supreme Court in an installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com headlined “Congress Puts ‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion Back on the Supreme Court’s Agenda.”

“Will Control of the Senate Be Within the Margin of Litigation?” Law Professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law” blog.

“The CIA, the MCA, and Detainee Abuse”: Joanne Mariner has this essay online today at FindLaw.

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Abortion Rights Groups Choose Insiders to Argue High Court Cases.”

And in other news, an article is headlined “Swing Voter’s Lament: At Least One Case Still Bugs O’Connor.”

“All Eyes on Kennedy in Court Debate On Abortion; Justice Expected to Be Swing Vote in Ruling on Late-Term Procedure”: Charles Lane will have this article Wednesday in The Washington Post.

The Boston Globe today contains an article headlined “The challenger: Priscilla Smith will ask the US Supreme Court tomorrow to lift the ban on partial-birth abortions.”

Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court set to signal abortion stance.”

And online at FOXNews.com, Lis Wiehl has an essay entitled “Alito’s Abortion Ambition.”

“We are persuaded that the Federal Rules of Evidence are not governed by the Erie doctrine. Having said that, concepts of federalism still guide our understanding of the interplay between the Federal Rules and state law.” Because the Federal Rules of Evidence were originally enacted by the U.S. Congress, they are outside the purview of the so-called Erie doctrine, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held in an interesting decision issued today.

Unincorporated associations lack the ability to bring suit under the federal civil rights act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Tenth Circuit holds: Today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit comes in a case that arises from the denial of parade permits for anti-abortion protesters in Wichita, Kansas that produced a nominal damages award of $1 in favor of the plaintiffs who did have the ability to assert a Section 1983 claim.

“Roberts court faces first abortion cases; New Supreme Court justices could tip the balance to uphold a ban on so-called partial-birth option”: Warren Richey will have this article Wednesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Mid-Day Election Glitch Update and the Implications for the Future”: Law Professor Rick Hasen has this post from the west coast, where it’s still midday, at his “Election Law” blog.

“Decision time on Cuban’s detention; The U.S. government has until Feb. 1 to prosecute Luis Posada Carriles, wanted abroad in a jet bombing case”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“New Justices Tested on Abortion Ban Ruling”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“High court to hear one for library books; Issue: Who can borrow where in state.” The Detroit Free Press today contains an article that begins, “Librarians throughout the state are watching closely — and worrying — as the case of a book-loving attorney from Bloomfield Hills versus the Bloomfield Township Public Library makes its way through the state Supreme Court.”

“Supreme Court debates 2 cases involving long prison terms”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“On Strip Measure, the Sides Are Four Feet Apart”: The Washington Post today contains an article reporting from Seattle, Washington that begins, “Voters here Tuesday have an opportunity rare in a democratic society: To decide in a referendum whether lonely guys can continue to stuff $20 bills in the G-strings of hot young women.”

“All eyes are on Alito in abortion case; First clues on how he will treat Roe vs. Wade may come tomorrow”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Tribune contains this article today.

“Ten Commandments may return to Casper”: This article appears today in The Casper Star Tribune.

“Judge dismisses Conyers lawsuit against Bush”: The Detroit News yesterday published a news update that begins, “A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought by U.S. Rep John Conyers, D-Detroit and 10 other Democratic members of Congress alleging the Deficit Reduction Act is unconstitutional. Conyers and the other lawmakers sued President Bush earlier this year, alleging the bill Bush signed into law differed from the version passed by the House and they had never voted on the version of the bill he enacted.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge dismisses House Democrats’ lawsuit over budget bill.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at this link.