It’s official – today is the day the Supreme Court justices consider the widely debated challenge to the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul.

The court will hear a challenge brought by a group of Republican governors and attorneys general from 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individual plaintiffs.

There are multiple issues in the case, but the key question is whether or not Congress overstepped its constitutional powers when it required most individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty.

The court expects to hear oral arguments in March, and a decision is expected by the end of June – which puts the court’s ruling right in the heat of battle of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Those opposed to the law see the requirement that all Americans carry insurance as an “unprecedented intrusion on individual liberty”, according to the November 14^th wsj.com article, “Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Health Law”. They argue Congress is not allowed to use its interstate commerce powers to regulate citizens who choose not to participate in the health-insurance market.

The Obama administration justifies the insurance mandate with the following logic, per the wsj.com article: because the uninsured impose enormous costs on the United States health care system, requiring coverage is a legitimate way to address this national crisis. In addition, requiring coverage is a critical part of the insurance reform, “which require insurers to accept all prospective customers, even if they have pre-existing medical conditions.”

Per the article, in a statement today, the White House was quoted as saying: “We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

Also per the article, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who has attempted to repeal the law, was quoted as having said it “represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American”, and has requested the Supreme Court strike it down.

If that happens, it has said it will rule on the remainder of the health care package. Those opposed to so called “Obamacare” want to nullify the entire thing. However, the Obama administration believes the majority of the law’s provisions that aren’t connected to the mandate should remain in place even if the insurance requirement is struck down.

The article speculates that all eyes, and ears, will be on Justice Antonin Scalia. A conservative justice, he joined two rulings in 1995 and 2000 that placed limits Congress’ commerce power. However, Justice Scalia, in 2005, embraced a broader view of that power in 2005, saying Congress had the authority to prohibit seriously ill Californians from growing marijuana for their personal medical use, even though a state law allowed it.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The law (along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) is the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress. PPACA reforms certain aspects of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs, increases insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions, expands access to insurance to over 30 million Americans, and increases projected national medical spending despite lowering projected Medicare spending under previous law.

• Obama and Arizona Governor Caught in Heated Conversation on Tarmac
• U.S. Supreme Court Stays Execution of Man Attorneys Say Was Unfairly Sentenced Due to Question About Race During Trial
• Obama Announces Bid for Re-election in 2012
• Morning Roundup
• Democrats Introduce Supreme Court Ethics Bill

Yesterday, just hours before it was scheduled to take place, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the execution of Duane Buck, aged 48, after his attorneys appealed his sentence, saying it was unfair because of a question asked during the trial about his race. Buck is black.

According to the September 15th msnbc.com article, “Supreme Court halts killer’s execution in Texas”, during Buck’s trial, psychologist Walter Quijano testified “that black criminals are more likely to be violent again in the future.” When considering a death sentence, Texas jurors must decide if someone “could be a continuing threat to society” – one of three questions they must take into consideration.

Buck was convicted in 1997 of a murdering Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. Buck was convicted of shooting his former girlfriend, Gardner, and her alleged boyfriend, Butler, after Buck’s relationship ended with Gardner the week before in July 1995.  Gardner and Butler were with friends at Gardner’s house on July 30. Buck shot them both with a shotgun, killing Butler first, then Gardner, while Gardner’s children witnessed the shooting. Buck also shot his sister, but she survived.

Police arrested Buck at the scene, and according to the police report, Buck, when being arrested, laughed and said of Gardner: “The bitch deserved what she got.”

The issue at hand is not whether or not Buck committed the murders, it’s that his attorneys feel the jury may have been unfairly influenced, and that Buck should have a new hearing for sentencing.

Per the msnbc.com article, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said in a 2000 news release that six capital case sentences, including Buck’s, should be reviewed because of Quijano’s testimony at their trials.

The five other cases were reopened, reviewed, the sentencing hearings repeated, and the defendants again were sentenced to death. Per the msbnc.com article, prosecutors believe Buck’s case is different from these and “that the racial reference was a small part of a larger testimony about the prison population.”

An appeal for clemency was put before Texas Gov. Rick Perry, staunch supporter of capital punishment. Perry is currently the Republican favored for the GOP presidential nomination. During Perry’s 11 years in office, 235 convicted killers have been put to death in Texas. Also during that time, he has only chosen to halt four executions, including one for an inmate who was subsequently put to death.

Given Perry’s support of capital punishment, as well as the fact that he said during a presidential debate that “he has never been troubled by any of the executions he’s overseen as governor”, per the msnbc.com article, has thrust Perry into politically charged territory; those opposed to capital punishment are watching his actions closely.

