“Posner: The 14th Amendment is ‘Old, Cryptic, or Vague.’ But What About Article III?” Josh Blackman has this blog post today.

Access online the contents of the November 2015 issue of The Yale Law Journal: Via this link.

The issue includes a book review written by Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner titled “Eighteen Years On: A Re-Review” (also available in HTML format), in which Judge Posner re-reviews law professor William N. Eskridge, Jr.‘s 1996 book titled “The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment.” Judge Posner’s original review of the book, from 1997, can be accessed here.

“These 3 judges hold the fate of the Internet in their hands”: Brian Fung had this post Tuesday at “The Switch” blog of The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court of Canada rules human smuggling laws unconstitutional”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Sean Fine has this article reporting on two rulings (access here and here) that the Supreme Court of Canada issued yesterday.

And in other coverage, Reuters has a report headlined “Canada’s top court: some human smugglers can’t be denied refugee status.”

“Anti-apartheid hero urges Canada to rethink solitary confinement in prisons”: Sean Fine has this article in today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail.

“In Scalia lecture, Kagan discusses statutory interpretation”: Harvard Law Today has this report.

You can view the lecture, which was in fact a dialogue, on YouTube via this link.

“Supreme Court removes judge in Kane feud”: In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Chris Palmer has a front page article that begins, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has removed a senior judge who once presided over many of the state’s biggest grand jury investigations, accusing him of judicial misconduct and abandoning his sense of objectivity during a feud with Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane.”

“That was fast! When Howard Bashman (of our sister site How Appealing) talks, the U.S. Supreme Court listens.” So wrote David Lat in his round-up of legal news and blog coverage yesterday evening at “Above the Law.”

“Lawyers’ Class-Action Payouts Face Court Challenge; Case in California would base attorneys’ compensation on hours, not a percentage”: Sara Randazzo has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal about a case pending in the Supreme Court of California.

You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

“Republicans are running against the Supreme Court. Will Democrats?” Irin Carmon of msnbc.com has this report.

“Supreme Court Justice Intervenes in Native Hawaiian Election”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court justice blocks Native Hawaiian vote count.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Kennedy temporarily blocks Hawaii vote count.”

“NSA to shut down bulk phone surveillance program by Sunday”: Reuters has this report.

“Gay marriage is legal but not on tribal lands”: The Associated Press has this report.

U.S. Supreme Court web site’s home page now has a page title: The Court is hard at work today. Justices — or at least one Justice — are issuing orders (see, e.g., this one). At his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen discusses the order in a post titled “Breaking: Justice Kennedy Enjoins Counting of Ballots in Hawaii Election.”

But, perhaps even more extraordinarily, the home page of the Court’s web site now has a page title — namely, “Home – Supreme Court of the United States.” Yesterday evening at 10:45 p.m. eastern time, I published a post titled “Does it really require a ‘How Appealing’ post to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to implement a page title for its home page?”

I heartily praise the Court for fixing this oversight on its newly redesigned web site, and on the Friday after Thanksgiving no less!

“Black Tape at Harvard Law”: Law professor Randall Kennedy has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“How to Prosecute Abusive Prosecutors”: Brandon Buskey has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court judge could rule a ‘cuckoo in the nest’ topples ancient lineage; The decision would have ‘startling consequences’ for the British aristocracy”: Lucy Clarke-Billings of The Telegraph (UK) has this report.

You can learn more about the case, which is now pending before the United Kingdom’s Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at this link.

“Texas immigrants rest case with Supreme Court”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“The Supremes take up abortion rights, again; Supreme Court must not validate sham law designed to deprive women of safe, legal abortion”: Nancy Northup has this op-ed online at USA Today.

Does it really require a “How Appealing” post to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to implement a page title for its home page? Some time ago, the U.S. Supreme Court redesigned its web site. Since then, however, the Court’s home page has lacked a page title (the text that appears in your web browser tab at the very top of the page).

Instead, at present, the Court’s home page title simply reiterates the web site’s online address, beginning with the beloved “http” text (at least when using Firefox; other browsers may replicate the address differently in the page title, but none reveals an actual page title for the Court’s home page). Other pages within the Court’s web site, such as the current Term’s orders page, do contain page titles (in this instance, “2015 Term Court Orders”).

Because courts have generally exhibited amazing responsiveness in correcting flaws in their online information in response to “How Appealing” posts noting such flaws, I have decided to start the clock on this one at 10:45 p.m. eastern time on Thanksgiving night. Perhaps the Court’s home page will sport a title as early as tomorrow, perhaps one won’t appear until next week, or perhaps the Court has decided to keep its home page title-less into the foreseeable future.

Update: For what it’s worth, the home pages of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom both have page titles (the former is bilingual, of course).

“The Struggle for Justice on Tribal Lands”: In yesterday’s edition of The New York Times, Ned Blackhawk had this op-ed discussing the pending U.S. Supreme Court case captioned Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

“In Supreme Court case, university defends race-based policy giving middle-class minorities an edge”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Sex After 50 at the Supreme Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online today at The New York Times.

“Why Texas Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Run Out the Clock”: Brianne Gorod has this post today at the “Text & History Blog” of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

“Antonin Scalia, Bogeyman of the Liberal Imagination: The justice stars in Hollywood revenge fantasies.” Christopher J. Scalia has this blog post online today at The Weekly Standard.

Next up, law professor Jane C. Ginsburg will be blogging about the incredible cuteness of Ruth Baby Ginsburg.

Just in time for the busiest holiday shopping day of the year: Subscribing to The Green Bag — the only law review-type publication that I pay money to receive — has just become more interesting, to say the least. Details can be found here and here.

You can choose to spend zillions on eBay to obtain a U.S. Supreme Court Justice bobblehead doll, or you can simply subscribe to The Green Bag and obtain them for no additional cost.*

—-

*Terms and conditions may apply.

“Does the First Amendment Protect Professionals? The bizarre case law that upholds free speech courts like and bans speech they don’t.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Wisconsin’s Abortion Law Is Unconstitutional: These are the greatest quotes from a ruling that slams the state for feigning an interest in women’s health.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The chief justice speaks: John Roberts reflects on leadership at the Supreme Court.” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“In Texas, going the distance for an abortion”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Obama Administration Asks Court to Deny Texas More Time on Immigration; Request to extend response period would push Supreme Court case to October 2016”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Board to decide whether to charge justice in email scandal”: The Associated Press has this report.

The Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania today issued this response to a letter received recently from counsel for Justice J. Michael Eakin.

“U.S. law’s reach at heart of epic cross-border cleanup fight”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“Feds ask Supreme Court to hear immigration case this term”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “U.S. presses for immigration ruling this Term.”

“Seventh Circuit Finds Wisconsin’s Physician ‘Admitting Privileges’ Abortion Requirement Unconstitutional”: Ruthann Robson has this post today at the “Constitutional Law Prof Blog.” Therein, Robson writes, “In his inimitable style, Judge Posner also provided his views on the Fifth Circuit’s decision regarding Texas’s HB2 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, to which the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Seventh Circuit ruling can be accessed here.