David Garrow has this scathing review in the LA Times of Jeffrey Toobin's book on the Supreme Court, which he says "showcases debatable opinions rather than thorough research or original reporting."

Michael O'Donnell in the SF Chron is disappointed we still don't know where those gold stripes came from.

USA Today printed this excerpt last month, including this remarkable statement about the Federalist Society: "But the new generation of conservatives had more audacious goals. Indeed, they did not believe in judicial restraint, and they represented a new kind of judicial activism themselves."

In the Federalist Society, as in any organization of any size, there are people of many and varied opinions. Some do fit that description. But to say the group as a whole advocates a return to conservative judicial activism, such as we had in the Lochner era, is a bit absurd. Belief in judicial restraint is very much the majority view. Toobin is wrong on this. What else is he wrong about?