• Team of Weil Attorneys Help Wrongfully Imprisoned Man Win Increased Compensation
• Supreme Court Will Rule on Affordable Care Act
• Justice Roberts Questions Attendance at State of the Union
• Man Sentenced To Death For Developing Pornography Website
• Sotomayor talks about her diabetes with kids

ustice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Supreme Court justice known to have diabetes explains to a group of diabetic children that their goals are still within their reach. Telling the story of her diagnosis the judge conveys a positive message about her affliction even gave her discipline.

Read the original article here:

Sotomayor Tells Kids Their Diabetes Diagnosis Won’t Limit Their Accomplishments

• Six Justices to Attend SOTU
• Obama Supreme Court Pick Coming By May 26
• Supreme Court Will Rule on Affordable Care Act
• U.S. Supreme Court Stays Execution of Man Attorneys Say Was Unfairly Sentenced Due to Question About Race During Trial
• Supreme Court asks 3rd circuit to reconsider decision

After ten days the U.S Supreme Court upheld the Legal Arizona Workers Act. It penalizes employers who knowingly hire unauthorized foreign workers, since knowingly hiring unauthorized foreign workers is against the law. On Monday, Justices ordered that the 3rd circuit to consider a decision that struck down a similar ordinance passed in Hazleton, PA.

Read the original article here:

Justices Order Another Look at Hazleton Immigration Measures

• Obama and Arizona Governor Caught in Heated Conversation on Tarmac
• Arizona Man Jailed for Sending Nude Photo of Minor
• Supreme Court Will Rule on Affordable Care Act
• U.S. Supreme Court Stays Execution of Man Attorneys Say Was Unfairly Sentenced Due to Question About Race During Trial
• Arizona law firm goes hi-tech with clients

The partnership has approved DLA Piper’s merger with its Australian partner…

Congress has reached a deal to temporarily avoid a shutdown…

Democrats in Congress have introduced an ethics bill that would cover the Supreme Court…

Barnes & Thornburg is entering the LA market…

and Gibson Dunn had a record breaking year in 2010…

• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• Weekend Review
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup

Under legislation introduced today by Democrats Chris Murphy and Anthony Weiner, Supreme Court Justices would be required to explain their reasons for recusing or not recusing from a particular case, and if a Justice turns down a motion to disqualify it would permit the remaining justices to remove them from the case.

The legislation follows on the heels of a letter signed by more than 100 law professors and legal ethicists urging reform of the recusal process.  Although the consensus of most ethecists is that some kind of reform is needed, Stephen Gillers, a highly respected legal ethicist at New York University School of Law, broke ranks over the recusal issue.  According to Gillers, allowing justices to remove each other could spoil the Court’s collegiality and lead to the perception that a politicized Court is trying to affect the outcome of cases by removing justices that disagree on a particular issue.

• Supreme Court Will Rule on Affordable Care Act
• Morning Roundup
• The World According to Scalia
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup

We can only speculate, but we can express a high level of confidence in saying that it will be Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Bryer, Sotomayor and Kagan.  Justice Alito, who has said he would not attend future SOTU’s after last years attack on the Court by President Obama, is in Hawaii for a speech to the state’s bar association.  We wish we were there as well; it’s sure to be a much more comfortable place from which to watch a speech in the middle of winter.  Justice Thomas has expressed concerns that the speech is a highly partisan event and rarely attends and Justice Scalia also typically sits it out.

Scalia has gone so far as to call the event “… a juvenile spectacle”.  I’m not sure how that fits into his doctrine of originalism, given that this “juvenile spectacle” is a constitutionally mandated function of the office.

• The World According to Scalia
• Sotomayor talks about her diabetes with kids
• State of the Union Preview
• Kagan Confirmation Nears Final Vote
• Kagan Confirmation Approved by Judiciary Committee

Originalism is a doctrine, or more accurately a family of doctrines, that can be used to interpret the Constitution.  An originalist interpretation of the Constitution looks to the meaning as it was understood at the time of writing.  For example, an originalist interpretation of the 8th amendment, barring cruel and unusual punishment, would only consider a punishment cruel if it was considered cruel in the 18th century.  By contrast, a non originalist reading would stick to the text but would examine modern standards of cruelty to determine if a punishment was in violation.   Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas are the country’s leading originalists, but the doctrine has become increasingly popular, primarily but not exclusively among the right wing.

