Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan got a boost from potential GOP supporters Thursday, when two Republican senators who will vote on her confirmation both said her lack of experience as a judge is no obstacle to elevating her.

Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and George S. LeMieux of Florida made their comments a day after one of the court's conservative icons, Justice Antonin Scalia, undercut Republican criticism of Kagan's lack of a judicial background.

Scalia's remark, made during a lecture Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Washington, "helps her. Definitely, it helps her," said Graham, a member of the Judiciary Committee that will hold confirmation hearings on Kagan set to begin June 28. "I think that argument is not going to go very far."

LeMieux, who had a lengthy meeting with Kagan in the Capitol Thursday, also said judicial inexperience was not a concern.

"I don't find that in any way a prohibition to her service," LeMieux said. The first-term Floridian called Kagan intelligent, articulate and "refreshingly forthcoming" on a variety of questions he posed, on subjects including free speech, guns, gay and lesbian rights and abortion.

A 10-page order signed on Wednesday by Los Angeles County Superior Judge Carl West also recommends that the state-based litigation, consisting of consumer-fraud class actions and personal injury claims, be assigned to a single judge in neighboring Orange County.

The order lists 40 separate cases filed so far in California courts against the Japanese automaker seeking damages for sudden, unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles, said Aldwin Lim, a court clerk.

A final decision on assigning the cases rests with the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, Ronald George, and he is expected to render his decision in two to three weeks.

Complaints of runaway vehicles and other safety issues have led to the recall of more than 8.5 million Toyota vehicles worldwide, most for repairs of ill-fitting floor mats and sticking gas pedals the automaker blames for surging engines.

At a hearing before West on Tuesday, a lawyer for Toyota Motor Corp urged the judge to order all the California court cases to be sent to Orange County, the same jurisdiction where over 100 separate Toyota cases brought in U.S. district courts around the country have been assigned to a single federal judge.

The Massachusetts attorney general asked a judge Wednesday to strike down a federal gay marriage ban, arguing it interferes with the right of states to define marriage and have those marriages acknowledged by the federal government.

The challenge to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act by Attorney General Martha Coakley's office was heard in federal court in Boston.

Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey argued states have historically had the right to define marriage.

She said the 1996 law could result in the denial of Medicaid and other benefits to married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

A lawyer from the U.S. Justice Department, Christopher Hall, argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits — including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

Hall also pointed to instances where the federal government has regulated the definition of marriage in certain immigration cases.

Two former managers of a company convicted of supplying substandard concrete to the Big Dig highway project in Boston have avoided prison time for their roles in the scheme.

A federal judge on Wednesday sentenced 64-year-old Robert Prosperi of Lynnfield and 53-year-old Gregory Stevenson of Furlong, Pa., to three years of probation, including six months of home confinement.

Federal prosecutors had requested prison sentences of at least seven years for each former manager at Aggregate Industries Inc.

U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz said the government was "disappointed" with the sentences because they do not "reflect the seriousness of the offense."

The men were convicted in August of 135 felonies, including conspiracy to commit highway project fraud. Their lawyers argued for leniency because they did not profit personally from the scheme.

A panel of judges has decided that the city of Los Angeles did not violate billboard companies' constitutional rights when it enacted a ban on outdoor ads.

The ruling this week by the 9th District Court of Appeals reverses a federal judge's 2008 decision that exceptions to the ban raised free speech concerns because they gave city officials too much leeway in deciding which signs to allow.

The appeals' court judges also vacated a contempt order against the city that was issued after it issued citations against outdoor advertising company World Wide Rush, one of the companies that challenged the sign ban.

Messages left with World Wide Rush's attorney and the Los Angeles city attorney's office were not immediately returned.

Elizabeth A. Alexander, a partner with the Nashville office of the national plaintiffs’ law firm, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and attorney Charles Barrett, of Nashville, announced today that a local owner of a Gulf Coast vacation home has filed a class action lawsuit against BP. The plaintiff, a Nashville resident and owner of beachfront property in Panacea, Florida, brought the class action on behalf of herself and all Tennessee residents who own property on the Gulf coast in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and have suffered economic losses caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and the resulting oil spill.

“The value of properties along the Gulf Coast and rental income for property owners, including owners from Tennessee, have been negatively impacted. BP and other defendants must take responsibility for their losses.”
."This unfolding and unprecedented ecological and economic disaster, the complaint charges, was the result of negligence by BP and the other corporations involved in drilling at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig," Ms. Alexander stated. "The value of properties along the Gulf Coast and rental income for property owners, including owners from Tennessee, have been negatively impacted. BP and other defendants must take responsibility for their losses."

Defendants named in the complaint include BP, PLC, and BP America, Inc., which owns the oil well, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., which leases the oil rig to BP, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., which was engaged in cementing operations at the well, and Cameron International Corporation, which supplied the blowout preventer valves for the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that have failed to activate.

The complaint, entitled Simcox v. BP, PLC, et al., was filed yesterday afternoon in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee. The complaint charges that defendants failed to employ necessary safety measures and technologies to prevent the spill and damage to marine and coastal environments. To read a copy of the complaint, please visit http://www.gulfoilspilllitigationgroup.com/pdf/20100525-tn-complaint.pdf