The Senate gave President Barack Obama a major victory Monday in his efforts to remake the federal courts, confirming a judge who will tip the political balance on the once-conservative appeals court based in Richmond.

The 72-16 vote for U.S. District Judge Andre Davis gives Democratic nominees a 6-5 edge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been tough in death penalty cases, backed abortion restrictions and supported President George W. Bush's detainee policies.

Davis, of Baltimore, was the sixth of Obama's court nominees to be confirmed, including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Immediately after approving Davis, the Senate voted 88-0 to confirm a seventh Obama nominee — Charlene Edwards Honeywell — for a district court seat in Florida.

Despite the overwhelming support for both nominees, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking committee Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama squared off in a never-ending battle over judges. Each blamed the other's party for years of blocking tactics.

Leahy pointed out that 28 judges were confirmed during Bush's first year. Sessions argued that the average time from nomination to confirmation for Bush's appellate court nominees was 350 days, a far longer wait than for Davis, who was nominated April 2. Sessions opposed his confirmation.

Davis had been caught in judicial politics before. President Bill Clinton nominated him for the 4th Circuit in October 2000, but the Senate didn't vote before Bush took office.

Prior to the Senate votes Monday, there were 21 appellate vacancies and 76 more for district courts. Since the Supreme Court usually hears about 80 cases a year, the appellate courts usually are the last judicial stop in deciding many of the nation's most controversial legal issues.

No appellate court has been more ripe for change than the 4th Circuit, which hears appeals from courts in West Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas and Virginia. Senators have battled for years over its nominees, leaving seats unfilled for years.

Read Street was a lively place for commenters last week, in the wake of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. And "lively" is an understatement. The comments were unusually vitriolic and polarized for this blog. They put me in the unusual role of censor, so I thought I should explain my thinking on the topic.

Comments must be approved by me or Nancy before they're posted on Read Street, and I'm usually pretty light-handed, killing only those that are obscene or slanderous. And the bounds of fair comment are broad when a political figure is the target. So I posted many harsh comments, even though there was obvious irony in those that said Obama's Nobel was premature, while skewering him for a host of political sins that he could not possibly have had time to commit in less than a year in office.

I admit to censoring one comment though. It was from a Holocaust denier. That, to me, was in its own way, obscene and slanderous to the memory of all who died, and all who remember them today.

The White House and top Democrats, intensifying their push to build support for their party's health overhaul proposals, are increasingly targeting women, a politically crucial group with strong opinions on health care that polls suggest has yet to be sold on the changes.

In speeches, news conferences and even an all-female talk-in on the Senate floor Thursday, Democrats have been pounding away daily on the message that their ideas — along the lines of what President Barack Obama has called for — are especially good for women. The campaign reflects a concern among Democrats that women, who typically make most of a family's health care decisions, are not yet on board with the sweeping changes Obama and his congressional allies are advocating.

That's despite the fact that women have historically been more concerned about health care, and more likely to support changes, than men.

A recent Associated Press-GfK poll found that women, like the public overall, are generally split on the health care legislation. Although younger women — those under 55 who many opinion experts consider crucial in any health care debate — slightly favor the proposals, nearly one-third of them are on the fence, saying they are neither supportive nor opposed.

"What we're seeing is that the administration and the Congress still has to make the case to women," said pollster Mark Mellman, who has advised Democrats and liberal groups on public attitudes on the health care overhaul. "The volume has to be turned up on the communication, and the communication has to be directed to a large degree toward this group."

Lawyers representing South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford in an ethics investigation are asking the state Supreme Court to keep the report out of the hands of a Legislature expected to consider impeaching him.

Sanford has been under pressure to quit since revealing he disappeared for a week from the state in the summer to visit his mistress in Argentina.

His lawyer said Wednesday that he wants the court to force the State Ethics Commission to keep its investigation secret until after it decides whether Sanford broke laws by using state planes for personal and political purposes.

In August, Sanford said the commission could release its complaint against him.

Sanford contends the commission wants to give lawmakers an early report on the probe. Ethics Director Herb Hayden says that will not happen.

New York's top court has upheld Gov. David Paterson's power to appoint a lieutenant governor, reversing a lower court's decision.

The court ruling released Tuesday is a timely victory for Paterson, who is facing calls from national Democratic Party leaders to abandon his bid for governor in 2010.

The ruling makes Richard Ravitch the state's lietenant governor. Paterson appointed him July 8 to help break a monthlong Senate leadership struggle,

Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos then filed a lawsuit challenging Paterson's authority to make the appointment.

The lieutenant governor's post had been empty since Paterson stepped up to replace Eliot Spitzer, who resigned last year amid a prostitution scandal.

President Barack Obama's policies on secrecy get higher grades for openness than those of President George W. Bush, yet there's still room for improvement, says a coalition of public interest groups.

In a report issued Tuesday, the coalition says the new administration has made major strides toward more disclosure, including the recent release of Justice Department memos on Bush administration interrogation policies and Obama's embrace of greater openness under the Freedom of Information Act.

The report noted, however, that the government has resisted release of photos from Army interrogation investigations; has not backed away from occasional use of the state secrets privilege; and has argued in court for secrecy regarding the role of former Vice President Dick Cheney in the Valerie Plame affair.

The country elected a president who promises the most open, transparent and accountable executive branch in history and "the record to date is mixed," says the report by OpenTheGovernment.org, a group of 75 public interest groups.

Open government advocates are concerned that much of the Obama administration's review of disclosure issues is taking place in secret.

For example, an interagency government task force is delving into the issue of unclassified information that the government nonetheless keeps under wraps by designating it as "controlled unclassified information," or CUI.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled the case — the first of several pending challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act — must be refiled in federal court.

Carter said the suit had been improperly filed in state court before it was transferred to his jurisdiction. As a result, the judge said, he would not entertain arguments on its merits, at least not yet.

"There is no point for us to go down the line of decision-making and waste time," he said during the hearing in Santa Ana.

The case, brought on behalf of a gay Southern California couple, argues that the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against gay men and lesbians.

The 1996 law bars federal recognition of gay unions, including the granting of Social Security survivor payments and other government benefits to couples. , Six states have now legalized same-sex marriage, but the federal law still bars those couples from receiving the benefits.

Gay marriage supporters accused Obama of betraying them this summer, after U.S. Justice Department lawyers filed court papers in the lawsuit strenuously defending the federal law. As a candidate, Obama pledged to work for its repeal.