<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ADF Alliance Alert &#187; Bench &amp; Bar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/category/judiciary/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>news from the frontlines of the culture war</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:09:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to Offer Remote Viewing of En Banc Hearings</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/19/ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-to-offer-remote-viewing-of-en-banc-hearings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/19/ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-to-offer-remote-viewing-of-en-banc-hearings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:11:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/19/ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-to-offer-remote-viewing-of-en-banc-hearings/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/03/18/COA_EnBanc_Remote_Viewing.pdf">Public Information Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit</a>: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will offer remote viewing of en banc court proceedings scheduled for March 23-25 at the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse here." Hat tip: <a href="http://howappealing.law.com/031910.html#037445">How Appealing</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/19/ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-to-offer-remote-viewing-of-en-banc-hearings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amy Totenberg nominated to be federal judge</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/19/amy-totenberg-nominated-to-be-federal-judge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/19/amy-totenberg-nominated-to-be-federal-judge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:18:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/19/amy-totenberg-nominated-to-be-federal-judge/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/amy-totenberg-nominated-to-378449.html">Atlanta Journal Constitution</a>: "President Barack Obama on Wednesday nominated former school board attorney Amy Totenberg to the U.S. District Court bench in Atlanta. At the same time Wednesday, Obama nominated Leonard Stark to the U.S. District Court in Delaware."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/19/amy-totenberg-nominated-to-be-federal-judge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit: Former AG Ashcroft can be held personally liable, 8 judges dissent</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/9th-circuit-former-ag-ashcroft-can-be-held-personally-liable-8-judges-dissent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/9th-circuit-former-ag-ashcroft-can-be-held-personally-liable-8-judges-dissent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:16:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/9th-circuit-former-ag-ashcroft-can-be-held-personally-liable-8-judges-dissent/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031802257.html">Washington Post</a>: "A federal appellate court said Thursday it wouldn't reconsider its ruling that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be held personally responsible for misuse of the material witness statute after the Sept. 11 attacks."

<em><a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/18/06-36059.pdf">Al-Kid v. Ashcroft</a></em>, No. 06-36059 (9th Cir. March 18, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/9th-circuit-former-ag-ashcroft-can-be-held-personally-liable-8-judges-dissent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Frowns on Request for California Bar Data</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/judge-frowns-on-request-for-california-bar-data/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/judge-frowns-on-request-for-california-bar-data/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/judge-frowns-on-request-for-california-bar-data/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mike McKee <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446427792&#038;src=EMC-Email&#038;et=editorial&#038;bu=Law.com&#038;pt=Law.com%20Newswire%20Update&#038;cn=LAWCOM_NewswireUpdate_20100318&#038;kw=Judge%20Frowns%20on%20Request%20for%20California%20Bar%20Data">writes at the Recorder</a>: "A law professor's long-proposed study about affirmative action's effect on bar exams' pass rates has encountered another obstacle.  In a tentative opinion released last week, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow deflated UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander's plans by finding that the documents he seeks -- California State Bar historical data on past bar exams -- don't fall within the scope of documents traditionally subject to public disclosure."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/judge-frowns-on-request-for-california-bar-data/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court to manage and launch new website</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/supreme-court-to-manage-and-launch-new-website/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/supreme-court-to-manage-and-launch-new-website/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55899</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/SCt-website-release-3-18-10.pdf">Supreme Court Office of Public Information</a>: "The Web address for the site will change from www.supremecourtus.gov to www.supremecourt.gov but either address will
provide access through July 1, 2010 . . . "]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/18/supreme-court-to-manage-and-launch-new-website/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judiciary Approves PACER Innovations To Enhance Public Access</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/judiciary-approves-pacer-innovations-to-enhance-public-access/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/judiciary-approves-pacer-innovations-to-enhance-public-access/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2010/JudicialConferenceMar2010.cfm">USCourts.gov</a>: "The Judicial Conference of the United States today approved key steps to improve public access to federal courts by increasing the availability of court opinions and expanding the services and reducing the costs for many users of the Public Access to Electronic Court Records (PACER) system. At its biannual meeting in Washington, D.C., the Conference voted to . . . "]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/judiciary-approves-pacer-innovations-to-enhance-public-access/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama nominates &#8220;unabashed liberal&#8221; to 9th Circuit</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/obama-nominates-unabashed-liberal-to-9th-circuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/obama-nominates-unabashed-liberal-to-9th-circuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_JUDGES?SITE=AP&#038;SECTION=HOME&#038;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">Associated Press</a>: "Goodwin Liu, 39, is an unabashed liberal legal scholar who, if confirmed, could become a force on the federal appeals court for decades. There's talk that in time, the Rhodes Scholar, former high court clerk and current assistant dean and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, could be the first person of Asian descent chosen for the Supreme Court."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/obama-nominates-unabashed-liberal-to-9th-circuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: The Radicalism of Legal Positivism</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/law-review-the-radicalism-of-legal-positivism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/law-review-the-radicalism-of-legal-positivism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Law Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55714</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brian Leiter, <em>The Radicalism of Legal Positivism</em> (March 10, 2010). Guild Practitioner, 2010. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1568333">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1568333</a>

