In the December 6, 2007 issue of The New York Review of Books: Law Professor David Cole has a review titled “The Man Behind the Torture” of Law Professor Jack L. Goldsmith‘s book, “The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration.”
In addition, the publication also contains a very interesting item headlined “‘The Supreme Court Phalanx’: An Exchange,” consisting of two letters to the editor responding to Ronald Dworkin’s essay “The Supreme Court Phalanx” and Dworkin’s response to those letters.
The U.S. Supreme Court has authorized the release of same-day oral argument audio in the Guantanamo detainee cases to be argued December 5, 2007: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.” The oral argument will feature a former Solicitor General against the current Solicitor General.
You can now access online the contents of Cato Supreme Court Review, 2006–2007: Via this link (via “Instapundit“).
“Race-Baiting on the Ballot: Immigration isn’t the only explosive racial issue facing voters in the coming election year — the anti-affirmative action movement is pushing 2008 ballot initiatives across the country; Is economic populism the antidote?” Dana Goldstein has this essay online today at The American Prospect.
“200 Reasons Why the Election Matters: The future of the federal judiciary is at stake on November 4, 2008.” Terry Eastland has this essay in the December 3, 2007 issue of The Weekly Standard.
“The Most Mysterious Right”: In the current issue of The New Republic, Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has this review of Law Professor Mark V. Tushnet‘s new book, “Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns.”
Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument: The Court has posted today’s argument transcript in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates Inc., No. 06-856, at this link.
“Reconsidering Judicial Supremacy: From the Countermajoritarian Difficulty to Constitutional Transformations.” Professor Allison M. Martens has this article in the September 2007 issue of Perspectives on Politics.
Available online from C-SPAN: This past Saturday evening’s edition of “America & the Courts” was titled “Judge Janice Rogers Brown Discusses the First Amendment’s Future” (RealPlayer required).
And, in case you missed it, you can now access online the video of the “Federalist Society 25th Anniversary Dinner” (RealPlayer required). The video segment begins with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s delivery of the 2007 Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture.
“Scalia to Join Supreme Court Book Club; Don’t expect a tell-all: Justice is working on guide for lawyers.” Tony Mauro has this “Courtside” column in this week’s issue of Legal Times.
According to the article, “Without fanfare or publicity, Scalia and Bryan Garner, the legal writing guru, have joined to co-author a book on the art of persuading judges, both orally and in written briefs.” And yes, the article reports that the book will contain a section discussing the use of legislative history.
“Retirement-Fund Suits May Be Permitted by U.S. Supreme Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled they will let participants in 401(k) retirement plans file lawsuits claiming their accounts were mishandled.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Justices Deal With Retirement Plan Case.”
In re your mother: Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, today issued a decision in an appeal that he characterizes as an “in rem” suit in which the thing being litigated over is the plaintiff’s mother. The opinion contains discussion of the so-called probate and domestic relations exceptions to federal court subject-matter jurisdiction.
Five U.S. citizens who were were subjected to border screening procedures normally reserved for suspected terrorists after attending the Reviving the Islamic Spirit Conference at the Toronto Skydome lose appeal seeking expungement of all data resulting from the searches: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued this ruling today.
In earlier news coverage, The Associated Press reported in December 2004 that “Islamic Group Protests Detention at Border.”
And in April 2005, The New York Times reported that “Five Muslims to Sue U.S. Over Border Detentions.” The Washington Post reported that “Muslims Detained at Border Sue U.S. Homeland Security.” And BBC News reported that “Muslims sue US over border stop; Five American Muslims detained for more than six hours at the Canadian border have filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Homeland Security.”
“Mother can keep birth ‘a secret’; A woman who became pregnant after a one-night stand has been given the right to keep the birth a secret from the father”: BBC News provides this report.
Saturday’s edition of The Guardian (UK) contained an article headlined “Court upholds woman’s right not to tell father about baby; Mother kept pregnancy a secret from everybody; Girl born after one-night stand put up for adoption.”
Saturday’s edition of The Independent (UK) reported that “Judges rule birth can be kept secret.”
Saturday’s edition of The Mirror (UK) reported that “Mum wins right to keep tot secret.”
And The Scotsman on Saturday reported that “Mother can keep birth of child secret from father.”
You can access Friday’s ruling of the Court of Appeal Civil Division for England and Wales at this link.
The appellate court’s lead opinion, written by Lady Justice Arden, begins, “This appeal concerns a child of a young unmarried mother who was placed for adoption at birth and the question is whether the local authority should make inquiries to see if any of the child’s birth family would be suitable carers. The mother is against it. She did not tell them about her pregnancy or the birth. The father was a one-night stand. The particular features of this case are (i) a young unmarried mother; (ii) a child born as a result of a sexual encounter on one occasion with someone with whom the mother had no other relationship; (iii) a clear view by the mother that she wishes the child to be placed for adoption and (iv) the mother has never cared for the child.”
