“Supreme Court says buttons did not bias jury against killer”: David Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“Conviction upheld despite buttons worn at trial”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report. Reuters also reports that “US Supreme Court backs gov’t on oil, gas royalties.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Conviction Reinstated by Top Court in Victim-Photo Button Case.”

“U-M, MSU, WSU seek Proposal 2 delay”: The Detroit Free Press provides a news update that begins, “Michigan’s big three universities — Michigan State University, the University of Michigan and Wayne State University — announced today they are asking a federal court for a short-term delay in implementing the requirements of Proposal 2, which bans affirmative action programs. The delay would allow the universities to use existing policies to complete admissions and financial aid for students who will enroll for the fall 2007 semester.”

The Detroit News provides an update headlined “Three universities ask for delay in Prop 2.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Mich. Universities Seek Delay on New Law.”

In addition, the University of Michigan issued a news release entitled “Three universities file motion seeking to complete this year’s admissions and aid cycle under current rules,” while that university’s president issued this related statement.

“Skilling to start prison term; The former Enron chief is set to begin his sentence on Wednesday in a federal prison near Waseca, Minn.” CNNMoney.com provides this report.

“FDA Proposes Broadening Access to Drugs”: The Associated Press provides this report, which notes that “Next year, a federal court will rehear a 2003 case brought by the Washington Legal Foundation and the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs in seeking broader access to drugs that have undergone preliminary safety testing in as few as 20 people but have yet to be approved by the regulatory agency.”

“Commentary: Have 7th Circuit Judges Gone Off the Deep End?” That’s the rather provocative headline my editors at law.com have chosen for this week’s installment of my “On Appeal” essay. The focus of my essay is the Seventh Circuit‘s recent ruling in Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc. The 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.

My initial blog coverage of the Smoot ruling can be accessed here.

“Even without title, Specter still wields clout in Senate”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter won’t wield a gavel in the new Congress, but he may still carry a big stick.”

“Stay Classy: Why liberals should forget about race-based admissions.” In the December 18, 2006 issue of The New Republic, Richard D. Kahlenberg has an essay (pass-through link) that begins, “For decades, conservatives have been waiting for the moment when the Supreme Court would act decisively to curtail the use of race in education. With Justice Samuel Alito having replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, that moment may finally have arrived.”

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decisions in argued cases and Order List: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court overturns victim buttons ruling.”

That ruling reverses a decision that Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt delivered on behalf of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Seven Ninth Circuit judges noted their dissent from that court’s denial of rehearing en banc.

Lyle also reports that Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. today issued an opinion on behalf of a unanimous Court in BP America Production Co. v. Burton, No. 05-669. No other opinions in argued cases issued today.

In Carey v. Musladin, No. 05-785, the AEDPA-victim button case, you can access today’s decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link. Dahlia Lithwick’s take on the oral argument was headlined “Button It: The Supreme Court learns to stay out of this messy business of deciding cases.”

And in BP America Production Co. v. Burton, No. 05-669, the other case decided today, you can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

Finally, you can access today’s Order List at this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Court: Buttons at Trial Didn’t Bias Jury” and “High Court Rules on Oil, Gas Royalties.”

Please help “How Appealing” attain second place in the voting for the “Best Law Blog” in The 2006 Weblog Awards: “The Volokh Conspiracy” has an insurmountable and well-deserved 600+ vote lead in first place, while some British law firm’s blog that I honestly had never heard of until now is in a pitched fight for second place with yours truly.

At midnight, “How Appealing” had around a 20-vote lead for second place. But because our colleagues across the pond get to their desks a few hours earlier than we here in the good ol’ U.S. of A., the British law blog overnight managed to jump out to a 30 to 35 vote lead in the race for second place.

There’s nothing like a silly popularity contest — especially one lacking both a tangible prize and an awards ceremony — to get the competitive juices flowing. So please vote for “How Appealing” so that this blog can regain second place. 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.

Scalia and Kennedy bobblehead dolls up for auction at eBay: An acquaintance who was the author of the one act play “Bobblehead Scalia and the never-ending search for marital bliss” has decided to opt for marital bliss after all by putting up for auction two U.S. Supreme Court Justice bobblehead dolls from The Green Bag.

The offering for the Justice Antonin Scalia bobblehead begins, “Nothing says ‘Merry Christmas’ like the gift of hardheaded conservative jurisprudence, in convenient desktop bobble form.”

And the offering for the Justice Anthony M. Kennedy bobblehead begins, “We’ve finally solved the sweet mystery of life: Turns out, it’s the Justice Kennedy Bobblehead Doll!”

