UPDATE: Last Call For Patent Reform?

Congress returns from its Easter recess this week with the Senate still yet to take up the Patent Reform Act.
But a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday the bill is on the agenda for the forthcoming work period.
The bill, which the House passed last year, has been pending for months while supporters attempt to resolve differences between interested parties.

Rep. Schiff Staying Out Of Rogan Nomination Fight

When Rep Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was beginning his political career, one major obstacle stood in his way: James E. Rogan.
Currently serving as a Superior Court judge in Orange County, Rogan – a conservative Republican - beat Schiff when they both ran for the California Assembly in 1994.
Rogan then won election to the House of Representatives in 1996, the same year that Schiff (pictured) went to Sacramento as a state senator.
But their paths were to cross again in 2000 when Schiff ran against Rogan, who had aroused the ire of liberals for his key role in the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.
This time, Schiff won in what became the most expensive race in House history.
More recently, President Bush nominated Rogan to the federal bench, a move that didn’t please Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who has blocked his confirmation.
Asked about Rogan’s suitability for the bench during a recent interview, Schiff was reluctant to give his opinion.
“I’m going to let the Senate decide that,” he said. “I’m probably too close to the situation to be a good, objective source on that.”
But he does add, jokingly, that when he heard that Rogan was considering a run for Congress in Orange County, a neighboring southern Californian district, he told the local paper he was willing to help out.
“Frankly, if I knew he was interested in Orange County, I would have helped him buy a house,” he said.
Rogan could not be reached for comment.

Senators Introduce Legislation To Add Judgeships Nationwide

The federal judiciary may finally get its way if Congress passes new legislation adding new judgeships across the country.
Judges have been asking for years for Congress to add judgeships. The last major overhaul was in 1990.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee believe an election year is a good time to win approval of the legislation, known as the Federal Judgeships Act.
It would come into effect after the inauguration next year, meaning that lawmakers can, in theory, put aside concerns about who will get to nominate the new judge.
The bill would add 12 new permanent circuit court judgeships and 38 permanent district court judgeships.
It would also add two temporary judgeships for the overburdened 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a further 14 district court judgeships across the country.
California would be the biggest beneficiary.
Leahy's statement upon introduction of the bill can be seen here.

Patent Reform Back On Agenda

The Senate could finally get around to debating the patent reform bill in April, its sponsors are saying.
The bill, which the House passed last year, has been pending for some time.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved it as far back as July.
Leading sponsors Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., issued a release Wednesday in which they announced preparations for the debate.
They have prepared 15 amendments to the legislation, dealing with such issues as post-grant review, interlocutory appeals, and severability.
All the amendments are available from the judiciary committee here.
"We are looking forward to a to a thorough debate in the Senate after recess," Leahy said.

Ashcroft Tussles With Democrats At Hearing

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft (pictured) jetted into Washington for an ill-tempered session before a House Judiciary subcommittee today.
At issue? His firm's no-bid contract - worth up to $52 million - to act as a monitor in a deferred prosecution agreement involving Zimmer Inc.
Ashcroft clearly thought he had little to answer for, particular because the purpose of the hearing was to explore the way such contracts are awarded.
"I don't know what kind of discussions they had," he insisted.
He and Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., then spent the next several minutes talking over each other as she attempted to ask questions.
Ashcroft ended the exchange by noting that, unlike monitors, which are paid for by the defendant companies, taxpayers have to pay for House Judiciary Committee hearings.
"This hearing costs far more in tax dollars than my monitorship," he said.
Ashcroft soon announced his desire to leave in order to catch a flight to Florida and he abruptly left the room.

Did Gov. Spitzer Violate the Mann Act?

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's alleged involvement with a prostitution ring could have dire legal ramifications for him.
That's because if he did, indeed, help arrange for a high-end hooker to travel down to Washington from New York, he may have violated the Mann Act, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The 1910 law "prohibited interstate transportation of women for immoral purposes,” according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
CREW was quick to issue a release this afternoon noting how Spitzer's conduct may land him in trouble with the Feds.
"Given the reports that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was heard on a wiretap arranging for a prostitute to travel from New York to Washington to meet in his hotel room, it appears that he has violated the Mann Act," the statement said. "This federal law carries a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for knowingly persuading or inducing any individual to cross state lines for the purposes of prostitution."
The group's executive director, Melanie Sloan, added for good measure: "It is completely unacceptable for any government official – much less one who has held himself up as a paragon of virtue – to engage in criminal conduct. Governor Spitzer’s behavior is reprehensible. The citizens of New York deserve better."

