Across the ideological spectrum, Kagan's confirmation is a ripe opportunity for groups to push their agendas, mobilize their supporters and raise money. The organizations are pumping up the volume in the debate, knowing that their influence is measured largely by the intensity of their support or opposition.

"Ensure Elena Kagan gets a fair hearing," blares a headline on the website of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "The future of women's access to abortion hangs in the balance," the group tells visitors to the site, asking them to urge senators to inquire about Kagan's stance on the Roe v. Wade decision that established abortion rights.

While they're at it, visitors are asked to give their names, mailing and e-mail addresses — and their cell phone numbers, which NARAL says it will use to send "urgent" text messages.

The U.S. Supreme Court derailed a key part of Arizona's campaign finance system on Tuesday by at least temporarily blocking extra money for publicly funded candidates outspent by privately financed rivals or targeted by independent groups' spending.

The court said in a brief order that it will prevent the state from using its system of so-called matching funds at least until the justices decide whether to hear the full appeal of opponents of the key provision of the state's campaign funding system.

Distribution of matching funds was to start June 22, but it could be the fall before the court decides even whether to accept the case. Arizona's primary election is Aug. 24.

Publicly funded candidates get matching funds when they're outspent by privately funded rivals or targeted by independent groups' spending.

Critics contend matching funds chill free-speech rights of privately financed candidates and their contributors by inhibiting fundraising and spending. State officials defend matching funds, saying they help combat contributions-for-favors corruption and encourage more people to run for office. Also, blocking matching funds would be disruptive to candidates already committed to running with public funding, officials argued.

At a landmark review conference of the ICC in Kampala, delegates are seeking to agree a definition of state aggression and how ICC investigations into the crime, one of four grave crimes the court has jurisdiction over, could be triggered.

The issue has divided delegates and NGOs over fears that giving the court powers to prosecute state aggression -- defined broadly as using force that manifestly breaches the UN charter -- could open it up to criticism of political bias and may again prove too divisive for full agreement to be reached in Kampala.

United States ambassador-at-large for war crimes Stephen Rapp warned late Tuesday about legal uncertainties over state aggression investigations and said that that pushing forward on the issue despite a lack of "genuine consensus" could undermine the ICC.

"What impact might the proposed definition, if adopted, have on the use of force that is undertaken to end the very crimes the ICC is now charged with prosecuting?" he said.

The United States withdrew its support for the ICC under then president George W. Bush in 2002, worried that its troops could face politically motivated prosecutions over unpopular wars, but has more recently started to re-engage with the court.

Senior adviser David Axelrod and press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to retreat from criticism Obama leveled during his State of the Union address, with six of the nine members of the court sitting a few feet in front of him. The two White House officials defended Obama's statement that the ruling was seriously flawed.

"Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, any lobbyist could go in to any legislator and say, `If you don't vote our way on this bill, we're going to run a million-dollar campaign against you in your district.' And that is a threat to our democracy," Axelrod said. "It's going to further reduce the voice of the American people, and it's something we have to push back vigorously on."

Chief Justice John Roberts said this week that Obama's unusually open criticism was "very troubling" and questioned whether justices should attend the annual address.

Congressional Democrats outlined legislation Thursday aimed at undoing a recent Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and interest groups to spend freely on political advertising.

To accomplish that goal, the legislation would impose a patchwork of spending restrictions and disclosure requirements — many based in current laws.

The measure would greatly expand the scope of an existing ban on political commercials paid for by foreign corporations, ban political commercials paid for by government contractors or recipients of bailout money, and force corporations and unions to make public details of what they spend directly or through advocacy groups.

The legislation’s sponsors, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said they wanted the measure enacted in time to limit the impact of the court’s decision in the case, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, before the fall campaigns. “Otherwise the court will have predetermined the winner of the midterm elections,” Mr. Schumer said. “It won’t be the Republicans or the Democrats. It will be corporate America.”

Many of the proposals, like restrictions on foreign companies or government contractors, have populist appeal, but passage would require the vote of at least one Republican senator. Five current Republican senators — led at the time by Senator John McCain of Arizona — voted for the spending rules that the court chipped away, but not one has yet embraced the Democrats’ proposals.

The sponsors said they had developed the legislation to comply with the court’s opinion in Citizens United.

The Schwarzenegger administration filed an appeal Wednesday in a lawsuit over his furloughs of state workers, contesting a decision by the controller to restore pay for prison guards.

Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered some 200,000 state employees to take three days off a month without pay, cutting their paychecks by 14 percent to help close the state's budget gap. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association sued, arguing that guards are losing three days' pay each month, but can never take the time off because prisons operate around the clock.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch sided with the 30,000-member union last month. On Tuesday, state Controller John Chiang said he intends to restore guards' full pay to comply with that ruling. The guards' court victory does not affect about two dozen other union lawsuits opposing the furloughs.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the administration will impose layoffs and end guards' extra pay and pension benefits if an appeals court doesn't quickly block the decisions by Roesch and Chiang. The state filed the appeal in the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.