Barack Obama is gunning for a confrontation with the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts has signaled that he welcomes the fight. Last week, the chief justice described the president’s State of the Union condemnation of the Citizens United decision as “very troubling” and complained that the speech had “degenerated to a political pep rally.” Roberts was making an argument about etiquette--dissent was fine, he said, but Obama had somehow transgressed the boundaries of civilized discourse by delivering his attack to a captive audience. But he was implicitly making a political argument as well. That is, Roberts seems to have joined the battle with Obama because he thinks the Court can win it.

As a matter of history, this argument is wrong: In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court, it’s almost always the president who prevails. Using the Court as a punching bag puts Obama in the company of his greatest predecessors, Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts--all of whom bashed the Court for thwarting the will of the people. As long as he plays his cards carefully, Obama has much to gain from challenging John Roberts, and the Roberts Court much to lose.

The three-judge panel Tuesday ordered the secretary of state to accept the group's petition seeking to recall Sen. Robert Menendez. That allows the tea party activists to begin collecting the 1.3 million voter signatures they need to get a recall on the ballot.

The court set aside the larger question of whether voters have a constitutional right to recall a federal lawmaker.

New Jersey is among 18 states that allow recalls of statewide elected officials. There is no right to recall congressmen and senators under the U.S. Constitution.

The court says it would take up that question if the petition drive succeeds.

Blagojevich's attorneys asked U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel last week to postpone the trial, which is scheduled to begin June 3, by five months.

Prosecutors told Zagel that Blagojevich "has repeatedly and publicly challenged the legitimacy of the charges against him."

"As a result, the public has a strong interest in the expeditious resolution of the charges — an interest that would not be served by an unnecessary delay of five months in the start of his trial," prosecutors said.

They also reminded Zagel that by June 3, Blagojevich will have had more than a year to prepare with a number of lawyers working on his behalf.

Blagojevich is charged with racketeering conspiracy and other offenses that include allegations he schemed to sell or trade President Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat and illegally pressured people doing business with the state for campaign contributions. He has pleaded not guilty.

His attorneys have asked that the start of the trial be delayed until Nov. 3, saying they must review an overwhelming number of documents and there is no way they can have the job done by June.

Robbins Umeda LLP, a California-based law firm, announced this week that it has launched an investigation into the recent acquisition of Broadview Security by Tyco International.

According to a statement issued by the firm, the investigation will look into possible breaches of "fiduciary duty" and other state laws by the Broadview board of directors.

The firm added that is will also determine if the acceptance and recommendation of the offer by the Broadview board was fair and if they disclosed all information necessary to share holders so that they could make an informed decision on how to vote.

Broadview share holders who want more information can contact attorney Lauren Levi at 800-350-6003.

London's High Court on Tuesday suspended a winding-up order against the debt-ridden Premier League club that was being pursued by the revenue and customs service.

Gregory Mitchell, the lawyer representing the service, told the court that Portsmouth entering financial administration "offers the best chance of the club surviving".

Portsmouth is likely to be relegated to the League Championship. The south-coast club is bottom of the Premier League -- eight points from safety -- and is set to be docked nine points for entering administration.

Law firms are circling geothermal energy company Ormat Technologies, after a class action law suit was filed accusing the firm and its executives of knowlingly falsifying its accounts.

Pennsylvania firm Howard G Smith filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of investors, after Ormat revealed back in February that it would have to revise its accounts for the year up to December 2008.

Ormat announced on February 26 that it had reviewed its accounting procedures, and decided the way it had treated costs associated with discontinued geothermal projects had been “discontinued”.

The move will see its income for 2008 downgraded by $6.2 million.

The law suit has arisen since Ormat’s admission apparently led to its share value dropping by nearly 13%. The class action alleges that Ormat and its executives were liable for investors’ losses.

A number of law firms came out over the weekend, chasing Ormat investors with the offer of representing them in the class action suit. These include the Colorado-based Shuman Law Firm, Oklahoma City firm Federman & Sherwood, Connecticut-based Izard Nobel, Dallas firm Kendall Law Group and the New York-based Brualdi Law Firm.

Thomas McFarland had unsuccessfully sought to enter a pretrial intervention program that would have spared him a criminal record.

Under terms of a plea agreement, the state will recommend the 61-year-old be sentenced to one year of probation and be ordered to pay the seaside town of Avalon $100,000 to offset cleanup costs.

McFarland admitted dumping hypodermic needles, cotton swabs and other medical waste into an inlet just before Labor Day weekend in 2008.

His lawyer says the dentist was distraught to the point of mental illness over his wife's lung cancer, and appeared to be acting out in "a cry for help."