“The Top Five Supreme Court Nomination Myths: If you think the court hasn’t always been a political place, you’re wrong.” Paul M. Collins Jr. and law professor Lori A. Ringhand have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Prof. Michael McConnell on Zubik Religious Freedom Restoration Act-contraceptive mandate oral argument”: Eugene Volokh has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Process for filling Supreme Court vacancies damaged, appeals judge says”: Brian Bowling of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has this article reporting on remarks that Senior D.C. Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg delivered yesterday at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

“Judicial court finds former Justice Eakin guilty and fines him, but spares his pension”: Craig R. McCoy and Mark Fazlollah of The Philadelphia Inquirer have a news update that begins, “A judicial tribunal found disgraced former Justice J. Michael Eakin guilty of ethical misconduct in the Porngate scandal on Thursday and fined him $50,000, but allowed him to keep his $153,000 annual pension.”

Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reports that “Pa. Supreme Court Justice Eakin ordered to pay fine, keeps pension over emails.”

Brad Bumsted of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Court fines ex-Supreme Court Justice Eakin $50K over lewd emails.”

You can access today’s 28-page unanimous per curiam ruling of the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline at this link.

“Unresolved in Tyson, uninjured plaintiffs issue back to SCOTUS on Friday”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Joe Biden fights back over an old Supreme Court speech: ‘There is no Biden rule.'” Michael A. Memoli of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Richard Wolf and Nicole Gaudiano of USA Today have an article headlined “Biden: Supreme Court vacancy helps ‘rich and powerful.’”

Reuters reports that “Biden makes the case for Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Garland.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has an article headlined “Joe Biden on Supreme Court nomination: There is no ‘Biden rule.’”

Sarah Wheaton and Edward-Isaac Dovere of Politico.com report that “Biden accuses GOP of threatening democracy in Supreme Court standoff; ‘Unless we can find common ground, how can the system designed by our founders function,’ the vice president says.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Susan Collins hopes for hearings on Supreme Court nominee; The Maine senator says she will meet with Judge Merrick Garland in the first week of April.”

“Blind Spots at D.C. Circuit Limit Garland’s Record”: Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

And at The Washington Post, James Hohmann has a blog entry titled “Why the campaign to pressure Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland is failing.”

“Royall Descendant Cautions Against Forgetting History; Long before the current firestorm, the story of Isaac Royall, Jr. quietly lived on in his former house and surviving descendant”: Claire E. Parker of The Harvard Crimson has an article that begins, “Controversy erupted this year over Harvard Law School’s seal, which featured the crest of the once-slaveholding Royall family. But long before the current firestorm, the story of Isaac Royall, Jr. quietly lived on in his former Massachusetts house — now a museum — and his surviving descendants, who caution against forgetting the family’s history.”

In today’s mail: I received a copy of William W. Bedsworth‘s newest book, “Lawyers, Gubs and Monkeys — Laughing at the Law.”

Bedsworth serves as an Associate Justice on California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal. Longtime readers of this blog may recall that Bedsworth took part in this blog’s “20 questions for the appellate judge” feature way back in June 2004. You can access my interview of him at this link.

For as long as anyone can remember, Bedsworth has written a very clever law-related humor column titled “A Criminal Waste of Space.” Back when I was a slightly more conscientious law blogger, I would endeavor to link to the new installments of that column as they became freely accessible online. At some point, however, I stopped doing that, perhaps because the columns stopped being readily accessible online, or perhaps because something else blog-related or non-blog-related happened to demand my attention even more.

In any event, it appears that the more recent installments of Justice Bedsworth’s column have found a new home at the OC Lawyer web site of the Orange County (Calif.) Bar Association. But, if you like his stuff as much as I do, just buy his book (here or here), and you’ll be able to carry around for your reading enjoyment lots of his good work in one small convenient volume.

“Remarks by Vice President Joe Biden at Georgetown Law”: You can view Vice President Biden’s remarks live on YouTube via this link starting at noon eastern time today.

As I noted in this post from earlier this morning, the Vice President is expected to discuss the issue of U.S. Supreme Court confirmations.

“Would Justice Garland have to Recuse from a reargued Zubik v. Burwell?” Josh Blackman has this blog post today.

In my opinion, the answer to that question is “no,” for reasons that I look forward to explaining once I confirm which Major League Baseball team the nominee roots for.

“Deciphering Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland”: Ames C. Grawert has this post at “The Great Debate” blog of Reuters.

