Senate Panel Approves Judicial Pay Raise And Junkets Ban

This afternoon the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-7 to approve a bill that would grant federal judges a 29 percent pay raise.
The amount is roughly in line with a House bill passed last year.
But the Senate panel also adopted along party lines an amendment offered by Sen. Russ Feingold that will limit what kind of educational trips and events judges can attend.
The provision would ban judges from attending programs that are hosted by any organization other than the federal government or relevant judicial and bar association groups.
The latest version of Feingold's proposal also puts a limit on renumeration judges can accept, including travel expenses and accommodation, which exceed $2,000 for a single trip of $20,000 over the course of a year.
This would apply to any events organized by private or public universities, Feingold told senators, to the consternation of some Republicans.
The bill is likely to be subject to further amendment when it reaches the Senate floor.

UPDATE: Judicial Pay Raise Vote Delayed

The judicial pay raise bill that I've previously reported on here is on the agenda for today's Senate Judiciary Commmittee markup.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. plans to submit an amendment that would ban educational judicial "junkets."
The meeting was due to start at 10am this morning, but has now been pushed back to 4pm.
More later...

DOJ Still Standing Firm On Attorney-Client Privilege

Despite suggestions from some in Congress that the Department of Justice should ban its practice of seeking attorney-client privilege waivers in corporate investigations, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is standing firm.
He said before the Senate today that he believes the department's current policy, known as the McNulty memo after former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, is working.
He assured Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the main critic of the policy, that prosecutors are not seeking to innappropriately force companies to grant waivers.
"I don't justify or reconcile or encourage or condone any coercion of anyone," Mukasey said.
He revealed that since the McNulty memo was introduced in December 2006, there have been no requests for waivers.
This seemed to surprise Specter, who said he would like to discuss the matter further with the attorney general.
"Perhaps we can come to an accord," Specter added.

Mukasey Elaborates On Opposition To Government Substitution In Wiretapping Cases

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Attorney General Michael Mukasey explained why he opposes a bipartisan effort to substitute the government for the defendant phone companies in the ongoing litigation about the Bush administation's surveillance program.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., have a proposal that would allow the lawsuits against the phone companies to proceed by letting the government take the place of the defendants.
It falls short of the retroactive immunity for the phone companies that the Bush administration is pushing for as the Senate continues to debate updating the nation's surveillance laws.
Under questioning from Specter at today's oversight hearing, Mukasey said the problem with substitution is that it would have a chilling effect on future efforts to seek help from telephone companies.
"These companies know how technology will develop," Mukasey told senators. "We need their willing cooperation."
By allowing the lawsuits to proceed, "we are going to sacrifice that," he added.
Mukasey also suggested that it is problematic that the conduct of the companies is "front and center" because they were acting in good faith at the request of the government.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Cast FISA Votes

The debate over whether to grant immunity to the phone companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's secret surveillance program continues to be fodder for Democrats on the presidential campaign trail.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (pictured) and Sen. Barack Obama both made rare appearances in the Senate today to vote against a Republican attempt to limit debate on the surveillance bill.
The Republican effort to failed to muster the 60 votes needed.
Backed by the White House, Senate Republicans have been pushing hard for the bill, which includes a provision that would grant immunity to the phone companies.
A number of Democrats are opposed to immunity, including both Clinton and Obama.
Clinton said in a statement that she believes that "a grant of retroactive immunity is wrong".
As such, she is cosponsoring an attempt by erstwhile presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who wants to strike the immunity section.
"The Bush Administration has blatantly disregarded Americans' civil liberties over the past seven years, and I simply will not trust them to protect Americans' privacy rights," Clinton said.
The only Republican presidential candidate in the Senate, John McCain, did not vote.

