President Bush on Thursday nominated Paul S. Diamond to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, withdrawing his earlier pick for the job after she drew opposition in the Senate.

If confirmed by the Senate, Diamond, a federal district judge in eastern Pennsylvania since 2004, would fill one of two open seats on the federal appellate bench, which covers Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and the Virgin Islands.

Bush withdrew his nomination of Gene E.K. Pratter after she was opposed by some lawmakers for her conservative judicial views.

If Diamond succeeds in being elevated to the appellate court, that will leave a total of four vacancies on the Eastern District of the Pennsylvania bench.

To fill those, Bush nominated Bucks County Common Pleas Judge Mitchell Goldberg, Philadelphia Common Pleas President Judge C. Darnell Jones II, Philadelphia attorney Carolyn Short and Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Joel H. Slomsky.

Diamond, 55, is a native of Brooklyn, N.Y. He went to Columbia University in the 1970s and earned his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1977.

He has worked as a former assistant district attorney, a law clerk at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a partner in two law firms and as an adjunct professor at Temple University's Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia.

The California Supreme Court Wednesday rejected without comment a challenge seeking to remove a November ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state. The petition, filed by Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the amendment would deprive same-sex couples of fundamental rights. If approved by voters, the California Marriage Protection Act would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The ballot initiative comes in reaction to a May 15 California Supreme Court decision overturning a ban on same-sex marriage in the state.

The approval of the ballot initiative came after the Attorneys General of ten states submitted a brief to the Supreme Court of California, asking it to stay its decision until after the November elections. They asserted that allowing same-sex marriages would cause citizens in their own states to become "marriage tourists" in California, and their own state courts would then face unfair, extensive, and burdensome litigation on whether to recognize the marriages. A conservative advocacy group filed a similar petition requesting a stay until November. In May, the California Office of Vital Records issued a memorandum setting June 17 as the start day for issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The three-member panel of judges threw out the government's appeal in the case in which a watchdog group is trying to find out how often prominent religious conservatives visited the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's residence.

Despite the ruling against the White House, the decision does not necessarily mean that visitor logs will be subject to public disclosure.

The White House can still raise a variety of legal arguments in an attempt to keep the identities of White House visitors secret.

But appeals court Judge David Tatel said the document request from the private group is narrowly drawn and can be processed.

The document request from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington would not require the president, Cheney or their staffs to sort through mountains of files, said Tatel.

The vote, planned for Wednesday, would end almost a year of wrangling between the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, and Congress and the White House over the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A major issue was the Bush administration's insistence that the bill shield from civil lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans without court permission after 9/11.

The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies like AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. from wiretapping lawsuits. About 40 such lawsuits have been filed. They are all pending before a single federal court.

The ruling, thought to be the first successful appeal of a detainee's designation as an enemy combatant, ordered the government to release, transfer or hold a new military tribunal hearing for Parhat.

Parhat, a member of China's Muslim Uighur minority, claimed to have fled China in 2001 to an Uighur camp in Afghanistan. The camp was destroyed during US air strikes against the Taliban in October 2001, and he fled again to Pakistan.

It was there that Parhat was handed over to US authorities and in June 2002 was transferred to Guantanamo, where he remains.

A military tribunal assessed Parhat's status in 2004 and, while finding he had not engaged in hostilities against the United States or its allies, ruled he was an enemy combatant because he had lived at the Afghan camp.

The camp was run by the leader of an Uighur independence group, known as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), which was allegedly "associated" with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, court documents show.

The main evidence against Parhat consisted of four government intelligence documents which described activities and relationships that had "reportedly" occurred, were "said to" or "suspected" of having taken place. The court said these assertions could not be verified.

The 39-page opinion also noted the government had suggested that "several of the assertions in the intelligence documents are reliable because they are made in at least three different documents."

It cited Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark," where a character absurdly declares: "I have said it thrice: what I tell you three times is true," and said it had no reason to suggest the documents were not all based on the same source.

The opinion also noted that Parhat had made a "credible argument that ... the common source is the Chinese government, which may be less than objective with respect to the Uighurs," who allege oppression by Beijing.

In addition, the court rejected the government's assertion that statements made in the documents "are reliable because the State and Defense Departments would not have put them in intelligence documents were that not the case."

"This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true," the panel said, which would negate any need for a military tribunal or judicial review of tribunal decisions.

The Justice Department was quoted by the Washington Post as saying that "we are evaluating our options" following the ruling.

After deciding to outsource his legal representation, Beshear tasked his general counsel, Ellen Hesen, with spearheading the bidding process that included "several" firms.

He dismissed a notion that hiring his former employer could give a perception that he played favorites.

"If there is, there is," he said. "I wanted to get who I considered to be the best lawyers to represent me on such an important issue."

Williams, a Republican from Burkesville, filed the suit last month because he said Beshear improperly vetoed a bill outlining how road funds could be spent.

Steve Robertson, chairman of the Kentucky Republican Party, said Beshear's hiring his former firm looks as if he's helping out his friends and former bosses.

"Beshear's mantra during the campaign was 'taking care of our own,' and it's clear that he's at least making good on that promise," Robertson said.

Beshear told reporters that Stites & Harbison emerged as the top choice "because of their experience and their expertise."