“Six non-Hawaiians intervene in OHA suit”: The Honolulu Advertiser today contains an article that begins, “A group of non-Hawaiians want their say in a court case against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that asks the state agency to spend its money helping only those with 50 percent or more Native Hawaiian blood.”
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Court Won’t Review San Diego Home Hunts“; “Court Declines Mich. Faith-Based Case“; and “Court Rejects Ala. Death Row Challenge.”
“Court will not review welfare searches”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court — which includes a summary affirmance in Rabiee v. Dietz, No. 07-375 — at this link.
“Success of Washington parties often depends on how many Supreme Court Justices attend”: The San Francisco Sentinel provides this report.
“Unfit to execute: States know that their lethal injection procedure may cause excruciating pain, yet they defend it anyway.” Law Professor Eric Berger has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Don’t like your constitution? Then rewrite it; In Latin America, revisions can renew a nation’s pride — or exploit its people.” The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Constitution has rarely been tinkered with in 220 years. But across Latin America, ripping up the Magna Carta and starting from scratch sometimes seems like the national sport.”
“Penalties for Crack: The sensible reduction of jail time for drug offenders should be made retroactive.” The Washington Post contains this editorial today.
“Malpractice curbs hailed, faulted; Texas law draws doctors, frustrates some claimants”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.
“Taking Marriage Private”: Today in The New York Times, Stephanie Coontz has an op-ed that begins, “Why do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry?”
“Retirement-Fund Case at Top U.S. Court May Bolster Right to Sue”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.
“Fighting over a moment of silence: much ado about nothing.” Charles C. Haynes has this essay online at the First Amendment Center.
“Church’s shock tactics another test to free speech; Members rally at funerals of U.S. war dead”: This article appears today in USA Today.
“A New Shot At History: The high court will soon examine D.C.’s handgun ban; In the meantime, life on the street carries on.” Martha Brant and Stuart Taylor Jr. have this article in the December 3, 2007 issue of Newsweek.
And The New York Sun today contains an editorial entitled “Clue for the Court?” that begins, “As the Supreme Court gets down to work on the big question of the Second Amendment, let us pause to consider the constitution of Massachusetts.”
“Congress, Courts Examine ‘State Secrets'”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “In federal courts and on Capitol Hill, challenges are brewing to a key legal strategy President Bush is using to protect a secret surveillance program that monitors phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.”
“Doling Out Other People’s Money”: Monday’s edition of The New York Times will contain the latest installment of Adam Liptak’s “Sidebar” column, which begins, “A couple of years ago, Judge Harold Baer Jr. found himself with $6 million of unclaimed money from the settlement of an antitrust class-action lawsuit. The case had involved fashion models, so he decided to give the extra money to charities likely to assist them.”
“Death penalty policy hangs in uncertainty”: CanWest News Service provides a report that begins, “The Conservative government is not saying if it has re-opened the door to seeking clemency for certain Canadians on death row in the U.S.”
“Taking The Second Amendment To Court; The Supreme Court Prepares To Examine DC’s Right To Ban Handguns In The Context Of The Constitution”: This written report appears at the web site of the CBS Evening News.
“Critics: Texas Supreme Court favors big business; Court disagrees, pointing out opinions are often divided.” Today’s edition of The Dallas Morning News contains an article that begins, “Texas’ Supreme Court justices aren’t in the habit of defending their judicial records, much less from lawyers grilling them as they would an uncooperative witness. But that’s just what happened in September at a continuing education event at Horseshoe Bay Resort hosted by the Dallas Bar Association, where lawyers peppered two justices with questions about their impartiality.”
“Former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer — one of the longest-serving and most influential judges in Canadian history — has died.” So reports The Toronto Globe and Mail in a news update.
CBC News reports that “Former Supreme Court chief justice Antonio Lamer dies.”
CanWest News Service reports that “Former top judge dead at 74.”
And The Canadian Press reports that “Lamer remembered as man who kept common touch, despite trappings of office.”
“Why so Little Tax Evasion?” That’s the topic for discussion today at “The Becker-Posner Blog.” Becker’s comment is here, while Posner’s is here.
“Can you sue if your 401(k) nest egg is mishandled? The US Supreme Court on Monday hears a case that will determine if individuals have redress under federal law if their savings plan is mismanaged.” Warren Richey will have this article Monday in The Christian Science Monitor.
