Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:36, 27 February 2008

	Supreme Court of the United States is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 10, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 13, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 26, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted April 28, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

For clarity, older discussions from this talk page are archived.

Defacement?

I noticed while reading this article that there is a heading called "hippys" is that supposed to be in here? In addition someone also appears to have added the phrase "poopy face" as well. I would change it myself but since I have little to no experience modifying pages I am reluctant to do so. If someone else would take a look and advise if I'm off base here it would be greatly appreciated.

Please sign your comments. Use four tildes to generate an automatic signature.

What you described was vandalism; it was taken care of pretty quickly. In fact, by the time you wrote your comment here it had already been reverted. Feel free to revert vandalism when you spot it; follow the link to get information about how to and when to revert. Magidin 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ability to overturn laws

This article states that the court cannot over turn laws- only delcare them unconstitutional. This is wrong. The Supreme Court has the full legal authority to overturn and erase laws that are not allowed under the US Constitution. This was demonstrated in many cases, one of the most recent and controversial is Roe V. Wade. If they were just an "advice" court to "advise" the congress that a law is unconstituional and didn't have the EXACT POWER to overturn a law this would defeat the purpose. The US Constitution says:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.........."

THE JUDICIAL POWER meaning the ability to overturn laws that arise and conflict with the US Constitution. This part of the article needs to be modified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.233.63 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 December 2005.

No, that's totally wrong. You clearly have no legal training. This is the kind of issue covered in first-year civil procedure in law school.

The Court lacks the ability to directly modify statutes under the principle of separation of powers. Statutes declared unconstitutional are still part of the legal codes unless and until the legislature passes a bill that deletes them.

Of course, a lawyer looking at an annotated version of the code would see a warning that the statute was declared unconstitutional by the Court in a particular case. Thus, it cannot be relied on as good law because the Court itself and all lower courts, under the rule of stare decisis, would not rely on that statute as the basis for a decision in any subsequent case. --Coolcaesar 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For purposes of illustration: in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), the Court struck down a federal law prohibiting the burning of Old Glory. That statute is still codified at 18 U.S.C. §700, because Congress has never seen fit to repeal it. Likewise, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court held that a number of state laws prohibiting (or at least, heavily regulating) abortion were unconstitutional. Henceforth, those laws were unenforcable, and thus inactive, but some states did not repeal those laws, which means that if courts fix Roe - as sooner or later they must - those laws will become enforcable again. --Simon Dodd 20:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that the laws would automatically become enforcable again? The usual relief sought is an injunction against enforcement of the law. That would presumably remain in effect until a court reexamined the issue. Amcfreely 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concede that with respect to laws that were actually litigated and declared unconstitutional, it's possible that there would be an injunction entered on remand (or as part of the settlement) which would keep the law from being enforced until one party sues to overturn the injunction. But with many state laws, only one of them (that is, the law in one state) is declared unconstitutional and then everyone assumes that all the similar laws in other states are unconstitutional based on that one precedent. Thus, there may be no injunctions directly barring enforcement of the laws that were not directly litigated, because few sane government attorneys would litigate what would have then become a frivolous case (unless they have a straight-faced argument that their state's particular law is sufficiently distinguishable). --Coolcaesar 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a substantial legal literature on the question "what is the legal effect of an unconstitutional statute?" and dealing with situations in which a statute is declared unconstitutional but then is declared constitutional again. The situation is usually addressed on a case-by-case basis and the complexities of the caselaw are beyond the scope of this (or probably any) article, but it's not a naive question. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to hive off some sections?

This article is now pretty long; might it be worth moving certain sections into their own articles in order to shorten the main article? The page is currently 61k; Misplaced Pages:Article size recommends splitting up articles half that size. For example, the sections on the history and quarters of the court are interesting and directly relevant, but I think they could be moved into separate articles - History of the Supreme Court of the United States and Supreme Court building, perhaps - and linked from the main article, which would make the main article more concise without sacrificing any information. --Simon Dodd 15:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion (but the latter article should be United States Supreme Court building, as most every nation has a structure to house their highest tribunal). --BD2412 T 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there already is such an article - the material in the Supreme Court Quarters section should be merged there. --BD2412 T 17:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay - since this would be a pretty major change, what is the protocol for it? Should I just go ahead, create the new articles and move the content, and people can revert this article if they don't approve, or is there a threshold of user comments pre-agreed as sufficient to split the article? Simon Dodd 17:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This article having grown well beyond recommended bounds, I'd say be bold in splitting it along logical fracture lines. --BD2412 T 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Simon Dodd 18:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A whole bunch of structural changes, and a few substantive changes - thoughts? --Simon Dodd 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Still 44k - the whole section on procedure can be broken out as well. --BD2412 T 19:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That dropped it another 34k, although I will probably need to add some notes rather than just linking, per the notes of the building. Does United States Supreme Court process sound right, and is there anything else that can go the same way?

Also, can I suggest we create a category or something of that nature, whatever seems most appropraite, to tie all these now-diversified aticles together? --Simon Dodd 19:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As noted above, I've created a category which ties together these articles. One thing I'd suggest is that the category could be broadened - perhaps to include important doctrines, for example - but my concern would be the risk of it becoming excessively broad, and thus excessively long. Still, as it stands now, there is an at-a-glance means of navigating between those several articles which were spun off from this article last month. --Simon Dodd 15:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Justice O'Connor's Age

I changed the age of Justice O'Connor from "dead" to "75" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.166.29 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 December 2005.

Thank you. -- Centrx 21:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Justice O'Connor is thankful as well.

— OtherDave 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

About the "home state" of Justices

For reference, in re YHoshua's edit and RussBlau's revert. YHoshua is correct that Roberts' home state is Indiana, but the state listed on a Justice's commission is the state in which they are resident when appointed to the Court. Thus, the commission of the late Chief Justice - raised in Wisconsin - as an Associate Justice listed him as being Rehnquist of Arizona, while his commission as Chief Justice listed him as being Rehnquist of Virginia, wherein he had resided since his original appointment. Roberts was raised in Indiana, but resident in Maryland, and hence, is shown as Roberts of Maryland on his commission. --Simon Dodd 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Male and Female Pronouns

WRT s/he issue on the page regarding the president, I can't find the rule but generally when it could be either, doesn't English use the masculine "he"? It is certainly more correct than the singular they and less awkward than the s/he. If anyone knows the rule or guideline, please link it. -Scm83x 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done, Assawyer. Would that all such trivial disputes be cleaned up so neatly! --Unschool 02:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, great job, Assawyer (talk · contribs). I really didn't want to get into that! --Scm83x 02:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. When in doubt, I reach for my "easy button"... --Assawyer 03:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to what is correct, most linguists now recognize that the singular 'they' is simply correct. In common grammar of ordinary speech, this seems to be the standard way to deal with the inclusive language problem. Some may hold to artificial grammatical standards that don't reflect the real grammar of the English language as spoken by millions of people, but the complaint that a singular 'they' is incorrect is simply wrong.--Parableman 17:32, 01 February 2006 (UTC)

Supreme court decisions

I was poking around some of the copyright cases SCOTUS has handled, and I was suprised to see so few links to the relevant decisions; I was even more suprised to see that no matter where I look in SCOTUS decisions or articles on it or even over on Commons and WikiSource no repositories of decisions. I say I am suprised since the decisions are pretty darn important, accessible for free from the website (well, most of the decisions, anyway), and as government-produced works, presumably public domain. There must be something I've missed in my analysis which is why decisions are not available online elsewhere, but I can't think of it. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Related, I notice that many (if not all) of the SCOTUS cases which have Misplaced Pages articles about them link to the text of the decision(s) everywhere on the net (e.g. Cornell, etc) except the actual decisions released by the Court. That is, why doesn't Wikipeida link to supremecourtus.gov for the full text of decisions, when available? --67.68.39.247 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The opinions that are available on the Supreme Court website are not the definitive version; they are what is called a 'slip opinion'. As the website itself states here, it is the printed version that controls. You'll notice, if you poke around the slip opinions, a lot of blank spaces for references to recent opinions or to the current opinion, precisely because those blank references will eventually be filled in. In this case, the opinions in the actual Supreme Court webiste are not the definitive version, so the versions in FindLaw (for example) are a better resource. Magidin (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean the slip opinions; (although I don't see how FindLaw (for example) would be more authoritative than the Court itself until the bound volume is printed), I mean the bound volumes available from the court. --67.68.39.247 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They are probably not referred to because they are of recent creation. I know that such links did not exist a year ago, for example. Their document on where to obtain electronic versions of the (bound) opinions dates from August 2007, which is probably when they became available. As I recall, the previous version only directed people to the unofficial sources such as FindLaw, WestLaw, LexisNexis, the Cornell Law Institute, etc. Magidin (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

