The U.S. Senate is now voting on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor (2d Cir.) to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Senator Al Franken presiding. It’s interesting and weird to see him in this role. Are we watching an SNL skit?

The normally empty Senate chamber is full. The senators are sitting at attention, looking like dutiful students.

The clerk is calling the roll. She refers to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) as “Mrs. Boxer,” and she does the same for several other married female senators (e.g., “Mrs. Gillibrand,” “Mrs. Hutchison,” etc.). It’s kinda cool, in an old-school sort of way.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) doesn’t vote — he’s absent from the Senate, due to illness — but he has expressed his support for Judge Sotomayor.

Senator Franken asks if any senator who has not already voted wishes to vote, or if any senator who has voted wishes to change her vote. Going once, going twice….

FINAL VOTE TALLY: 68-31, in favor of the nomination. Nine Republicans joined 59 Democrats to vote in favor of confirmation.

CONGRATULATIONS, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR!!!

P.S. Okay, she’s not technically a justice yet — but she will be soon, once Chief Justice Roberts administers the oath of office. Hopefully JGR will do it better this time.

Update: Clerquette has more discussion over at Underneath Their Robes.

We are not live blogging the Senate confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor today; we’ve already weighed in on what we’ve learned from this process. But we are keeping an eye on the proceedings just in case somebody says something stupid.

Today they are finishing up with the questions from the senators. Then they will move to the witnesses. They are just getting to that now. SCOTUSblog reports that there are 31 people on the witness list. The witness list is surprisingly light on attorneys or judges. But the stars include Frank Ricci (of Ricci v. DeStefano fame), former Mets pitcher David Cone (he played for some other baseball teams too), and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

But before they get into the witnesses, let’s check out the highlights from the Senate’s last round of questions.

More after the jump.

In a few hours, at 10 a.m., the confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor (2d Cir.) to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will get underway. We will be liveblogging today’s proceedings (as will others — e.g., Clerquette of Underneath Their Robes).

Although polling suggests the nation is closely divided (or perhaps largely undecided) on whether Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to SCOTUS, most analysts expect easy confirmation. E.g., Dahlia Lithwick; Adam Liptak.

But you never know; there could be some surprises. One small glimmer of hope for lovers of political theater: Judge Sotomayor is taking pain medication for her broken ankle. Might the meds make her a little loopy?

Some of the most compelling confirmation hearings ever, those of Robert Bork, owe their dramatic nature to the fact that the chain-smoking Judge Bork wasn’t allowed cigarette breaks — which made him irascible under questioning from the senators. Bork performed poorly, and his nomination was defeated by a 58 to 42. (Of course, it didn’t help that Bork refused to participate in so-called “murder boards,” i.e., practice hearings — a mistake that Judge Sotomayor, who has been preparing diligently for over a week, has not made.)

Check back here around 10 a.m., when the hearings and our coverage get underway!

Update: Our liveblogging is underway. See here.

Confirmation in 60 Seconds [Slate]
Path to Supreme Court: Speak Capably, Say Little [New York Times]
Nominee Wraps Up Rehearsals [New York Times]
CNN Poll: Do Americans want Sotomayor confirmed? [CNN]
Poll: Most Undecided About Sotomayor [CBS News]

* There has been plenty off talk about potential Supreme Court nominees, but how about the conservative groups gearing up to oppose them? [The Washington Post]

* Two highly qualified lesbians, Virginia Linder and Kathleen Sullivan, are apparently on Obama’s Supreme Court short list. [ABC News]

* The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions, says that an openly gay Supreme Court nominee should be treated fairly “regardless of what kind of persuasion they may have.” [Fox News]

* Meanwhile Specter has lost his seniority on the Senate Judiciary Committee and will become the chairman of the subcommittee on crime and drugs. “What we don’t want is an angry former Republican during a Supreme Court hearing,” said a Democratic staffer. [Washington Post]

* Police continue to investigate mysteries surrounding the death of Robert Wone, a Washington lawyer who was murdered in 2006. [The Blog of Legal Times]

* Did you know there was an elite “Public Integrity Section” in the Department of Justice tasked with probing corruption charges of public officials? [The New York Times]

Arlen Specter (R-PA), is switching parties. Politico reports:

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter is switching parties so he can run in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, abandoning his party because he does not want to be “judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

Specter is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee (chaired by Patrick Leahy).

