I ran across Justices take the measure of fish case:  In Plain English for SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe, posted on November 5. (I was looking for something to write about, and while you can expect some posts about getting your estate planning in order by 12/31, that would be a snoozer for post #251.) So what’s this fish case aka Grouper-Gate about?

John Yates, a commercial fisherman, got caught with 72 little red groupers, found among 3000 or so other fish. The fish were too small to be legal. (Yes, while there are people who argue that no person is an “illegal,” a caught fish most definitely can be.) Mr. Yates only had 69 little fish when he reached

Tuesday is Supreme Court day here at Mark Rubin Writes. Alas, on the first Tuesday in November in even numbered years, we also have federal elections, which brings to mind a natural nexus between the Court and elections. What‘s the nexus, you ask. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205.

Many have heard much about Citizens United. The big play is “corporations are people, my friend,” the statement from Governor Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign. Here’s a bit of reality about what Citizens United did and did not do, and why it has helped in furthering the destruction of our politics.

Citizens United began as a case about whether the Federal Elections Commission has the constitutional

Not too much going on at the Supreme Court, as the justices get ready for oral arguments beginning on November 3. Before you read on, though, do take a look at Jeffrey Toobin’s October 27 article for the New Yorker, The Obama Brief. It’s a fine review of what is not evident in the day-to-day hubbub:  If not another federal judge gets confirmed—and this could happen if the Senate turns—President Obama has left his mark on the federal judiciary for many, many years.

I ran across Novels Every Supreme Court Justice Should Read by Garrett Epps for The Atlantic on December 17, 2013. Not a single modern novel or best seller appears. Recommenders are Robert Ferguson, a law

Monday afternoon, I attended a lecture at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe spoke for two hours, with a final one-hour panel—I had to dash—led by MRW reader Gary Stuart. For lay readers, it takes someone special for me to give up an afternoon, drive to Tempe, walking onto the ASU campus, etc., and this one was an easy call! (Three hours of continuing education credits—the early departure left me with two—factored into my decision to attend.)

The lecture grew out of Professor Tribe’s new book, Uncertain Justice:  The Roberts Court and the Constitution. Professor Tribe focused on four segments, or quartets, given each about 30 minutes.

Appellate attorneys handle cases in appellate courts. Some of us who don’t specialize as much as others handle appeals as part of a regular practice. (I think I have argued about 25 appellate cases over the past 30+ years.) For others, though, it’s all they do.

Then there is the Supreme Court bar. If there’s a formal organization I’m not aware of it, and I—like many, many thousands of others—am admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. (Why get admitted to practice before the Court, when having a case before the Court is highly unlikely. Here’s the answer, in “For Lawyers, Joining the Supreme Court Bar is a Vanity Trip” by Orin Kerr.)

No, the Supreme Court bar