Senate Democrats have rejected a Republican effort to delay a hearing for a liberal appeals court nominee, making clear they are ready for a partisan fight.

A hearing for University of California-Berkeley, law professor Goodwin Liu will go on as scheduled April 16, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Wednesday. He said Republicans were unwilling to "put political rancor aside" to debate the nomination, which will test President Obama's ability to fill court seats with liberals as well as moderates.

All seven committee Republicans had asked for a delay. In a letter sent Tuesday, they wrote Leahy arguing Liu's belated responses to a committee questionnaire justified a delay in the hearing for the nominee to a San Francisco-based appeals court.

But Leahy, D-Vt., wrote the panel's senior Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, that he had already postponed the hearing twice — once due to a Republican request and then because of GOP stalling tactics.

The chairman said he was disappointed that "we have seen the same delays and obstructionist approach toward these nominees on the Senate floor extend to the committee's consideration."

If confirmed, Liu would serve on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals serving California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii and Montana.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida had correctly dismissed the case brought by Linda Guinn, a former legal secretary from Palm Bay, Fla., in her early 60s.

Before that case was to go to trial, AstraZeneca successfully argued in January 2009, before District Judge Anne Conway, that Guinn's doctor did not qualify as an expert under federal court rules and so her testimony should be excluded. The drugmaker also persuaded the judge to grant a summary judgment motion in its favor, arguing that Guinn failed to establish that Seroquel caused her diabetes.

The 11th Circuit Court, based in Atlanta, upheld those decisions.

"The appeals court decision echoes earlier federal and state court opinions that found Seroquel could not be proven to be responsible for plaintiffs' alleged injuries," AstraZeneca spokesman Tony Jewell said in a statement.

The Court of Appeals, divided 4-3, says the New York's Office of Mental Health decided not to license the nursing homes. Therefore lawyers for the Mental Hygiene Legal Service lack jurisdiction.

State mental institutions began discharging patients in 1996 to nursing homes for continued but lower-level care.

The MHLS was established to guard the rights of the mentally disabled in institutions. It sought access to all those patients. The nursing homes said no, citing privacy rights.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Charles Patton, who was convicted and sentenced to 44 years in prison on drug charges. He appealed his conviction, saying that jurors weren't questioned by his trial judge on whether they had any bias against firearms. Patton had a loaded firearm when he was arrested.

The Illinois Appellate Court threw out the appeal, saying the judge did not have to ask about potential firearm bias on his own.

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that lawyers for people thinking of pleading guilty to a crime must advise their clients who are not citizens about the possibility that they will be deported.

Likening deportation to the punishments of banishment and exile, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for five justices, said the Constitution guaranteed competent legal advice on at least some collateral consequences of guilty pleas.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel,” Justice Stevens wrote.

The vote was 7 to 2, though two justices in the majority would have required only that criminal defense lawyers not say anything false and tell their clients to consult an immigration lawyer if they had questions.

The case involved Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras who has lived in the United States for 40 years, served in the Vietnam War and is a legal permanent resident. Mr. Padilla, a commercial truck driver, was arrested in 2001 after the authorities in Kentucky found more than 1,000 pounds of marijuana in his truck.

Mr. Padilla pleaded guilty to marijuana trafficking, a felony, and received a five-year sentence. He later said he had agreed to the plea based on his lawyer’s incorrect advice that it would not affect his immigration status. In fact, the plea made it all but certain that Mr. Padilla would be deported once he served his time.

The question in the case, Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08-651, was whether bad legal advice about a collateral consequence of a guilty plea could amount to ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

But the just-enacted health care overhaul law contains a provision that changed the federal False Claims Act in a way that would appear to allow new, similar lawsuits to go forward.

The court voted 7-2 to hold that a technical, though important aspect, of the federal whistleblower law applies to local governments. One section of the law prohibits whistleblower lawsuits when public disclosure of the alleged fraud occurs through a court hearing, a news report or congressional or administrative audit.

In an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court ruled that the language on administrative audits refers to a report prepared by any government, not just a federal government document. The question had divided federal appeals courts.

Justice Sotomayor dissented, saying her colleagues "misread the statutory text" to limit whistleblower claims. Justice Stephen Breyer joined the dissenting opinion.

But, in any event, the health care legislation signed by President Barack Obama last week changed the false claims law so that it now refers specifically to federal reports. Stevens noted the change in a footnote to his opinion, but said it did not affect pending lawsuits.

Robert Pritchard Sr., of Fairchance, got 63 votes for a district judge post in southwestern Pennsylvania in the May 2009 primary. He got zero votes in two of 19 precincts. The incumbent got 2,900 votes and another challenger got 957.

Pritchard says people could have voted illegally because the county allegedly hasn't properly purged 25,000 dead or unregistered voters from its rolls. County attorneys say that had nothing to do with Pritchard's lopsided loss.

Two state appeals courts previously rejected his appeal.