Shield Laws, Judicial Appointments, and Mandatory Recusals
Generally, as a matter of blogging fundamentals, I'm not a fan of the "round-up" post. But on the last Saturday in October, with the weather as nice as it is and my beloved Ole Miss Rebels on TV, it just wouldn't be right to spend the afternoon blogging. Still, a couple of items caught my eye this morning.
First, The New York Times reports that, at long last, Congress and the White House are close to carving out a meaningful shield law to protect reporters against federal subpoenas.
Next, the AP has an interesting analysis on the atypical routes taken by several recent appointees, including newly minted Circuit Judge Malcolm Harrison, to Mississippi courts.
And last but not least, The National Law Journal takes note of congressional Democrats' continuing efforts to develop guidelines under which federal judges would be required to recuse themselves.
First, The New York Times reports that, at long last, Congress and the White House are close to carving out a meaningful shield law to protect reporters against federal subpoenas.
Next, the AP has an interesting analysis on the atypical routes taken by several recent appointees, including newly minted Circuit Judge Malcolm Harrison, to Mississippi courts.
And last but not least, The National Law Journal takes note of congressional Democrats' continuing efforts to develop guidelines under which federal judges would be required to recuse themselves.




Comments