The 14th amendment reads in part “nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  The Court wasted little time in finding that this clause, referred to as the “equal protection clause”, protected citizens from state sponsored discrimination based on race.  The original rulings were narrow however and permitted the creation of all white and all black schools, for example, so long as the facilities were equal.  The “separate but equal” doctrine was famously overturned in 1954 in Brown v Board of Education.  However, the Court rejected numerous attempts to apply the equal protection clause to cases of discrimination based on gender until a unanimous Court ruled in 1971 that a state could not enforce a law that mandated males be given preference over females as estate executors in probate court (Reed v Reed).  As a side note, one of the attorneys that argued the case was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself a Supreme Court Justice today.  It has been a matter of settled law in the years to follow that the government can not discriminate on the basis of gender, along with race and ethnicity.  Yet despite his supposed respect of stare decisis, Scalia was the sole dissenting vote in a 1996 case that forced the Virginia Military Institute to end its practice of denying women the right to attend.

Scalia and the 14th amendment are back in the news because of the recent publication of an interview he gave back in November in which he said, among other things, “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.”

Justice Scalia apparently believes that the Constitution is meant to be read as a limitation on the rights of the people rather than a limitation on the power of the state.  For nearly a century, women’s rights activists attempted to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban government sponsored discrimination based on sex, and after repeated setbacks the Equal Rights Amendment was finally passed by both houses of Congress in 1972 and sent to the states for ratification.  All told, 35 states ratifies, 3 shy of the 38 required.  Five of those states have since rescinded their ratifications, although the validity of those rescissions is in dispute.  The bill passed by Congress in 1972 required ratification to occur by 1979, later extended to 1982, but no additional states ratified and the amendment is considered to be dead in the water today.  Under Scalia’s interpretation, the failure of the states to ratify is an open invitation for continued discrimination based on gender. 

Although even a rightward leaning Court is unlikely to reverse 40 years of anti discriminatory rulings, Scalia’s interpretation of the 14th amendment has plenty of allies, particularly when it is applied to discrimination based on sexual orientation.  As the Proposition 8 case from California works its way through the system to the almost certain appeal to the Supreme Court, Scalia’s interview leaves little doubt as to how he would rule.

• Six Justices to Attend SOTU
• Prop 8 Argument Recap
• Democrats Introduce Supreme Court Ethics Bill
• Judge Rules Against California’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban
• Morning Roundup

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens gave an interview to 60 Minutes…

New York and Southern California law firms registered a slight increase in terms of revenue growth…

• New York Firms Revenue Show Slight Hike, Research Reveals
• Justice Stevens Opens Up
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup

In a twelve and a half minute segment that also features comments from former Justice David Souter, Stevens talks about several important cases including Bush v Gore, the Guantanamo cases and Citizens United.  When asked about partisan motivations in Bush v Gore, Stevens said that the majority was “profoundly wrong” while declining to question the motives of his fellow justices.  In between talking about the law, Stevens took the film crew behind the scenes and gave viewers a look at parts of the Court rarely seen by the public, including the cloak room which has never before been filmed for broadcast TV.

• Morning Roundup
• Kagan Keeps It Cool On Day Two
• The Kagan Hearings Begin
• Morning Roundup
• Obama Supreme Court Pick Coming By May 26

Karen Ramdhanie, 48, said in a recent complaint filed in Manhattan Supreme Court that on the eve of the layoffs, two white male associates were moved out of her group, leaving just black and female lawyers, who were then laid off.

“They were so blatant in their discrimination,” Ramdhanie told the NYLJ.

The complaint goes on to say that two days after the layoffs took place, the London-based firm announced year-end bonuses of $35,000 to $65,000 and a “special bonus” of $50,000 because the firm had “done extremely well in 2007.”

Because she had been laid off, Ramdhanie was not eligible for the bonus, in spite of her claim she worked late into the night for 11 months on 33 transactions.

According to the complaint, she is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, and age. She also is asking for a letter of apology from Clifford Chance and requesting that the firm revise its hiring and firing policies with regard to black associates, reports the NYLJ. Ramdhanie, who has been unemployed since being laid off, is representing herself in the suit, the NYLJ reports.

Clifford Chance has faced discrimination-related litigation before. In 2005, Muslim associate Asma Hasan claimed she was wrongfully dismissed and subject to religious discrimination when she was fired in 2004. Two years ago, Caroline Memnon, a black associate of Haitian descent, sued the firm for firing her in 2002 and making it difficult to find a job elsewhere. The firm offered her a settlement of $350,000, The American Lawyer reported in March.

The firm declined to comment to the NYLJ.