When I was formatting the article, I saw the Suggested Readings section. That should be merged with the References section, but possibly in a more general ===General references=== section. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I noticed in the biography articles that there is a succession box for a justice's seat on the SCOTUS but none for their seat on the circuit courts on which most justices previously served on. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to add these? or would it clutter up the articles? NoSeptember 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started to add these beginning with John Roberts. NoSeptember 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Conservative liberal labels

These labels really disturb me. How can we label anyone conservative or liberal and still maintain NPOV? Jgardner 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, unless all of them have self-identified as one or the other (which I find unlikely), the line is way too fuzzy for us to be stating the distinctions as fact. Ddye 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would more advantageous to list their leaning in relation to their judicial cases rather than simply labeling them?Rockumsockum 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and added an NPOV disputed label.- 20:22, 24 January 2006(EST)

Simply saying someone is conservative or liberal is not necessarily a point of view; I can say "Justice John Smith renders judgments with a conservative philosophy," and by the definition of conservative and assuming I'm not lying to you, that can be an objectively true statement. The statement might make some people immediately think of him positively or negatively, but we can't stop the reader from making those judgments on his/her own; all we can do is blandly present the facts. It would certainly be helpful to show why John Smith is labeled conservative--to cite cases in which he has passed a "conservative" judgment as Rockumsockum suggested, or to show the distribution of conservative/liberal Senators who voted to confirm him or deny his confirmation, etc.--so I do think we should do that as well, but I don't think that saying "John Smith is conservative" is NPOV. Cheers. !mAtt™ 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, most (probably all) of the Justices' articles mention their conservative/liberal/moderate tendencies. -- Pakaran 06:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote to remove these labels; they are inherently POV, as illustrated by how often different editors have changed them over the past few days. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to state how the Justices have been described in the media? That tends to be pretty consistent, and we could cite specific articles. -- Pakaran 13:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Including a column for each justice's political stance is not necessary, the chart is too crowded as it is. We should take it out of the chart. Keep all references to the political leanings in the paragraph below that already covers this. The labels should be properly sourced to specific articles as Pakaran suggests, now it looks too much like WP:OR. NoSeptember 14:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the conservative/moderate/liberal column has been removed, I'm removing {{NPOV}} from the article. Cheers.  !mAtt™ 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this disturbs people or why it should be removed? Was the fiasco on display during Alito's hearing about his hair?

The political philosophies of the justices are extremely important and also generally well known. JohnFlaherty John has a point. Regardless of whether you wish to accept it or not, each justice has been labled (and accuratly, for that matter) according to how they have generally sided on controversial issues. It has little to to with point of view, but simple facts based only hundreds of rulings. Stating that there are 4 conservative judges, four liberals, and a "swing-conservative" is not biased, but true. Ghettodude

Condemned to repeat History: the Nominee

Large section irrelevant to building a Misplaced Pages article removed per WP:NOT a soapbox. -- Jonel | Speak 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK Jonel but here is the essence: will you allow the essence of the relevant question to the future? I would suggest that no intervention here on Misplaced Pages can arrest or deflect from the future. Do as you judge.

From end of large "irrelevant" classed WP:NOT

• I would as necessary discuss the concept of Liberty in so far as this Court is concerned. I find it preceded by the logic of the Law above and the resulting question: How can the Nominee uphold the Law of the USA from ridicule, as he is charged to do ,if he cannot uphold from ridicule,the Law of his Faith?

Someone please tell me if Law, even as represented by this Court and no other, can submit itself to Contempt or ridicule? The[REDACTED] has some trouble with the nature of legality in regards to its history, which over-laps with the factor of the recent nomination to this Court.I happily return simply to conserve the un-deleted preceding post from the history. I made the long post aware of the dangers of in[REDACTED] raising current and past issues which are painful, even at the possibility of being personally condemned for doing so. I consider the attempt to explain the past ramifications of the underlying shift in balance with this the recent nomination, to be within Jimbo Wales explanation guidelines. Therefore I request that the material explanations deleted, be studied as such- consequent and surrounding explanation. GoodbyeEffK 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK, I wish you luck in your search for Truth, but an encyclopedia such as this isn't really the place for it. If you have some verifiable information to add to the article, by all means please do so. Original research, however, is not within the purview of Misplaced Pages. -- Jonel | Speak 21:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

New Justices Picture

Since Alito will probably join the court today, the picture we have of the justices that includes O'Connor will become obsolete. I created the following gallery for the spanish version of the article. Maybe we could include it in this article until we the new justices take a new photo with Justice Alito. What do you think?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. If it were used, I would crop the Roberts and Alito pictures so thier heads looked the same size as the others. As for whether the gallery or current picture is better, I have no real preference. NoSeptember 14:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the Alito pic would lose too much resolution if cropped. -- Pakaran 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, would a 3x3 gallary be better, with less whitespace? -- Pakaran 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I really have no preference, I just added here to see if it was useful in this version of the article. So far, so good in the spanish version.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Justice Alito definitely looks the most friendly. -- Centrx 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic majority

The fact that there is now a Roman Catholic majority on the Suprme Court is in the article and I want that to stay in the article. I will give you people a few days to figure out why that might be notable. -- Pinktulip 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the turn in the country, the radicals-cons wanting to turn the nation from one of religious liberty to their own theocracy, the current abortion debate should be cast in light of the catholicism of the court. Scalia siad that his catholicism should not prvent him from support of the death penalty. I wonder about support or opposition to abortion? Are we just trying to impose our own religious views in the court? The recent 9-0 relgious can trump drug law decision is dangerous. The drug laws, whichI oppose, are laws of general application. Therefore, denying a relgious sect from using them is NOT discrimination against a religion. The drug laws should be reformed as to be within the medical field and not the purview of the criminal laws. People are self-medicating because they have pains that regular doctors cannot or will not address. But the reform should apply to drug laws for all people not only some religious sect. John wesley 20:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I give, why are they important? I don't see any reason for them.

Are you telling me that something which is truly important like their political philosophy is not deemed worthy, but disturbing, and is removed, but religious affiliation is considered important enough for a whole section?

That is inconsistant and wrong. I'll give you people a few days to fiqure out why.

• Law is the practice of reason without passion.- Aristotle

The fact that there is a Catholic majority in the Supreme Court right now is completly irrelevant to the content of this article. The most important description about the justices should be their judicial philosphy--nothing more, nothing less. The fact that some of the justices are Catholic or Jewish or Protestant or whatever is irrelevant because, ultimately, their religious affiliation does not influence their decision making. Take the case of Justice Kennedy--a Catholic who has voted in favor of gay rights and abortion rights. Once again, religious affiliation is irrelevant for a justice and therefore, should be irrelevant in this article. The fact that there is a Catholic majority is as important as saying that the majority of the justices are over sixty years old or that the majority of the justices are blonde or brunnette. It is a fact that does not matter in terms of judicial information, which is what this article is about.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I for one think its important that we list the religious makeup of the active court. When it changes, we can change the article. It helps to further understand the context in which some decisions are made. Pepsidrinka 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion is 1st Amdnt jurispridence. We should include 1st Amdt views of the Justices along with political leanings. I think a link to US ConLaw would be the trick. A link to an aticle on how each Justice has written about the main Constitutional issues. !John wesley 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Coburnpharr04. One's religious beliefs necessarily feed one's political positions, and often vice versa. This relationship is often unpredictable, but to say that there is no relationship whatsoever is false. No one is unbiased or wholly objective; one's religious beliefs can provide details as to one's point of view. Jpers36 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that sometimes religion can affect judgement, but by saying there is a catholic "majority" in the court it sounds as if this majority is a team that might work together to reach certain decisions. Keep in mind that the "catholics" on the court in the majority of the cases go to different sides. For example, Kennedy vs. Roberts or Scalia. Perhaps the fact that this "catholic" majority exists can be mentioned in a trivia section of the articel. But I don't see the point of having it in the main body of the article. Judicial philosophy should be of more importance, since it is what really divides these justices.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 21:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification, "Catholic" should be capitalized. JohnFlaherty

This: "Note that the Supreme Court now has a Roman Catholic majority in justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. Contrast this with the fact that there has been only one Roman Catholic U.S. President, John F. Kennedy." absolutely is (bigoted) POV and ought to be removed. There is absolutely NO reason this should be in the article. Merecat 06:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute here...you're telling me Clarence Thomas is Catholic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hectard (talk • contribs) .

