“Thanksgiving and the third branch”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this essay in the current issue of The National Law Journal.

“Judge questions 2d Circuit ruling on firearm possession”: Reuters has a report that begins, “A Brooklyn federal judge on Monday denounced as ‘utterly absurd’ a 1988 appeals court ruling that under a federal firearm law, possessing a gun was the same as receiving it.”

“Tucson shooting suspect appeals forced medication”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Forecasting the Supreme Court Vote on ‘Obamacare'”: Political science professors Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman have this guest post at “The Monkey Cage” blog.

“Is there no limit to Congress’s power?” In yesterday’s edition of The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will had an op-ed that begins, “Shortly before the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed its constitutionality.”

“Clarence Thomas’ Questions, Part 3: The Myth of Scalia’s Puppet Is Quashed As Quickly As It’s Created.” Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

“We therefore conclude that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard in approving the proposed cy pres distribution and, therefore, abused its discretion.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today in a decision addressing challenges to a class action settlement in a case in which the plaintiffs alleged that America Online wrongfully inserted footers containing promotional messages into e-mails sent by AOL subscribers.

“Senate to take up judicial nominations after break”: Reuters has this report. The article states that “The Senate will take up the nomination of U.S. District Judge Christopher Droney to be a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, November 28, according to a Senate schedule posted on the Senate Democrats’ offical website on Friday.”

“Conservative federal appeals court shifts left; Recent opinions reveal a possible liberal leaning”: Sunday’s edition of The Baltimore Sun contained this article.

“Defending the Brady rule: Reforms are needed to make sure prosecutors share all evidence that could be helpful to defendants.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Justice for the highest bidder? Take the courts out of politics.” Today’s edition of The Chicago Tribune contains an editorial that begins, “During the brutal 2004 campaign in southern Illinois for a seat on the state Supreme Court, an investigator for a group of trial lawyers waited patiently outside the Okawville, Ill., campaign office of Republican candidate Lloyd Karmeier each garbage day.”

“Why Won’t The Supreme Court Allow TV Cameras? Our justices aren’t used to being second-guessed, but it’s time to demand more transparency in the highest court in the land.” Adam Cohen has this essay online today at Time magazine.

“Supreme Court lawyers allowed to dress down”: This article appears today in The Independent (UK).

“Calls for recusal intensify in health care case”: Joan Biskupic will have this article Monday in USA Today.

“Reneging on Justice at Guantanamo”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay prisoners who are not American citizens have the right of habeas corpus, allowing them to challenge the legality of their detention in federal court and seek release. The power of the ruling, however, has been eviscerated by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”

“The conservative case for healthcare reform’s individual mandate: Would conservatives rather have government impose a financial requirement on people who choose not to buy healthcare, or have those who behave responsibly bear the financial burden of a few?” Walter Zelman has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Post-9/11 tradeoff: Security vs. civil liberties.” David Crary of The Associated Press has this lengthy report.

“Clarence Thomas attends hometown museum dedication; source of funding for institution prompts questions”: Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article that begins, “The Clarence Thomas Interchange on Interstate 95 leads eventually to the Clarence Thomas wing of Savannah’s Carnegie Library, which is near the Clarence Thomas Center for Historical Preservation at the Savannah College of Art and Design. But Saturday, the Supreme Court justice was 12 more miles down the road, past the city where he grew up and back to the sliver of a place where he was born, among the moss-draped live oaks and golden-brown marshes of Pin Point.”

And today’s edition of The Savannah Morning News contains an article headlined “A monumental day at Pin Point.”

“Tri-state fight over water on hold while court deliberates; Atlanta lawyer says he is optimistic about final outcome of Lanier case”: Today’s edition of The Gainesville (Ga.) Times contains an article that begins, “Georgia’s longstanding water wars with Florida and Alabama are, for the most part, at a standstill. On Nov. 10, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Alabama, Florida, the city of Apalachicola, Fla., and Alabama Power Co. an extension to file a petition for an appeal of a lower court ruling that favored Georgia.”

“U.S. Supreme Court case from Cleveland may set consumer protection precedents”: This article appears today in The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

“What does a Supreme Court justice do in retirement?” The Washington Post has placed online this interview with retired Justice John Paul Stevens.

“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: High court will kill healthcare reform.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

“What They Don’t Teach Law Students: Lawyering.” Today’s edition of The New York Times contains this lengthy front page article.

“Inside Guantanamo, Detainees Live In Limbo”: This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday.”

“Justice Ginsburg Speaks About Gender Equality”: Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has this blog post.

“Supreme Court Invites Two Appellate Veterans to Argue in Health Care Case”: Marcia Coyle has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Judge escapes disclipline over segregated-club membership”: Carlyn Kolker of Reuters has this report.

In addition, Thomson Reuters’ Bankruptcy Court Decisions Weekly News & Comment has an article headlined “Judge’s country club membership violated judicial conduct rules.”

My most recent earlier coverage appears at this link.

“UHP association ponders how to keep crosses as memorials for troopers; It is seeking a way to keep the tributes to fallen troopers despite high court’s decision”: This article appeared yesterday in The Salt Lake Tribune.

Yesterday’s edition of The Deseret News contained an article headlined “Disclaimers now on roadside crosses, but atheist group says it’s not enough.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Controversial Utah highway crosses get a makeover.”

“Book preview: Finally, a biography of Judge Henry J. Friendly.” Ronald Collins has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Exceptional Court Coverage”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “C-Span asked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. this week to let the network televise the upcoming Supreme Court arguments in the case challenging the health care law. The justices have not permitted TV cameras in their courtroom, but this landmark case, which will affect every American, should surely be an exception to that rule.”

“Storied high court: Justices bring life to oral arguments.” Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“Backers win right to fight for Prop. 8; The California Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling clears the way for federal courts to decide gay marriage bans’ constitutionality”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Prop. 8 forces allowed to challenge federal ruling.”

The New York Times reports that “Backers of Proposition 8 Can Challenge Court Ruling.”

The Washington Post reports that “Calif. Supreme Court clears way for same-sex marriage case.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Supreme Court rules Prop 8 supporters can defend the law.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “California Supreme Court says proponents can defend gay-marriage ban.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Ruling: Gay marriage foes can fight for Prop. 8 in federal court; California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that backers of Prop. 8 — which banned gay marriage in the state — can defend the measure in federal court, in lieu of state officials who declined to do so; The ruling means a major federal lawsuit proceeds.”

Kate Moser of The Recorder reports that “Prop 8 Proponents Have Standing to Appeal, High Court Says.”

And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Calif. Prop 8 Supporters Can Defend Gay Marriage Ban.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Supreme Court of California ruling appears at this link.

“7th Circ. says MDL panel didn’t abuse discretion”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.

“Longtime Appellate Lawyer Nominated For D.C. Court of Appeals”: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post that begins, “Roy McLeese III, a veteran appellate attorney in Washington, was nominated Thursday to a slot on the D.C. Court of Appeals.”

“Appeals court rejects request by serial downloader”: Reuters has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected a music downloader’s request to rehear his case after a three-judge panel reinstated a $675,000 judgment against him. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals denied Joel Tenenbaum another opportunity to argue his case against Sony BMG Music Entertainment, this time before an expanded judicial panel.”