• Morning Roundup
• Clifford Chance Head Predicts Office In India By 2010
• New York Judges May Get Pay Raises Soon
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup

Grayson’s action would have targeted the law offices of David J. Stern, Marshall C. Watson, and Shapiro & Fishman, which represent about 80 percent of the foreclosure proceedings in the state.

The court’s response, issued Tuesday, said the Florida Constitution and court rules did not give the Chief Justice authority to intercede in pending cases involving attorney misconduct, or to investigate allegations of fraud or misconduct in foreclosure cases. The fraud cases must first be ajudicated in trial courts, according to the response.

Florida has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation.

• Florida’s Attorney General Issues Subpoenas To Law Firms Alleged To Have Fabricated Documents
• Morning Roundup
• Supreme Court Will Rule on Affordable Care Act
• Law Firm Forced To Resign
• Chief Claiming False Allegations

The ACLU will represent defense lawyers against U.S. Homeland Security…

According to a CT TyMetrix Inc. and The Corporate Executive  Board survey, billing rates in Washington, D.C. are the second highest in the U.S….

The Quellos Group owners pled guilty to fraud and tax evasion…

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was ruled unconstitutional in California’s 9th District…

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from 10 more cases…

Law School admissions officers survey tells prospective students how to prepare…

Burleson Cooke added nine attorneys to its Pittsburgh office…

• “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Ruled Unconstitutional in California’s 9th District
• Quellos Group Owners Plead Guilty to Fraud and Tax Evasion
• ACLU to Represent Defense Lawyers Against U.S. Homeland Security
• Billing Rates in Washington, D.C. Are Second Highest in the U.S.
• Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to Recuse Herself from 11 More Cases

Largely, the original cases Justice Kagan had excused herself from were cases upon which she was counsel of record as solicitor general before her confirmation in early August.  This newer group of 10 cases represent ones Kagan had been involved in in their earlier stages.  Two of the cases she will not participate in which she has signed no-participation slips are Premo v. Moore and County of Los Angeles v. Humphries.

In a letter to Alabama’s Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, Kagan wrote, “If I personally reviewed a draft pleading or participated in discussions to formulate the government’s litigating position, then I would recuse myself from a case.”  Along with the previously mentioned cases, Kagan has recused herself from Henderson v. Shinseki, Thompson v. North American Stainless, Gould v. United States, Harrington v. Richter, Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, and Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics.

Kagan’s other 11 cases from which she previously recused herself are Abbott v. United States, Michigan v. Bryant, NASA v. Nelson. Flores-Villar v. Unitred States, United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, Costco v. Omega, Staub v. Proctor Hospital, Williamson v. Mazda Motor Company of America, Sossamon v. Texas, Mayo Foundation v. United States, and Pepper v. United States.

• Morning Roundup
• Kagan Confirmation Nears Final Vote
• Kagan Keeps It Cool On Day Two
• Kagan Confirmed As 112th Supreme Court Justice
• Morning Roundup

Former Merrill Lynch counsel John Bevilacqua joined Fulbright…

Johnsrun and Knuesel, LLC, based in Winona, Minnesota, took over court-appointed counsel in Houston County…

Dallas-based law firm Goldfarb Branham LLP launched an investigation into Marlin Equity Partners buyout of Phoenix Technologies…

Howrey’s Jerrold Ganzfried assumed Chairmanship of ABA’s Council of Apellate Lawyers…

• Howrey’s Jerrold Ganzfried Assumes Chairmanship of ABA’s Council of Apellate Lawyers
• Johnsrun And Knuesel LLC Appointed Court-Appointed Counsel In Houston County, Minn.
• Goldfarb Branham LLP Launches Investigation Into Phoenix Buyout
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup

Mr. Ganzfried is one of the original founders of the Council, which is the only nationwide bench-bar organization devoted to appellate courts and practice. The Council seeks to foster a dialogue among federal and state appellate judges and lawyers that will improve appellate advocacy and the administration of justice.

As Chairman of the Council, Mr. Ganzfried will also sit on the Board of Directors of the Appellate Judges Education Institute (AJEI) and on the Executive Committee of the ABA’s Appellate Judges Conference. These entities work closely with the Council.

Throughout his career, Mr. Ganzfired has handled the largest, most complex and most sensitive cases for major national and international firms. His vast experience includes litigating a broad range of cases and arguing appeals for the foremost companies in a variety of industries, including high technology, oil and gas, and financial services. He has served as counsel in many of the landmark antitrust, securities and intellectual property cases decided in the past two decades by the Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals.

