Talk:Gang of 14

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Post Election 2006

It would be nice to have a section on which senators in this group lost their races on November 7 2006. I know DeWine is out, but I came here looking for information on who was left and didn't find any. Andrew Kintz 7:52 CST 8 November 2006

Moderate?

I'm not so sure calling the set of 14 senators "moderate" is appropriate. Sure, some of them are -- but not all IMO. John Warner (R-VA) wouldn't be described as a moderate, for example. In fact, it's pretty certain that he is a member of the Gang of 14 because he has a sense of Congressional history similar to Byrd (D-WV) and also remembers what it is like to be a member of the minority party in the Senate, unlike many Republicans since the GOP was last in the minority prior to the 1994 elections. Warner was concerned in protecting the "rights" of the minority party in the Senate, and maintaining a historical difference between the Senate and the House, where filibustering isn't possible.

So, calling them moderate is both inaccurate and not necessarily the point. Warner (and others, perhaps) were part of the deal not because of their political stance per se, but because of their interest in preserving history and their understsanding of the gamesmanship of the Senate. -- stomv 10:16 EST 1 November 2005

Update Needed

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article needs to be updated - I don't think these 14 are the 14 that are active now. Kind of a confusing article. Fox News just had a Senator who's part of the Gang of 14 so I had to check this article out to figure out what it is. I'm still confused :P Ash Lux 00:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

they are at it again and are expected to be the people that ok roberts.

Proposal to Merge This Article

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Gang of fourteen has a little more information but its article quality is a bit lower. Combine the two and maybe we'll have one decent article ... FYI, "Gang of 14" seems to be the most common usage, so this should remain the primary article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just discovered that all of the discussion is here instead of at Talk:Gang of fourteen. I provided the names of the senators that were originally missing from Gang of fourteen, as well as all of its external links. I completely agree with Dhartung on the matter of the merger proposal. Who is authorized to perform the merger? John Rigali 07:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, and I also agree that I prefer the name and most of the material from "Gang of 14" article. However, I do question whether the name actually derived from the Chinese "Gang of 4". I doubt (but don't know for sure) that anybody had that in mind when the name was created. Is there evidence to back that derivation? Michael J. Hudson 04:56, September 26, 2004 (UTC)

I vote that these two articles ought to be merged. My opinion is that they should Phil 21:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Mod Squad"

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any ref on the alternative name of Mod Squad? I haven't heard of that elsewhere. --BDD 08:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nuclear option

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do not know who first coined the term, "nuclear option" whether Democrat Party or Republican Party. I believe that it was a hyperbole and sensationalism that became popular in usage. It refers to a supposed "total sweeping away" of the use of the fillibuster tactic, which may or may not be Constitutionally provided for, in the blocking of a President's judicial nominees. Persons upholding the use of the fillibuster to block judicial nominations viewed the tactic as viable, while persons opposed to the fillibuster of judicial nominations viewed it as outside the Constitutionally designated parameters of the fillibuster. The Nuclear Option was to be a straight "up or down" vote in the U.S. Senate to determine the Constitutionality of the use of the fillibuster rules to block a President's judicial nominations.76.169.98.0 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps some mention of the fact that some liberal/progressive factions of the Democratic Party are now suggesting an exercise of the 'constitutional option'? In retrospect in seems they shouldn't have fought the Republicans on it 6 years ago. --ptaylor (1:04, 7 December 2010)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gang of 14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060720221636/http://www.andrewhyman.com:80/confirmthem/graham2.pdf to http://www.andrewhyman.com/confirmthem/graham2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gang of 14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Gang of 14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gang of 14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Citation style

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! I plan on improving this article, and I am wondering if there are any objections to converting this article to use {{sfn}}s? There are a good number of scholarly sources (e.g. [1][2]) with information across different pages, and my experience is that sfns are the cleanest way to cite different pages from the same source. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic