The winning party in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established new recusal standards for state court judges was not a winner in the end.

Yesterday the West Virginia Supreme Court declined to reconsider a ruling overturning a $50 million verdict against Massey Energy in the case Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. The plaintiff in the case originally won the verdict on a claim that the company fraudulently usurped business contracts from its smaller competitor.

After the verdict, Massey’s CEO gave $3 million in direct and indirect contributions to the election campaign of an appellate judge hopeful. That amount was more than half the total spent in the campaign. That judge won, assumed a seat on the bench, and was ultimately the deciding vote overturning the $50 million verdict.

But in a 5-4 decision last year, the Supreme Court held that the judge’s failure to recuse himself violated the Due Process Clause.

Yesterday the plaintiff’s attorney Bruce Stanley told the Charleston Gazette that he wasn’t expecting to win the battle in the end, despite the high court victory. “We certainly are not surprised at the outcome, but rather only by the amount of time it took the Supreme Court to reach it,” Stanley said.

Here are more headlines to take you into the weekend:

I’m a what? Bankruptcy lawyers disagree on the impact of this week’s Supreme Court ruling that they are “debt relief agencies.” (Lawyers USA)

Help for women, or for trial lawyers? At a Senate hearing on legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap, lawmakers, federal agents and experts spent much of the time discussing whether the bill would result in a flood of litigation if passed. (Lawyers USA)

Putting the ‘men’ in ‘harassment’: The number of sexual harassment claims filed by men has doubled in the past two decades, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports. (Lawyers USA)

Dangerous slings: The head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission warned that baby slings - the soft carriers used by parents to carry infants against their chests - are a suffocation risk, and several babies have already died. (Lawyers USA)

Big Mac attack: Want to know Supreme Court justices’ favorite McDonald’s food? (WSJ’s Law Blog)

Lawyer for ‘D.C. Madam’ suspended: Montgomery Blair Sibley had his law license suspended for three years by the D.C. Court of Appeals. (BLT Blog)

Impeached: The House of Representatives Thursday unanimously approved the four articles of impeachment against New Orleans Federal Judge Thomas Porteous. (New Orleans Times-Picayune)

We know that Justice Antonin Scalia is a singer, and that that he usually does the honors of crooning “Happy Birthday” during celebrations for his colleagues. But if you happen to see him today, you can do the same for him.

Justice Scalia was born on this day 74 years ago.

Oh, it’s on now.

The jabs keep on flying between Congress and members of the Supreme Court in the wake of its ruling in the campaign finance case Citizens United v. FEC, which lifted a limit on corporate campaign spending.

Yesterday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid jabbed at Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who was part of the Court’s 5-4 majority in the case.

Reid said the chief justice has no understanding of the impact of its ruling. “Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?” the Reid said at a meeting of liberal bloggers, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Reid’s comments are just the latest evidence of the tensions between Congress, the Court and the White House in the aftermath of the Citizens United ruling. President Obama openly criticized the ruling during his State of the Union address, drawing an immediate reaction from Justice Samuel Alito - one of six Supreme Curt justices who attended the address - who grimaced, shook his head and said “not true.”

Tuesday Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. criticized the politicized atmosphere of the State of the Union address, saying the event has devolved into a “political pep rally.” Roberts said it was “troubling” to sit through the address expressionless as members of Congress were “cheering and hollering” all around him.

In February Justice Clarence Thomas said the rancorous atmosphere at the annual speech before Congress caused him to stop attending years ago.

When the president gives his next State of the Union address, don’t be surprised if the nation’s chief justice is not sitting front and center.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. said he found President Barack Obama’s address to Congress  - during which the president chided the Court’s campaign finance law decision and Justice Samuel Alito winced and said “not true” - to be “troubling.”

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court - according the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling,” Roberts said in a speech at the University of Alabama Law School yesterday.

Roberts said he was inclined to agree with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who stopped attending the president’s addresses years ago. Sitting expressionless “like a bump on a log” while members of Congress cheer or hiss around the justices was unseemly, Scalia has explained. Thomas also eschews the atmosphere of “catcalls” and “whooping and hollering.”