"'Legal positivism' is often caricatured by its jurisprudential opponents, as well as by lawyers and legal scholars not immediately interested in jurisprudential inquiry. 'Positivist' too often functions now as an 'epithet' in legal discourse, equated (wrongly) with 'formalism,' the view that judges must apply the law 'as written,' regardless of the consequences. Lon Fuller, Ronald Dworkin, and the Critical Legal Studies writers have all contributed in different ways to the sense that "positivism" is either a political conservative or politically sterile position. This essay revisits the actual theory of law developed by positivist philosophers like Bentham, Hart, and Raz, emphasizing why it is, and was, understood by its proponents, to be a radical theory of law, one unfriendly to the status quo and anyone, judge or citizen, who thinks obedience to the law is paramount. To be clear, the leading theorists of legal positivism thought the theory gave the correct account of the nature of law as a social institution; they did not endorse it because of the political conclusions it entailed, and which they supported. Yet these theorists realized that the correct account of the nature of law had radical implications for conventional wisdom about law. We would do well to recapture their wisdom today."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/law-review-the-radicalism-of-legal-positivism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: On the Significance of Constitutional Spirit</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/law-review-on-the-significance-of-constitutional-spirit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/law-review-on-the-significance-of-constitutional-spirit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:31:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Law Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55711</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Louis D. Bilionis, <em>On the Significance of Constitutional Spirit</em> (March 15, 2010). North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 70, p. 1803, 1992; U of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 10-10. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1568322">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1568322</a>