Why is that so hard to believe? Because he's black? How ignorant can you be? I know that America's most segregated day of the week is Sunday, but if you've ever visited an urban Catholic church, you know that the word "catholic" is more appropriate there than in most American churches. Unschool 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________

Well, yeah. Sure. I agree. 100%

I kinda said as much when I asked why removing their political leanings was considere fair, but adding comments on the religious affilliations was peachy.

Which brings me to a question - how does someone just get the unilateral right to make a decision about something like that in a SCOTUS entry? I woul;d never just unilaterally remove a whole section without asking first.JohnFlaherty I don't see why listing the fact that 5 justices are Catholic is any worse than listing that 5 justices went to Harvard Law School. Contrasting it to JFK is unnecessary and may be somehow bigoted, but I don't see why this information should be barred from this article. Aardhart 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on folks. It is so statistically extreme that it is notable in its own right. There is plenty of literature about Kennedy being a means by which the Vatican might have controlled the USA remotely (most now acknowledge that such did not happen). They did not invent the acronym WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) for nuttin'. And, OF COURSE, it is worth thinking about with aborting rights seeming to be back in play. If you are not a U.S. Citizen (as I am), then PLEASE try to take your time before meddling. 12 seconds? 12 minutes? 12 hours? (OMG! 12 days?!?) Give it a try! Your POV can easily and more subtlely interfere with your Judgement if you have nothing to lose. Let us test the waters by putting it back (not my style; I like to talk these things out, but I am going to go for it anyway). I put it in there via a different account because other news organizations includeing the BBC felt that it was newsworthy. -- AlhambraGuy 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I also note that Special:Contributions/Merecat displays an unusual pattern of activity. -- AlhambraGuy 01:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW: Please DO NOT use HTML marks if you are not going to terminate them, because you obfuscate the following rebuttals. -- AlhambraGuy 01:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that AlhambraGuy has recently been blocked indefinitely from the wiki. 70.85.195.227 20:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have to argue about the RC thing? It is merely a statisical fact. Those of you who are uncomfortable with this fact should try a little introspection to discover the source of that discomfort. When it is no longer true, we can rip it out. Do we reall have to go and add a half dozen links to demonstrate the notability of this statisitcal fact? One such link has now been added. Hopefully that is enough for mature editors to see that it is merely true and notable and that this fact does not represent the end of civilization as we know it. -- 68.120.198.243 15:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative explaination: Based on historical statistics, this majority seems unlikely to last very long and is perhaps best viewed as a historical anomaly or, possibly, the tradition of Catholics to operate within strictly laid down rules and in the respect of ancient precedent.

Those are attributes that are considered very desirable in a Judge: strictly adhering to the Law and strong respect for precedent. These attributes have nothing to do with religious faith or dogma. They have to do with human character and what makes a good Judge, religious, aetheist or otherwise. -- 68.120.198.243 16:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's that picture?

I remember reading elsewhere that there was one single picture of the justices in session; this was taken in teh 1930s or so, and in May It Please the Court it said that it was possibly the only picture that existed. Can anybody verify, and add it into the article? - Hbdragon88 06:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, your other left

During Court sessions, the Justices sit according to seniority... with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate left, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the right farthest away from the Chief Justice...

Even the "seating chart" shown following this section depicts it otherwise. Per the SCOTUS website the senior Associate justice is to the CJ's right. Perhaps the author who added this forgot that the CJ's left hand is on the author's right when he looks at the bench?

Considering the "featured" tag and the level of discussion in here, I thought it best to point this out in Talk before I made the change. Opusaug 15:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

New Group Picture

A new group picture of the court was taken on March 3, 2006. However, I can't find a good copy of the image on the internet. Does someone know where to finf one?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 12:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I found the new group picture, but it isn't as good as the previous one. I nevertheless uploaded it, so we can have it until we find a good free copy.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 14:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Scotus redirect

I personally find "xxxx redirects here..." notices at the top of pages to be extremely distracting and annoying, and think they should be reserved for only the most necessary of ambiguous situations. I don't think this is one of them.

"Scotus" does not refer to the Supreme Court of the United States. "SCOTUS" does. I understand that some may type "scotus" and because of the forced capitalization they would reach Scotus, but this is an improper abbreviation and I don't feel like it merits the annoying and attention-grabbing notice at the top of this page.

Therefore I think Scotus should be changed to a disambiguation page and this page should not carry the "redirects here" notice at the top. Does anyone support or oppose this? GT 18:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't find {{redirect}} notices distracting or annoying at all, and I personally think that Misplaced Pages contains too many unnecessary disambiguation pages. I feel that disambiguation pages should be reserved for only the most necessary of ambiguous situations, where precisely the same word has multiple unrelated meanings. I don't think this is one of them. (Also, as a matter of form, ] should not redirect to ], but rather the other way around.) --Russ Blau (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For information, the redirect pages Scotus and SCOTUS are now different, the former linking to the scholastic philosopher, John Duns Scotus, the latter to the Supreme Court of the United States. Both entries are still included at Scotus (disambiguation) --SteveMcCluskey 20:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Former Justices Table?

I don't know how to create the tables, but it seems the page is wanting one for former Justices especially considering that all of the federal Courts of Appeals pages have one. Would be a great and useful addition to this page as it would allow readers to not only quickly chart the history of appointments to the Court, but also to determine which have wikipages up.--Smashingworth 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States? Or any of the other pages listed in the box on the upper-right corner of this article? --Russ Blau (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Looks good. I might suggest including that link under the section already on the page for Former Justices. Not a big deal.--Smashingworth 02:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Justice O'Connor and Senior status vs. retirement

• I took the bold step of adding Justice O'Connor to the table. The fact that she is retired doesn't mean she is no longer a member of the Court...in fact, she is still a member of the Supreme Court. The difference is that she is in Senior status, and cannot participate in the decisions proccess.

Read this, from the Senior status article: In 1937, the senior status option was extended to Supreme Court justices. A senior justice is essentially an at-large senior judge, able to be assigned to any court by the Chief Justice of the United States, but receiving the salary of a retired justice.

Furthermore, when the United States Reports volume for October 2005 is published, you will see in the first page that it says "Justices" and under it there is the list of current justices, and O'Connor's name will appear with an asterisk that says *retired. Check the October 2001 term volume and you will find that Justice Byron White still appeared as a member of the court even though he had been replaced by Justice Ginsburg in 1993. Therefore, I think Justice O'Connor should appear in the current table we have. I added her name, just placed it in italics. But if someone recommends another method, we can talk about it.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 06:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

But did SOC take senior status, or did she retire? As Senior status says, senior status is "a form of semi-retirement for U.S. federal judges . . . they are allowed to assume" (emphasis added). A judge can either retire, or they can take senior status - the two are distinct from one another, and in her resignation letter, O'Connor declared her retirement, not her decision to assume senior status.

Moreover, senior status and retirement for judges are defined by statute. 28 U.S.C. §371(a) says that "ny justice or judge of the United States . . . may retire from the office after attaining the age and meeting the service requirements . . . and shall, during the remainder of his lifetime, receive an annuity equal to the salary he was receiving at the time he retired," but §371(b) says that "ny justice or judge of the United States . . . may retain the office but retire from regular active service." Again, the statute treats retirement from the bench and retirement into senior status as being two separate and distinct choices a Judge can make having attained a certain age.

IMHO, if Justice O'Connor has gone into retirement, per §371(a), she should not be in the table; if she has entered senior status per §371(b), she should be in the table. So which is it? I would submit that it is the former. §371(e)(1) sets out a series of work requirements for a judge on senior status, none of which are compatible with what SOC is currently doing. Has O'Connor "carried in the preceding calendar year a caseload involving courtroom participation which is equal to or greater than the amount of work involving courtroom participation which an average judge in active service would perform in three months," per §371(e)(1)(a)? Has O'Connor undertaken "substantial judicial duties not involving courtroom participation . . . including settlement efforts, motion decisions, writing opinions in cases that have not been orally argued, and administrative duties for the court to which the justice or judge is assigned," per §371(e)(1)(b)? Has O'Connor "performed substantial administrative duties directly related to the operation of the courts, or has performed substantial duties for a Federal or State governmental entity," per §371(e)(1)(d)? And if she has not done any of the foregoing, is that merely "because of a temporary or permanent disability," per §371(e)(1)(e)?

If the glove does not fit, you must acquit. Sandra Day O'Connor did not retire into senior status, she retired from the bench, and should therefore not be in the table of Justices. For the foregoing reasons, her entry in said table is

Removed

Simon Dodd 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Federal Judicial Center, O'Connor is in senior status. Now, when time comes for her to be certified as having completed the requirements for senior status for this year, they may kick her into full retirement, but the federal government certainly presently regards her as being in senior status.