Mr. Ganzfried’s most recent successes include the reversal on appeal of a judgment arising from a dispute in a $100 million real estate transaction. In the past five years, he has won high-profile appeals involving the savings and loan industry crisis, securities class actions, a contract/patent licensing dispute over cutting-edge biotechnology, and one of the largest corporate tax cases ever reversed on appeal.

According to the August 17 article at citbizlist.com, Mr. Ganzfried was quoted as saying: “I look forward to the coming year. The Council is dedicated to the professional development of appellate lawyers through creative, effective programs and productive dialogue with judges who sit on appellate courts at all levels across the country. I am honored to have been asked to serve.”

Founded in 1956, Howrey LLP is a global law firm with over 625 attorneys and more than 35 economic, financial and regulatory consultants. A consistent American Lawyer “A-List” and PLC Which Lawyer? “Global 50″ firm, Howrey is one of the most frequently used law firms by the world’s leading companies.

• Morning Roundup
• Little Sympathy Given By ABA To Jobless Lawyers
• ABA Tells Judge not to Overrule Denial of Duncan School of Law
• No Holiday Break For The Lawyers Working On The Howrey Delay
• Denying Accreditation Gets ABA Sued

California voters banned same-sex marriage through Proposition 8 in November 2008. That came just months after the state Supreme Court had legalized same-sex unions, which resulted in an estimated 18,000 gay couples getting married in the state.

In his ruling Thursday, Walker said that proponents of the ban failed to convince him that anyone would be harmed by allowing same-sex marriages to resume.

“The evidence at trial showed, however, that Proposition 8 harms the state of California,” Walker said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who along with Attorney General Jerry Brown support same-sex marriage, said Judge Walker’s decision to lift the stay “provide all Californians the liberties I believe everyone deserves.”

According to the AP, the case will now go before a special “motions panel” that consists of three judges at the appeals court.

• Morning Roundup
• California Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Regarding Gay Marriage Ban
• California’s Proposition 8 Trial Will be Broadcast
• Judge Rules Against California’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban
• Supreme Court Blocks Broadcast of Prop 8 Trial

Prior to tomorrow’s swearing in ceremony, Kagan is scheduled to celebrate her confirmation in a White House ceremony with President Barack Obama Friday.

Obama called Kagan’s confirmation vote “an affirmation of (Kagan’s) character and her temperament, her open-mindedness and evenhandedness, her determination to hear all sides of every story and consider all possible arguments,” following yesterday’s landmark confirmation vote.

Kagan, 50, will become the fourth female justice in the in the history of the Supreme Court and its first in nearly 40 years to serve the high court with no previous judicial experience.

• Obama Expects Quick Action in Replacing Justice Stevens
• Morning Roundup
• Kagan Confirmed As 112th Supreme Court Justice
• Kagan Confirmation Nears Final Vote
• Morning Roundup

Support for Kagan included all but one Democrat in the Senate, five Republicans and two independents, the Associated Press reports. Kagan is a former Harvard Law dean and U.S. Solicitor General.

The Associated Press pointed out this will be the first time in history that three women will serve on the court. While Republicans sounded alarms over the potential “liberal activism” of Kagan, most experts believe Kagan’s appointment will have little effect on the ideological balance of the court. She is replacing Justice John Paul Stevens, who was widely considered the leader of its liberal wing.

“I believe she understands that judges and justices must realize how the law affects Americans each and every day. That understanding is fundamental,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman. With her confirmation, he said, “the Supreme Court will better reflect the diversity that made our country great,” the AP reports.

• Kagan Confirmation Nears Final Vote
• Morning Roundup
• Kagan Confirmation Approved by Judiciary Committee
• Kagan Looks Good To Go With Hearings Ended
• Elena Kagan Nominated By Obama For Supreme Court

In his ruling, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of San Francisco ruled Proposition 8 violated the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution because it limits the ability of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice, the Associated Press reports.

“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge wrote. “Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals and could wind up before the Supreme Court. Proposition 8 was approved by 52.3 percent of California voters in November 2008.

• Stay Lifted in California Same-Sex Marriage Ban
• California Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Regarding Gay Marriage Ban
• Supporters of Proposition 8 Argue for Right to Appeal
• Morning Roundup
• Supreme Court Blocks Broadcast of Prop 8 Trial

The Associated Press called Kagan’s confirmation a near-certainty as all Democrats and even a “handful” of Republican Senators are on board with the Solicitor General’s nomination. She would become the fourth woman to serve on the nation’s high court.

