“Judgment Pay”: Saturday in The Wall Street Journal, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker had this op-ed (pass-through link) arguing in favor of higher pay for federal judges.

“House Names Courthouse After Rush Sr.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Democrats joined Republicans on Monday in voting to name a Missouri courthouse after Rush H. Limbaugh Sr.” The courthouse will be a part of the newly announced “excellence in jurisprudence” network.

My earlier coverage appears at this link, while the proposed legislation can be accessed here.

“Rehnquist’s Skeletons, Part 3: Was the former chief justice a racist?” That’s the title of today’s installment of Slate’s “Hot Document.”

The Ninth Circuit rulez! The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted online for comment proposed amendments to that court’s local rules.

Here are some highlights of the proposed amendments for fellow appellate geeks in the audience.

The proposed amendments would provide guidance on when FRAP 28(j) letters should be filed. Hint: the correct answer is not “At very last possible moment.”

The proposed amendments would mandate that the first volume of the record excerpts be limited to the orders, decisions, and opinions under review, so that the judges won’t have to carry around a whole bunch of extra, um, stuff just to travel with the briefs and the trial court’s explanation for its ruling. The court would also like input on whether the balance of the record excerpts should continue to be ordered chronologically or if those materials can be set forth in some other even more random sequence that’s sure to perplex everyone other than counsel for appellant.

And the final proposed change that merits mention addresses the filing of amicus briefs both in connection with pending rehearing petitions and after rehearing has been granted. One interesting subpart of this proposed rule addresses the prospect of amicus briefs supporting or opposing rehearing that could precipitate recusals. Back in February 2005, I wrote about the Second Circuit‘s attempt to deal with this issue an installment of my “Upon Further Review” column published in The Legal Intelligencer headlined “A Federal Appellate Court Attempts To Thwart Strategic Recusals On Appeal“.

“When a Case Name (Miranda) Becomes Not Only a Household Word But a Chic Female Name, Something Went Wrong”: Law Professor Jeremy M. Miller has posted this essay (abstract with links for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Utah Considers Abortion Ban”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“Why Did the Bush Administration Pass Over Michael McConnell?” Marty Lederman had this post yesterday at the “Balkinization” blog.

Earlier, Will Baude had a related post at “Crescat Sententia.”

Is it a retirement “dream home” or a nightmarish breach of copyright that cannot be re-sold or leased? A man looking to build his retirement “dream home” near Charlotte, North Carolina was dissatisfied with the design proposed by an architect that he had hired. Seeking new ideas, he ventured to an expensive residential area some thirty miles away, where he saw under construction a French country-style house whose design he liked.

The owner of that house allowed the builder to give the man a copy of the architect’s plans, and the man commenced building his own home using those plans on his plot of land thirty miles away. The architect whose plans the man was using had copyrighted those plans, and that architect sued claiming copyright infringement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today issued this decision upholding the trial court’s split decision in the case. The architect was entitled to payment for the plans and may, on remand, pursue return of the documentation. But the man who owns the house, after paying for the plans, will have the right to use or dispose of the house however he wishes once he is done using it himself.

Just another boring week in the life of a professor who left Harvard Law School to teach at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law: Last week, Samuel R. Bagenstos taught a class with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. (see the photos here).

And today, Bagenstos argued an appeal in St. Louis before an Eighth Circuit panel that included retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (download the oral argument audiotape here in mp3 format).

“Hazmat Teams Called to Va. Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

A three-judge panel of Sixth Circuit judges, sitting by designation on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, affirms federal criminal defendant’s conviction for attempting to destroy the federal courthouse in Chicago: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The decision contains an interesting discussion of whether the location of the trial should have been moved from the very courthouse that the defendant was accused ot trying to destroy.

“Taking on Guantanamo: Assigned to defend a Guantanamo detainee, jag lawyer Charles Swift joined up with legal scholar Neal Katyal and sued the president and secretary of defense over the new military-tribunal system. With their 2006 Supreme Court victory overridden by the Republican Congress, and Swift’s navy career at an end, they are fighting on.” Marie Brenner has this lengthy article in the March 2007 issue of Vanity Fair magazine.

“Irrational Sentencing, Top To Bottom”: Columnist Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay today in The National Journal.

“Lawyers contend R.I. should grant same-sex divorce”: This article appears today in The Providence Journal.

“Cole victims’ lawsuit will resume this week; Sudan, the defendant, bows out; new al-Qaida details possible”: The Richmond Times-Dispatch contains this article today.

“House takes first look at new abortion ban”: This article appears today in The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“Marsupial Alert: Don’t Refer to Appellate Judges as a ‘Kangaroo Court.'” Today’s installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com is at this link.

“Can attorney keep his cool before ‘hot bench’? Portland’s Scott Shorr presents his argument in the case against national insurance companies.” The Oregonian today contains this front page article. As I previously mentioned here, yesterday’s newspaper contained a related article.

“A Historic Moment if Cheney Testifies Live, as Expected”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “Cheney Testimony in Libby Trial Would Carry High Risk.”

And The Washington Post reports today that “Media Figures May Be Reluctant Defense Witnesses in Libby Case.”

“A compelling look at the Supreme Court”: Columnist Nat Hentoff has this op-ed today in The Washington Times.

“Germain Critiques Taxpayer’s Brief in Murphy“: This post appears today at “TaxProf Blog.”

“The Litigation-Filled Life of Anna Nicole Smith, and the Legal Aftermath of Her Demise”: Joanna Grossman has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“A Renewed Call to Televise High Court”: Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.

“Relying on the Notepad in the Electronic Age”: Adam Liptak will have this “Sidebar” column (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) in Monday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Low Turnout Undercuts Portugal Vote on Abortion”: This article will appear Monday in The New York Times.

“A Portland attorney preps for his supreme moment; Scott Shorr hones the presentation he will make against national insurance companies”: The Oregonian contains this lengthy article today. It appears that the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on January 16. 2007. The oral argument transcript can be accessed here.

Part two of this article is slated to appear in tomorrow’s newspaper.

“Waiting for a supreme ruling: The Alabama Supreme Court, without further delay, should reduce the excessive punitive damages verdict against Exxon Mobil.” This editorial appears today in The Birmingham News.

“Online court access elusive; State justices hold firm, cite privacy”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “While the nation’s federal courts and an increasing number of states’ courts now put lawsuits, indictments, rulings and other public documents online, Illinois courts continue to resist the migration to cyberspace–a stance critics say costs the public money and access.”

“Libby’s dilemma: testify or not? His memory defense would seem to require him to take the stand, but some say the risk is too great.” This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“The Libby trial: Who said what to whom, and who remembers? The case has pulled back the curtain on elite Washington and the inner workings of a White House known for secrecy.” Linda Feldmann will have this article Monday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“ABA May Adopt Conduct Rules for Judges”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“States fund antiabortion advice; Public grants surge for the crisis centers; Some ban contraception talk”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“At Libby’s Defense Table, a Tough but Deft Lawyer”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“The Needle and the Damage Done: Lethal injections are often botched and sometimes painful; Doctors don’t want to administer them; Is it time to kill this form of execution?” As I previewed here on Wednesday, Elizabeth Weil today has this article in The New York Times Magazine.

“Why the GOP has failed to pack the Supreme Court”: Today in The Chicago Tribune, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jack Rakove has this review of Jan Crawford Greenburg’s new book, “Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court.”

Today’s issue of The Washington Post’s Book World shows Jan’s book as ranked fifth among bestsellers in the Washington, DC area in the category of “Nonfiction/General.”

And The Huntsville Times reports today that “Former Brewer student praised for Supreme book.”