"America is experiencing a major realignment of the national constitutional order. The primary responsibility for defining and enforcing civil liberties is shifting from the federal courts and the Federal Constitution to the state judiciaries and their state constitutions. Judges who expound a state constitution must do so with devotion to its spirit - not the spirit of the Federal Constitution, and not the spirit that underlies the currently popular constitutional theory. In many states, North Carolina Among them, keeping faith with the constitutional spirit means interpreting individual rights liberally and enforcing them unflinchingly."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/law-review-on-the-significance-of-constitutional-spirit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Courts Move Toward More Public Access</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/16/federal-courts-move-toward-more-public-access/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/16/federal-courts-move-toward-more-public-access/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55574</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/federal-courts-move-toward-more-public-access.html">Blog of the Legal Times</a>: "At its closed-door meeting at the Supreme Court today, the Judicial Conference approved measures aimed at making federal court documents and courtroom audio recordings more widely available and at lower cost. The conference, the policy-making arm of the federal judiciary, voted to increase the number of documents members of the public can obtain free through the PACER system . . . "]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/16/federal-courts-move-toward-more-public-access/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Many Rounds of Edits Are Best, and What Kinds, for Law Review Publications?</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/15/how-many-rounds-of-edits-are-best-and-what-kinds-for-law-review-publications/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/15/how-many-rounds-of-edits-are-best-and-what-kinds-for-law-review-publications/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Orin Kerr writes at the <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/03/15/how-many-rounds-of-edits-are-best-and-what-kinds-for-law-review-publications/">Volokh Conspiracy</a>: "The process of publishing a law review article usually involves rounds of edits . . . Journal editors and authors alike sometimes wonder, what’s the best number and type of rounds of edits?   This is a particularly tricky question for student editors because normally they are only on their journal for two years.  Editors  learn all about the process and then graduate, leaving them less able to reform practices based on their experience.  Here’s my take . . . "
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/15/how-many-rounds-of-edits-are-best-and-what-kinds-for-law-review-publications/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IN: Butler rejects U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts as commencement speaker</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/15/in-butler-rejects-u-s-chief-justice-john-roberts-as-commencement-speaker/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/15/in-butler-rejects-u-s-chief-justice-john-roberts-as-commencement-speaker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:51:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Indiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.indystar.com/article/20100313/LOCAL/3130349/Butler-won-t-have-Roberts-as-speaker">IndyStar.com</a>: "If U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts comes to his niece's graduation at Butler University, it won't be as the commencement speaker.
A student-led proposal to invite Roberts, an Indiana native whose niece is in Butler's senior class, to speak at Butler's May 8 graduation was shot down by faculty members."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/15/in-butler-rejects-u-s-chief-justice-john-roberts-as-commencement-speaker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attorney General failed to give legal briefs to Senate</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/12/attorney-general-failed-to-give-legal-briefs-to-senate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/12/attorney-general-failed-to-give-legal-briefs-to-senate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:29:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B48P20100312">Reuters</a>: "Attorney General Eric Holder failed to tell the Senate about seven legal briefs he signed when lawmakers considered his nomination to his current job, according to a letter released on Friday."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/12/attorney-general-failed-to-give-legal-briefs-to-senate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nationwide, State Court Systems Continue to Feel the Pinch</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/nationwide-state-court-systems-continue-to-feel-the-pinch/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/nationwide-state-court-systems-continue-to-feel-the-pinch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:21:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446066208&#038;src=EMC-Email&#038;et=editorial&#038;bu=Law.com&#038;pt=Law.com%20Newswire%20Update&#038;cn=LAWCOM_NewswireUpdate_20100311&#038;kw=Nationwide,%20State%20Court%20Systems%20Continue%20to%20Feel%20the%20Pinch">Law.com (National Law Journal)</a>: "Court systems in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Texas and Virginia are facing slashed budgets, higher fees and fewer resources or demands to curtail spending. Court systems in the District of Columbia and Maryland, in contrast, are faring comparatively well." ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/nationwide-state-court-systems-continue-to-feel-the-pinch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2nd Circuit rules on standards for obtaining a preliminary injunction</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/serious-question-or-likelihood-of-success-on-the-merits-2nd-circuit-rules-on-standards-for-obtaining-a-preliminary-injunction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/serious-question-or-likelihood-of-success-on-the-merits-2nd-circuit-rules-on-standards-for-obtaining-a-preliminary-injunction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:49:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55022</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://howappealing.law.com/031010.html#037348">How Appealing reports</a> that the 2nd Circuit has issued a ruling that impacts the standards for obtaining a preliminary injunction.

<a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/f54f15eb-ac60-4164-b370-a1bdf9eb0709/5/doc/08-6090-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/f54f15eb-ac60-4164-b370-a1bdf9eb0709/5/hilite/">Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Limited, f/k/a CDO Plus Master Fund Limited</a>, No. 08-6090-cv (2nd Cir. March 10, 2010)

"VCG also appeals from the district court’s May 29, 2009 order denying its motion for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction. Because we conclude that the “serious questions” standard for assessing a movant’s likelihood of success on the merits remains valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and because neither the district court’s assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supports a finding of abuse of discretion, we AFFIRM as to both orders."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/serious-question-or-likelihood-of-success-on-the-merits-2nd-circuit-rules-on-standards-for-obtaining-a-preliminary-injunction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>President nominates Raymond Lohier to 2nd Circuit and Kate O&#8217;Malley to Federal Circuit</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/president-nominates-raymond-lohier-to-2nd-circuit-and-kate-omalley-to-federal-circuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/president-nominates-raymond-lohier-to-2nd-circuit-and-kate-omalley-to-federal-circuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55020</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-nominates-raymond-lohier-jr-united-states-court-appeals-second-circ">WhiteHouse.gov</a>: "Today, President Obama nominated Raymond Lohier, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge Kate O’Malley to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Lohier currently serves as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; O’Malley currently serves as a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio.""]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/president-nominates-raymond-lohier-to-2nd-circuit-and-kate-omalley-to-federal-circuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Revised Supreme Court Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/revised-supreme-court-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/revised-supreme-court-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:21:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/revised-supreme-court-rules/">SCOTUS Blog</a>: "Effective February 16, 2010, the Court adopted revised Rules of the Supreme Court.  A complete copy of the updated rules can be found <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/2010RulesoftheCourt.pdf">here</a>.   The revisions, which are summarized in this memorandum from the Court,  include . . . "]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/revised-supreme-court-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Evaluating Judges and Judicial Institutions: Reorienting the Perspective</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/law-review-evaluating-judges-and-judicial-institutions-reorienting-the-perspective/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/law-review-evaluating-judges-and-judicial-institutions-reorienting-the-perspective/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:32:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Law Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[G. Mitu Gulati, David Klein, and David F. Levi, <em>Evaluating Judges and Judicial Institutions: Reorienting the Perspective</em> (February 23, 2010). Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1561662">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1561662</a>

