“Witnessing Execution a Matter of Duty, Choice”: Sunday’s issue of The Washington Post will contain this front page article.

“Religion for Captive Audiences, With Taxpayers Footing the Bill”: This lengthy article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“Brown v. Board of Education, Second Round”: Adam Liptak will have this article Sunday in the Week in Review section of The New York Times.

“Police: Chi. Gunman Angry Over Invention.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The gunman who fatally shot three people in a law firm’s high-rise office before he was killed by police felt cheated over an invention, authorities said Saturday.”

“Pay-raise fallout fails to dim interest in Pa. Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Judge Plans Double Appeal; Ex-Chief Justice Not Going Quietly”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “Former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan will appeal both his 15-day suspension and the findings last month by the Judicial Review Council that he violated the code of ethics in secretly withholding release of a controversial ruling. The appeal will prolong an episode that prompted an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the judiciary and created yet another uncomfortable chapter for Sullivan’s colleagues on the high court.”

And in somewhat related news, The Connecticut Post reports today that “Justice search widens; Rell to look past judges on state’s highest court.”

“MHSAA’s latest appeal denied in Circuit Court”: The Grand Rapids Press yesterday contained an article that begins, “For the second time in two years, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati denied the Michigan High School Athletic Association’s appeal for an en banc hearing — one before the entire panel of 13 judges — to keep from having to switch when six of its sports seasons are played. Now, for the next round of this civil lawsuit, the MHSAA is expected to file a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to see if it will consider hearing another appeal.”

“Government wants Hamdan case dismissed”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“SJC rules on parental rights of lesbians; Woman is faulted for not adopting”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts at this link.

“Sen. Brownback May Lift Hold on Nominee”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday he would lift his hold on a federal judicial nominee if she agrees to step aside from any case dealing with same-sex unions.”

Please vote for “Best Law Blog” in The 2006 Weblog Awards: The polls opened Thursday evening and will remain open through December 15th. “How Appealing” is currently in third place out of ten contestants. Those who believe in the primacy of international law will be delighted to learn that the blog currently in second place is operated by a law firm located in the United Kingdom.

You can vote once per computer, per web browser, every 24 hours. Simply click here to access the page where you can cast your vote.

“Ex-detainees seek right to sue Rumsfeld in abuse case; As noncitizens, the nine might not be allowed to pursue their claims in U.S. court, a judge suggests”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The New York Times reports today that “Former Detainees Argue for Right to Sue Rumsfeld Over Torture.”

And The Washington Post reports that “U.S. Denies Liability in Torture Case; Attorney Urges Dismissal of Detainee Suit Against Officials.”

“Ignore and appoint: Recess appointments rob the Senate of its advice-and-consent role and violate the spirit of the Constitution.” The Los Angeles Times today contains this editorial.

“Man kills 3 in law office; Gunman dies in hostage standoff”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune, along with an article headlined “Commuters caught in chaos, panic.” In addition, the newspaper offers even more recently-issued news updates headlined “Law firm rampage has officials puzzled; Gunman’s motive, how he got past security questioned” and “2 attorneys made marks beyond firm.”

The Chicago Sun-Times today contains an article headlined “Rush-hour mayhem; Gunman with grudge kills 3 in law firm” that begins, “Zeroing in from about 25 yards away, a police sharpshooter Friday killed a gunman who had fatally shot three workers in a downtown patent law firm in a dispute over a toilet seat invention.” The newspaper also contains related articles headlined “‘He was always a smiling face’” and “Worker: ‘I was just hysterical.’”

“Commute This Sentence: A clemency case not even President Bush can ignore — or can he?” The Washington Post today contains an editorial that begins, “The Supreme Court this week declined to review the case of Weldon Angelos, leaving in place his obscene sentence of 55 years in prison for small-time marijuana and gun charges. The high court’s move is no surprise; the justices have tended to uphold draconian sentences against constitutional challenge. But it confronts President Bush with a question he will have to address: Is there any sentence so unfair that he would exert himself to correct it?”

“Pataki Goes Far Afield to Find Political Allies for the City Appellate Bench”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Calif. High Court Weighs Whether Trickery OK in Research.”

And the brand new installment of my “On Appeal” column is headlined “Have 7th Circuit Judges Gone Off the Deep End?” My essay concludes:

If the 7th Circuit desires that the appellate record better reflect the precise basis for the federal district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, those appellate judges should consider cracking the whip on their federal district court colleagues. It is the federal district court judges who, in the first instance, have the ability to ensure that the record is absolutely clear concerning what facts and allegations do or do not give rise to the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

I continue to enjoy the intellect and writing of Judge Posner and Chief Judge Easterbrook, but sometimes, to use Judge Posner’s own words, they do cross the line and become fusspots and nitpickers when the question arises of berating or sanctioning attorneys for minor and inconsequential transgressions.

The focus of my essay is the Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., a decision that I first commented on in a post you can access here.

“Senate vote gives Jordan appellate seat”: The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Senate on Friday confirmed Kent A. Jordan to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Delaware’s congressional delegation announced.”

And law.com reports that “Senate Confirms Jordan to 3rd Circuit Replacing Senior Judge Jane Roth.”