Court Hears Successive Petitions Case: Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Magwood v. Patterson (09-158), a case addressing whether a federal habeas petition challenging a new sentence is a "second or successive" claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) if the petitioner could have challenged his first sentence on the same constitutional grounds.  On SCOTUSblog, Erin Miller posts podcasts from counsel for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Professor John Blume, and the Solicitor General of Alabama, Corey Maze.  Blume argues that the courts should consider Magwood's due process claim, because this is the first petition challenging his 1986 death sentence.  He says the argument is supported by the language of 28 U.S.C. §2244(b).  Solicitor General Corey Maze disagrees.  He begins by asserting that we "are listening to a podcast that never should have been recorded."  According to Maze, Magwood was ordered to raise the claim at issue today in a habeas petition in 1983, "which would have resolved this issue conclusively in 1986."  Maze argues that petitioners get one, but only one, full and fair opportunity to litigate a habeas claim-- they cannot wait 14 years (as Magwood did) to raise a claim.

A Bill To Ban Sex Offenders from Social Networking Websites:  On Sex Crimes, Corey Rayburn Yung reports on California Assembly Bill 2208, which would make it a misdemeanor for any person required to register as a sex offender to use any Internet social network, such as Facebook.  According to a San Francisco Gate article written by Marissa Lagos, the California bill is similar to legislation recently passed in Illinois, and less severe than a New York law that also requires sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses and online aliases with state authorities, who can then turn over the names to the companies that run the social networking sites.  Facebook attorney Chris Kelly notes that it is often difficult for social networking sites to identify sex offenders without knowing how they identify themselves online.  He says the bill is "a good start.  But it needs to be strengthened."

"Active Liberty" vs. Originalism:  At Blog of Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports that last night, Justices Scalia and Breyer "reprised their debate" over how to interpret the Constitution.  According to Mauro, in a debate hosted by the Supreme Court Historical Society, Justices Scalia and Breyer challenged each other over statutory construction, "with Scalia insisting that looking to the words of the law and nothing else is the best way to discern its meaning."  Justice Breyer disagreed, and according to Ashby Jones on Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, asserted that the Constitution allows the Court "to better carry out that initial intent that this document will in fact govern a changing society as society changes over the course of centuries."  Josh Blackmun posts "a (near) transcript" from the debate on his blog.

More On Goodwin Liu:  At NRO's Bench Memos, Ed Whelan posts a link to his NRO essay, Unsound and Unfit: Goodwin Liu is President Obama's worst judicial nominee . . . so far.  Howard Bashman also rounds up media coverage on Liu's postponed hearings on his website, How Appealing. Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, commented on the delayed hearings in this Press Release.