It will be interesting to see who replaces him as the Republican leader against future Obama judicial nominations. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) used to chair the committee. John Kyl (R-AZ) has been making a lot of news. Chuck Grassley recently became famous for his stance on banker suicide. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) might be a little young for the post.

The early money on the street is on Kyl. The Republican party seems to be listing right and Kyl has been out in front of that movement.

The back and forth on the Judiciary is important for lawyers (how much fun do you think Elena Kagan is having today), but obviously the bigger news is that Specter could be the 60th Senate vote for the soon-to-be filibuster proof Obama agenda.

The move stands to put the White House’s agenda on a fast track — and to renew hopes among organized labor for the Employee Free Choice Act.

The move also raises the stakes for the resolution of the Minnesota Senate race and may tempt Republicans to drag that fight on further.

Political expediency could be the name of the game for Specter. More details after the jump.

* The Senate Judiciary Committee will discuss Obama’s nomination of Harvard law school dean Elena Kagan as solicitor general. [The Washington Post]

* Three federal judges in California ruled that the state must reduce its prison population by a third. [Los Angeles Times]

* Lawyers for the Obama administration surprised San Francisco by making the same state-secrets argument as Bush in the extraordinary rendition case. [The New York Times]

* The SEC makes a deal with Madoff. [The Washington Post]

* Meanwhile, the SEC chairman steps down after falling to the 50 billion dollar thief. [Bloomberg]

* 50 cent won a lawsuit against his ex-girlfriend. “…this is a complete and total victory for 50,” one of his lawyers said. [Punk.BZ]

The confirmation hearings for Eric Holder as attorney general just started.

We’ll try to keep an eye on it for you and update you with interesting news and notes. Especially when the Specter in the punch bowl speaks up.

So far Holder has said the word “independent” twice and now we’re going through the list of black people who were shot in the sixties.

Update (10:31): Let me paraphrase question 1:

LEAHY: Waterboarding mutherf***** do you believe in it?
HOLDER: Waterboarding is torture.
LEAHY: Gonzales! Are you named GONZALES?
HOLDER: Waterboarding is torture.

Update (10:56): Round 1 of Specter v. Holder involved both fighters feeling each other out. Lots of clenching, no haymakers:

SPECTER: Let me remind everybody who Marc Rich is and why he’s a terrible person.
(time passes, seasons change …)
Mr. Holder, did you know about this?
HOLDER: Nope. My bad.
LEAHY: Time!

Score the round 10-10.

Meanhwhile Sen. Herbet Kohl (who also owns the Milwaukee Bucks) wants to know if Holder can ball with Obama. As commenter #5 might point out “that question would never have been asked if Holder was white.”

More updates after the jump.

In a text message sent out at around 3 a.m. today, Senator Barack Obama announced his running mate: Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., of Delaware.

Lawyers should be happy with Obama’s veep pick. There are lots of legal angles to Senator Biden:

• like Obama (Harvard Law ‘91), Joe Biden is a lawyer by training (Syracuse Law ‘68);
• he practiced law in Wilmington, Delaware, for a few years (before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972, at age 29);
• since 1991, he’s taught a seminar in constitutional law at Widener University School of Law; and
• he’s a longtime member, and former chairman (1987-1995), of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Legal background aside, are you happy with Joe Biden as Obama’s VP nominee? Sound off, in the comments.

Biography: Joe Biden [Senator Joe Biden (official website)]
Obama chooses Sen. Joe Biden to be running mate [CNN]

The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted in favor of the nomination of Michael Mukasey to serve as attorney general. The tally was 11-8, with two Democrats — Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein — joining all the Republicans in supporting him.

What had been looking like a nailbiter of a nomination should sail through the full Senate fairly easily. The floor vote on the nomination should take place by next week.

Congratulations, Judge Mukasey!