Kagan’s biggest critic Tuesday was Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who questioned her qualifications and said Kagan would seek to push her own agenda rather than be an objective judge.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., countered that Kagan’s views are “mainstream” and that she has “demonstrated her respect for the rule of law, her appreciation for the separation of powers, and her understanding of the meaning of our Constitution.”

Kagan would replace retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who was a leader of the court’s liberal wing.

• Kagan Confirmation Approved by Judiciary Committee
• Kagan Confirmed As 112th Supreme Court Justice
• Morning Roundup
• Senate Committee Delays Kagan Vote
• Obama Expects Quick Action in Replacing Justice Stevens

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, the firm expects with some confidence to have an office in Bombay by as soon as late 2012.  By then, Clifford, as well as number of other firms, hope that the ban will have been lifted.  For now, another suit is scheduled to be heard next week that will address whether foreign lawyers are even allowed to give clients advice in India at all.  The case is expected to end up before the country’s Supreme Court as India’s government continues feel pressure from such fronts as the British banking lobby.

Clifford Chance is one of the world’s leading law firms with 29 offices in 20 countries and 3,600 legal advisors globally. The firm is structured around six global practice areas: Banking and Finance, Capital Markets, Corporate/M&A, Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Real Estate, and Tax, Pensions and Employment.

• Baker & McKenzie Enters Turkey Market Via Exclusive Relationship with Turkish Law Firm
• Former Female Associate Files Discrimination Suit Against Clifford Chance
• Chadbourne Announces New Brazil Office
• King & Spalding Announces Plans to Open Office in Moscow; Hires Five Attorneys
• Squire, Sanders & Dempsey Expands Global Finance Capability in NY Office

BuckleySandler added three attorneys to its practice…

Head of Clifford Chance’s UK fund practice left for Simpson…

A Reed Smith partner committed suicide…

Wachtell topped the Vault Law 100 again…

Kagan’s confirmation was approved by judiciary committee…

Adam Taliaferro joined Duane Morris…

• Wachtell Again Atop Vault Law 100
• BuckleySandler Gains Three Counsel
• Morning Roundup
• Kagan Confirmation Approved by Judiciary Committee
• Adam Taliaferro Joins Duane Morris

According to the Associated Press, Sen. Lindsey Graham was the lone Republican to vote in favor of Kagan. The vote was 13-6.

All signs point to Kagan’s nomination going before the full Senate before the Congress takes its monthlong summer break on Aug. 7. Following Tuesday’s vote, Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sounded confident of Kagan’s chances. “Elena Kagan will be confirmed,” he told the AP. “She will go on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Kagan currently serves as Solicitor General and was nominated by President Obama to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. She would be the fourth female justice to ever serve the nation’s high court.

• Kagan Confirmation Nears Final Vote
• Morning Roundup
• Kagan Confirmed As 112th Supreme Court Justice
• Morning Roundup
• Senate Committee Delays Kagan Vote

DLA Piper was ranked first by deal volume in global mergers and acquisitions in the first half of 2010…

A Cadwalader partner earned M&A Advisor Honor…

Reed Smith added four partners to its energy group…

Brownstein added two new partners to its practice…

The Senate Judiciary Committee delayed a preliminary vote on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan…

The Gibson law firm introduced a BP claims service…

Former U.S. Senator and HUD secretary Mel Martinez left DLA Piper for JP Morgan Chase & Co…

• Reed Smith Adds Four to Energy Group
• Morning Roundup
• Brownstein Adds Two New Partners To Stable
• The Gibson Law Firm Introduces BP Claims Service
• Morning Roundup

Reuters reports Republican committee member Jeff Sessions gained the one-week postponement by invoking his right as a member of the panel. Despite the delay in the preliminary vote,  Kagan remains on track to be confirmed by the full Senate next month.

Kagan is under consideration to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. She completed four days of questioning by the Judiciary Committee on July 1.

According to Reuters, Republicans continue to question whether Kagan will be motivated more by politics than by law when serving the high court. As a result, her expected confirmation is likely to be along party lines.

• Kagan Confirmation Nears Final Vote
• Morning Roundup
• Kagan Confirmation Approved by Judiciary Committee
• Morning Roundup
• Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to Recuse Herself from 11 More Cases

The answer to that is simple: If confirmation is based on how a nominee to the Court will judge, what’s the point of an independent judiciary?

The problem here is not that Kagan, like her predecessors, was unwilling to indicate how she might rule on a particular case of issue, nor is the problem that she, again like those who came before her, insisted that she would be a neutral arbiter even though she certainly has strong pre formed opinions on a variety of issues.  The problem is that the Senate has decided that its role in the confirmation process is to screen potential justices for their judicial philosophies rather than for their judicial competence.