House Judiciary Committee Files Suit Against Miers, Bolten

In an attempt to get the federal courts to enforce two congressional contempt citations, the House Judiciary Committee today filed suit against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current chief-of-staff Joshua Bolten.
The 36-page complaint can be viewed here.
Committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., (pictured) probably shouldn't hold his breath.
As I wrote in the Daily Journal last month, the courts are very reluctant to get involved in disputes between the legislative and executive branches.
In my story, I took a look at what happened in 1982, when the judiciary committee filed suit against the Anne Gorsuch, the director of the EPA, for withholding documents.

An excerpt:

In the resulting court case, the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia expressly stated that the judiciary would only exercise jurisdiction over such disputes if absolutely necessary. United States v. House of Representatives, 556 F. Supp. 150.
“The difficulties apparent in prosecuting Administrator Gorsuch for contempt of Congress should encourage the two branches to settle their differences without further judicial involvement,” wrote Judge John Lewis Smith Jr. “Compromise and cooperation, rather than confrontation, should be the aim of the parties.”

Whatever happens, experts say it's likely the Bush administration will be long gone by the time this is resolved.

UPDATE: Consumer Protection Bill Passes Senate

In the print edition of today's Daily Journal (subscribers only), I reported on a provision in the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act that would increase the power of state attorneys general to intervene in product safety cases.
Today, the legislation - sponsored by Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. - passed the Senate.
It would allow state attorneys general to seek injunctive relief against manufacturers if the commission deems a product to be unsafe.
The tort reform lobby is not happy about that provision, which is not part of the House bill that passed last year.

Cameras In The Courtroom Bill Approved By Senate Panel

The Senate Judiciary Committee today passed out a bill that would allow TV coverage of all federal courts.
The comittee has approved similar bills on several occasions in recent years but the legislation, known as the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, has never been close to becoming law.
Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., (pictured) narrowly failed in his attempt to exempt district courts.
His amendment failed on a 9-9 tie.
Cardin had argued that while there is a need to show the inner workings of the appellate process, especially the Supreme Court, trials in district court are more problematic.
That's because the media would not cover trials from gavel to gavel, he said.
But the bill's sponsors fought back, noting that the latest version of the legislation allows trial judges to exclude the cameras in certain instances, such as to protect witnesses and minors.
Sen. John Cornyn, D-Texas, added that coverage of trials would help the American people understand that trials are a lot more complex - and less entertaining - than legal TV dramas make them appear.
"I think it's important for them to see what happens," Cornyn said of the public.
A House version of the bill has already been approved by the judiciary committee.
*At this morning's meeting, the committee also approved the Sunshine in Litigation Act, a bill that place limits on secret settlements when public safety is an issue.

Republicans Slam Democrats Over Judicial Confirmation Rate

Republican senators are attempting to increase the political pressure on Democrats over the slow pace of judicial confirmations in President Bush's final year in office.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., (pictured) the ranking member of the judiciary committee, took to the Senate floor today to raise the issue once again.
He reported that the Senate confirmed 15 circuit court nominees and 57 district court nominees in the final two years of President Clinton's second term,
The Senate will struggle to reach that target in President Bush's final year, he added.
Since the beginning of 2007, the Senate has confirmed just six circuit court nominees and 34 district court nominees, Specter said.
"It's not really just a matter of statistics," he said after reciting several other statistics. "It's a matter with a very substantial impact on the public and a very substantial impact on the courts."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., also took a few potshots at Democrats, observing that there have been no judicial confirmations so far this year.
"Progress has all but ground to a halt," he said.
Specter, meanwhile, is trying once again to change Senate rules so that judicial nominees are guaranteed a hearing after 30 days, a committee vote after another 30 days, and an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor after a further 90 days.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the judiciary committee, has frequently defended his record of shepherding Republican nominees through the committee.