"In September 2009, we hosted an unusual workshop at Duke Law School. The workshop focused on the empirical evaluation of judges, judging, and judicial institutions. Most work in this area has been driven by the agendas and constraints of empirical researchers, and empiricists from multiple disciplines — including history, sociology, anthropology, political science, and law and economics — participated in the workshop. But they were joined by judges and legal theorists, who were invited to take the lead in selecting the specific issues to be discussed at the workshop. The reason for the workshop’s unusual makeup and structure was our conviction that the empirical analysis of judging can be dramatically strengthened through the active participation of judges and theorists. In this Essay, we explain why we think conversations among these three groups are important. Then, drawing on the workshop experience, we describe where and how we believe that cooperation could do the most to advance the empirical study of the judiciary, with special attention to issues of evaluation."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/law-review-evaluating-judges-and-judicial-institutions-reorienting-the-perspective/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: The Last Word</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/law-review-the-last-word/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/law-review-the-last-word/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Law Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55026</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Davies, Ross E., <em>The Last Word</em> (March 7, 2010). Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, Forthcoming; George Mason Law &#38; Economics Research Paper No. 10-15. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1566468">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1566468</a>

"Once in a great while a member of the Supreme Court tries to get the last word. 'Last word,' that is, in an official sense – a late-breaking opinion issued by a Justice acting as a Justice. Not informal last words such as anonymous stabs at colleagues via the press, or extemporaneous ejaculations from the bench, or post-retirement disclosure of changes of heart. Official, juridical attempts to get the last word come in two forms: (1) the surprise opinion, meaning a separate opinion (a concurrence or dissent) issued by a Justice without reasonable notice to the other Justices, after they have publicly committed themselves to a disposition of the case that does not, of course, account for the late-breaking opinion, and (2) the surprise revision, meaning a Justice’s significant alteration of an opinion after other Justices have publicly committed themselves, presumably at least in part in reliance on the original version."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/law-review-the-last-word/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Why the Supreme Court Issues Plurality Opinions</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/law-review-why-the-supreme-court-issues-plurality-opinions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/law-review-why-the-supreme-court-issues-plurality-opinions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Law Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=55023</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David R. Stras and James F. Spriggs, <em>Why the Supreme Court Issues Plurality Opinions</em> (March 2, 2010). Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-11. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1562737">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1562737</a>

