* Holy Lawsuit, Batman! Professors sue Ave Maria. [AveWatch.org]

* TMI indeed; spare us talk of that burning sensation. Just say you have a doctor's appointment, and leave it at that. [Nasty, Brutish & Short]

* Just because you're a 46-year-old man who has never been married doesn't mean you're gay. Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald -- whom we met earlier this month, btw -- is engaged. Congrats, Pat! [WSJ Law Blog]

* Milberg Weiss and the Democrats: politics makes for not-so-strange bedfellows. [Overlawyered; Overlawyered]

* Some undergraduates earn cash by selling their class notes online. How long before this trend takes hold in law schools? [Conglomerate]

* Who says Yale Law grads can't be funny? [Wonkette]

Welcome. If you're at home, tune in to C-SPAN, which is rebroadcasting the recent book party for Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas's eagerly anticipated memoir, My Grandfather's Son, is now in bookstores -- and topping the bestseller charts (to the relief of his publisher, HarperCollins, which reportedly paid him a $1.5 million advance).

7:05: The party is being held at the elegant, red-brick Capitol Hill home of radio host and syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams. Expected to attend: 250 guests, including six Supreme Court justices, Vice President Dick Cheney, and several U.S. senators.

Armstrong Williams is interviewed. He explains that the party has been in the works since June. An overwhelming turnout is expected; more people were turned away than allowed to attend.

7:08: Justice Thomas climbs the stairs. When he enters the kitchen -- which is right at the top of the stairs, and thus (oddly) where everyone enters and exits -- he’s greeted by hearty applause.

Various guests hug him. One guest gushes over his 60 Minutes appearance. CT explains that CBS News made no promises about the nature of its coverage. Interesting. Considering how flattering that segment was, and how uncritical Steve Kroft was in his questioning of Justice Thomas, one might have suspected that Brangelina-type stipulations were in place.

More after the jump.

* It wasn't me. [Legal Blog Watch]

* Well, I'm a pretty famous celebrity, so I got that going for me... [CNN]

* Divorce for Shaq. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Look what you've done, Specter. [CNN]

* Should we file RICO charges against Tom Cruise? [Jurist]

* Thou shalt not kidnap your child to keep her from getting married. [CNN]

* This really happened? [CNN]

* Supreme Court takes antitrust case involving investment banks. [New York Times]

* Specter introduces legislation designed to blunt the effects of the Thompson memo. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Same-sex marriage still legal, eh? [Reuters via Yahoo!]

Here's another excellent article from Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. It's about the role played by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), outgoing chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with respect to the recent habeas corpus legislation (aka the Military Commissions Act of 2006).

If you're confused about the controversy over this legislation, which has wound its way through both the federal courts and the Senate chamber, the article is well worth your time. It explains recent developments in this complex area of law with commendable clarity.

And it also contains fun bits of color and gossip. We collect a few highlights, after the jump.

Two pieces of news from the Senate Judiciary Committee:

1. Orrin Is Outie. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is said to be leaving the Judiciary Committee. Senator Hatch served as committee chairman for many years, before he was replaced as chairman by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), due to the Republicans' system of term limits for committee chairs.

When the Democrats take over the Senate in January, Senator Specter will become the ranking member. Senator Hatch, if he stayed on the Judiciary Committee, would be just another member -- and a minority member, at that. So he's leaving the committee, to devote his time and energy to other policy areas.

Update (12/14/06): Actually, this did not come to pass. Senator Hatch ended up staying on Judiciary.

2. Let the investigations begin! The SJC's Democrats are gearing up to look into allegations in a whistleblower complaint, made by a former attorney in the Justice Department's Civil Rights division. In connection with this matter, certain documents are being distributed to the Democratic members of the committee, via the office of Senator Pat Leahy (who will take over as chairman in January).

That second story is developing. We'll have more on it later. If you have anything to add, please email us.

Last week we briefly discussed the appearance at the Federalist Society convention of Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We also described our exchange with him during the question-and-answer session.

We now provide you with a somewhat more detailed account of Senator Specter's remarks. We found them surprisingly funny; but don't get your hopes THAT high (because some of them were of a "you had to be there" nature).

Our write-up of Senator Specter's speech, after the jump.

Today's sessions at the Federalist Society annual conference kicked off with a speech by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the current (but outgoing) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. His remarks, which focused on the judicial nominations process, were engaging and informative. The crowd enjoyed his dry wit.

We may have more to say about Senator Specter's address later. For now, a quick account of our exchange with him during the question-and-answer session. When it was our turn to question Senator Specter, we asked:

Senator Specter, as the current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, do you have any thoughts on specific individuals who might be suitable nominees to the Supreme Court? And on a related note, what do you think of Senator Chuck Schumer's suggestion of you as a possible nominee?

The Senator took the second question first. His good-natured, joking response (paraphrased):

It's the best idea he's had in a decade. In fact, it's the only good idea he's had in a decade!

Senator Specter went on to note that, back in 1971, he was talked about as a possible Supreme Court nominee (according to the Nixon tapes). He quipped that 1971 "would have been a better time" than today.

Finally, with respect to opining on possible SCOTUS nominees, the senator demurred. He noted that while he certainly could offer some names, as part of the Senate's "advise and consent" function, he would exercise his discretion not to speak on the subject. He said he expected President Bush to appreciate that decision.