“Passing the California bar exam shouldn’t be made easier, court says”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court decided Wednesday not to lower the passing score on the state’s licensing examination for lawyers.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit displays sophisticated grasp of redaction techniques: You can access a decision containing redactions that the Third Circuit issued today at this link.

“U.S. appeals court rejects Cosby accuser’s bid to revive defamation suit”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today.

“Twitter silence from Texas Tweeter Laureate”: Columnist Ken Herman recently had this essay online at The Austin American-Statesman.

“Missouri appeals court tosses out $72 million Johnson & Johnson talcum powder verdict”: Joel Currier has this front page article in today’s edition of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Lisa Gutierrez of The Kansas City Star reports that “Missouri appeals court throws out $72 million award in Johnson & Johnson talcum powder case.”

Margaret Cronin Fisk of Bloomberg News reports that “J&J Wins Reversal of First St. Louis Talc-Cancer Verdict.”

And Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “Johnson & Johnson wins reversal of $72 million verdict over talc cancer risks.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, at this link.

“Why Are Prosecutors Putting Innocent Witnesses in Jail? Across the country, people who committed no crimes are being locked up to compel their testimony in court.” Sarah Stillman has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“The Supreme Court Justices Need Fact-Checkers”: Law professor John Pfaff has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Judges vs. Bureaucrats: Who should defer to whom?” Slate has posted online this jurisprudence essay, consisting of a conversation between former Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner and Senior U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.), moderated by Joel Cohen.

“Feud: Elena and Neil; Why rumors of a Gorsuch-Kagan clash at the Supreme Court are such a bombshell.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Is Trump Violating the Constitution? In Absentia, He Defends Himself in Court.” Matt Flegenheimer of The New York Times has this report.

“In North Carolina, Republicans Stung by Court Rulings Aim to Change the Judges”: Trip Gabriel of The New York Times has this report.

“Guantanamo guards seize confidential Sept. 11 terror trial defense files”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“The Unexploded Landmine Buried Deep In The Codes of Conduct Committee’s Otherwise Excellent Opinion On Posner”: Senior U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf (D. Neb.) has this post at the “Simple Justice” blog.

“Justice Gorsuch is Right: Jesner and the Original Meaning of the Alien Tort Statute.” Anthony J. Bellia and Bradford R. Clark have this post today at the “Lawfare” blog.

Proving that law blogging is as cool now as it ever was: The Harvard Law Review now has a blog, conveniently titled “Harvard Law Review Blog.”

“Squat, lift, kick, curl: Justice Ginsburg’s workout is tough and it left me exhausted.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“D.C. Circuit nominee says he worked on White House response to Mueller probe; Katsas also acknowledged he gave advice on travel ban, DACA, voter fraud commission”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

File under “If Only”: As two earlier recent posts have revealed, Law360.com has recently launched a series titled “Judging a Book” in which judges review books.

I don’t know about you, but I am patiently awaiting Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Diane P. Wood‘s review of former Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner‘s new self-published book.

“Lights, camera, SCOTUS”: Lydia Wheeler of The Hill has written this profile of Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court.

“Judging A Book: Kozinski Reviews ‘The Judge.'” At Law360.com, Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski has this review (subscription may be required for full access) of the new book “The Judge: 26 Machiavellian Lessons,” by Ronald K.L. Collins and David M. Skover.

“Supreme Court Justice Before and After”: Yesterday evening, while I was in the Bronx with my son watching the New York Yankees accomplish an improbable and stirring comeback to even the best-of-seven American League Championship Series against the Houston Astros at two games each, the Double Jeopardy! segment of the acclaimed television quiz show Jeopardy! included (evoking applause or consternation, depending on whom you ask) questions in the category that appears as the title to this post.

A legion of loyal “How Appealing” readers (or at least one of them) was kind enough to draw the category and the answers and questions appearing in it to my attention via email. Because the appellate community rejoices when the U.S. Supreme Court appears in Jeopardy! clues, lets take a look at the answers that appeared on the board yesterday evening in this category. The answers were (with dollar values shown):

Supreme Court Justice Before and After

($400) First Chief Justice ever who, despite “99 Problems,” was always “Big Pimpin'”;

($800) He replaced Thurgood Marshall and chugged his way around the island of Sodor;

($1200) This Heisman runner-up jurist, now “The Home of the Original Slider”;

($1600) HBO’s “Last Week Tonight” host who went on to become “The Great Dissenter”; and

($2000) Current justice who’s been known to launch a rocket or 2.

And the corresponding questions that the contestants had to supply to earn that money were . . . wait for it:

($400) John Jay-Z;

($800) Clarence Thomas the Tank Engine;

($1200) Byron White Castle;

($1600) John Oliver Wendell Holmes; and

($2000) Anthony Kennedy Space Center.

Now readers may recall that once upon a time I tried out for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and even aced the test, or more accurately did well enough on the test that I entered the pool of possible contestants for the season in question and might have appeared on the program had I possessed an actual TV quiz show-worthy personality.

Although I never have tried out to be a Jeopardy! contestant, I do enjoy playing along at home (which is where I wasn’t last night, thanks to a certain quite memorable baseball game in the Bronx). I don’t know about you, but the “Before and After” category on Jeopardy! is one that I always find quite challenging. Indeed, in this very category, the contestants on yesterday’s show supplied the correct question in response to only three of the five clues. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see that Jeopardy has found a way to combine SCOTUS and pop-culture/general knowledge in this confounding category.