E-mail This Article To A Friend:

supreme court dispatchesSupreme Court DispatchesOral argument from the court.1NA=1154&NC=1255&DI=4098&PS=58277&PI=7315courtfalsefalsePoliticsspacernotembeddedsupreme court dispatchesMy So-Called Life Without ParoleDahlia LithwickfalseThe Supreme Court looks at life sentences for teen offenders.noMy So-Called Life Without ParoleThe Supreme Court looks at life sentences for teen offenders.noIn honor of 40 years of Sesame Street, today's Dispatch is brought to you by the letters L, W, O, and P (stands for life with out parole). And by the numbers 13, 17, and 2,574. And 73. And 9. And also 2. And by many, many other numbers that make you wonder how a roomful of people who went to law school presumably to avoid doing math could possibly spend two hours in a protracted exercise of freewheeling public accounting.truenotochyperlinkno200911980458PMMondayNovNovember2011/10/2009 1:04:58 AM633933938980000000200911980458PMMondayNovNovember2011/10/2009 1:04:58 AM633933938980000000supreme court dispatchesThe Framers on the FramersDahlia LithwickfalseDoes the Constitution protect prosecutors who fabricate evidence?noThe Framers on the FramersDoes the Constitution protect prosecutors who fabricate evidence?noFor you constitutional-law scholars out there with casebooks to update, you may soon have an addition to the growing chapter of cases called "It Sucks To Be You." The facts of Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, the case the Supreme Court hears today, are spectacularly awful. But they may also prove spectacularly immaterial. In the Roberts Court era, "It Sucks To Be You" is a booming industry: Instances of shocking constitutional wrongs that cannot be corrected by constitutional courts.truenotochyperlinkno200911471746PMWednesdayNovNovember1911/5/2009 12:17:46 AM633929590660000000200911471746PMWednesdayNovNovember1911/5/2009 12:17:46 AM633929590660000000supreme court dispatchesThe $5 Million ManDahlia LithwickfalsePaul Clement schools the high court on why some attorneys are worth every last penny.noThe $5 Million ManPaul Clement schools the high court on why some attorneys are worth every penny.noIt's easy to forget that all nine Supreme Court justices are, at bottom, just recovering attorneys with long experience and strong opinions about lawyers, judges, the legal system, money, and trials. And that's why a simple little argument about attorneys' fees tells us a lot about how the justices think about the business of doing justice.truenotochyperlinkno2009101474931PMWednesdayOctOctober1910/14/2009 11:49:31 PM6339114657100000002009101474931PMWednesdayOctOctober1910/14/2009 11:49:31 PM633911465710000000supreme court dispatchesCross-EyedDahlia LithwickfalseThe high court looks again at religious symbols on public lands.noCross-EyedThe high court looks at religious symbols on public lands.noThere's just one person at oral argument in Salazar v. Buono this morning who really wants to talk about whether a 5-foot cross on federal government land in the Mojave National Preserve violates the Constitution's Establishment Clause. But Justice Antonin Scalia really, really wants to talk about it. He looks particularly queasy when Peter Eliasberg—the ACLU lawyer whose client objects to crosses on government land—suggests partway through the morning that perhaps a less controversial World War I memorial might consist of "a statue of a soldier which would honor all of the people who fought for America in World War I and not just the Christians."truenotochyperlinkno200910771417PMWednesdayOctOctober1910/7/2009 11:14:17 PM633905396570000000200910771417PMWednesdayOctOctober1910/7/2009 11:14:17 PM633905396570000000supreme court dispatchesThis Case Is a DogDahlia LithwickfalseThe Supreme Court mauls the law banning animal-cruelty videos.noThis Case Is a DogThe Supreme Court mauls the law banning animal-cruelty videos.noWitness the American deputy solicitor general in his natural habitat—the Supreme Court. As Neal Katyal roams softly across the cool marble chamber, he has no idea what awaits him. He is here to protect his tribe—the U.S. government—which, in 1999, passed a statute making it a crime to create, sell, or possess "any visual or auditory depiction" of "animal cruelty" if the act of cruelty is itself illegal under either federal law or the law of the state in which the depiction occurred.truenotochyperlinkno200910680003PMTuesdayOctOctober2010/7/2009 12:00:03 AM633904560030000000200910680003PMTuesdayOctOctober2010/7/2009 12:00:03 AM633904560030000000200311442833PMTuesdayJanJanuary161/14/2003 9:28:33 PM631781585130000000200311442833PMTuesdayJanJanuary161/14/2003 9:28:33 PM631781585130000000falsetruetruetruetruetruetrue20011018111443PMThursdayOctOctober2310/19/2001 3:14:43 AM631390436830000000200181561241PMWednesdayAugAugust188/15/2001 10:12:41 PM631334959610000000