
Morning Docket: 01.09.17
* "It's Washington's bloodsport. It's like the gladiator going into the arena and the public watching." Senator Jeff Sessions has been preparing for his confirmation hearing for U.S. attorney general since December, and he expects to be grilled on the same allegations of racism that precluded him from landing a federal judgeship in 1986. Something tells us that he won't have a similar problem this time around. [CNN] * "We are very pleased to announce that after extensive discussions with our regulators, we will be starting classes as scheduled." Charlotte School of Law will be reopening for the spring semester (albeit one day later than previously scheduled), but at this point in time, there's no word on whether students will be able to procure federal loans to finance the costs of attendance. How are these students supposed to pay? [Charlotte Observer] * According to the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the legal sector had a great month in December, adding 2,000 jobs and outpacing national figures for the month. All in all, the legal industry is up by 4,100 jobs since the start of 2016, but this is a far cry from where the numbers used to be prior to the recession. By that logic, the legal industry still down by 52,000 jobs since its high in 2007. [Am Law Daily] * On January 19, the justices of the Supreme Court will discuss whether they will take up the case to legalize polygamy being brought by the reality TV "Sister Wives" family. If they decide to grant certiorari, it will be the first time in more than 100 years that an issue of this kind will be reviewed by the high court. Just imagine the special episodes and the ratings extravaganza that could result from oral arguments. [FOX News] * IMDb.com doesn't care if celebrities don't want their true ages revealed online, so in the name of the First Amendment, the site is refusing to comply with a new California law that would require the removal of their age information upon demand. Instead of passing age discrimination laws, California has "chosen instead to chill free speech and to undermine access to factual information of public interest." [WSJ Law Blog]