— DLJessup (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that's what FJC says, but the statute also says what it says. The §371(e)(1) criteria all assume an ongoing involvement by a Judge on senior status with the operation of the court, that is, that senior status is not retirement in the sense of leaving the court, but rather, remaining on the court with a diminshed workload. It seems to me that Justice O'Connor had and has no intention of the latter, and in any event, will not meet the statutory criteria for a judge on senior status. Maybe FJC's listing is merely an anomaly because her retirement came mid-term? Simon Dodd 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You probably want to take a look at this article, which goes into the statute in great detail while arguing that senior status is, in fact, unconstitutional. Take note of page 11, in which the authors note that O'Connor was taking senior status, or page 13 in which the authors note that the work that Chief Justice Burger performed to retain senior status was the chair of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, hardly a judicial office. In other words, yes, O'Connor is probably playing fast and loose with the rules of senior status—but no one's stopping her and the government is behaving as if she is in senior status.

Now, should O'Connor be on the table of the current Supreme Court, which is the issue that started this foofooraw? No. As I understand it, there is little to no work of the Supreme Court that she is presently able to do. I suppose theoretically the Court could hire O'Connor as a special master for an original jurisdiction case, but those cases are few and far between and are generally farmed out to highly successful lawyers in their prime. Since pretty much any work she will do will be administrative or be for a lower level court, she is not a member of the current Supreme Court, even though she is a senior justice.

— DLJessup (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I will read that paper with interest. :) However, in advance of doing so, I feel bound to note that Burger is probably off the hook; unless the statute has been amended since that time, the work performed does not necessarily have to be judicial; §371(e)(1)(d) to be certified if they have "performed substantial administrative duties directly related to the operation of the courts, or . . . for a Federal or State governmental entity", emphasis added. Simon Dodd 20:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You (Simon) probably also want to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research. If the Federal Judicial Center says that O'Connor is in senior status, and our article cites that, that is a verifiable fact from a reliable source. If, however, Simon Dodd reads the statute, performs his own analysis of the work that O'Connor is doing, and comes to the conclusion that she should not be eligible for senior status, I'm afraid that doesn't meet the same standard of verifiability. Even if you're right! --Russ Blau (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A "verifiable fact" from a "reliable source" would be a statement that on the morning of April 20th, 2006, it rained for a period in Toledo from a news outlet in Toledo. If the White House website - a "reliable source" as much as is FJC - had a press release saying that the President had authority to appoint Judges without the advice or consent of the Senate, would it be original research to read the Constitution and conclude that the White House press release was wrong? I find it hard to believe that it is better practise for the article to be inaccurate than for Misplaced Pages:No original research to be followed slavishly. It seems to me that whether or not a judge is in senior status is a verifiable fact, because it is defined and cirsumsribed by statute; its verification too, comes from a reliable source: title 28 of the United States Code. Simon Dodd 20:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Simon, I must concur with your statement that O'Connor did "retire". However she did not resign. Her letter anounces to President Bush that she is retiringfrom the bench, not resigning. Furthermore, I think you are mistaken by saying that O'Connor currently has no connection to the court regarding work-load. She still has a chamber in the Supreme Court Building and she still keeps one clerk working on the court (doing what, i don't know). So, it is clear that O'Connor is in Senior Status, the Federal Judiciary Center says so, ergo, O'Connor is still a member of the USSC, only that she is in Senior Service.

Now, regarding the issue of whether or not she should be included in the table: I guess it will be confusing for people to see her name along the current justices. So, I propose that we do not include her name in the current justices table, but that we include her in the infobox at the beginning of the article, specifically pointing out that she is in Senior Status. MHO.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not as clear to me as it is to you why the mere fact that O'Connor retired rather than resigned, or that she maintains chambers and a law clerk (as has been the case with all recent retirements), would have any relevance to whether or not she has senior status. Senior status isn't some nebulous concept that can arbitrarily be used descriptively as a kinder synonym for "old judge", it is a specifically-defined term whose meaning and criteria are set by statute. The relevant questions are, ultimately, has she been certified as being in senior status by the Chief Justice of the United States, per §371(e)(1), and which of the criteria for such certification defined in §371(e)(1)(a-e) is she presently meeting? Simon Dodd 20:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Federal Judiciary Center has the following information. I looked at the last eight justices who retired, and all of them appear to have assumed senior status. Their service terminated on the date of their death. That's the important part....they were all members of the court, even after they retired. Hence, their appearence as members of the court in the volumes of the United States Reports. I think it is pretty obvious that all the justices who retire assume senior status, and their service ends when they die. Or is the FJC wrong after all these years?

Here are the last eight retirements I checked, all assuming senior status:

• Harry Blackmun.
• Byron White
• Thurgood Marshall
• William Brennan
• Lewis Powell
• Warren Burger
• Potter Stewart
• William Douglas

I really don't see how we can continue to question this. O'Connor is in senior status...the last eight justices to retire all went into senior status and ended their service on the date of their date, not their retirement death. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

None of that answers, the point, though. I have no idea what Harry Blackmun's retirement letter said, and even less idea on what terms Justice Douglas retired. The question isn't whether I think FJC is wrong, the question is whether you think that the United States Code is just kidding when it says that senior status is a specific and definable thing. Simon Dodd 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I am not questioning that senior status is a pecific and definable thing. I am arguing that the only verifiable source we have right now is the FJC, which says not only that O'Connor is in senior status, but that all of the justices who have retired in the last 30 years also dwent into senior status.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Justice O'Connor (and many of her predecessors) are considered to be (have been) in "senior status" by the Federal Judicial Center. However, the U.S. Code and other official sources use the term "retired Justice" with respect to the Supreme Court Justices in the same contexts as they use the term "senior status" for Circuit and District Judges. The perquisites of a retired Supreme Court Justice and those of a senior-status lower-court judge -- including the right to receive salary increases and the right to be designated to hear cases on lower courts -- are substantially the same. The reason for the confusion is that in the lower courts, there is a difference between a "senior status" judge and a fully "retired" judge. Newyorkbrad 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

little help

RICO page contains the sentence "The Supreme Court will soon (26 April 2006) hear Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, which concerns what sort of corporations fall under the scope of RICO". Since it's the middle of May, perhaps someone could update it with the results - I think this page gets more attention than that one.

• If the case was heard on April 26 a decision won't come until late june..so, stay tuned. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The case was decided today...check out http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ recent decisions and you'll see the decision. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Miguel Estrada

This man deserves another shot at becoming a federal judge given all his hard work since coming to America. Those dirty Democrats had no right to gripe about John Roberts and Sam Alito being two more white guys after what they did to this man. I remember reading some complaints by those dirty Democrats and liberal Latino voters about Bush failing to nominate a Hispanic to the Supreme Court, and I thought to myself, "Well, what the hell about Miguel Estrada, you schmucks?" The man received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association, and yet the Democrats filibustered him. They claim he didn't provide enough information about his views, but I think what really bothered them was the fact that he is a conservative Hispanic. This just goes to show you what those dirty Democrats really are whenever blacks and Hispanics step out of line by espousing conservatism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.14 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 May 2006.

• Um, dude...Estrada was nominated to the DC Circuit...not the Supreme Court.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• • DC Circuit is quirky b/c it's not a state. Generally, the senator from the state that the court will be in has a veto on the nominee. But DC is not one, so no senator. When any prez nominates a person for the DC Ct of apples manzana be aware. John wesley 21:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

ERISA cases

why no desire to create the red link articles, Davila, Shaw? UnDegree 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotes Section

What is the purpose of the section with a quote about arguing before the Supreme Court? Is it necessary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.2.1.103 (talk • contribs) .

• Yes, it is necessary. One of the cool things we can do with this Supreme Court page is provide quotes about what the experience is like to actually argue before it. I think quotes about the institutution itself are not only appropriate, but obligatory. Obviously, good ones by knowledgable sources and cited. But I would love to see a collection of quotes about what it is like to partake in the ritual that is America's highest Court, and ultimate arbiter of our Constitution. --DavidShankBone 04:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New Justices Table

I find that the one we have right has too much irrelvant info. I submit we use the more stripped down version, similiar to the table used for the judges on the circuit courts. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The table on the main article page shows seat numbers from CJ to 10. Why is there no #5? Is this a mistake or is it simply somthing I'm not aware of? Vbdrummer0 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Seat # 5 was eliminated at some point by the US Congress. You may want to check the infobox at the begining of the article; go to Justices by seat. There it will explain at what point was seat # 5 eliminated.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Solicitor General

Shouldn't the United States Solicitor General be mentioned somwehere in this article? Jonathan D. Parshall 00:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedantics

'Appointed to serve for life, they can be removed only by retirement, resignation, or impeachment and subsequent conviction.' I argue that Retirment and Resignation does not consitute "removal". I suggest that the sentence be changed.

