“Horrifying and Unnecessary”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “In the next few days President Bush is expected to again claim the right to order mistreatment of prisoners that any civilized person would regard as torture.”

“Bush Judicial Nominees – Torture, Alice in Wonderland, Shoplifting, Ethics and more.” Glenn Sugameli has this guest post at “ACSBlog.”

“Court upholds whale protection in Navy exercises”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has ruled that the Navy must protect endangered whales from the potentially lethal effects of underwater sonar during anti-submarine training off the Southern California coast, rejecting President Bush’s attempt to exempt the exercises from environmental laws.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Court holds Navy to rules safeguarding marine mammals; Appellate panel backs a lower court decision but allows a 30-day reprieve from the toughest rules so sonar training can go forward.”

Late Friday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion and an order in this matter.

“Bush Moves to Shield Telecommunications Firms”: Dan Eggen and Ellen Nakashima have this article today in The Washington Post.

“In letter, ABA criticizes trials of 9/11 detainees; The American Bar Association’s letter to President Bush contends that the detainees held in Guantanamo will not receive fair trials”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

You can view the letter at this link.

“Oil and water”: ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has this post about last week’s oral argument in the Exxon Valdez case at her “Legalities” blog.

“A Verdict for Workers, for a Change”: The New York Times today contains an editorial today that begins, “The Supreme Court ruled last week that a group of employees suing for age discrimination should get their day in court even though they filed their complaint on the wrong form.”

“Balance the court: A Democratic president could bring equanimity to the Supreme Court.” Columnist Stephen Henderson has this op-ed today in The Detroit Free Press.

“Not single, not married: State Supreme Court to consider rights of gay couples.” Howard Mintz has this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.

Today in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Greg Moran reports that “Same-sex marriage on court docket; California justices to hear case Tuesday.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Gay marriage case reaches last stop on long legal odyssey.”

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of California will hold oral argument in these cases for a total of three hours. You can access the briefs via this link. A live webcast of the oral argument will be available online from The California Channel’s web site.

“Medical Double Jeopardy”: Yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contained an editorial that begins, “Another sensible Roberts Court ruling, another uproar.”

“Supreme Court may rethink broadcast indecency; Awards shows have revived the issue of what may be indecent on the public airwaves; The jurists haven’t ruled on the matter in 30 years”: David G. Savage and Jim Puzzanghera have this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Breyer, Court Master of the ‘What If?'” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The nine justices in black robes file into the Supreme Court consumed with thoughts about the great legal issues of the day. Only one of them is likely to ask questions involving raccoons, an unruly son, pet oysters or even the dreaded ‘tomato children.’ When Justice Stephen Breyer leans toward his microphone at the end of the bench, lawyers can expect to be asked almost anything.” And a related item from The AP is headlined “A Selection of Breyer’s Hypotheticals.”

Accompanying the article is one of the all-time classic Justice Breyer photos.