Roberts echoed their sentiment.

“To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there,” Roberts said.

UPDATE: Here is video of Roberts’ remarks, care of C-Span:

Roberts also said the Senate confirmation process for Supreme Court justice was “broken down,” since it consists largely of lawmakers asking nominees questions they are prohibited by judicial ethics rules form answering. More here from the AP.

Television cameras and term limits at the Supreme Court?

That seems to be what the majority of Americans want, according to a new poll.

A survey by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind shows that 60 percent of respondents think televising oral arguments and other Supreme Court proceedings would be “good for democracy,” the National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro reports.

The results of the poll are similar to those found in a study by C-SPAN, which would air Supreme Court proceedings if the ban on cameras is ever lifted. Some lawmakers including Sen. Arlen Specter have pushed for legislation allowing cameras in the Court, but some justices and the Judicial Conference have expressed apprehension.

Despite the strong support for putting cameras in the courtroom of the nation’s highest court, it seems not many folks would set SCOTUS TV on their TiVos to watch Justice Antonin Scalia crack wise. Only 17 percent of those surveys said they’d watch such programming regularly, and about a third said they’d watch it at all.

The poll also shows support for 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. Currently four jurists on the high court - Justices John Paul Stevens, Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas - have been on the court longer than 18 years.

Bankruptcy attorneys are “debt relief agencies,” and are therefore subject to a federal statute governing the kind of advice they can give to clients to the way they advertise, the U.S. Supreme Court held today.

The case Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States involved a challenge launched by bankruptcy attorneys claiming the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 should not apply to attorneys. They also argued that the law’s prohibition against advising clients “to incur more debt in contemplation of such person filing” for bankruptcy, and its requirements that debt relief agencies make disclosures such as, “We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Code,” violated the constitution.

But the Court disagreed. In an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that attorneys perform the many of the functions specified by the act - indeed some functions can only be performed by attorneys.

The Court also found that the prohibition against advising a client to incur more debt only applied to advise “to incur more debt because the debtor is filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose,” and therefore was an unconstitutionally vague or overbroad provision. The opinion upheld the disclosure requirement as well, noting that lawyers have flexibility to draft the disclosure in a way to make it clear they provide legal advice.

The Court also held in Bloate v. United States that the time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excluded from the 70-day limit to bring a defendant to trial under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 unless the court grants a continuance.

More on these cases to come on Lawyers USA online.

The bad news? The economy is still in a pretty depressed state. The good news? If you are a lawyer who had a job at the beginning of February, chances are you still have that job!

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the legal sector lost only 100 jobs in the month of February. That is one tenth of the job losses in the industry in January, and just three percent of the total legal sector jobs lost in December. Perhaps a sign of better things to come? We can only wait and see.

And while you count your Oscar pool winnings, here’s a look at the legal headlines:

When the going gets tough…: Bankruptcy filings in the federal courts rose 31.9 percent in calendar year 2009, according to data released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (Lawyers USA)

Tough on prisoners? Is Justice Clarence Thomas too dismissive of prisoner abuse cases? (Los Angeles Times)

Anatomy of a (false) rumor: Folks are still trying to figure out just what the source was for last week’s false rumor that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. was set to resign. (LA Times, Above the Law)

Boon for Levy case prosecutors? A recent Miranda ruling by the Supreme Court could make it easier for prosecutors in the murder case of former intern Chandra Levy. (McClatchy)

New credit card regs: The Federal Reserve Board has proposed a new rule that would protect credit card customers from unreasonable fees and penalties for late payments, and dissuade card companies from making drastic interest rate hikes. (Lawyers USA)

Food safety concerns: After another strain of salmonella was found in a plant that makes processed foods including soups, sauces, stews and hot dogs, lawmakers and a Food and Drug Administration official called for the passage of tougher food safety legislation. (Lawyers USA)

Church and state: If Justice John Paul Stevens steps own, will President Obama feel compelled to pick another Protestant to replace him? (Washington Post)

White House advisers will recommend that the Obama administration prosecute the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks before a military tribunal, according to the Washington Post.