I'll reword it. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes about arguing before the Supreme Court

Does the last section with Floyd Abrams's quote really contribute to the article? ~ UBeR 04:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it does. Luke C 16:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This article should be protected. There's been 10 attempts to vandalize it just by looking at the recent history. Thanks, --Vanka5 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a general policy against protecting that day's featured article appearing on the mainpage, because that's the first thing some newcomers see and want to edit, and the hope is that the ability to do attracts them to (or at least makes clear to them the nature of) the project. I don't know if that's a good policy or not (I spent some time last night doing rvv's on this article myself), but it's what the administrators are likely to say if you posted this request to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, which is where one goes to request protects or semiprotects. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism. Please protect! --206.21.166.95 04:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

better photograph?

The photograph titled Image:Supreme Court courtroom in Capitol.jpg is lousy; it's a fairly extreme case of insufficient light. Can a better one be found? Michael Hardy 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Having visited that room myself a year ago, I have 4 pictures, and all of them are darker than the ones here. Take it from me - that room is really, really dark. Raul654 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a photograph on the Supreme Court's own official website. I don't know whether its presence on a government site makes it a free-use or fair-use image, but in any event, someone could call the Court and see if they have a photograph they would be willing to free-license to us. (I can't do it myself because I have real-world dealings with the Court.) Newyorkbrad 22:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Contact information here Raul654 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought any work of the US government was in the public domain. Powers 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know whether the pixture is work of the government or not. It probably is, but could theoretically be a private photographer's photo used by SCOTUS with permission (though I don't see a copyright notice). Newyorkbrad 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Retirement

Does this sentence say what is intended? (my bolding) "The fear of mental decline and death often precludes justices from stepping down." -THB 08:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. Maybe they want to keep working to keep their minds sharp? Powers 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Term of Office

I Know that Justices essentially serve for life on the court, but at the beginning of the article it says that they appointed for life when the Constitution says they serve for terms of good behavior. I just think that it should reflect what the Constitution prescribes, not just simply how long they actually serve. Thank you. 18:55, January 20, 2007

Prior versions of the article did refer to appointment during "good behaviour" in the opening, with the explanation that this generally means for life, but the wording was changed. I don't see an explanation for the change but I suspect that an editor found explaining this technical distinction too wordy in the opening and he or she thought it was sufficient to explain it in the body of the article. If you disagree, this is a Wiki, and you can make the change to how you think it should read, although given the prior experience you should make sure that it flows smoothly and doesn't get bogged down in too much detail in the introduction. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Political leanings

I agree with the content of this paragraph, but I am still uncomfortable with it . . . Perhaps it would be better with a source - there have been many news items since the 2005 changes reaching the same conclusion as does this paragraph, so it seems finding a source that validates the conventional wisdom wouldn't be difficult. Am I nit-picking or does anyone agree? Mdeaton 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can live with the section even though I don't love how it's presented as stated above, but the two new paragraphs just don't seem to help this section, or the article, at all. Any thoughts? Mdeaton 14:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed those two paragraphs from this section. I think there may be some points in there that may merit exploration, but it needs to be rewritten and sourced. While there is a unique quality about the justices' independence of the worries of re-election and public opinion polls, it can't be said that they are "free from pressure from either side of the political spectrum." The Blackmun sentence at the end is unnecessary as well, sourced or not. Mdeaton 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more informative to label the justices on the basis of construction; i.e. how they interpret the Constitution. This is really all that matters; for instance the more "liberal" justices handed down the winning decision in the Kelo case allowing private developers to push local governments into using eminent domain for their benefit because of their Loose Constructionism. On the other hand Clarence Thomas, usually labelled "conservative", dissented in the Raich case because his Strict Constructionist view prohibits the federal government from regulating the matter at hand. These don't normally fit in with the liberal/conservative dichotomy but if you understand how each interprets the Constitution it's easier to understand how they would make decisions.

Fixing Info Boxes

Hi all. I've tried to update various broekn links, usually by connecting them to an external link. The article is now free of RED links, except in one of the boxes at the very bottom. I'm not an expert on these things. Can someone perhaps remove/update the link for the ? SkipperClipper 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Red links are not "broken". They reflect articles that do not exist in Misplaced Pages, but that some editors think perhaps should exist. "Broken links" refers to external links that lead to pages no longer in existence... Magidin 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Article length and redundancy

I've made various changes this afternoon trying to thin this article out again; last year, I split it into a collection of interrelated articles to try and reduce the size of the main article without losing any kind of descriptive depth, but the main article's kind of crept up in size again. The paradigmatic example of surplussage was the detailed discussion of the cert pool, which is entirely unnecessary since that information is contained in the article on the cert pool. I think - and hope other editors agree - that given the number and depth of subjects around SCOTUS, it's better to have as brief a discussion as possible within the main article and then more deatiled discussion hived off into separate "main articles." Simon Dodd 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Segal Cover Scores

I am about to remove the recent addition of Segal-Cover ratings to the Current Justices Table for 2 reasons:

the first is aesthetic. as NoSeptember comments below on the political leanings section,

"Including a column for each justice's political stance is not necessary, the chart is too crowded as it is. We should take it out of the chart. Keep all references to the political leanings in the paragraph below that already covers this. The labels should be properly sourced to specific articles as Pakaran suggests, now it looks too much like WP:OR. NoSeptember talk 14:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)"

the addition clutters the table and makes the formatting of the rightmost column (prior experience, or whatever) a nightmare.

the second is that the ratings say virtually nothing about the justices' jurisprudence, only the clumsy and inaccurate way the media tried to portray it prior to their confirmation. since political leanings are discussed below, this column is unnecessary. 72.183.240.231 01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Simon Dodd 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

apologies, for some reason I was thinking new comments weres supposed to go at the top of the page (I've since learned I could have just clicked "+" above). if there is an easy way to move this section, I'd appreciate it if someone would do so to conform with the guidelines.

also on topic: I do think it would be perfectly appropriate to link to the Segal Cover scores under the "See also" section or one of the other sections at the bottom of the page, if the editor wishes to do so, but again, I don't think they should be in the table. 72.183.240.231 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As requested, I moved this to the bottom. Magidin 13:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Magidin! I edit infrequently, so I'm still learning my way around. 72.183.240.231 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure; I was planning on saying something about this topic anyway... For future reference, I don't know if there is a cleaner way, but the way I did it was to simply edit the entire talk page, move the section to the clipboard (marking it and right-clicking, selecting "cut"), and then pasting it back at the bottom. Magidin 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MAJOR VANDALISM !

Looking at this page it seems to me that the entire beginning is missing. I am not an expert in correcting these things so can someone please do so. Thank You very Much!Vinaq 14:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

Wait......... I think I fixed it! Or maybe notVinaq 14:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

There, I think I fixed it. Dan 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You did. Now, how about remembering that one exclamation mark is enough? Magidin 15:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Request: Additional Detail on SCOTUS decisions

I came to this article looking for information about SCOTUS decisions, particularly how many justices are needed to create a "majority" decision, what happens if there is no majority (3, 3, 3 split?), what happens if justices recuse themselves (do you need 5 justices to set precedent?), etc. Could this be added, or could a link to the relevant article be made more prominent?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 11:56, June 26, 2007 (UTC)

A majority opinion requires more than half of justices that are hearing the case. You can have a majority of 4 justices if two recuse themselves, for example. If no opinion receives a majority of votes, but an outcome (reversal or upholding) does, then you often have what are called "plurality opinions", the one with the most votes on the outcome that received the most votes being so labeled. Generally, you need a majority of justices to set precedent, but they need not be the same majority for all facets of the case. In Bakke, for example, one line-up of five justices established that it was permissible to take race into consideration in Medical School admissions, and a different five justice majority decided that the system under consideration went too far (only one justice belonged to both majorities). When there is an even number of justices hearing an appeal case (through recusal or other reasons), a tied vote results in the lower-court's decisions being upheld, but it does not establish precedent. Magidin 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the info. Can we add something like this to the article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 16:19, June 26, 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments. The information probably belongs in Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States where it should be in extenso. Magidin 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Zinn & objectivity

Actually, the way I've added in Zinn's perspective is objective. It is, in fact, possible to objectively show the opinion of an individual; this is a basic writing skill that I hope other Wikipedians understand by now. My entry is not POV because it simply states Zinn's perspective without claiming it as an absolute (unlike the mainstream claim that SCOTUS is inherently objective). And if we are to learn anything about the world around us, we have to know perspectives as well as dry facts, as dry facts can only get you so far. This is why Misplaced Pages has allowed for the mentioning of perspectives in an unbiased manner in many of its articles already. -- LGagnon 21:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And no, I don't have to add an opposing viewpoint. You can do that if you want to, but Misplaced Pages doesn't make that a requirement. -- LGagnon 01:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute, there are two ways your Zinn paragraph fails to adhere to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy:

"1) While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

2) Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance)."

BoBo 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But I didn't omit anything that was readily available to me. I just added something, and someone can add something else with an opposing view. Isn't that how Misplaced Pages works? You're demanding that I write the whole section rather than my small part. Your all-or-nothing policy goes against what Misplaced Pages normally promotes.

If you really want more points of view, add them yourself and stop trying to censor the article. I added my part in an unbiased way; now add what you think needs to be added as well.

On a side note, please keep this discussion on one page preferably here. -- LGagnon 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

LGagnon, the addition of a Marxist critique to a description of what most in America regard as a necessary democratic institution in a three-branch government system (see the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me) is in and of itself controversial. Therefore, you should've taken a more cautious, objective and common-sense approach to introducing the topic you wish to present. It appears that you only wish to introduce ideology and not have a balanced discussion of the politicization of the judicial branch.

BoBo 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is controversial, but it isn't biased because of that; you're just using ad hominem there. And trust me, I was cautious; I do a lot of political writing offline, and have had to gain those skills to do so.

And again, you use ad hominem on me in your last sentence (and you're saying I'm not thinking before I write?). Like I said, you can add other points of view if you want to; I never tried to stop you from doing that, despite what you think, and I'd rather you do that than censor the article again as an easy way of avoiding expanding the section. -- LGagnon 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Before someone adds another "counter-point", please consider what a counter-point is. It's supposed to argue against the argument, not the person making the argument. That is an ad hominem fallacy, which a respectable publication wouldn't bother with, as it isn't even a real counter-point. -- LGagnon 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, Zinn is considered to be Marxist. See

http://www.sierratimes.com/06/06/01/66_146_215_73_15534.htm

"An Alice in Wonderland moment comes when he is filmed giving a talk about his old boss, John Silber, once President of Boston University. Considerable ire is vented upon him and he is described as a right-wing fanatic. This should alert viewers to just how radical Zinn actually is because Silber happens to be a member of the Democratic Party. Most viewers won’t have the background to know this, and also might not realize that our protagonist’s main intellectual influence is Karl Marx. Nowadays, pointing something like that out invites being labeled a McCarthyist, but devotion to disproven dialectical imperatives tells us much about the intellectual box into which true believers place themselves. While the documentary itself never directly addresses communism, Zinn is shown at an event accepting an award from the Eugenes Debs Foundation. Even should one not be familiar with the name of (perhaps) America’s most famous socialist, they should not fail to be startled by the organization’s president introducing our activist as “Comrade Zinn.” He has also written a play called Marx in Soho, and a snippet from it is shown."

Here is another article exposing the Marxist ideology of Zinn:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8145

In addition, the counterpoint is valid. It is included in both Zinn's Misplaced Pages biography and the article on his book. If LGagnon removes it again, it proves that he is only interested in promoting a POV position. He should also be reminded about the three deletes Wikipolicy that he trumpeted earlier. If one uses a source, one should accept that others may not believe that his source is valid and have every right to provide commentary to that effect.

BoBo 22:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of your sources are from right-wing rags. How about an unbiased source, such as the Misplaced Pages entry on him? "Zinn's philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism, and social democracy." Yes, Marxism is part of it, but calling him a Marxist is an oversimplification. Might I add, there's no real need to point his political philosophy out in the article; it has no baring on the argument. -- LGagnon 03:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support a (quite) condensed version of the counterpoint to Zinn's claim located in the article currently. Two or three sentences should do it, but at present, it reads more like an article on Zinn than one about SCOTUS. Please try to keep digressions at an absolute minimum. Vbdrummer0 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In general I would support the removal of both the Zinn paragraph and the counterpoint. The inclusion of the Zinn paragraph is anti-NPOV and its inclusion tries to force a Marxist interpretation upon the selection of SCOTUS justices.

BoBo 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be censored just because you can't come up with a counter-point to Zinn's argument. Your bias against the paragraph (which appears to be motivated by your political ideology, not an attempt to improve the article) is no excuse for censoring it. Like I said, if you want it "fair and balanced" with your own ideology represented, then add a counter-point (one that is not ad hominem and actually has something to do with SCOTUS) instead. -- LGagnon 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• LGagnon I admire the fact that you are trying to defend your views or philosophy here. While I strongly disagree with Zinn's views of the Supreme Court, I object to the inclusion of the paragraph you propose not because I am biased against it, but because, like another user pointed out, it seems like trying to impose Zinn's views into an area of the article. However, I would not object if you included your Zinn paragraph in a new section of the article that deals with the topic of Criticisms of the Institution, or something of that sort. It would appear that including the views of Zinn or any other critic of the Supreme Court into a new section would make those inclusion compatible with Misplaced Pages's POV Policy. Again, if you wish to engage in a political debate about SCOTUS I would suggest that there are other arenas to do that. In the meantime, I would oppose the inclusion of the paragraph the way that you suggest it, but would gladly support you if a new section where criticisms or parallel views of the Court can be placed.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 06:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While I feel that Zinn as an individual is unquestionably biased, the points he presents here are valid, but i feel that they should be presented in a section different than the current one, so i have added him to a section on criticism of the court.

I support the way that Ghettodude has reconfigured the Zinn paragraph and placed it in its own unique section explicitly labelled as a criticism. As long as it remains in its present form, I do not have a problem with the paragraph now. Thanks to Coburnpharr04 for suggesting a viable resolution to this problem. BoBo 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is perfectly fine with me. I agree that this actually works out better, as it seems to be more encouraging of an inclusional section. -- LGagnon 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suing the Supreme Court

This question may seem odd, but seeing as how this is America, has anyone ever tried suing the Supreme Court, or at least seriously thought about doing it? I mean, if the nation can sue an active president, I'm sure there's some way someone could sue the court! _└┘t  23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are several problems with that. The biggest and most insurmountable obstacle is judicial immunity (absolute immunity for official acts), which has always been very strong throughout the history of the common law for the obvious reason that without it, every judge would be sued directly by the loser in EVERY case. The second biggest obstacle is what forum would have the power to hear the dispute. And the third is standing. If you find this issue interesting you might want to consider law school (this issue sometimes comes up in civil procedure classes). --Coolcaesar 07:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The lack of a legal basis for suit doesn't stop people from trying to sue the Court, or one of its Justices, or the Clerk. A search on Westlaw's ALLCASES database reveals 84 case titles that include the name "Supreme Court of the United States" or some variation on the Court's name. And, as Coolcaesar suggests, it's usually a disgruntled litigant (maybe before the Court, maybe before some other court) that sues it. Curiously, not all of these lawsuits begin in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, I agree that such lawsuits are legally frivolous, both for the three reasons previously identified as well as the fact that such suits are unlikely to be able to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Oh, and United States v. Nixon was a criminal case; it wasn't an entire nation suing a sitting president. Criminal cases are brought in the name of "the People," "the State," "the Commonwealth," or (in federal court) "the United States," but this denomination doesn't suggest that the whole nation has ratified the decision to sue. This is why we live in a representative democracy. ---Axios023 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

For one to have an actionable cause against a Justice or the Court in general would be extraordinary indeed, but by no means impossible. It is possible that judicial immunity demands in this instance that impeachment proceedings would be the only available avenue of relief; however, impeachment can only be initiated by the House of Representatives, not by an individual litigant. Only one Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached in the history of the United States, Samuel Chase, and he was acquitted by the Senate. Ampermc 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while, but I thought this might be interesting and related. Today, the Court dealt with a case in which seven of the justices (Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer; I am guessing that the original suit also involved Rehnquist and O'Connor, no longer on the Court) were sued (Sibley, Montgomery B. v. Breyer, Justice, USSC, et al. According to SCOTUSblog, the case involved a Washington D.C. attorney who sued the seven justices in civil court for $75,000 in damages for refusing to review a case involving a domestic relations and child custody dispute. The lower court ruled the justices had immunity. Since those seven justices were directly sued, they recused themselves. This left two Justices to consider the case, which meant the court failed to have quorum (which by U.S.C. 28 Section 1 is six justices). In the order, the Court cites U.S.C. 28 Section 2109 to affirm the decision below; according to that section, the Chief Justice could send it back to the Court below for consideration by a full court as final judgement, or affirm the result as if the court had divided evenly if a majority of justices believe the case cannot be heard and determined by the end of the next term. Magidin 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"drifted primarily to the right..."

