Quietly, O'Connor Fills In on Appellate Courts

(AP) - After 17 years as a federal judge, Sotomayor knows her way around a courthouse. But her new workplace is filled with quirky customs and rituals and questions about how to fit in. When do you speak up? How do you find your way around a building torn apart by renovation? If someone knocks at the door while the justices are meeting in their private conference room, who answers? (Note to the new kid: You do.) More»

First female Supreme Court justice's legacy uncertain

(NEWSER) - Even as Sandra Day O’Connor public profile as an advocate for Alzheimer’s disease research grows, the legal imprint of the first woman Supreme Court justice is fading, USA Today reports. Since her departure, the Roberts court has shifted course on abortion and retreated from positions supported by her swing vote on affirmative action and campaign finance. More»

Justices citing definitions more and more in decisions

(NEWSER) - John Roberts may be the chief justice of the United States, but he recently pulled out a dictionary to learn the meaning of “of” for a ruling. Justices are looking more and more to dictionaries to help them settle cases—a trend that worries both legal experts and dictionary makers, the New York Times reports. “I think that it’s probably wrong, in almost all situations, to use a dictionary in the courtroom,” says an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. Among the words looked up: "now," "if," and even "attorney." More»

John O'Connor, 79, suffered Alzheimer's complications

(AP) - John J. O'Connor III, the husband of retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, died today at age 79 due to complications arising from Alzheimer's disease. John O'Connor, himself a lawyer, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's nearly two decades ago. His condition deteriorated markedly in mid-decade and when she announced her retirement in 2005, the justice cited the need to care for her husband. More»

They seem ready to strike down law

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court seems likely to back an appellate court ruling that said depictions of animal cruelty are protected as free speech by the First Amendment. In arguments today, the justices considered the case of a man convicted of selling dogfighting videos under a 1999 law that equates videos of animal cruelty with child pornography. Most of the justices seemed to be of the opinion that the law’s definition of banned content is too vague, notes USA Today. More»