Talk:Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

"Everything you read about the Supreme Court is wrong"

SCOTUSblog recently published an interesting piece talking about the popular view of the Court as deeply divided along ideological lines, entitled Everything you read about the Supreme Court is wrong. I think many of the editors of this page will find it an interesting. It would be nice if we could include some of the comments in the Judicial leanings section, but as I understand it, a blog entry is not considered a reliable source. In any case, I thought it might be worth a heads-up in the talk page. Magidin (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not true that all blogs are considered to be unreliable sources. A "blog" is simply a publishing format, and the content can be very reliable. From WP:RS:

Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

I think SCOTUSblog is one of the better sources for information about the Supreme Court - better than most newspapers. I definitely consider it a reliable source. — JPMcGrath (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha. In that case, I think definitely an extract/summary out of that post may be worth putting into the Judicial leanings section. I'll try to work something in during the next couple of days. Magidin (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've made my attempt; I replaced the final paragraph with a new one. The first paragraph, describing the "camps", should be updated in light of reliable sources' evaluation of the term that just ended. They started coming out recently, so it should be updated soon. Magidin (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost. Magidin has been doing all the hard labor putting in Goldstein's comments. I then go in an make slight tweaks to the language (tedious but not nearly as hard). Now, a new editor jumps in and strikes part of Goldstein's comments as being inappropriate in the Judicial Leanings section and saying they should be in the Criticism section. What I don't get is why the editor objects only to the judicial activism aspect of Goldstein's blog - all of it is opinion and controversial. I don't have a strong view on where Goldstein's comments belong, but I do think it's better to keep them together.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've written that editor about it. It seems someone interpreted the paragraph as claiming that Scalia and Thomas were the "true judicial activists" on the Court and called on that editor for help "fixing" the paragraph. As I wrote in the former's talk page, my impression is that Goldstein points out that, using the popular definition of 'activist' judge which he cites and which is often leveled at "liberal justices", then it would be Scalia and Thomas who best fit the bill; he is not arguing that Scalia and Thomas are "judicial activist". Rather, Golstein is deflating the criticisms leveeld from both sides of the spectrum. I certainly object to keeping Goldstein's defense of the conservatives while removing his blunting of the criticism to the liberals, and I don't see why this should be put in the Criticism section: Goldstein is not criticising the Justices or the Court, he is crticising the common perception of the Court, with the justices easily pigeon-holed into positions that are merely caricatures and stereotypes.

Meanwhile, I've restored the sentence dropping the "activism" word, since it seems to me that this is what got Drrll annoyed. Perhaps that will do it for now. Magidin (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think much of the problem here is that THF does not understand that the term "judicial activism" is used in two different contexts. In the political context, it means "legislating from the bench", which is a rather fuzzy definition. This is apparently the definition that he is familiar with.

In the legal context, it means the opposite of judicial restraint, and this is the definition that Goldstein is using, which is not surprising, given that he is a lawyer. An activist decision is one that does not defer to the other branches of government (legislative and executive), that overturns lower court decisions, that overturns precedent, and that decides more than it needs to.

Note that by this definition, most people would be hard pressed to say that judicial activism is inherently good or bad. To see this, look at two examples of very activist decisions: Brown v. Board of Education, which is generally regarded as one of the best decisions the court ever handed down, and Dred Scott v. Sandford, which is regarded as one of the worst.

In any case, this definition is emphatically not an "idiosyncratic and controversial definition of 'judicial activism'"; it is the standard legal definition of the term and it certainly does not violate NPOV.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The Wikipedia article on Judicial activism is, IMHO, decidedly lacking. I have been meaning to attack it, but gathering together references takes time, so I have not done so yet. Another one of those things I hope to get done real soon now. — JPMcGrath (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, I like what Magidin has done. It avoids the label and sticks to the core of what Goldstein said. At the same time, I imagine THF, also a lawyer, grasps the different meanings of judicial activism, a label that is often bandied about without much meaning at all. There are a lot of things Goldstein says I disagree with (to the extent that even matters), but I think his comments are provocative, and they are in the correct section. As Magidin states, Goldstein isn't criticizing the court, he is commenting on what he perceives as popular misconceptions. If any notable commentator challenges Goldstein's statements, it would be useful to insert them in the article for balance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that he is a lawyer. I am not, so I would certainly not claim any superior knowledge here. I do not understand the statement that Goldstein's definition of judicial activism is "idiosyncratic and controversial", since it seems to comport with those of other lawyers I have heard. I guess I should have waited for his explanation, rather than theorizing what he is thinking.