The last paragraph of the "History" section blurbing the Roberts Court reads a bit odd to me. First, I'm not sure what "drifting primarily to the right" on free speech even means (I can make a guess as to what the editor intends it to mean, though that intention isn't really objective, nor does it attempt to account for the campaign finance cases). Likewise, it is hard to even say what the direction of the present court on the death penalty is when Justice Kennedy joined the liberal bloc to create four 5-4 majorities this past term alone (perhaps one can call its current position right-of-center, if that is defined to mean any allowance whatsoever of the death penalty, but one can hardly say in that case that the court has "drifted" right, or much of anywhere at all, in that regard). As for abortion, "to the right" is certainly accurate in an absolute sense, though misleading as there was hardly any place else for it to go. In short, the statement in question is rather misleading in its selective use of cases to provide evidence for the court's direction.

NB: This is of course NOT to say that the court hasn't shifted to the right to a greater or lesser degree (it is in my opinion early in the day yet to say what degree, but certainly it is not wrong to say some degree, which I actually think the use of "drifted" in the original sentence captures pretty well), but perhaps it ought to be left at that rather than the selective and somewhat POV elaboration?

72.183.240.231 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting it; "drifting primarily to the right" is not a good sentence anyway. I changed it to "moving towards the conservative end of the spectrum", and gave an article by Linda Greenhouse as a reference. Feel free to continue editing. Magidin 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that is an improvement, though my objection (a stronger connotation than I intend, but it will have to do) to the way the issues and cases addressed are stated remains. (I forgot to mention in the prior catalogue that above all, the clumsy descriptor "desegregation" for the school cases, with the implication that the court did anything like endorsing segregation is rather offensive. I know it is a convenient shorthand, but it is a sloppy use of language, and is a hindrance to clear thought in the way all sloppy language is).

I realize that this brief sketch of cases is pretty much the standard template for what has been done for the previous courts, and perhaps any more elaboration would be excessive for the purposes of this article/section, and so I'm not sure what else could be done to address this. I don't really think your final statement ("too early to get a read") is strictly necessary outside of a more indepth discussion of the court than is afforded in this article, or in the background as with the talk page here, as it is certainly true the court has taken some step right, and a simple statement to that effect is not in the least misleading. But perhaps its the best quick compromise for now to address my concerns with the original statement while keeping the templates parallel. Certainly I can't think of anything better for the moment. Perhaps I'll think on it some more over the weekend. In the end though, I don't guess it's really that big a deal (if it was, I probably wouldn't bother, lol!) 72.183.240.231 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of your concerns are valid; I took another stab at it. This time, I put a sentence remarking that it is still early before the "shift to the conservative end", and rather than list the cases as examples of a move to the right I listed them as "some of the major rulings", adding the anti-trust case that overruled the 1911 precedent. Magidin 23:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! The slight, simple decoupling of the "rightward shift" bit from the cases and instead simply listing them as "major rulings" solves the problem completely! Well done and thanks. I still don't think the hedging ("too early") is necessary but it's not a problem either, so I'll leave that to your discretion. 72.183.240.231 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While it may be an unessecary comment, I want to praise the way the question of impartiality or appearance of impartiality was handled here. I wish it was so easy in other articles. My thanks and appreciation to you two. Boris B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.163.210 (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

recent changes to membership table

I'm not sure why people keep feeling the need to "improve" the chart, but if they are so compelled, is it too much to ask that they score better than 60% on the states the justices were born in? (Roberts was born in New York, not Indiana; Scalia was born in New Jersey, not New York; Souter was born in Massachussetts, not New Hampshire; and O'Connor was born in Texas, not Arizona). I'm not sure why the state of birth is relevant anyway: it is the state of residency which is listed on their commission, in which case Souter and O'Connor would then be "correct", but Roberts and Scalia are residents of Maryland and Virginia, respectively (and Breyer would have to be changed from CA to MA as well). Don't ask me why Ginsburg and Thomas are listed as New York and Georgia despite having served on the DC Circuit like Scalia and Roberts, but that is how they're listed officially, and I think we ought to revert to doing the same. I'd vote in favor of reverting the whole thing, but I'm willing to hear feedback from others to see if they think the changes are an improvement or not (in addition to the "official" reason, I'd also say any "improvement" would make the table shorter vertically as well, which the current change did not though it doesn't lengthen it either, as a reason why it is not an improvement). If people disagree and think the new format is acceptable, then the four states of birth alone can be corrected. I'm going to be gone for a couple weeks, so I'll leave it to everyone else to decide whether they want a wholesale revision, or merely the minor corrections. 72.183.240.231 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you in so far as correctness. The state of residence at the time of receiving their commission is, I think, not really all that important, and for most would be covered under "prior positions", so it should neither be added nor be controlling. There certainly was a time when the state the justices were born in (or at least, where they were perceived as "being from") was considered important, so having the state of birth is not entirely amiss (though of course it is far less important today). You should certainly go ahead and fix incorrect information! And I agree with you as far as having the table shorter vertically; that's one of the reasons I reduced the size of the portraits (both here and in the Chief Justice pages. Remember: be bold. Magidin 01:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

State secrets

The controversy about the right of US authorities not to allow trials against them if they claim that state secrets could be revealed as in the case of Khalid El-Masri should be covered. Happily ever after 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Propose changing “Checks and balances” title to: “Limitations on powers”

My I suggest the title of the “Checks and balances” subsection be changed to “Limitations on Powers” or “Limitations on Power of the Court” or something similar. While “Checks and Balances” is a central theme in US Constitutional law it is one that refers to the three branches of government as a whole and not one that refers only to the court. Also the subject matter of these sections seems to cover the limits of the court’s power like “Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review” and “cannot enforce its own rulings” etc.

The same section should also have a paragraph or subsection about “implicit limitations on power” since some of the most important limits on the Courts power are not directly cited in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or any other statue that I know of. The second paragraph that starts “The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings…” in this section is a good example of an implicit limitation. The following paragraph (or something like it) should be another implicit limitation/paragraph which I think I should be included: “Decisions of the court must be well argued to stand up to both popular opinion and future challenges; otherwise they tend to be overturned. The most famous examples of poorly written arguments would be the Dred Scott v. Stanford and Plessy v. Ferguson. While well reasoned arguments like Murbury v. Madison can have lasting affects.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.54.58.5 (talk • contribs) 9:18 October 22 2007

May I in turn suggest being bold ? Worse that can happen is your changes will be changed in turn. Magidin 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

-Can't login from work plus I am following the Misplaced Pages guidlines by proposing the change first. -orginal author of this section CJB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.54.58.5 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Misplaced Pages editing guidelines are that contentious changes be discussed; it is also suggested that with "large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion." Your proposals seem neither contentious or large, so the[REDACTED] policy of boldness would seem to apply. Please do not forget to sign your comments. Magidin 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ties

I have no idea where to find this information, so hopefully somebody can find a source. There are 9 justices on the SC, so there is theoretically never a "tie". However in some cases (like the courts recent decision to hear an appeal of the Exxon Vanldez punative award) an odd number of Justices (in this case 1) could recuse themselves, leaving an even number of Justices to issues opinions. So if 4 vote one way and 4 vote the other way, what happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holshy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The lower court's decision stands, but the result does not create a binding precedent. Basically, you return to the status quo ante. Magidin 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sentences on this in the final paragraph of the relevant section of the Procedures article. Magidin 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

SCOTUS and FWOTSC

The first time I encountered the acronymn SCOTUS was in a published letter to the editor from Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor . A quick search of the New York Times on-line archives links to a William Safire column mentioning that quirky letter: "On Language; Potus And Flotus" (October 12, 1997) . Safire provides context by explaining:

"As a Presidential aide in 1969, I first noticed this acronym on a label of an extension of a five-line telephone along the back wall of the West Wing's Cabinet Room. When the button next to that label lighted up, the phone was answered with special alacrity. A similar button labeled POTUS was on the telephone set of H. R. Haldeman, the President's chief of staff, and was used by him for calls both from and to Mr. Nixon."

Safire's column then offers a re-telling of the O'Connor anecdote:

"In 1983, as the Secret Service usage about the President began to appear in print, a New York Times editorialist took umbrage at the rampant acronymization: Is no Washington name exempt from shorthand? The Chief Magistrate responsible for executing the laws is sometimes called the POTUS (President of the United States). The nine men who interpret them are often the SCOTUS. The people who enact them are still, for better or worse, Congress."

