A feisty, yet reflective Gov. Ted Strickland said Monday that his biggest mistake in 2009 was deciding to rely on revenue from racetrack slot machines that were later sidelined by the Ohio Supreme Court.

It was one of the most controversial decisions the Democratic governor had to make in a challenging year that stretched government finances to their limit and left Strickland a little battered heading into a re-election campaign.

Strickland confronted a collapsed economy, high unemployment, sagging poll numbers, and a botched execution he had to call off about two hours after preparations began. Still, the governor told The Associated Press in a year-end interview in his Statehouse office that he will run for re-election against Republican John Kasich.

Strickland rattled off a number of accomplishments, including an overhaul in Ohio's school funding system, changes to the curriculum and an expansion of health coverage.

Ohio's devastated budget led Strickland in June to reverse a long-held antigambling stance to call for slot machines at the state's seven racetracks. But the Ohio Supreme Court later ruled that the plan is subject to a referendum by the voters, squelching any chance the machines could raise revenue in time to help the sagging two-year budget.

blocked construction of a massive gold mine project in northeast Nevada that critics say would harm the environment and ruin a mountain several tribes consider sacred.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed part of an earlier decision denying a preliminary injunction sought by conservationists and tribal leaders. The groups had sought the injunction to force Barrick Gold Corp. to postpone digging a 2,000-foot-deep open pit at the Cortez Hills mine 250 miles east of Reno.

The 17-page ruling issued Thursday in San Francisco said the U.S. Bureau of Land Management failed to adequately analyze the potential for the mine on Mount Tenabo (tuh-NAH'-boh) to pollute the air with mercury emissions and dry up scarce water resources.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and top Republican legislators blasted Arizona municipalities for going to court to challenge the constitutionality of parts of a budget law, including provisions that deny government services and benefits to illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit filed by the League of Arizona Cites and Towns amounts to siding "with lawbreakers over lawkeepers," said Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who championed the provisions targeting illegal immigration.

Pearce appeared with Brewer, Senate President Bob Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams at a news conference on Tuesday, one day after the league's lawsuit asked the Arizona Supreme Court to overturn multiple sections of the budget law, which lawmakers passed in August and Brewer signed Sept. 4.

The governor said it was "outrageous and shocking" that the league would challenge the budget law and its immigration provisions "at a time when Arizona is suffering from budget deficits of unprecedented proportions and the state is struggling to meet the basic needs of its citizens."

The illegal immigration section toughened existing prohibitions on providing services or benefits to illegal immigrants. It also makes it a misdemeanor for a state or local government employee to fail to report immigration law violations detected while administering a public benefit or service, and it allows anyone to sue the state or local governments to enforce the prohibitions.

The Senate on Thursday confirmed U.S. District Judge David Hamilton for the Chicago-based federal appeals court, approving a nominee targeted by conservatives as a liberal activist.

Hamilton was approved on a 59-39 vote and became the eighth of President Barack Obama's judicial nominees to win confirmation. He is the third confirmed for a U.S. appeals court, which is usually the last stop for federal court cases.

Republican senators — backed by their conservative allies outside Congress — had blocked a vote for five months until Democrats overcame a filibuster last Tuesday with a 70-29 vote.

The failure to stop the confirmation showed that Republicans lack the clout to block Obama's judicial nominees as the president remakes the federal judiciary following eight years of George W. Bush's mostly conservative choices for the bench.

Obama has been much slower than Bush in sending the Senate nominees to fill court vacancies. However, administration officials have said they are concentrating on the number of Senate confirmations. And they expect that number to soon equal the court confirmations in Bush's first year.

Republicans attacked Hamilton's rulings and his work in the distant past for two liberal organizations: the American Civil Liberties Union in Indiana; and as a fundraiser over two months for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, the troubled group that is under fire from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Democrats on Tuesday crushed a Senate filibuster against a controversial appeals court nominee, demonstrating to Republicans they can't stop President Barack Obama from turning the federal judiciary to the left.

The 70-29 vote limited debate over the qualifications of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, and assured his elevation to the Chicago-based appeals court. Sixty votes were needed to end the filibuster, but confirmation only requires a simple majority of the 100-member Senate.

Ten Republicans repudiated their own party leaders and voted to limit debate. The Obama administration made a crucial decision from the outset by getting the support of Hamilton's home-state Republican senator, Richard Lugar.

The vote emphatically warned Republicans that with only 40 senators, they're too outnumbered to prevent Obama from making major inroads into a judiciary that was populated over eight years with conservative judges chosen by President George W. Bush.

Republicans have objected to holding a vote on Hamilton's confirmation since June, when the Judiciary Committee reported his nomination favorably to the full Senate.

Conservative Republican senators and their judicial-watching outside groups then launched a major political assault on Hamilton.

They criticized his rulings against Christian prayers in the Indiana legislature and against a menorah in the Indiana Municipal Building's holiday display.

The Senate gave President Barack Obama a major victory Monday in his efforts to remake the federal courts, confirming a judge who will tip the political balance on the once-conservative appeals court based in Richmond.

The 72-16 vote for U.S. District Judge Andre Davis gives Democratic nominees a 6-5 edge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been tough in death penalty cases, backed abortion restrictions and supported President George W. Bush's detainee policies.

Davis, of Baltimore, was the sixth of Obama's court nominees to be confirmed, including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Immediately after approving Davis, the Senate voted 88-0 to confirm a seventh Obama nominee — Charlene Edwards Honeywell — for a district court seat in Florida.

Despite the overwhelming support for both nominees, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking committee Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama squared off in a never-ending battle over judges. Each blamed the other's party for years of blocking tactics.

Leahy pointed out that 28 judges were confirmed during Bush's first year. Sessions argued that the average time from nomination to confirmation for Bush's appellate court nominees was 350 days, a far longer wait than for Davis, who was nominated April 2. Sessions opposed his confirmation.

Davis had been caught in judicial politics before. President Bill Clinton nominated him for the 4th Circuit in October 2000, but the Senate didn't vote before Bush took office.

Prior to the Senate votes Monday, there were 21 appellate vacancies and 76 more for district courts. Since the Supreme Court usually hears about 80 cases a year, the appellate courts usually are the last judicial stop in deciding many of the nation's most controversial legal issues.

No appellate court has been more ripe for change than the 4th Circuit, which hears appeals from courts in West Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas and Virginia. Senators have battled for years over its nominees, leaving seats unfilled for years.