What are the odds?

Check out this USA Today article:

Unlike many moms, Barbara Soper never gets her kids' birthdays confused. That's because her first was born on Aug, 8, 2008, her second on Sept. 9, 2009 and her most recent on Oct. 10, 2010.

Yes, that's 8-8-08, 9-9-09 and 10-10-10.

1 in a billion, right? Not so fast:

While the dates might seem "incredibly rare," they're really not. Such a lineup can only happen in the first 12 years of the century and at least 10 months apart, says Shannon McWeeney, a professor of biostatistics at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.
"Given that the first birth occurred in that window, the probability is not as astronomical as you might be compelled to think," she says.In fact, it's not that high a number at all, says Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley. "The 'chance' you get depends on the assumptions you make," he says. One set of assumptions gives a chance of about 1 in 50 million. More realistic assumptions — including allowing at least 11 months between births — increases it to about 1 in 2,500. Since thousands of women in the United States had kids in 2008, 2009 and 2010, this suddenly seems a little less extraordinary. But humans "like to look for patterns, to make sense of things" he says.For the Sopers, three is simply their lucky number — "we don't have any more planned," says Barbara.

What does this have to do with the SDFLA? I couldn't really figure that out either. But it's a neat story. So there.

Tuesday morning

1. Rumpole and the NYTimes take on Supreme Court specialists. I usually really like Adam Liptak, but I think he (and Rumpole) got this one all wrong. Take the example they cite in the lead to the article:

Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, deported to Mexico, had run out of options. A federal appeals court said he could not return to the United States to live with his American wife and son. And his lawyer did not have the expertise or money to pursue the case further.

Then the cavalry arrived. Leading lawyers from around the country, sensing that the case was one of the rare ones that might reach the Supreme Court, called to offer free help. Mr. Fernandez-Vargas’s immigration lawyer was delighted, and he chose a lawyer from a prominent firm here.

But there was a catch, and then a controversy. The catch was that the Washington lawyer, David M. Gossett, would take the case only if he could argue before the Supreme Court himself.

The controversy was that groups representing immigrants were furious, suspicious of the new lawyer’s interest in the case and fearful of a Supreme Court ruling that would curtail the rights of immigrants nationwide.

Indeed, Mr. Gossett faced a barrage of hostile questions from the justices, and in June 2006 the court ruled against his client, 8 to 1. The ruling wiped out decisions in much of the nation — notably from the federal appeals court in California — that had favored immigrants.

So let me get this straight -- Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, having lost and waiting to get deported after serving a federal prison sentence, should not fight his case and lay down because it might not be good for others. Please. That's not how our adversary system works. Gossett was fighting for his client and was able to get cert granted! Instead of being villified by immigration groups and a front page article in the New York Times, he should be getting kudos.

This morning the Court will hear argument on whether vaccine makers should have immunity:
At issue is whether a no-fault system established by Congress about 25 years ago to compensate children and others injured by commonly used vaccines should protect manufacturers from virtually all product liability lawsuits. The law was an effort to strike a balance between the need to provide care for those injured by vaccines, some of them severely, and the need to protect manufacturers from undue litigation.

Under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, such claims typically proceed through an alternative legal system known as “vaccine court.” Under that system, a person is compensated if their injury is among those officially recognized as caused by a vaccine. That person, or their parents, can choose to reject that award and sue the vaccine’s manufacturer, but they then face severe legal hurdles created by law to deter such actions.

The case before the Supreme Court is not related to autism. But the biggest effect of the court’s ruling, lawyers said, will be on hundreds of pending lawsuits that contend a link exists between childhood vaccines and autism. Repeated scientific studies have found no such connection.

In other news, everyone is just SHOCKED about the Judge Jack Camp story.

And Justice Kagan is sporting conservative robes.

10 years for Villegas (Scott Rothstein's "right hand")

That sentence was much higher than the government's recommendation (7 years) and the defense's (home confinement). You all know my feelings on this -- a judge should almost never go above a prosecutor's recommended sentence. That should be the ceiling in our adversary system. What do you all think?

UPDATE -- maybe I spoke too soon about the sentence. Here's Curt Anderson on the details of the hearing:

But Debra Villegas, 43, will probably serve far less time because of her extensive cooperation with prosecutors, who said it was likely they would seek a sentence reduction later. U.S. District Judge William Zloch also took the unusual step of allowing Villegas to remain free until June 24, 2011, so she can assist in the ongoing investigation of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler firm.

Other off-the-chart sentences are being handed out. SFLawyers covers one here, where "the kingdom of God" was invoked.

The Daily Business Review has a fancy new website. It looks really good and is much more user friendly. Go check it out.

Time for the weekend. I need to go figure out my pick against Rump.

Federal JNC accepting applications for Judge Huck's seat

Here's the letter from the Senators announcing the opening and the letter from John Fitzgibbons, chair of the JNC. Here's the application to apply. And here are your JNC members who will be making the decision.

Wednesday notes

1. Can't get enough of the Judge Camp story. How Appealing is keeping track of all the articles.
R. Robin McDonald has this article -- my favorite coverage because of the shout-out to the blog! -- in the Fulton County Daily Report.

2. The Supreme Court heard a case today that tests the limits of free speech, Snyder v. Phelps. Basically, the Court asked whether there should there be a funeral exception to the First Amendment. SCOTUS Blog covers the argument here. Not an easy one.

3. Tony Mauro says yes to cameras in the Supreme Court. He's so right:

You've probably already read about Monday's historic moment in the life of the Supreme Court and of the nation. When the Supreme Court convened for the beginning of its new term, three of the nine justices who emerged from behind the marble columns to take their seats were women — the first time ever that the court's membership has included that many women at once.

But you only read about it. You did not see it, unless you were among the 250 or so people lucky enough to secure a seat inside the court that morning. As one of those fortunate people, I can tell you it was low-key but dramatic. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan took their places at the bench alongside their male colleagues without comment, and only the barest of smiles. Kagan looked awestruck at first but soon was asking questions with confidence, and no trace of freshman jitters.

When was the last time such a symbolic public event was so invisible? We have grown accustomed to seeing such moments — from the inauguration of the first African American as president, to the launch of the first woman into space — on television. But not at the Supreme Court of the United States. Its stubborn resistance to modern means of engaging with the public it serves is annoying every day it is in session, but especially so on a day like Monday, when it should have let the people in to see history in the making.


4. Judicial nominations are going forward. Confirmations, not so much.