"This nine men error drew an amused retort from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who noted the need for updating Times files and tongue-in-cheekily added, If you have any contradictory information, I would be grateful if you would forward it -- as I am sure the POTUS, the SCOTUS and undersigned (the FWOTSC) would be most interested in seeing it."

Even the First Woman On The Supreme Court acknowledges that acronymns have become an inescapable (and sometimes ineffable) feature of American English. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the text above so that the "footnotes" become in-line references. Footnotes are not really appropriate for talk pages, and in any case since there is no reference section, they are not showing up. Magidin (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible reordering of the sections?

I was looking at the article, and noticed that the section on "Justices as Circuit Justices" comes before the membership section; it occurs before the current membership is even listed explicitly. I think it would make more sense to move the section on "Justices as Circuit Justices" to a later part of the article. One possibility is to place it as a subsection just after the membership is listed, before "Seniority and Seating", or after "Salary" and before "Political leanings". Another is to keep it as a full-fledged section, and move it to just before "Quarters" (after "Political Leanings"). Yet another possibility is to include it in the "Jurisdiction" section, with perhaps a bit more about the role of the justice as circuit justice (his ability to issue orders or refer them to the court, etc). I think the latter option is the one that makes more sense in terms of the logic of the article (since the circuit assignment is related to the jurisdiction of the Court). Given the large number of reasonable possibilities, however, I think it would be beneficial to hear some opinions before doing so. Comments? Magidin (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Newest section on "usurpation"

The latest section needs more history and more balance. It seems to me that it is what is normally refered to as "judicial activism", the term 'usurpation' coming more from politically motivated sources; while a section on criticisms for activism sounds like a good idea, it surely must go beyond the Warren era; Marshall was accused of it, Taney was accused of it, the Lochner Court was accused of it, etc. All of that would belong in such a section. I don't think I am personally up to the task, but perhaps someone else can help out? And I think the title ought to be changed to "activism". Note that the link to judicial usurpation (a redirect) was a recent creation of the Editor who added this section. Then again, this may just be my impression. Any comments or suggestions? Magidin (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding/removing the "votes" column in the table

I agree with the removal of the "votes" column in the membership table that was recently added. First, it is misleading to claim that this is how the justice votes; at best, it is a description of his judicial/political leanings. For instance, Scalia voted with the majority to strike down the flag burning ban in Texas v. Johnson, and Stevens voted to uphold it, which is the opposite of the usual understanding if we say Scalia "votes conservative" and Stevens "votes liberal". So it is imprecise to claim they "vote conservative" or "vote liberal". But more importantly, this information about the political/judicial leanings of the justices is already in the article, in the Political leanings subsection. So rather than clutter up the table with somewhat misleading and in any case superfluous information, let's keep it separate and far more clear than you could achieve in that table. This is not "censorship", as the editor insinuated, but editing. Remember to assume good faith. Magidin (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The excuses for the wholesale censorship of the grid column on the justices' political leanings are laughable, at best:

1. If it were misleading to call it "votes", then change the name to something more accurate, like "political leanings". It's as if you objected to a column called "appointed by", but deleted it instead of changing it to "nominated by", or whatever.
2. EVERY SINGLE PART of the grid is "already in the article". The grid is a summary of information, to make it readily accessible to the readers. Perhaps there's some reason you don't want this information readily accessible..?

I limit how much "good faith" I assume, because too often it is not true. And the very best sign of it is lawyering of data someone wants to censor, when they could FIX the technicalities they're using as the excuse to censor it altogether. --Kaz (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To make this crystal clear: The single added column clearly is not damaging the layout or readability of the grid. It is information widely accepted, including within[REDACTED] itself. I am willing to fix any ACTUAL objections to the formatting, presentation, et cetera. I will do the work, so even the all-too-common editorial laziness "I'm not going to take time to fix it" is not an excuse. The colum CAN be made to work...so state objections, and I shall fix them. Want me to find the accepted footnotes for their leanings elsewhere, and duplicate them in the column? Just say the word. Prefer "moderate" to "swing"? Just say so. There is NO excuse for wholesale censorship of the column. --Kaz (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First, kindly calm down. As far as I know, I have not crossed paths with you before, so your "censorship" dig is not appreciated by someone who is simply having an honest disagreement with you. Second, when you say that you are willing to "fix any actual objections to the formatting, presentation, et cetera", it seems you are saying that you are unwilling to accept that anything you put in be removed. Is your work something that should not be removed under any circumstances simply because you think it should be there? Third: you claim that "every single part of the grid is "already in the article."" This assertion is simply not accurate. The table is the only place in this article where the dates of service of the Justices are given, where their prior positions are given, where the Senate vote is given, where their birthplace and birthdate are given, where the president who appointed them is given. This information is nowhere else in this article (though, presumably, it is elsewhere in Misplaced Pages). By contrast, the political leanings are already explicitly given in this article, in my opinion in far more informative fashion and with references (e.g., the fact that Justice Stevens describes himself as a conservative). Adding them to the table is superfluous in my opinion, and since that information is already available, clear, and referenced, I do not think adding them to the table is necessary or desirable. Needless repetition of information does not make an article better. I cannot be "censoring" information if the information is in the article, and your desire to add the column does not, in and of itself, warrant the hyperbole of accusing those who honestly disagree of "censorship" when they are not suppressing any information but only its repetition. It's not that the information is incorrect, it is that I see no reason to have it repeated when it is already in the article in a better format and with more information and context. To make it, as you put it, crystal clear, my objection is that the information is superfluous, and incongruent with the rest of the table which restricts itself to purely objective information about the Justices, rather than to perceptions of them (however widely held or accepted). Maybe instead you can improve the Political leanings sections by adding more information? Or you could move it up, say to just below the table, if you think it deserves to be more prominent. Personally, I prefer to have the purely objective information of seniority, seating, and salary first before that of the subjective perception the justices create of themselves, but that may just be me. On the other hand, if there seems to be concensus among editors that such subjective information ought to be on the table, be sure I will acquiesce; but one person does not consensus make. (Of course, you could argue the same about my opinion, but I'll note that the table was tinkered with in the past and achieved its current form some time ago with no modification; that suggests a general consensus on it). Not everything I have ever added (or argued should be removed) has withstood the test. Magidin (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have now reverted the information without any new objection, although I have addressed all of your previous objections. This, not my attempts to fix the column to suit your claims of technicalities, constitutes "edit warring" and multiple reversion. State your existant objections, and I will fix them.--Kaz (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort; if you'll check the history, you will see I have only reverted once. Conflating editors and accusing them of things they did not do may also be the source of the dearth of good faith you seem to be encountering. I certainly am not sensing much coming from you. May I humbly suggest that if you are having trouble finding good faith, it may be at least in part for that attitude? Magidin (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Said editor apparently has a history of that kind of attitude. Suffice to say though, most lawyers and law students realize that while the justices have particular ideologies and beliefs, they are not set upon strict liberal/conservative lines, and they usually make their decisions on jurisprudential grounds, rather than ideological. For instance, Thomas tends to view things in a textualist light, and while that often corresponds to a conservative viewpoint, it may correspond to a liberal viewpoint in another case. Kennedy is hard to pin down, but he has a history of striking down laws more often than he upholds them. Scalia looks to the framers intent, while Breyer likes to look to foreign courts, something Scalia despises (see for example, this panel debate at American University Law School between Scalia and Breyer). Trying to display the justices based on solely liberal vs. conservative lines, without any citations, is frankly, inaccurate, and unacceptable under our guidelines and policies of WP:NPOV. ⇒SWATJester 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My objection is not to mentioning this (it is mentioned in Political leanings after all), but that the table is not the right place to have it. The table contains only objective information about the justices, while the political leaning/judicial leaning is perceptual and changing. As for people disagreeing with the usual sorting, Justice Stevens himself objects to being called a liberal, as he made clear in the recent interview that is referenced in that section. Certainly, a better discussion of these issues would be a welcome addition to the Political leanings section, but I don't see how an even terser inclusion in the table is a good idea; not only is it superfluous repetition, but it does not mesh well with the rest of the table in my opinion. As to your other comments, I agree. I noted above that Stevens voted to uphold the flag burning ban while Scalia voted to strike it down, for example; and Stevens voted against affirmative action in Bakke, to give another example. Which is why I think a more expansive discussion makes far more sense (even setting aside the issue of mixing perceptually derived information with purely objective information in that table. And if you look up in this Talk page, under "Political leanings", you can see suggestion similar to your own above, suggesting that talking about the justices's mathod of interpreting the Constitution ("construction") would be more informative. Magidin (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. It's not that we can't say the judges have certain leanings; the article already says that. It's just inappropriate in an objective table. ⇒SWATJester 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles