The court next month will hear arguments in a challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, the most important gun rights case at the Supreme Court in 70 years.

Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.

"The Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm ... a Second Amendment right to own a gun for self-defense," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said at a Washington news conference Thursday.

Nine Democrats in the Senate and 68 in the House joined much larger Republican contingents in signing the brief, which is expected to be filed Friday.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias.

The Bush administration also supports individual gun rights. But the administration said governments still may impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and asked the justices to send the case back to lower courts without deciding whether the handgun ban fails that test.

Hutchison and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who also signed the brief, agreed that some restrictions are valid but said the court should declare the handgun ban unconstitutional and set a clear limit beyond which governments may not go to restrict gun ownership.

"I'm ready for Wednesday to get here," Clemens said, referring to the committee's public hearing next week, when Clemens, McNamee and other witnesses, including current New York Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, are to testify.

It was the seven-time Cy Young Award winner Clemens' denials of McNamee's allegations in the Mitchell Report about drug use that drew Congress' attention.

"Because the perception out there was so strong originally that he did it and was lying, he's going to extra steps to try and persuade and make people comfortable with the fact that he didn't do it. He's having to take extraordinary measures because the allegations are extraordinary," one of Clemens' lawyers, Rusty Hardin, said outside Tierney's office.

Hardin said Clemens was meeting with individual representatives "to assure them privately the same thing he's saying publicly — that he didn't take steroids, and he didn't take human growth hormone, and he's here to talk to anybody about it who wants to."

Clemens, who gave a deposition Tuesday, was to visit a dozen congressmen Thursday and Friday, including Rep. Tom Davis, the committee's ranking Republican, according to a schedule released by Clemens' camp. Committee chairman Henry Waxman was not listed on the schedule.

In former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell's report on doping in baseball, released in December, McNamee said he injected Clemens 16 times with steroids and human growth hormone in 1998, 2000 and 2001. Clemens has repeatedly denied those accusations, including, he said, under oath Tuesday.

On Wednesday, word emerged that McNamee's representatives turned over gauze pads and syringes they said had Clemens' blood to IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky in early January, a person familiar with the evidence said, speaking on condition of anonymity because McNamee's lawyers did not want to publicly discuss details. The syringes were used to inject Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone, the person said. A second person, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the evidence was from 2000 and 2001.

The California Supreme Court has set arguments in the legal fight over gay marriage for March 4, assuring that a ruling will be issued by June.

The state's high court will hear the legal challenge in San Francisco, where the battle over same-sex marriage first unfolded four years ago when Mayor Gavin Newsom temporarily issued marriage licenses to gay couples.

San Francisco city officials and civil rights groups have challenged California's ban on gay marriage, arguing that it deprives same-sex couples of the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

A divided state appeals court in 2006 upheld the state ban on same-sex marriage, overturning a San Francisco judge who previously declared it unconstitutional. The state Supreme Court will be reviewing that appeals court ruling.

The justices must rule within 90 days of the arguments.

Hafer, 30, of Cynthiana, told the judge he didn't trust his court-appointed lawyer, Doug Crickmer. As Crickmer began to tell Judge Rob Johnson that Hafer couldn't choose his public defender, Hafer landed the first punch.

"I just couldn't take it anymore and I just snapped," Hafer said later at the Scott County jail.

Hafer hit the attorney several times in the face and stomach. Hafer was restrained on the ground. Crickmer was admitted to Georgetown Community Hospital and released later that day. He said he will not file assault charges.

"I certainly don't fault him or blame him or wish him any ill will," Crickmer said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show. "I think Mr. Hafer was just frustrated. Like I said, he had been in jail for some time. ... I think he just got frustrated, fed up, and he just snapped and I was the nearest target."

Hafer was arrested in August on charges of burglarizing a K-Mart store in June.

As for his request for a new attorney, Hafer apparently will get his way. Authorities said a new one will be appointed.

The New York Observer has answered a burning political question that never occurred to us, at least until now: "If the major presidential candidates were top New York law firms, which ones would they be?"

Lawyers in New York - perhaps enjoying a bit more idle time than usual these days - energetically took up the question, offering all kinds of suggestions and nominations, David Lat wrote. Lawyers nationwide have showered Hillary Clinton with more campaign contributions than any other candidate, federal records show. In Mr. Lat's informal survey, though, when asked which firm most embodies Mrs. Clinton, the common answer from lawyers in her home state was "Not mine."

So how did the pairings shape up?

After some debate, Mr. Lat declared Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison the closest match for Mrs. Clinton. Why Paul Weiss? One anonymous lawyer at the firm suggested that, like the candidate, the firm had a reputation for being a bit, well, hard-driving. (The lawyer actually used a more colorful phrase.) "But those who know her - and us - know we are 'good people,'" the lawyer added.

Another lawyer nominated Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the boutique firm known for advising in big mergers and defending chief executives under siege, as a match for Mrs. Clinton, suggesting they both had a "thorough command of the issues." This caused a Wachtell associate to snort back, "Can you picture Wachtell crying?"

Many lawyers pitched their employers as the Barack Obama of law firms, but Mr. Lat gave that title to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, a relatively young business-litigation firm where, according to a recent article in The New York Times, "flip-flops are acceptable footwear."

"Both seem to be the young, upstart contenders, trying to do things a new way," was how one observer put it.

On the Republican side, John McCain got paired with Cravath, Swaine & Moore, but only after plenty of jokes about being old - and at least one reference to torture.

Finding a match for Mitt Romney was apparently a cinch: It was Sullivan & Cromwell, a law firm that consistently ranks near the top of the merger advisory league tables. A former associate at the firm offered these common traits: "Very picture-perfect. Always willing to go with the highest bidder."