I also had questions about some of what Goldstein was saying, but I still think it is a valuable addition to the article, and opposing views would also be valuable.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

De-indenting for readability. First, I think it started with Drrll rather than with THF (who describes himself in his user page as a legal academic and lawyer). The former claimed in the latter's page that the paragraph was stating that Thomas and Scalia were "the true judicial activists" on the Court; it may be that THF evaluated the statement in that light and saw it as a criticism of Thomas and Scalia. Rather, I saw that sentence as pointing out that the common view of the "liberal justices" as being the ones prone to ignore the other branches and to invalidate acts of Congress to be generally mistaken, as evidenced by the votes in the last term. In any case, as a Senator mentioned in the Kagan confirmation last week, it seems that "activist judge" is interpreted to mean "a judge who makes a decision I disagree with"; I am reasonably happy with the current version, in which instead of the word activist followed by a parenthetical explanation of how the term is being used in this context, we simply have the in extenso description and avoid using the over-taxed word "activist". Magidin (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Religious Persuasions

On July 8, Afaprof01 added the above as a new section. Magidin reverted it. The two exchanged contentious words on Afaprof01's talk page. Afaprof01 added the section back in.

There are several issues. First, is the content in the new section notable? Second, does it merit a new section? Third, it's sloppy, has grammatical errors, repeats itself, and some of the citations are screwed up. I think the section should be removed until there's some consensus about what's appropriate. I'm not going to fix the technical and wording problems if it's not going to remain.

Personally, I think a comment about the Court being comprised of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews (assuming Kagan is confirmed) is notable, but not notable enough for a new section or this much space. However, I'm not going to revert Afaprof01's addition. Someone bolder and more experienced than I can, although it would be nice to avoid a war.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll avoid a revert war by not touching it; I'll merely note as well the weaselly opening "Some are asking..." used twice, and what I think is undue weight given to what is very clearly a very important subject for Afaprof01, but is hardly on the same level as the judicial leanings or list of current justices. The subject is covered fairly extensively in Demographics of the United States Supreme Court, with much better citations. I would say that mentioning the religious persuasions is about as notable as mentioning their political affiliations (which is not included); if it is to be added somewhere, I would put it after the Current Justices table, after the average age, with a link to the full article on the demographics. Magidin (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We could very justifiably have a short section on Court demographics (ethnicity, gender, religion, and so forth) topped by a "see main" pointing to the demographics article. bd2412 T 02:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My sense is that it should be removed. If anything's included it should be a section entitled "Supreme Court Demographics", with a {{main}} pointing to Demographics of the United States Supreme Court, and one or two sentences describing the current court composition. Afaprof01 is, of course, free to add properly cited material to that article. But this looks like soapboxig to me; I don't see an improvement to the article here. I'm not going to delete this right now, but I think we see where the consensus is going here. TJRC (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well sourced (and correctly refenced/cited) discussions about what "some" may be saying about the religious make-up of the Court should go into the Criticism section, not the Supreme Court membership section. We don't have arguments for or against originalism or "living constitution" judicial outlook, nor criticisms of life tenure, in this part of the article. A subsection "Supreme Court Demographics", possibly a level below Current Justices (that is, same level heading as the current Recess appointments section), and as a coda to the table of Current Justices, seems like a fair enough addition. Magidin (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that bd2412 has changed the title of the Section and added the {{tl|main}} link; I believe the first sentence is also a new addition. I lowered the level by one and moved it to right after the table of current justices. Other than that, I believe the content itself has not been touched as of yet. Magidin (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the edits as of [1] this version. I appreciate the spirit of compromise that has been demonstrated. To this point, cooperative collaboration has resulted in several improvements and clarifications. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've once again deleted the reference to the nominee. This section is about what the Court is like now, with some historical context. If and when Elena Kagan is confirmed, the section will be suitably updated (and why would you engage in speculation on religion, but not gender?). Remember: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Magidin (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I yield. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The precise numbers belong in the main article on Demographics; this is a short summary. Also, it is rather misleading to claim that David Davis "indicated no preference"; there is no place for a justice to "indicate" what his religion is. Rather, Davis was not a member of any church according to the source, but even that seems too much detail to put here. Magidin (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your condensation of the Protestant breakdown. In fact, I was in the middle of a similar edit, but when I tried to save my changes, I was told there was a conflict. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings

Opinions are requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which may potentially effect a wide swath of articles having "United States" in the title. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

First Latina

In the diversity section, Sotomayor is described as the "first Latina". While this is true, use of the feminine gender of the Spanish word alters and weakens the intended meaning. She is the first Latino of either sex, which meaning may be conveyed correctly by defaulting to the masculine gender, as is regular in Spanish (cf. "los padres"--"the parents") and, still, often observed in English. The alternative "first Latina or Latino" is clumsy.

It is true that, if the sexes were reversed, the situation would be ambiguous. "First latino" for a man could mean the first of his ethnicity and sex, or just the first man of his ethnicity. But, as it is, there is no ambiguity in adhering to the convention of the two languages.

I will make the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kagan Isn't a Justice ...Yet

Listen, I hate to be technical about this issue. But I will be. Justice-designate Kagan isn't yet a member of the Supreme Court. She only becomes an Associate Justice after two things happen: (1) the President gives her a Commission; and (2) she takes the Oaths of Office. The Senate did consent to her nomination today, which allows her to be given a lifetime appointment (instead of just a recess appointment); but the Senate's action does NOT appoint her to the Court and she is NOT a Justice unless and until she takes the Oaths of Office which have not yet been administered. I'm debating whether or not changing it on the page will be worth it...I imagine it will just be reverted. But, frankly, Justice-designate Kagan hasn't yet earned the right to the shorter title of Justice. In a few days, sure, but not right now. JasonCNJ (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why we have to be so trigger-happy. I just reverted some changes to John Paul Stevens's article that said Kagan replaced him. She hasn't yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

She'll be sworn in on Saturday at 2:00 pm EDT, according to the Supreme Court spokesperson[2]. I just reverted the list of justices to show the vacancy, we can switch it back tomorrow. (The investiture will be in October). Magidin (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, as well. These kind of pre-emptive edits occured with Barack Obama's victory in the Fall of 2008, so we must ensure that articles like this are about what has happened, not of a probable future. DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

JasonCNJ, you are correct on point one, but incorrect as to point two. The right to office vests upon the President signing the judicial commission and the Seal of the United States being there affixed to that commission. The oath has nothing to do with whether the person holds the office. John Marshall and the Court described this process pretty in-depth in Marbury v. Madison. Further, the Judiciary Act of 1789 ordered justice seniority by the date on their commission, and not by when they took the oath of office. That's the core historical precedent. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're correct, then the question is whether Kagan has received her commission yet. For example, according to the Alito and Roberts articles, they received their commissions on the same days they were confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Judicial Center biographical directory backs this up. According to that Center, Kagan is already a justice, but it hasn't been updated to show that she received her commission.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Kagan was to receive her commission yesterday (Friday August 6), and she was sworn in today (Saturday August 7). At this point, I think it is plain she is now a Supreme Court Justice. Magidin (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am, of course, fully aware of Marbury. But the procedure described in that case may be a bit outdated now. The reason why I cited that both steps need to be taken is from information derived from the Supreme Court itself. To wit:

The acceptance of the appointment and commission by the appointee, as evidenced by the taking of the prescribed oaths, is here implied; otherwise the individual is not carried on this list of the Members of the Court....The date a Member of the Court took his/her Judicial oath (the Judiciary Act provided “That the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath . . . ”) is here used as the date of the beginning of his/her service, for until that oath is taken he/she is not vested with the prerogatives of the office. The dates given in this column are for the oaths taken following the receipt of the commissions. Dates without small-letter references are taken from the Minutes of the Court or from the original oath which are in the Curator’s collection. [3]

Armed upon that basis, I feel correct in holding that both the delivery of the commission and the taking of the oaths should be required for inclusion in this list. If it's required according to the Court's own guidelines, I feel that should control here. But I am eager for the view of others on this. JasonCNJ (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the nominees always receive their commissions before taking their oaths. Often, they receive their commissions on the same day as senate confirmation. According to CNN, Kagan received her commission on August 5 (I know Magidin says August 6, but I'm not sure what the source of the 6th is). In any event, we'll usually be safe if we wait until after the administration of the oath. Responding more directly to Jason, the S. Ct.'s rules should control.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Recess appointments

I was reading a short piece on trivia [4]. It states that in 1960 the Senate passed a resolution "prohibiting the president from making recess appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court". The constitutionality and enforceability of such a resolution seems to me to be dubious at best (though of course there's the threat that the Senate would reject any nominee that is given a recess appointment). I'm doing a bit of digging, and there was indeed a resolution, though it did not "prohibit" the appointments. See page 19 of [5]; I'm trying to find a link to the resolution itself. Some of this should be added to the Recess Appointment section. Magidin (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I could not find a link to the resolution itself, but the CRS reference seems authoritative enough. I've added a paragraph, please feel free to edit it down. Magidin (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I copied it to the corresponding section of Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States‎. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

White vs. Non-White

Please refer to the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_people for an understanding of Puerto Rican and Hispanic people. Neither Hispanic nor Latina is a race. The article states almost all (80%) Puerto Ricans are white. A small amount are black or Native American. Sotomayor is not black or Native American. 209.166.185.130 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There's an edit war going on about this passage. Originally, it was:

"In the 21st century, the first Latino justice was appointed (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009). All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the appointment of Thurgood Marshall. Since then, only two other non-white justices have been appointed: Marshall's African-American successor, Clarence Thomas, and Sotomayor. Of the 112 justices, 109 have been white, and 108 have been male."