“Park Service to continue fight following Supreme Court ruling in Alaska hovercraft case”: Sam Friedman of The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner has this report.

“Unabomber Case Helped Hone Garland’s Legal Skills”: Jim Rowley of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Joe Biden to Make Case for a Full Supreme Court Bench”: Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this blog post.

The Associated Press reports that “Biden to point to record in Supreme Court fight.”

And Edward-Isaac Dovere of Politico.com reports that “Biden tries to clear his name on Supreme Court nominees.”

“The Birth Control Hijack: The Supreme Court’s conservatives think the Affordable Care Act is hijacking insurance plans to provide contraception.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Bush Would Have Nominated Garland”: Law professor Richard W. Painter has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Court considers when police need warrants to track suspects through cellphones”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court on Wednesday considered how easily investigators should be able to track criminal suspects through their cellphones, becoming the latest front in the debate over how to balance public-safety interests with digital privacy.”

You can access via this link (127 MB mp3 audio file) the audio of today’s en banc oral argument of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

“My Supreme Court Cotillion”: Josh Blackman has this blog post today.

“Republican Pennsylvania Senator to Meet With Merrick Garland”: Emmarie Huetteman of The New York Times has this report.

Jonathan Tamari of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a blog post titled “Toomey will meet with SCOTUS nominee.”

Teresa Bonner of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reports that “Toomey agrees to meet Supreme Court nominee, but not to act on nomination.”

Michael Pound of The Post-Gazette has a blog post titled “Toomey will meet with Garland but won’t change stance.”

Laura Olson of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania reports that “Pat Toomey says he’ll meet with Supreme Court nominee.”

And Seung Min Kim of Politico.com reports that “Embattled Toomey agrees to sit with Merrick Garland.”

“Judicial court freezes proceedings against former Justice Eakin”: Mark Fazlollah and Angela Couloumbis have this article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reports that “Disciplinary court puts case against Pa. Supreme Court Justice Eakin on hold.”

And in related commentary, in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Rebecca Love Kourlis has an op-ed titled “Eakin resignation creates chance to test merit selection.”

“Sotomayor Helps Puerto Rico Argue Its Bankruptcy Case”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Argument analysis: On new health care case, a single word may tell it all.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And Mark Walsh has a post titled “A ‘view’ from the Courtroom: Sister Act.”

“The Stakes in Hulk Hogan’s Gawker Lawsuit”: Fabio Bertoni has this post online today at The New Yorker.

“Businesses Win Lawsuit Curbs With New Rules; Change could help companies in their battle against consumer litigation”: Joe Palazzolo and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

“Class-Action Suits Have a Shot in Post-Scalia Era”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“The Supreme Court Flirts With Chaos At Today’s Birth Control Argument”: Ian Millhiser has this post at ThinkProgress.

“Blocked Voting: Was Virginia’s clearly racist gerrymandering unconstitutional?” Mark Joseph Stern has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“If You Give a Judge a Meeting: A children’s tale by Sen. Chuck Grassley.” Dahlia Lithwick has this post online at Slate.

“Justices Seem Split in Case on Birth Control Mandate”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

In today’s mail: I received “The Curve: A Novel,” by Jeremy Blachman and Cameron Stracher. The book, published by Ankerwycke, is scheduled to go on sale June 7, 2016.

Zubik v. Burwell oral argument transcript now available online: You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14-1418.

“Court: Racial animus ‘code words’ used in NY housing case.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court says officials in a suburban New York village acquiesced to race-based opposition to a housing project.”

You can access today’s 102-page ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Justices divided over health law birth control plan”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court divided over Obamacare contraceptives challenge.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Contraceptive Rule Gets Mixed Reception at Supreme Court.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Court appears divided on contraceptive coverage, with Kennedy raising concern.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court deeply divided over religious freedom, reproductive rights.”

Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times reports that “Birth control carve-out in Obamacare splits the Supreme Court; Liberals are skeptical of implications, raising prospect of tie.”

Jennifer Haberkorn and Josh Gerstein of Politico.com report that “Supreme Court hears Obamacare birth control rule challenge.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Whether Obamacare’s Contraception Exemption ‘Hijacks’ Religion; The sequel to the 2014 Hobby Lobby case could be the last stand for the conflict between reproductive health and religious rights.”

And Peter Sullivan of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court split on ObamaCare contraceptive rule.”

“All agree his sentence was too harsh, but he may still stay locked up forever”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.