Senator Hatch, who has announced his personal intent to vote against confirmation, implicitly made this point clear when he reminded us during the hearings that “elections have consequences”.  A president, regardless of political affiliation, is going to nominate justices that share his judicial philosophies and no amount of advising from the Senate can change that.  Trying to pin down a nominees judicial philosophy is more about rallying support for the political bases of the two parties and shoring up the liberal/conservative credentials of the Senators on the committee.  At the same time, the nominees understand the importance of appearing neutral.  The Court already suffers from public perception problems, in part driven by the use of wedge issues in political campaigns by both parties and in part due to the Court’s own refusal to open oral arguments up for broadcast.  If a nominee were to appear to have prejudged any issue it would further erode the confidence in the independent judiciary.

That the Senate is more concerned with political opportunism than with vetting the competence of a judicial nominee is made clear on the first day of the hearings.  Although the stated intent of the hearings is to learn more about the nominee, instead they open with the preposterous exercise of each Senator making a speech while the nominee sits quietly like a stage prop.

So the hearings remain, as Kagan herself one famously said, “a vapid and hollow charade”.  She was speaking about the refusal of nominee to answer specific questions, but the real charade Is that the Senators are doing anything more than trying to score political points.

Although the hearings were essentially useless in determining Kagan’s qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice, they did provide a preview of the political narrative that the two parties will be using in upcoming elections.  The Democrats are returning to their working class roots by aligning themselves as the anti-corporate party.  We can expect to see them continue to attack the right wing as being out of touch with the interests of every day Americans through their attacks on several key cases.  Citizen’s United, the Ledbetter case, mandatory arbitration provisions, and limitations on standing all played key roles in the speeches and questions from Democrats.  Also mentioned frequently was Loving v Virginia, which may be a prelude to increased support for legalizing gay marriage.  Republicans will continue to play the judicial activism card, under increased pressure from Democrats who are attempting to label the Roberts Court as conservative activists, while pointing at issues like gun control and free speech.

• Kagan Confirmation Approved by Judiciary Committee
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• The Kagan Hearings Begin
• Morning Roundup

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan ended her Senate testimony…

Lindquist & Vennum attorney John A. Chanin was named president-elect of The Faculty of Federal Advocates…

Greenberg Traurig’s Reorganization and Bankruptcy Practice Group received the Global M&A Network’s 2010 Turnaround Atlas Award…

Four McKool Smith principals have been named to to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America list…

Nixon Peabody announced partner Kari K. Harris joined the firms’ private equity fund practice in its Boston office…

Fried Frank introduced a partner in its Asset Management Group…

Winston & Strawn adds partner to Trusts And Estates Group…

Clark Hill PLC, through lateral hires absorbed the Chicago based IP firm Trexler, Bushnell, Giangiorgi, Blackstone & Marr…

• Four McKool Smith Principals Named to Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America List
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup

Politicians on both sides of the aisle appear to have resigned themselves to the fact after three days and 15 hours of questioning Kagan, the Associated Press reports. The Solicitor General could be confirmed to the Supreme Court in the first half of July.

Kagan again refused to offer much insight into her personal views, and sidestepped such issues as abortion, gun rights and gays in the military. Kagan said that’s because she would be able to separate her personal and political views from her job as a justice.

“As a judge, you are on nobody’s team. As a judge, you are an independent actor,” Kagan said.

The AP described Kagan as being “unscathed” by the three days of Senate Judiciary Committee vetting.

Kagan herself sounded triumphant, telling the AP, “I found it somewhat wearying but actually a great moment in my life.”

• Kagan Confirmed As 112th Supreme Court Justice
• Elena Kagan Nominated By Obama For Supreme Court
• Morning Roundup
• Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to Recuse Herself from 11 More Cases
• Kagan Confirmation Nears Final Vote

Sen. Jeff Sessions took a strong stand against Kagan for the policy of barring military recruiters at Harvard Law when she served as the school’s dean. Kagan said the school actually welcomed the military through a student veterans group and the school’s policy, which was in place prior to her arrival, was a compromise with the school’s non-discrimination policy.

Sessions said Kagan’s response left him more even more “troubled” about her potential nomination.

–By most accounts, Kagan kept her cards close to her vest throughout the hearing with regards to specific legal issues or personal views, which came to the frustration of several Republicans. That included exchanges on abortion, gun rights, and how to interpret the Constitution.

–Kagan indicated she would support allowing Supreme Court proceedings to be televised. She called them “a great thing for the court…and for the American people.”