"In the first empirical analysis examining the occurrence of plurality decisions, the authors examine a variety of ideological, collegial, contextual, and legal factors to determine which factors are most likely to lead to plurality decisions. Drawing on data for every Supreme Court case decided between the 1953 and 2006 Terms of the Supreme Court, the results of the study are illuminating. For example, a case is more likely to result in a plurality decision if it involves an issue of constitutional interpretation with respect to a civil liberties issue and lower court conflict did not influence the decision to grant certiorari."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/law-review-why-the-supreme-court-issues-plurality-opinions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prop. 8 suit closing arguments will not be televised</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/prop-8-suit-closing-arguments-will-not-be-televised/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/prop-8-suit-closing-arguments-will-not-be-televised/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Perry v Schwarzenegger]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54967</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/">United States District Court for the Northern District of California</a>: "Broadcasting closing arguments would require Chief Judge Walker to request that these arguments be included in the Ninth Circuit's pilot program and approval of that request by Chief Judge Kozinski. No such request has been made."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/prop-8-suit-closing-arguments-will-not-be-televised/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Faces at the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/new-faces-at-the-d-c-judicial-nomination-commission/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/new-faces-at-the-d-c-judicial-nomination-commission/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: District of Columbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54945</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/new-faces-at-the-dc-judicial-nomination-commission-----the-dc-judicial-nomination-commission-has-a-new-executive-director.html">The Blog of the Legal Times</a>: "The D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission has a new executive director in Kim Whately, and she has announced that there are two new members of the commission."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/new-faces-at-the-d-c-judicial-nomination-commission/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law school faculties 40% larger than 10 years ago</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/law-school-faculties-40-larger-than-10-years-ago/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/law-school-faculties-40-larger-than-10-years-ago/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/law-school-faculties-40-larger-10-years-ago">National Jurist</a>: "The average law school increased its faculty size by 40 percent over the past 10 years, according to a study by The National Jurist to be released in late March. This increase in staffing accounts for 48 percent of the tuition increase from 1998 to 2008, the study shows. Tuition increased by 74 percent at private schools and a 102 percent at public institutions from 1998 to 2008 . . . Law school observers say the dramatic increases are related to two things — an increased need for specialization and the U.S. News &#038; World Report rankings of law schools."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/law-school-faculties-40-larger-than-10-years-ago/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hearing Delayed for Obama Judicial Nominee Who Supported Serial Killer</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/hearing-delayed-for-obama-judicial-nominee-who-supported-serial-killer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/hearing-delayed-for-obama-judicial-nominee-who-supported-serial-killer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54885</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/09/panel-delays-hearing-court-nominee-following-concerns-sex-case-bias/">FoxNews</a>: "The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting him as a judicial loose cannon and Republicans raised concerns about his alleged bias in favor of sex offenders."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/hearing-delayed-for-obama-judicial-nominee-who-supported-serial-killer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chief justice unsettled by Obama&#8217;s criticism of Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/chief-justice-unsettled-by-obamas-criticism-of-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/chief-justice-unsettled-by-obamas-criticism-of-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:47:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-roberts-speech10-2010mar10,0,4550858.story">LA Times</a>: "'To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we are there,' Roberts said at the University of Alabama School of Law . . . 'Anybody can criticize the Supreme Court. . . . I have no problem with that,' he said. He objected to criticism in such a public setting, where the justices had no choice but to sit silently."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/chief-justice-unsettled-by-obamas-criticism-of-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Panel: Senate Filibuster Not Going Away Soon</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/panel-senate-filibuster-not-going-away-soon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/panel-senate-filibuster-not-going-away-soon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/panel-senate-filibuster-not-going-away-soon.html">Blog of the Legal Times</a>: "Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have decried the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations, but those who are frustrated with the process shouldn't expect an immediate change, a panel of Senate experts said today."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/panel-senate-filibuster-not-going-away-soon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justice Scalia Suggests that the Legal Academy is Out of Touch: Is He Right?</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/justice-scalia-suggests-that-the-legal-academy-is-out-of-touch-is-he-right/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/justice-scalia-suggests-that-the-legal-academy-is-out-of-touch-is-he-right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:35:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael C. Dorf writes at <a href="http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20100308.html" target="_blank">Findlaw</a>: "Justice Scalia was simply injecting a bit of comic relief into a tense oral argument, but underneath his joke was a more serious charge, one that he and other judges have made repeatedly for some years now. They complain that law professors produce scholarship that has no practical value to judges who must resolve hard cases. If a legal theory is 'the darling of the professoriate' and thus a fit subject for a law review article that will earn its proponent a tenured faculty position, Justice Scalia implies, it cannot have any practical utility. Is Justice Scalia right? In this column, I contend that the answer is mostly no."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/justice-scalia-suggests-that-the-legal-academy-is-out-of-touch-is-he-right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll Shows Public Support for Cameras at the High Court</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/poll-shows-public-support-for-cameras-at-the-high-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/poll-shows-public-support-for-cameras-at-the-high-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54721</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tony Mauro writes at <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202445941834">Law.com</a>: "A new public opinion poll being released today found that more than 60 percent of voters think that televising U.S. Supreme Court proceedings would be 'good for democracy.'"]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/poll-shows-public-support-for-cameras-at-the-high-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit candidate&#8217;s career marked by rapid ascent, wide-ranging roles</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/9th-circuit-candidates-career-marked-by-rapid-ascent-wide-ranging-roles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/9th-circuit-candidates-career-marked-by-rapid-ascent-wide-ranging-roles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:15:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54709</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-goodwin-liu9-2010mar09,0,1301596.story">LA Times</a>: "Berkeley professor Goodwin Liu, son of immigrants, would be youngest judge on the appeals court. He clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and worked in government offices during the Clinton administration."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/9th-circuit-candidates-career-marked-by-rapid-ascent-wide-ranging-roles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Clarence Thomas&#8217;s jurisprudence unexplained</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/law-review-clarence-thomass-jurisprudence-unexplained/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/law-review-clarence-thomass-jurisprudence-unexplained/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Law Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Timothy Sandefur, <em>Clarence Thomas's Jurisprudence Unexplained</em> (September 22, 2008). NYU Journal of Law &#038; Liberty, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1272053">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1272053</a>