Nomination of Mukasey Sent to Full Senate [New York Times]
Panel Sends Mukasey Nomination to Senate [Washington Post]

We had a tough time picking our finalist couples this week, and LEWW will be the first to admit that we’re not totally certain we chose the right three. (We’re sure our commenters and e-mailers will let us know if we’ve dropped the ball.) Specifically, in addition to our three finalists, we considered these three couples, and if you work at Shearman, Simpson Thacher, Wachtell, Willkie, or Ropes & Gray, you might want to click on those links to read about your colleagues or their spawn.

But onward to this week’s finalists! Here they are:

1.) Nisa Leung and James Lin

2.) Beth Schonmuller and John Williams

3.) Virginia Boyd and J. B. Lockhart IV

More on these couples, after the jump.

Are you trying to remember whether any of your law school classmates or colleagues clerked for former judge Michael Mukasey (S.D.N.Y.), President Bush’s nominee to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general?

Well, you’re in luck. Every single one of Judge Mukasey’s former law clerks signed a glowing letter of recommendation for the judge, in which they praise him as a jurist and mentor and urge his speedy confirmation as AG. Their letter was transmitted to the Senate last night.

You can check out the letter, including the list of signatories, after the jump.

Here’s a little riddle: What do these three senators have in common?

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

First, they’re all Republican senators from underpopulated sparsely populated states.

Second, they’ve all run into ethical, legal, or political problems. You know all about Senator Craig — in fact, more than you ever wanted to. As for Senator Stevens, see here and here. As for Senator Murkowski, see here.

What’s the third thing they have in common? Find out, after the jump.

Back on Tuesday, it was widely rumored that an attorney general nomination announcement was imminent — and that the nominee was going to be former Solicitor General Ted Olson (pictured at right, at his wedding last year).

But we had our doubts. We opined that Olson, confirmed as SG by a narrow 51-47 margin, might be a tough sell in a Democratic Senate.

That opinion looks increasingly solid. From today’s Washington Post:

The Senate majority leader said yesterday that Democrats would block former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson from becoming attorney general, kicking off a spirited nomination debate even before the White House has named a candidate.

“Ted Olson will not be confirmed,” Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement. “I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general.”

So it seems that, with respect to Ted Olson, the Dems are throwing down the gauntlet. Why so hostile? Are they upset they didn’t get invited to Olson’s fabulous, star-studded wedding?

More after the jump.

* How to try and pull a fast one on the entire NBA. [Slate]

* AGAG testimony called “splitting hairs.” [CNN]

* Vick co-defendant to have plea hearing. [Sports Illustrated]

* Morning Docket’s lawyer of the day (for last Wednesday, and while you were sleeping). [Canton Repository]

* Thoughts on how Democrats might approach a conservative Court (from Emily Bazelon). [Slate]

One of the biggest legal and political stories today is the congressional testimony of Sara Taylor, former White House political director. Taylor declined to answer a number of questions, based on executive privilege.

We’ll leave substantive discussion of the Taylor testimony to others, and focus instead on matters of style. From a tipster:

“Check out this photo essay. I don’t mean to sound catty, but shouldn’t she have used Monica Goodling’s stylist?”

We agree wholeheartedly. Screw executive privilege — what about stylist’s privilege?

We comment on some of the Sara Taylor photos, after the jump.

Thanks for the reminder. In an earlier post, we wrote: “We’ve been hearing interesting rumors about some possible departures at the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) level.” And since today is Friday, the favored day for DOJ resignations, we figured we might as well squeeze this in before lunchtime.

Some of the rumors have already come to pass — like the departure of Eileen O’Connor, as head of the Tax Division, and the departure of Rachel Brand, as head of the Office of Legal Policy. But there’s one resignation rumor that’s still outstanding.

We hear that Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim, who oversees the Justice Department’s important (and controversial) Civil Rights Division, will step down from his post before the end of the year. He was sworn in as AAG in November 2005, so by this fall he will have held the job for two years — a long-enough stint in that position.

