The Senate has voted 98-0 to confirm Judge Denny Chin to fill an opening on a New York-based appeals court. He will be the only Asian-American currently serving on a U.S. Court of Appeals.

Chin is a U.S. district judge in New York. He will serve on the 2nd Circuit, covering New York, Connecticut and Vermont.

There are 23 judicial nominations pending on the Senate calendar.

A judge ruled Tuesday that former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick violated terms of his probation by failing to report some of his assets but held off deciding whether to send him to jail.

Wayne County Circuit Court Judge David Groner said Kilpatrick could remain free on bond pending his sentencing on May 20, but strongly suggested Kilpatrick may be headed to jail and ordered state corrections officials to prepare a pre-sentence report and submit it to the court.

Prosecutors have said Kilpatrick hasn't paid enough toward his $1 million restitution to Detroit.

But Groner said Kilpatrick didn't violate his probation by failing to pay or claiming he couldn't pay. Instead, the judge found him guilty for failing to disclose his assets and forfeit tax returns as part of the original plea agreement and subsequent order.

Kilpatrick pleaded guilty in 2008 to misconduct tied to his lying under oath about an affair with a staff member in a whistle-blowers' lawsuit. He served 99 days in jail agreed to give up his law license and his political career and repay the city $1 million for settling an employment lawsuit related to his misdeeds.

Bringing in the tea party movement — known for its high-energy rallies and protests calling for small government, lower taxes and less spending — would be a coup for conservatives, who were not able to stop the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor last year.

This time, "you may have a whole new group of activists involved," said Tom Fitton of the conservative group Judicial Watch.

Obama is considering about 10 candidates for the court and promises to make his choice quickly. His nominee — pending Senate confirmation — would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring this summer.

When President Obama nominated Goodwin Liu to be an appeals court judge earlier this year, some on the left cheered. Mr. Obama had previously picked a succession of nominees who they believed were too centrist to counter the conservatives appointed during the Bush administration, they said, but finally he had selected a liberal legal rock star.

But the effort to confirm Mr. Liu, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, whose confirmation hearing is scheduled for Friday, has become the toughest fight over any of Mr. Obama’s appeals court nominees. It could be a harbinger for how a strongly liberal pick to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens would play out.

Asked this week whether Republicans would use a filibuster to block a vote on Mr. Obama’s coming Supreme Court nominee, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, brought up Mr. Liu’s nomination as an example of the kind of candidate who would merit the use of aggressive tactics.

“I promise a fair hearing, and I promise that the nominee will have a chance to explain any criticisms that are raised,” Mr. Sessions said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “But if a nominee is one that is so activist like Goodwin Liu that’s just been nominated — who’s written that, that the Constitution requires welfare and health care to individuals — if it’s somebody like that, clearly outside the mainstream, then I think every power should be utilized to protect the Constitution. We’ll not confirm somebody like that.”

Supporters of Mr. Liu, nominated for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, argue that critics have exaggerated his writings to portray him as an ideologue. A 2008 Stanford Law Review article by Mr. Liu about welfare rights, which Mr. Sessions referred to, focused on small-scale disputes over Congressionally enacted programs — like “invalidating statutory eligibility requirements” — not creating welfare programs based on judicial fiat.

Still, Mr. Liu has been more open in expressing liberal political views — like support for affirmative action and same-sex marriage — than Mr. Obama’s other appeals court nominees. In that sense, he is arguably the first Obama nominee who is the equivalent of some of the most controversial nominees by Mr. Bush, several of whom Democrats delayed or blocked.

Mr. Liu also earned conservative enmity by criticizing Mr. Bush’s two Supreme Court appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. And a book he co-wrote argues that judges should interpret the Constitution “in light of the concerns, conditions and evolving norms of our society” — an approach some conservatives say enables judges to impose their own political values.

Senate Democrats have rejected a Republican effort to delay a hearing for a liberal appeals court nominee, making clear they are ready for a partisan fight.

A hearing for University of California-Berkeley, law professor Goodwin Liu will go on as scheduled April 16, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Wednesday. He said Republicans were unwilling to "put political rancor aside" to debate the nomination, which will test President Obama's ability to fill court seats with liberals as well as moderates.

All seven committee Republicans had asked for a delay. In a letter sent Tuesday, they wrote Leahy arguing Liu's belated responses to a committee questionnaire justified a delay in the hearing for the nominee to a San Francisco-based appeals court.

But Leahy, D-Vt., wrote the panel's senior Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, that he had already postponed the hearing twice — once due to a Republican request and then because of GOP stalling tactics.

The chairman said he was disappointed that "we have seen the same delays and obstructionist approach toward these nominees on the Senate floor extend to the committee's consideration."

If confirmed, Liu would serve on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals serving California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii and Montana.

The RNC plans to ask the court to overturn a ruling Friday rejecting its bid to raise unlimited donations.

A three-judge federal court panel in Washington said it lacked the authority to overturn a 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding a ban on the raising of "soft" money — unlimited donations from corporations, unions and others — by the national parties. The ban is a cornerstone of the so-called McCain-Feingold law.

The RNC argues it should be able to raise soft money for state races and other activities it says have nothing to do with federal elections. The Federal Election Commission says the ban should stand.