“Look, anything can be transformed into a process,” Justice Stephen Breyer told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Wednesday during oral arguments in the patent case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, “Look at those real estate ones, lawyers ones. I have a way of making a great argument in the Supreme Court. You know, you could patent some of your arguments.”

This was one of four funny comments from Breyer during this week of oral arguments, making him this week’s top laugh earner. Justice Antonin Scalia got three chuckles, while Justice Anthony Kennedy earned two laughs.

Here are the standings after six weeks:

Justice Antonin Scalia: 21

Justice Stephen Breyer: 16

Chief Justice John G. Roberts: 9

Justice Anthony Kennedy: 3

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 1

Justice Elena Kagan: 1

Justice Clarence Thomas: 0

Justice Samuel Alito: 0

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: 0

Justice Anthony Kennedy said the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court don’t see as many of the big money civil lawsuits as they used to. The reason?  Arbitration.

“The docket seems to be changing,” Kennedy told reporters invited to meet with him during the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference Monday, according to the Trial Insider. “A lot of big civil cases are going to arbitration. I don’t see as many of the big civil cases.”

That trend is something that could continue, based on the Court’s own recent precedent. The Court’s ruling last term in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion broadened companies’ ability to prescribe arbitration for disputes.

Lawmakers return from the Fourth of July Break today to a full agenda. Much remains to do before Congress breaks again in August, including the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Supreme Court nominee Solicitor General Elena Kagan and the subsequent full Senate vote. The committee is scheduled to take up the Kagan nomination tomorrow, but GOP members could delay that vote.

Meanwhile other matters – from financial regulation, to jobless benefits, to a small business stimulus plan – all await action by lawmakers.

And although the Supreme Court’s term has wrapped – only orders in pending and emergency cases are expected over the summer – there is still much focus on what is to come from the Court next term. The Associated Press points out that the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens gives Justice Anthony Kennedy new power. Although Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. assigns opinions in cases where he votes with the majority, when he’s on the dissenting side the most senior justice in he majority holds the power of assignment. Kennedy, known as a swing voter in many close court votes, could wield that power often since the more senior associate justice, Justice Antonin Scalia, often votes with Roberts.

Meanwhile,

Justice’s nephew alleges stun gun attack: Relatives of Justice Clarence Thomas’ nephew, Derek Thomas, claim he was beaten and shocked by security at a New Orleans hospital while suffering an epileptic seizure. Family members said Justice Thomas plans to travel to New Orleans to check on his nephew. (Washington Post)

Unusual justice: Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s first year on the Court demonstrated not only her strong work ethic and enthusiastic participation during oral arguments, but also her love of dancing, dining, the New York Yankees and more. (Washington Post)

Brennan book coming: Want to know more about the late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan? You’re in luck! A new bio is on the way. (McClatchy)

Any of you making bets on which Supreme Court justice will retire next may want to avoid putting any money on Justice Anthony Kennedy.

According to a report by The New York Daily News [hat tip to ABA Journal], the justice recently told friends that he is not going anywhere – at least not for the next three years or so.

Kennedy, who turns 74 later this month, reportedly told pals that he will still be on the bench after President Obama’s first term concludes. The story, which attributes Kennedy’s comments to anonymous sources, notes that a spokesperson for the Supreme Court said Kennedy could not be reached for official comment.

Known as the Court’s “swing” voter for often casting the deciding vote in crucial 5-4 rulings, Kennedy’s potential retirement next term could have wide implications for the Court. If Obama were to win a second term, Kennedy’s departure could give him the chance to change the political balance of the court with a more liberal-leaning jurist. If a Republican is seated in the White House, the addition of a conservative judge could tilt the largely divided Court to the right.

Usually when the U.S. Supreme Court takes longer than usual to hand down a decision in a particular case, it means there is likely a long opinion – complete with concurrences and/or dissents – in the making. And today’s decision in the eagerly awaited campaign finance case Citizens United v. FEC was no exception.

After all, it takes time to draft and circulate 176 pages of opinion writing among nine justices.

The split opinion eased campaign finance limits on corporate spending in presidential and congressional elections, overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and partially overruling McConnell v. FEC in the process.

In the 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that corporations may spend freely in federal election campaigns so long as the contributions are not made directly to candidates. Kennedy was joined by the Court’s more conservative bloc. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The ruling did keep in place some disclosure requirements on corporations that spend more than $10,000 per year. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the portion of the opinion upholding disclosure requirements.

Much more on the decision can be found from the deft Supreme Court reporters at the Associated Press and SCOTUSblog.

So unless you’ve been under a proverbial rock, you’re aware of the party crash heard ‘round the world: Tareq and Michaele Salahi’s uninvited appearance at a state dinner at the White House last week.

Now, as the secret service investigates how the Virginia couple was able to waltz right past security at the White House, media types are trying to figure out just what is true and what is not about the couple whose attempt to be on a reality television show (the upcoming Washington version of Bravo’s Real Housewives franchise) and dubious personal claims have caused a stir.

Photo of Salahi and Kennedy on the couple's winery website

DC Dicta was surprised to read in the Washington Post this past weekend that the couple had none other than Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as a speaker at their 2003 wedding. But political website TPMMuckraker has been unable to find anything other than the couple’s word to verify that claim.