Such a move would reverse the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators in federal court. That decision was criticized by members of Congress from both parties who argued that a military tribunal is an appropriate forum for those accused of launching an attack on the country. But supporters of Holder’s decision say holding the trial in a civilian court, which would afford the accused greater constitutional protections, would demonstrate the country’s commitment to the rule of law.

But according to the Post, White House officials felt hamstrung by members of Congress. Advisers feel the reversal is the only way to secure support and funding from Congress to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay. The administration has already missed its one-year deadline for closing the facility. More here from the Washington Post.

In other legal news:

Gitmo push back: The American Bar Association is pushing back against lawmakers seeking the names of Justice Department attorneys representing Guantánamo Bay detainees. The lawyers have been dubbed “the Al-Qaeda Seven.” (ABA Journal)

License to marry: On Wednesday, the District of Columbia began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, after U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. refused to stay a new law authorizing them. (Lawyers USA)

Greatly exaggerated: Did you hear about the rumor that Chief Justice John G. Roberts is considering retirement? Yeah, he didn’t either. (AP)

Deal breaker: A dozen House of Representatives Democrats opposed to abortion are willing to kill President Barack Obama’s health care reform plan unless it satisfies their demand for language barring the procedure, Representative Bart Stupak said on Thursday. (Reuters)

After oral arguments in the handgun ban case McDonald v. City of Chicago had ended Tuesday morning, spectators - some of whom had camped out at the court for more than 24 hours to secure a spot in the room for the debate - became to file out of the courtroom in droves. But there was another case to be argued before the high court, and Elaine J. Goldenberg, counsel for the petitioner in Hui v. Castaneda took her place at the podium even if few people seemed to notice.

“Well, counsel, we’re still here!” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. assured Goldenberg as she and the remaining spectators laughed.

Although the chief justice didn’t get as many laughs this week as Justice Antonin Scalia, who padded his runaway lead with seven additional laughs this week, Roberts made a strong showing with four laughs. Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito also earned a laugh apiece this week. Here are the standings so far this term.

Justice Antonin Scalia: 57

Justice Stephen Breyer: 29

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.: 22

Justice Anthony Kennedy: 7

Justice Samuel Alito: 4

Justice John Paul Stevens: 3

Justice Clarence Thomas: 0 (The oral argument silence that began after Feb. 22, 2006 continues)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 0

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: 0 (Despite the assist, the laugh goes to Scalia)

Today the justices of the Supreme Court seemed poised to extend the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to the states. But the extent to which that right will be extended - and just how much leeway states and cities will have to impose gun regulations - remains unclear.

At oral arguments to day in the case McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenges Chicago’s handgun ban, one thing was clear: the justices did not seem eager to adopt the petitioners’ argument that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Constitution requires not only the extension of the Second Amendment to states and cities, but it also requires the Court to overturn cases dating back to 1873.

Instead, several justices - including Justice Antonin Scalia - hinted instead that extending the right through the doctrine of substantive due process would get the same result without upending century-old precedent.

“Do you think it is at all easier to bring it under the Privileges or Immunities Clause than to bring it under our established law of substantive due process?” Scalia asked attorney Alan Gura who argued on petitioner’s behalf. “And if the answer is no, why are you asking us to overturn 140 years of prior case law - unless you are bucking for a place on some law school faculty?”

Scalia, famous for his strict constructionist approach to constitutional law that eschews doctrines like substantive due process, indicated that he was willing to apply that doctrine even if he doesn’t agree with it.

“As much as I think it is wrong,” Scalia said, “even I have acquiesced to it.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy - who provided the key swing vote in the divided D.C. v. Heller decision - also seemed inclined to apply the Second Amendment to the states, stating several times that any ruling that the right to bear arms is not fundamental would fly in the face of the Heller ruling, which struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban.

But he did seem so sure that every part of the Second Amendment’s protections should be extended to cities and states - a possible clue that he’d be willing to allow local governments to retain some powers to regulate firearms.

More on the case here from Lawyers USA.