If Wan Kim does resign from the Civil Rights Division, he can hardly be blamed. Getting scolded on Capitol Hill isn’t much fun. Especially when most of the things you’re getting scolded about are the fault of your predecessor, former Acting AAG Bradley J. Schlozman (who is allegedly not the nicest guy in the world, according to some people).

Senators Deride Justice Reassignments [Washington Post]

Earlier: Why Did the Prom Queen Leave the Party?
Musical Chairs: Rearranging the Proverbial Deck Chairs at Main Justice?

See here. And another one is going to prison.

Just another day here in the nation’s capital.

P.S. Best name ever for a paramour involved in a corruption case: Italia Federici.

Senate Subpoenas White House, Cheney House [Wonkette]
White House, Cheney’s Office Subpoenaed [Associated Press]
Ex-Interior Aide Is Sentenced in Lobbying Case [New York Times]

Judicial junkies, here are two quick items about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:

1. New Novel. The eagerly anticipated Chambermaid — a roman a clef novel set in the Third Circuit by Saira Rao, a former law clerk to the totally terrifying Judge Dolores Sloviter (3d Cir.) — is now in bookstores. It has arrived a few weeks ahead of its original publication date of July 10. Our earlier discussion appears here.

A very interesting interview with Saira Rao, followed by a comments clusterf**k lively reader discussion, appears at the WSJ Law Blog.

We recently read Chambermaid, which we thoroughly enjoyed. We’ll probably review it in the near future, either here at ATL or for a print publication.

(Shameless plug: If you’re an editor in need of a book review, please email us.)

Law Blog Q&A: Saira Rao [WSJ Law Blog]
Chambermaid by Saira Rao [official website]

Earlier: A ‘Devil Wears Prada’ for the Law Clerk Set

2. New Nominee. After Judge Noel Hillman (D.N.J.) was mysteriously pulled as the presumptive nominee for Justice Samuel Alito’s former Third Circuit seat, we wondered: What’s up with that Third Circuit seat?

Now we know (or think we do). According to media reports, the likely new nominee is Shalom Stone (at right). Here’s a brief bio:

Stone, a former chairman of a state bar committee on federal practice and procedure who handles a wide swath of issues, including insurance, RICO, real estate and ethics, has been practicing for 20 years. He’s now a partner at the Roseland firm of Walder Hayden and Brogan.

More discussion, after the jump.

We recently got to meet former White House counsel Harriet Miers, up close and personal. And it seems we’re not the only folks who will get to spend quality time with the onetime (and ill-fated) Supreme Court nominee.

This just in, from the AP:

Two congressional committees are issuing subpoenas for testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor on their roles in the firings of eight federal prosecutors, according to two officials familiar with the investigation….

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont issued Taylor’s subpoena for her testimony July 11. His counterpart in the House, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan, issued a subpoena for Miers’ testimony the next day.

A little bit more, after the jump.

We’ve been doing a lot of Biglaw coverage lately. But since Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is being raked over the coals as we type, in an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, let’s take a timely detour into the U.S. Department of Justice.

The DOJ isn’t looking terribly competent right now. And this latest story won’t burnish their reputation. From a tipster:

As you know, the Justice Department produced a number of documents to Congress, concerning the controversial U.S. Attorney firings. These document productions have not been huge — maybe just a few thousand pages. Nothing like what you see in major commercial litigation.

One such document production showed up on Capitol Hill, in four sets: two sets for the Senate Judiciary Committee (Democrats and Republicans), and two sets for the House Judiciary Committee (Democrats and Republicans). The production arrived on a weekday evening.

A Republican staffer immediately started looking through the production. The staffer noticed that the produced documents didn’t have Bates stamps on them. Oops. Guess the DOJ forgot to have them stamped — a screw-up, although not a cardinal sin.

A few pages later, the staffer noticed something else, on a document with redactions on it. There was redacting tape that was STILL ON THE DOCUMENT. One could access the redacted, privileged material simply by peeling off the tape.

Holy crap. Instead of sending over Bates-stamped photocopies, the DOJ had produced its ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS to the Congress.

Nice. Apparently the Justice Department is less competent than a second-year litigation associate: they can’t do a proper document production.

It gets worse. More after the jump.