Louisiana Seeks Review of Kennedy v. Louisiana: As noted in the News Scan below, Louisiana has moved for rehearing in this case. SCOTUSblog has a post from Lyle Denniston on Louisiana's request. The Petition for Rehearing, was filed late this afternoon. According to Denniston the Petition asks the Court to grant the petition for rehearing and cites to Kennedy's omission of any mention of a federal law for the execution of a child rapist. Since petitions for rehearing are rarely granted, the Petition suggests that if the Court denies rehearing, it should at least seek comments from the U.S. Solicitor General.

NYT Watch: Jim Lindgren at Volokh Conspiracy has this post reporting on New York Times' decision to reject an editorial, written by John McCain, in response to last week's Obama editorial. According to Lindgren, The Drudge Report has a full copy of McCain's editorial. The New York Times Op-Ed Editor, David Shipley, said he would not accept the piece as currently written.

The Exclusionary Rule and Originalism: Also over at Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr has posted his thoughts on whether the exclusionary rule is consistent with orginalism. Kerr states that while many critics say the doctrine is the product of judicial invention, he believes "the exclusionary rule is much more consistent with originalism than its critics believe." To support his argument, Kerr looks at the government's authority to seize property during the early days of the Constitution. He says, "as [he] understands it," "a seizure was permitted if and only if the government had a superior property interest in the item seized." Kerr then argues, that only in cases where the government could actually obtain a warrant, could the government lawfully seize property. It "could not get a warrant to search for and seize mere evidence of crime." Under this rationale, Kerr says evidence improperly seized had to be returned, and if the owner so desired, was excluded from court. To finish up his thoughts, Kerr states "tougher cases for an originalist came later, when the Supreme Court had to determine the scope of the exclusionary rule" and the exclusionary remedy "morphed from a rule about the return of property stolen from a suspect to a rule that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment." It was with later cases, like Silverthorne Lumber v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) that the Supreme Court began using the exclusionary rule as a remedy to deter abuses by suppressing evidence.
Update: Paul Cassell responds here, also at VC.