Both auctions are scheduled to end this Friday.

“Town shrugs off concerns; Staff cuts, lack of strong fence not a big worry”: Yesterday’s issue of The Colorado Springs Gazette contained an article that begins, “You can’t see Supermax from the highway, but everyone knows it’s there. Hidden by the rolling slopes of the high desert 50 miles south of Colorado Springs, the prison houses 400 of the most dangerous inmates in the federal prison system — psychopaths, gang leaders, Mafia bosses, multiple-murderers and terrorists, including Eric Rudolph, Ramzi Yousef and Zacarias Moussaoui.”

And yesterday’s newspaper also contained an article headlined “Bomber expresses no remorse for victims” that begins, “Unrepentant, Olympics and abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph sits in his cell at Supermax complaining about being treated like a ‘terrorist’ and composing ‘satires’ mocking his victims.”

“Hostage: I talked him out of killing me; WWII veteran tried to save lawyer, had ‘long’ talk with gunman.” This article appears today in The Chicago Sun-Times, along with articles headlined “‘It’ll be tough,’ longtime lawyer says; Phillips was at dentist when tragedy unfolded“; “SWAT cop shot gunman from 25 yards away“: and “Train station, offices beef up security.” In addition, Felicia Dechter has an essay headlined “Victim’s widow mourns: ‘We were real partners’; Felicia Dechter, a reporter and longtime friend, talks to the wife of a victim of Friday’s shootings.”

And The Chicago Tribune today reports that “Family saw anger build; Killer thought he had been conned, they say.”

“Jury pools can face probes in sensitive trials; Ryan case sparks move to avoid bias, scandal”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “Hoping to avoid the jury controversy that threatens to overturn former Gov. George Ryan’s conviction, federal court officials in Illinois have started conducting criminal background checks on prospective jurors in certain higher-profile trials.”

“Texas is sending fewer to death row”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Scalia Speaks in Ames, Scolds Aggressive Student”: This article appears in the current issue of The Harvard Law Record.

“A well-meaning end to discrimination”: Today in The Boston Globe, Cathy Young has an op-ed that begins, “Depending on who you talk to, the passage of Proposal 2 in Michigan last month was either a great victory for freedom and equal rights or a disastrous setback for minorities and women. The ballot measure, known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, attracted little national attention after 58 percent of voters approved it Nov. 7.”

“Defamation on the Internet: With Courts Strongly Supporting Website Users’ Immunity from Suit, Should Would-Be Plaintiffs Resort to ReputationDefender.com?” Julie Hilden has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“The Right to a Trial: Should dying patients have access to experimental drugs?” Jerome Groopman has this article in the December 18, 2006 issue of The New Yorker.

“Blawg Review #87”: Available here, at “Legal Literacy.”

In second place! There’s nothing like a silly popularity contest to get the competitive juices flowing. As of this moment, “How Appealing” has jumped back into second place in the voting for “Best Law Blog” in The 2006 Weblog Awards, edging out at least for the moment some law blog operated by a law firm located in the United Kingdom.

In first place with a very comfortable lead — having more than three-times as many votes as the second place blog — is “The Volokh Conspiracy.” So, instead of wasting a vote for that fine blog — which seems assured to finish first no matter what, as well it should — vote for “How Appealing” so that this blog can retain second place.

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.

Update: Overnight, my British rival for second place in the voting jumped out to a 40-vote lead, so please be sure to vote early and often today. Meanwhile, “The Volokh Conspiracy” continues to hold a very comfortable lead in first place.

“Crosses crusade handed 2nd defeat; Federal judge rejects Weinbaum suit aginst Las Cruces Public Schools”: Yesterday’s issue of The Las Cruces Sun-News contained this article. You can access last week’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico at this link. Thanks to “Religion Clause” for the pointer.

“Adulterer wins the right to privacy; Celebrity figure protected by law; Husband’s desire for revenge blocked”: This article appeared last Tuesday in The Times of London, along with an article headlined “End of the affair for kiss-and-tell stories?”

The Telegraph (UK) reported last Tuesday that “Judge bans husband from naming adulterer.”

The Daily Mail (UK) last Wednesday contained an essay by Melanie Phillips entitled “Amorality and a ruling that protects adulterers and punishes victims.”

And today in The Observer (UK), Peter Preston has an op-ed entitled “We mustn’t tell you about … Oh, you know it all already.” The essay concludes, “So the ‘privacy’ involved here is the narrow relief of not seeing something in print. That’s dotty: it exalts whisperers and makes the law a most evident ass. We can’t tell you what you already know, because … well, because we can’t. Judges often take too much stick from an aggrieved, astonished press. Not this time, alas.”

