“A Roberts rumor’s blip on Washington’s radar”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “For a short time Thursday, Washington buzzed over a rumor reported exclusively by an online gossip Web site with no particular Supreme Court expertise that Chief Justice John Roberts was considering stepping down.”
The “Media Decoder” blog of The New York Times has a post titled “Radar Claims Two John Roberts Exclusives; One of Them Isn’t True.”
And at “Above the Law,” David Lat has a post titled “Anatomy of a Rumor: The Story Behind Chief Justice John Roberts’s ‘Retirement.’”
“NJ blogger: Rants were sanctioned by FBI.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A right-wing New Jersey blogger charged with threatening federal judges told a jury Thursday that his racist Internet rants were an FBI-sanctioned ruse to ‘flush out’ dangerous neo-Nazi and white supremacist members of his audience.”
“Indiana justices lob questions at voter ID law”: The Indianapolis Star has a news update that begins, “Sharp questions from the five justices dominated an hour of arguments today about the state’s voter identification law in the Indiana Supreme Court. The politically charged issue has been embroiled in lawsuits since the adoption of the 2005 law, which requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID. One challenge resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the law nearly two years ago.”
“Dawn Johnsen Nomination Heads Back to Senate”: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” David Ingram has a post that begins, “Repeating arguments that they’ve been making for a year, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines today to move forward on Dawn Johnsen’s nomination for a top position in the U.S. Justice Department.”
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has a news update headlined “Hoosier nominee Johnsen OK’d by Senate committee.”
The Indianapolis Star has this news update.
“The Caucus” blog of The New York Times has a post titled “Judiciary Panel Clears Justice Nominee — Again.”
And Politico.com reports that “Anti-torture Department of Justice nominee, Dawn Johnsen, advances.”
Don’t spend it all in one place: Thanks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the attorney for a Nebraska state prison inmate/artist who was prohibited from sending drawings of a marijuana leaf and a bare-breasted woman to his mother and to the Maoist Internationalist Movement has “won” an attorney’s fee in the amount of $1.50. You can access today’s ruling at this link.
I wrote about this minuscule attorney’s fee phenomenon in the February 6, 2006 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Minimum Wage: The $1.50 Attorney Fee.”
“TiVo prevails in patent rights case against Dish”: The Associated Press has this report.
Reuters reports that “TiVo wins ruling in Echostar case, shares spike.”
And Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires reports that “US Court Affirms EchoStar-Dish Contempt Sanction In TiVo DVR Case.”
My earlier coverage appears in the post immediately below.
“TiVo Wins Court Ruling Against Dish, EchoStar”: Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “TiVo Inc. won a U.S. appeals court ruling that Dish Network Corp. and EchoStar Corp. are still infringing its patent and should stop providing digital-video recording services.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.
“SCOTUK Pays Visit to SCOTUS”: At his “Washington Briefs” blog, Lawrence Hurley of The Daily Journal of California has a post that begins, “The Supreme Court hosted the president of the recently-formed U.K. Supreme Court, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Wednesday.”
“Scott Matheson named to 10th Circuit appellate court; Utahn is praised for legal and academic credentials”: This article appears today in The Salt Lake Tribune.
The Deseret News reports today that “Obama names Scott Matheson Jr. to 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Yesterday, the White House issued a news release headlined “President Obama Nominates Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.”
The University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law issued a press release yesterday headlined “Matheson Nominated to 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Politico.com has a blog post titled “Matheson knocks down vote trading questions” about an item at WeeklyStandard.com headlined “Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.”
At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” David Ingram has a post titled “Former Law Dean, Gubernatorial Candidate Picked for 10th Circuit.”
The nominee’s law faculty bio can be accessed here.
The nominee is no relation to Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Scott Mathieson, who this spring is attempting to rebound from two Tommy John surgeries, see here and here. I saw him pitch last season in the minor leagues, and he had great velocity on his fastball.
“Ex-Justice O’Connor favors end to electing judges; Support voiced for Gansler proposal to appoint members of Circuit Court”: The Baltimore Sun contains this article today.
And The Daily Record contains an article headlined “O’Connor in Maryland to support bill to end contested elections for judges.”
“Additional Justice Department appointees with past detainee work identified; The agency releases the names of seven more officials after GOP lawmakers said the connections raised serious questions on Obama’s policies; Two appointees had previously been named”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Md. and Va. defense attorneys differ on Supreme Court ruling on Miranda rights”: The Washington Post contains this article today.
“U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Order to Remove Religious Materials From Manchester Post Office Counter”: This article appears today in The Hartford Courant.
My earlier coverage of the Second Circuit’s ruling appears here and here.
“Top Oklahoma court rejects abortion bill”: The Oklahoman contains this article today.
You can access Tuesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma at this link.
“State high court is latest to test voter ID law; Newest chapter in a debate that has raged since 2005 centers on exceptions for mail-in absentee voters, others”: This article appears today in The Indianapolis Star.