Democrats Scramble For Trial Lawyer Dollars

It would seem that there were plenty of Democratic operatives at the trial lawyers' winter meeting in Puerto Rico, the Washington Post reports.
With John Edwards (pictured) failing to make much progress against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential nomination race, his trial lawyer donors are looking attractive to his rivals.
A trial lawyer himself, Edwards has long relied on the support of his former colleagues.
The Washington Post story today reports that both Clinton and Obama have people working hard to persuade Edwards supporters within the trial bar to switch if and when Edwards leaves the race.
As the story notes:

"Trial lawyers have proved to be the financial mainstay for Edwards's two presidential bids, as well as for the Democratic Party in general. An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics found that nearly a third of the $30 million Edwards raised during the first nine months of 2007 came from lawyers, many of whom were attracted by his success as a plaintiff's attorney. And of the $82 million lawyers have donated to federal candidates so far during the 2008 cycle, 77 percent of it went to Democrats."

FISA UPDATE: First Defeat For Telecom Immunity Opponents

The Senate just voted 60-34 to reject replacing the underlying wiretapping bill it is currently debating with the bill that was voted out of the judiciary committee.
That's significant because the judiciary committee bill did not contain a provision granting immunity to the phone companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's secret surveillance program.
The Senate will now continue its debate on the bill that the intelligence committee approved.
That does contain an immunity provision.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., are expected to offer an amendment that would strip that section but experts don't believe they will succeed.
The debate, which is being carried live on C-SPAN, continues.

Economy Trumps Contempt

Late last year, Democrats in the House were suggesting that there might be a vote soon on the contempt charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current chief-of-staff Joshua Bolten.
The Judiciary Commmittee has already endorsed the charges, which relate the the refusal of the White House to allow Miers (pictured right with President Bush) to testify about the U.S. attorney firing scandal or to disclose documents about the matter.
But, with the economy taking a dive, it looks like the Democrats are going to forget about that particular partisan squabble for a while, perhaps in the interests of passing a bipartisan stimulus package.
Politico reports today that senior Democrats concluded that now is not the right time, although a vote sometime later in the year hasn't been discounted.

Senate Takes Up Surveillance Again

The Senate is due to take up the controversial wiretapping legislation tomorrow, with the focus again on whether to grant immunity to the phone companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's secret program.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., are expected to introduce an amendment striking the immunity provision, but most believe that effort will fail.
Meanwhile, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., favor substituting the government for the phone companies.
But that effort may also struggle to win support.
Finally, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has an amendment that would require the FISA court in Washington to review whether the phone companies acted in "good faith" when they agreed to the government's request.
If so, the lawsuits pending in San Francisco will be dismissed; If not, they will proceed.
For civil liberties advocates keen to prevent immunity being granted, it could be an uphill battle.
Caroline Fredrickson, the American Civil Liberties Union's top lobbyist, admitted as much Tuesday.
With the clock ticking on the current legislation, which expires next month, Democrats are "backed into a corner," she said.
The silver lining, however, is that House leaders are still opposed to immunity, Fredrickson added.

Amendment To Judicial Pay Raise Bill Could Ban Junkets

In today's Daily Journal (subscribers only), I report on a new twist on the debate over giving federal judges a hefty pay raise.
The Federal Judiciary Salary Restoration Act will be pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee when the Senate returns next week from its holiday recess.
But Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. (pictured), and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., have been discussing a possible amendment to the bill that would insert a provision banning judges from attended privately-funded seminars.
Congress has been critical of judges attending the so-called junkets, in particular because some are funded by industry groups with business before the courts.
The bill could come up for debate in the committee as early as next Thursday.

Court Security Bill Becomes Law

Recently passed legislation introducing new security protections for federal judges becomes law today.
Congress passed the bill before Christmas and the White House made no attempt to veto it, meaning it becomes law automatically.
The legislation increases penalties for threatening or harming judges and provides new resources for court security at federal and state level.
"Threats to judges and to other participants in the judicial system are threats to us all," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., one of the bill's main supporters. "Congress passed this crucial bill to protect our court officials and their families from those who would try to harm or intimidate them, and I am glad these reforms can now be put in place."