“Kansas House debates changing the Supreme Court selection process”: The Kansas City Star has this report.

The Few, The Proud: The State of Columbia, South Carolina reports that “John Few elected as new S.C. Supreme Court associate justice.”

“Why Rand Paul’s Exit Is Bad News for the Future of the Supreme Court: Paul challenged the reigning legal orthodoxies on both the left and the right.” Damon Root has this post today at Reason.com’s “Hit & Run” blog.

“Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to visit campus”: The Daily Illini has this report.

“Lacking execution drugs, Virginia eyes the electric chair”: The Associated Press has this report.

“The Trials of Aaron Swartz: A collection of Swartz’s writings is a record of a mind thinking, beautifully, against itself.” In the February 22, 2016 issue of The Nation, Ava Kofman has this review of the book “The Boy Who Could Change the World: The Writings of Aaron Swartz.”

“Full 11th Circuit appeals court to consider gun speech law”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has agreed to reconsider previous rulings that upheld a Florida law restricting what doctors can ask patients about guns.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link.

“State v. Naylor — A Debate among Conservatives on the Texas Supreme Court”: Scott A. Brister and Dale Wainwright have this post at National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog.

When it comes to appellate law blogging, yesterday and today I was quite the slacker: But when it comes to the actual practice of appellate litigation, less so. Yesterday, I argued two separate appeals, as noted in this earlier post.

Today, I filed a this Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

And also today, for good measure, I served the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees in an appeal pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that was the subject of earlier news coverage here and here.

“Judge’s Fairness Disputed in $21M Bad-Faith Award” Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer has this report on one of the two cases that I argued yesterday before a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

And in other coverage, Dan Packel of Law360.com reports that “Nationwide Says Judge Had ‘Tantrum’ In $21M Bad Faith Row” (subscription required for full access).

You can access the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees that I filed in the case at this link.

Since yesterday was Groundhog Day, I couldn’t help but recollect this earlier oral argument against the identical opposing counsel in which his client’s appeal consisted of a similar headlong assault on the fact-finding that resulted in a punitive damages verdict in favor of my clients in that case, the plaintiffs.

The final argument point in the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees that I filed in that earlier case stated, “Wyeth’s Blatant Effort To Reargue The Evidentiary Record And Attempt To Depict That Record As ‘Undisputed’ So As To Impermissibly Construe The Evidence And The Inferences Therefrom In Favor Of Wyeth As Verdict-Loser Should Be Rejected.” Given opposing counsel’s oral argument yesterday, it’s deja vu all over again.

For readers who don’t remember which side emerged victorious in that earlier appeal, decided a little over two years ago, the answer can be found here and here.