A picture of the Tareq Salahi standing with Kennedy can be found on the website for the couple’s Virginia winery. But the ABA Journal reports that the winery is the subject of one of many legal problems the couple faces, including a number of civil suits alleging nonpayment for services.

And the White House affair is apparently not the couple’s first party crash. The Salahis also showed up uninvited to a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation event by allegedly sneaking in through the serving staff entrance. The couple was later asked to leave the function.

One thing is for sure: the couple clearly values celebrity. The winery website shows the couple posing with a number of notable, including Prince Charles, Sen. Mark Warner and Kennedy.

The couple may not be done taking pictures yet. There could be mug shots in their future. The BLT blog has a handy rundown of all the criminal charges they could face after their 15 minutes of infamy have expired.

Justice Anthony Kennedy – in expressing his disappointment with a New York Times piece claiming the justice required pre-publication approval of student news accounts of his speech – told the Wall Street Journal: “The fact that you have something of a gotcha doesn’t mean you have to run with a story. There’s almost an urge to run with a story before you find out that it doesn’t have any legs.”

Well, apparently the Journal’s Jess Bravin found those legs and is running on them.

Just as the dust was starting to clear over the flap following the coverage of Kennedy’s speech at New York’s Dalton School, Bravin reports that George Washington University Law School officials said their students were also asked to clear quotes from the justice’s speech at the school with the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office.

One GW student covering the talk said he had no choice but to abide by the request. It was “a big event for us, and you have to play by their rules,” he said.

Kennedy said he didn’t know about the request. The Public Information Office confirmed the pre-approval request with the Journal, and said it was made at request of member of Kennedy’s staff.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wants to set the record straight: reports that he demanded pre-approval before a student newspaper could publish a story about his recent visit to the school are not true. So please, everyone, calm down.

“The press loves to point out that people have double standards,” Kennedy said of the outrage after a New York Times piece stated that “Justice Kennedy’s office had insisted on approving any article about a talk he gave.”

“There was a clear suggestion that was based on a factual premise that was wrong” in the story, Kennedy said later — namely that he wanted to edit what the students wrote in the paper before it was published.

Word of the justice’s apparent practice of prior restraint spread across the blogosphere quickly after the Times story, with some commentators blasting the justice for preaching freedom of the press from the bench, but practicing something else outside the courtroom.

When the Times story fist ran, DC Dicta wondered if perhaps Kennedy was media shy after a recent misquote by a student newspaper twisted the justice’s words and sentiment. But, it turns out, the whole thing was a misunderstanding.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the justice never asked to check the story before publication. A misunderstanding over a rule barring outside media, but not school publications, was at the root of the flap. But, Kennedy told the Journal’s Jess Bravin that the whole thing left a bad taste in his mouth.

“My relatives call me from California, my family is all upset, and other people are calling me,” he told Bravin. “What a stupid story,” he said. “After 40 years of teaching, the only time it’s mentioned is that I have a double standard, which is just not true.”

Are the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court a bunch of slackers?

Justice Anthony Kennedy thinks the Court should pack its docket with more cases each term. Speaking at an event at George Washington University Law School last week, Kennedy said the Court decided about 150 cases a year during his early years on the bench. Now, the court take up about 80 cases each term. That leaves the justices with just a wee too much time on their hands, Kennedy said.

“We should have 100 cases,” Kennedy said, according to this GW Hatchet report. “Eighty does not work us to full capacity.”

Kennedy also talked about being the infamous “swing vote” in so many pivotal High Court cases. “I never read a brief I couldn’t go down the middle on,” said Kennedy, according to The Daily Colonial.

UPDATE: According to the Supreme Court Public Information Office, Kennedy was not talking about being the fifth vote in split decisions at all. He was talking about the length of briefs submitted to the Court. His quote actually was: “I never read a brief I couldn’t put down in the middle.”

HT: ABA Journal

During yesterday’s oral argument in Perdue v. Kenny A., Pratik A. Shah, assistant to the Solicitor General, argued that judges should only award attorney’s fee enhancements in extraordinary cases – like when the lawyer had to represent a very unpopular client.

“For extraordinary circumstances?” Justice Anthony Kennedy said. “What about a very, very popular cause and he wins and they are beating his door down? Can we reduce it for that?”

As the audience laughed, Shah continued.

“No, Your Honor, that would not require a reduction,” Shah said.

Justice Antonin Scalia leaned forward.

“Well, I mean, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” he said, drawing laughter. “I mean, if you get rewarded for unpopularity, you ought to be get penalized for popularity.”

Scalia was the king of the one-liners this week, which earned him a whopping eight laughs during this holiday-shortened week at the Supreme Court, and boosted him back to the top of out ongoing tally.

Here is the laugh count:

Justice Antonin Scalia: 13

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.: 9

Justice Anthony Kennedy: 3

Justice Stephen Breyer: 3

Justice John Paul Stevens: 2

Justice Samuel Alito: 1

Justice Clarence Thomas (Thomas has remained silent during oral arguments since Feb. 22, 2006): 0

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 0

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: 0