“Courts – Status report on the availability and citation of not-for-publication opinions, at both the state and federal levels.” Marcia Oddi has this post at “The Indiana Law Blog.”

“In Re: Life or Death.” Yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, Law Professor Randy E. Barnett had an op-ed (pass-through link) that begins, “Much discussion of ‘judicial restraint’ or deference overlooks a crucial question: deference to whom — the legislature or the individual? This fundamental question is posed by two potentially landmark cases.” (Via “The Volokh Conspiracy“).

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, by a quite slender margin, 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.

By the way, “The Volokh Conspiracy” already appears certain to win first place, having established a well deserved huge lead over every other law blog finalist in this popularity contest.

“Book ties enemy combatant to L.A. plot; Ashcroft writes that a man now in prison had a role in planned West Coast strikes; The charge mystifies some”: Today in The Los Angeles Times, Richard A. Serrano has an article that begins, “Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is the last enemy combatant imprisoned in this country. Yet four years after his arrest, government officials still cannot agree on what threat he posed.”

“Disputed nominee Myers has an Abramoff problem”: Today in The Los Angeles Times, Henry Weinstein has an article that begins, “Five years ago, high-powered Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff went to a dinner with top officials of the Interior Department, representatives of the White House and leaders of the National Mining Assn. That Georgetown dinner has now come back to haunt one of the guests — William G. Myers III, who was the Interior Department’s top lawyer at the time and for the last three years one of President Bush’s most controversial nominees for a federal judgeship.”

“Race-Based Programs May Face Final Curtain in Supreme Court; Civil rights pioneers fear they’re witnessing the dismantling of a half-century of jurisprudence”: Tony Mauro will have this article (free access) in Monday’s issue of Legal Times.

And today in The St. Petersburg Times, reporter Thomas C. Tobin has an essay entitled “Get ready for school resegregation; Listening to the Supreme Court argue an important schools case, I realized no matter the outcome, some schools here will certainly resegregate.”

“When Winning Feels a Lot Like Losing”: Today in The New York Times, business columnist Gretchen Morgenson has an interesting essay (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) that begins, “If you’re an investor who has filed an arbitration case against your stockbroker, you would be wise to steel yourself for an irrational and unjust outcome.”

Morgenson’s essay tells the story of an 86-year-old woman who sued Morgan Stanley Dean Witter for $281,729 in investment losses. Morgenson writes that the arbitration “ended in a truly bizarre twist: she was awarded damages of $5,000 but was ordered to pay $10,350 in fees even though an arbitration panel found Morgan Stanley liable for her losses.”

Meanwhile, at “Ideoblog,” Law Professor Larry Ribstein (perhaps the blogosphere’s leading self-anointed Gretchen Morgenson watchdog) has this post about her column today.

“The Judiciary: Your Worst Suspicions Confirmed.” Today in The Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David J. Garrow has this review of Benjamin Wittes’s new book, “Confirmation Wars: Preserving Independent Courts in Angry Times.”

On a related note, David Lat at the “Above the Law” blog on Friday had this post chronicling his recent lunch with Wittes.

“To him, Murrah blast isn’t solved; Lawyer investigating 1995 Oklahoma City attack says loose ends indicate likelihood of neo-Nazi connections”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Victims’ families, friends grapple with law office tragedy”: The Chicago Tribune today contains this article, along with an article headlined “Gunman felt cheated over his invention.”

And The Chicago Sun-Times today contains articles headlined “‘I believe he just snapped’; High-rise gunman became convinced attorney had stolen his idea, family says“; “News of victim’s death ‘like being hit by a thunderbolt’“; “Patent lawyers mourn colleagues’ deaths; ‘It’s just a true tragedy and loss to us all’“; and “‘Are you an attorney?’ ‘No’ may have saved woman.” In addition, Felicia Dechter has an essay entitled “Killing ‘devastating’ to longtime friend; Reporter, victim knew each other for decades.”

“The sesquipedalian septuagenarian: That is, Judge Bruce M. Selya of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, who at 72 continues to write perhaps the wittiest and wordiest opinions in the federal judiciary.” This article appears today in the Ideas section of The Boston Globe.

In March 2004, First Circuit Judge Bruce M. Seyla participated in this blog’s “20 questions for the appellate judge” feature. You can access his interview at this link.

Those in search of the definition of “sesquipedalian” can find the answer here.

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