“The Modesty Contest: Where Obama and McCain stand on executive power.” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Equal-rights gains have local roots”: This front page article about the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling in Oyama v. California (1948) appears today in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

“The judge zips her lip as court marches right”: Today in The Oregonian, columnist Susan Nielsen has an essay that begins, “She had me at hello. She lost me at ‘Canadian legal system.’ Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in a packed concert hall in Portland last week, rebuffed the audience’s eager questions about Bush v. Gore and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She stuck instead to her script about international law, dishing so few personal opinions that she violated my constitutional right to be entertained.”

“Top court to weigh roadside searches; Will consider when police need warrants”: Kate Coscarelli has this article today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.

“The Candidates and the Court”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

And last Thursday in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, columnist Linda P. Campbell had an op-ed entitled “Constitutional protection of individual and privacy issues is an ongoing and central issue before the Supreme Court.”

“Are campaign contributors buying justice?” Today’s issue of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contains an article that begins, “For 10 years, Hugh Caperton, a financially debilitated coal producer from southern West Virginia, and the Pittsburgh attorneys who represent him have waged a courtroom war against Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, one of West Virginia’s most powerful businessmen. Their next battle could be fought in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Caperton claims he was denied a fair hearing in West Virginia’s highest court, which he says was under the influence of Mr. Blankenship.”