Welcome to Tuesday and game two of the Battle of the Beltways. Here are some pregame news items.

– A man who helped give rise to many a Constitutional Law and bar exam question has died.

– President Obama will play Pick Three.

– Millions may have overstayed their welcome.

– Roger Clemens may have cheated off the diamond.

Welcome to Monday and the start of a three-game home series against that team from New York. Here are some news items to get your week started.

– Did a town board in Greece (New York, again) violate the First Amendment with its pre-session prayer?

– Obama administration’s search for leakers reaches new high (or low).

– Evanston, Ill., residents hope their Chicago suburb becomes a no drone zone.

– Civil rights challenge to New York Police Department’s stop, question and frisk tactic nears conclusion.

Welcome to the Monday following a Blast of a weekend. Here are some items to get your week started.

– The Tennessee Legislature also has a dogfight.

– Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hits the big 8-0.

– Gideon v. Wainwright hits the half-century mark.

– Israelis urge President Barack Obama to free a spy.

Welcome to Monday and the day we honor 43 native-born Americans who, after attaining age 35, swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Here are some news items to get the week started.

– Should fledgling lawyers have to to serve a medical-style residency?

– President Barack Obama’s pick to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, a former Wall Street lawyer, might have to recuse herself from many decisions if confirmed.

– Passengers face rough seas when suing cruise-ship companies.

– Free legal aid for low-income military veterans opens in Ohio.

Welcome to this Monday of remembrance, prose and pageantry. Here are some news items to get your week started.

– American Civil Liberties Union ends abortion-related challenge in Kansas.

– Have prosecutors become more accepting of assisted-suicide defense?

– In India, defense lawyers say DNA does not provide iron-clad evidence.

– Police arrest Nevada legislator on threat-related charge.

Welcome to a Monday on which we continue to give thanks to those who fought to protect the freedom we hold so dear. Here are some news items to get the week started.

– Will Kirk Douglas play this London fraud defendant in the movie?

– Warning: This post is rated X (as we used to say before NC-17).

– Mr. Mayor, are you recording this call?

– In Detroit, a convicted murderer may get the chance to clear his name after 23 years.

Maryland state Sen. Jamin B. “Jamie” Raskin, D-Montgomery, wants voters heading to the polls to remember that the president has the authority to make appointments to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts — and that Robert Bork is among the legal advisers to the Republican ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Raskin, an ardent supporter of President Barack Obama, warned in Wednesday’s Huffington Post that a “Romney-Ryan-Bork court would lead to the uncorking of bottles of champagne throughout the boardrooms of America’s largest and most right-wing corporations.”

Romney appointees to the federal courts would lead to “an acceleration of all of the worst trends already ravaging the prospects of justice for ‘natural persons’ in America, including the destruction of what is left of campaign finance and disclosure laws as corporations assume all the political free speech rights of the people, a dramatic change ushered in by Citizens United in 2010,” Raskin added on the post’s Politics blog.

Raskin has been quite prolific recently, having written an op-ed piece in the New York Times last week calling for a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court ruled that “the government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether” under the First Amendment.

But Raskin, a widely respected constitutional law professor at American University, might need to brush up on his history.

In the Huffington Post piece he referred to Bork as as “the right-wing polemicist and former Bush Supreme Court nominee so extreme that he was rejected by a bipartisan coalition of Senators in 1987.”

“I think somebody must have changed that,” Raskin said of the error. “I very well know that Ronald Reagan is the one who made that mistake.”

Welcome to the post-Labor Day roundup, in which we celebrate the possibility that the Orioles might be tied for first place at the end of the day.

– Can this lawyer defend the First Amendment in 140 characters or less?

– Thirty days means 30 days.

– Obama v. Romney may be decided in the courts rather than at the polls.

– The U.S. Supreme Court has what some in the capital defense bar call a “death clerk.” (HT: How Appealing)

Welcome to mid-July and another mid-Atlantic scorcher. Here are some cool news items to start the week.

– You might not believe what some New York hospitals are doing to keep costs down.

– Judges in Lindsay Lohan case are not beyond reproach.

– Do lawyers in Supreme Court cases need an official scorer?

– Extras will be needed for “All the President’s Lawyers.”

LAW BLOG ROUNDUP BONUS: POLL RESULTS!

Last week, we asked you who you would like to see replace Robert M. Bell as chief judge on the Court of Appeals when Bell steps down next year.

A total of 142 people voted in the poll. Here are the top four choices:

1. Judge Mary Ellen Barbera, Court of Appeals — 32

2. Judge Lynne A. Battaglia, Court of Appeals — 31

3. Judge Albert J. Matricciani Jr., Court of Special Appeals — 20

4. Ralph S. Tyler, Esq. — 14

Welcome to a new week and the return of double-digit temperatures. Here are a few news items to accompany your Monday.

– SCOTUSblog examines how cable networks got the Affordable Care Act decision wrong.

– Be careful when tweeting in Bahrain.

– Lawyers for the president’s campaign say “‘‘O’ no you don’t” to merchandise website.

– Supreme Court receives constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s benefits exclusion.