–Kagan defended her work on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission campaign-finance case that she argued on behalf of the Obama administration and lost, but would not say whether she thought the case was wrongly decided.

Things appear in order for Kagan to be confirmed prior to the court’s new term in October. In fact, even Republican Lindsey Graham told Kagan “your stock really went up with me.” She would replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

• Morning Roundup
• Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to Recuse Herself from 11 More Cases
• Kagan Confirmation Nears Final Vote
• Kagan Confirmed As 112th Supreme Court Justice
• Morning Roundup

If you tune in, watch for Democrats to use these hearings as an opportunity to turn the charge of judicial activism around on the right wing.  For a generation or more, conservatives have used judicial activism as a rallying cry, attacking liberals and liberal judges for a legal philosophy that they believe has had more to do with social reform than with legal analysis.  The result has been a Court that has trended steadily to the right, with the appointment of judges on the conservative flank from Republican presidents and moderates from Democrat administrations.  In recent years, Democrats have started to kick back, criticizing the Court for its willingness to disregard precedence, but have so far been unable to make it stick.

There are signs that in the wake of the Citizen’s United case that may be changing.  Senator Feingold directly attacked the case in his opening statement, and Senator Specter just became the first Democrat in these hearings to directly say that both liberals and conservatives have taken activist stances.  Senator Feinstein also openly criticized the Court for ignoring precedence in gun control laws.

While Kagan will likely provide little ammunition, keeping her answers neutral, watch for Senators from both parties to use her as a foil in an attempt to claim or to keep the mantle of judicial restraint.

• Kagan Confirmed As 112th Supreme Court Justice
• Kagan Confirmation Approved by Judiciary Committee
• Senate Committee Delays Kagan Vote
• Elena Kagan Wrap-Up
• Kagan Keeps It Cool On Day Two

Awardees were selected by the editors of The National Law Journal, based upon reporting over the past year and nominations from peers in the D.C. legal community. They will be honored, along with the legal “Champions” and “Visionaries” named previously this year, at a gala dinner Sept 30 at The Willard in Washington, D.C.

“In Washington, these are women whose power and legal acumen commands the respect of their peers regardless of gender,” said David Brown, editor in chief of The National Law Journal.

This year’s honorees are:

• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• Leadership and Economic Forum Set for Harvard Club
• Morning Roundup
• NLJ Survey Highlights Tough Economic Climate

Ginsburg, considered an expert in his field, practiced law for over 50 years, served in an advisory role on government tax panels and advised a stable of high-profile clients, including Ross Perot.

The Ginsburgs came to Washington in 1980, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg obtained an appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  She was appointed by President Bill Clinton to the nation’s highest court in 1993.

• Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to Recuse Herself from 11 More Cases
• Morning Roundup
• Dechert LLP Adds Three Partners to Washington, D.C. Office
• Ginsburg Speaks about Judicial Elections and Opportunity; Joined by Sotomayor at Women Judge’s Meeting
• Fried Frank Finds New D.C. Office Space

Some SNR Partners were considering leaving prior to the merger with Denton…

Former White House counsel John Adams joined McGuireWoods…

Skadden snagged rival Global Antitrust head Simon Baxter…

A landmark $82.5 Million verdict was awarded for the death of a man killed in a 2007 natural gas explosion…

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher received Chambers’ annual Award for Excellence in the Antitrust Category…

• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup

According to a McGuireWoods’ press release, Adams counsels clients facing government investigations and handles complex litigation at the trial and appellate level. Practice head Chuck McIntyre called Adams “uniquely qualified” because of his previous government experience.

“John’s breadth of experience, including the Supreme Court, the White House, and as a federal prosecutor, makes him uniquely qualified to advise our clients in the ever-increasing regulated environment,” McIntyre said.

Adams also previously served as a law clerk to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. While at the White House, he focused primarily on matters arising out of the Department of Defense and State Department that implicated the Office of the President.

McGuireWoods chairman Richard Cullen called the addition of Adams “a great day for our firm.”

“He has experience at the highest levels of government and we look forward to putting that experience to use for our clients,” Cullen said. “He is not only a talented lawyer with a brilliant legal mind, but he has the character to fit right in with our firm.”

McGuireWoods is a full-service law firm with approximately 900 lawyers in 17 offices in the U.S., Europe and Central Asia.

• Morning Roundup
• Democrats Introduce Supreme Court Ethics Bill
• The World According to Scalia
• O’Connor Questions Attendance at State of the Union
• It’s recess time!