"This is a review of Henry Mark Holzer's The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas. I contend that Holzer's book ignores significant debates within the conservative/libertarian community. I describe some of these debates - over the role of natural rights, the proper understanding of federalism, and the meaning of originalism - to determine how Justice Thomas' record compares to a freedom-centered interpretation of the Constitution."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/09/law-review-clarence-thomass-jurisprudence-unexplained/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACLU Likens Obama to Bush in Ad Slamming Possible Reversal on KSM Trial</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/aclu-likens-obama-to-bush-in-ad-slamming-possible-reversal-on-ksm-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/aclu-likens-obama-to-bush-in-ad-slamming-possible-reversal-on-ksm-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:04:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/07/aclu-likens-obama-bush-ad-slamming-possible-reversal-ksm-trial/">FoxNews</a>: "The possibility that President Obama could send the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks to a military tribunal has earned him the highest insult from the left -- that he's another George W. Bush." ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/aclu-likens-obama-to-bush-in-ad-slamming-possible-reversal-on-ksm-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Debate Heats Up Over 9th Circuit Nominee</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/debate-heats-up-over-9th-circuit-nominee/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/debate-heats-up-over-9th-circuit-nominee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54595</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/debate-heats-up-over-9th-circuit-nominee.html">Blog of the Legal Times</a>: "It was clear even before he was nominated that Goodwin Liu would stir up activists as few other Obama judicial nominees have. Since he was named on Feb. 24, supporters and opponents both have jumped into vigorous debate over what Liu's jurisprudence would look like if he were confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/debate-heats-up-over-9th-circuit-nominee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California justice weighs in on judicial races</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/california-justice-weighs-in-on-judicial-races/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/california-justice-weighs-in-on-judicial-races/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:40:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/07/BACO1C817B.DTL&#038;type=politics">San Francisco Chronicle</a>: "With businesses and trial lawyers pouring money into state judicial races around the nation, California Chief Justice Ronald George appointed a Commission for Impartial Courts in 2007 to study judicial elections in California and decide whether changes were needed to promote judicial independence and public confidence in the courts. The commission's chairman, state Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin, spoke to Chronicle reporter Bob Egelko about some of the proposals that the commission is recommending."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/california-justice-weighs-in-on-judicial-races/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Judicial Diversity on State Supreme Courts</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/law-review-judicial-diversity-on-state-supreme-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/law-review-judicial-diversity-on-state-supreme-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Law Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54534</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gregory L. Acquaviva and John D. Castiglione, <em>Judicial Diversity on State Supreme Courts</em> (2009). Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 1203-1261, 2009. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1564854">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1564854</a>

"In this Article, we present the findings of a comprehensive examination of the demographic and experiential characteristics of all judges on the courts of last resort of the fifty states. The most important part of this examination was a survey developed for this project and submitted to every state supreme court justice in the country. In this survey, we asked the justices to self-report information regarding race, gender, religion, schooling, prior work experience, community involvement, bar association membership, and pro bono experience. The raw data we collected through this survey, augmented by publicly available resources, are presented throughout and as addenda to this Article."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/law-review-judicial-diversity-on-state-supreme-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Biblical Literalism and Constitutional Originalism</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/law-review-biblical-literalism-and-constitutional-originalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/law-review-biblical-literalism-and-constitutional-originalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:32:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Law Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/?p=54532</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Peter J. Smith and Robert W. Tuttle, <em>Biblical Literalism and Constitutional Originalism</em> (March 1, 2010). GWU Legal Studies Research Paper. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1561933">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1561933</a>

"It is not surprising that both critics of constitutional originalism and proponents of biblical literalism have noted a connection between the two interpretive approaches, as there are some obvious similarities. Indeed, the similarities go beyond the caricatures that both critics and proponents have tended to offer. Literalism and originalism share a core commitment to the idea that their relevant texts have a timeless, fixed meaning that is readily ascertainable. In addition, both interpretive approaches are in significant part projects of restoration; both are deeply concerned about the loss of constraint that results from interpretation that is untethered to text; both have a strong, self-consciously populist impulse and an equally strong and self-conscious disdain for elite opinion, both with respect to interpretive norms and cultural values; and both maintain that all other approaches to their relevant texts are fundamentally illegitimate because they breach a duty of fidelity."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/03/08/law-review-biblical-literalism-and-constitutional-originalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