Currently, based on edits by anonymous editors, it is:

"In the 21st century, the first Latino justice was appointed (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009). All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the appointment of Thurgood Marshall. Since then, only one other non-white justice has been appointed: Marshall's African-American successor, Clarence Thomas. Of the 112 justices, 110 have been white, and 108 have been male."

In the spirit of compromise and possibly greater (but wordier) accuracy, I tried:

"In the 21st century, the first Latino justice was appointed (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009). All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the appointment of Thurgood Marshall. Since then, only two other non-European heritage white justices have been appointed: Marshall's African-American successor, Clarence Thomas, and Souter's Hispanic successor, Sotomayor. Of the 112 justices, 109 have been Caucasians of European heritage, and 108 have been male."

That, too, has been reverted.

Frankly, I thought the original was fine, that, in context, it was clear that white wasn't being used a purely technical race descriptor but white vs. the somewhat controversial descriptor "persons of color." I'm not going to revert again because it's unconstructive, but we need to have a consensus as to how this should be worded.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"non-European heritage white justices" is rather clunky. Besides, how do you think white Puerto Ricans got their heritage from? Sotomayor is a white American of Puerto Rican descent. While the significance of her being the first Latino on the SCOTUS, this is already mentioned in the article.

There have only been two non-white Justices to the SCOTUS and both have been black. If Sotomayor was a black Puerto Rican or native Taino, there would be no discussion. But the woman is white. Her parents were both white. Almost all Puerto Ricans are white. Read the article on Puerto Rican people if you need further clarification.209.166.185.130 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The article on Puerto Rico says that a majority consider themselves white, not "almost all". Other than a generalization to demographics, what evidence do you have for the proposition that her "parents were both white"? bd2412 T 18:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The article on Puerto Rican people states that over 80% of Puerto Ricans are white. That certainly constitutes as "almost all".

Regarding Justice Sotomayor's parents, there is a picture of them when she was a child. They're both white.

If Justice Sotomayor is not white, what race is she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.185.130 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to get back to the point the article was making, which is there has been increasing diversity on the Court with the introduction of women and people of different ethnicities or races. The issue of race is complicated. Try reading some of the WP articles on the subject and see how quickly you get dizzy. The S. Ct. article made a point that was contextually clear. By eliminating Sotomayor from the changing picture in the sentences at issue, we remove meaning from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The article does say she is the first Latino. The sentance in question is the one saying that 110/112 (109/112) Justices have been white. The rest of article isn't in question, its the one sentance that assumes white Hispanics are not white because they're Hispanic. 209.166.185.130 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23; perhaps a solution is not to contrast Sotomayor with "white caucasians" or "European descent". Rather than "since then, only one/two other non-white justice(s) has/have been appointed", perhaps something like "Thurgood Marshall was succeeded by Clarence Thomas in 1991, also an African-American; the first Latino Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, joined the Court in 2009." That seems to avoid the issue of whether or not Sotomayor is "white" or not, while noting that she is considered to be part of the "changing face" of the Court and providing cultural/ethnic diversity. Magidin (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear how it would read. Would you eliminate the part about the number of males and the number of whites? I still liked it the way it was, but if you're willing to reword it, could you give us the entire proposed language until the sentence that begins with "All justices were male . . ."?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I would. Doesn't really add that much, I think, except to suggest "vast majority". Starting from where it currently reads "All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the appointment of Thurgood Marshall..." until the end of the paragraph, I would propose:

All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the appointment of Thurgood Marshall in 1967. Marshall was succeeded by Clarence Thomas, also an African-American, in 1991; the first Latino justice, Sonia Sotomayor, joined the Court in 2009. All justices were males until 1981, when Ronald Reagan fulfilled his 1980 campaign promise to place a woman on the Court by appointing O'Connor. O'Connor was later joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. After O'Connor's retirement in 2006, Ginsburg was joined by Sotomayor, named to the Court in 2009 by Barack Obama; Obama then appointed Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in 2010.

Keeping all the references and of course dropping the italics (given here only to make it easy to distinguish the proposal from comments). Magidin (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But then you'd have to eliminate the preceding sentence ("In the 21st century, the first Latino justice was appointed (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009)."), wouldn't you?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Marshall was succeeded by Clarence Thomas, also an African-American, in 1991; the first Latino justice, Sonia Sotomayor, joined the Court in 2009."

This should read:

"Marshall was succeeded by Clarence Thomas, also an African-American, in 1991. The first Latino justice, Sonia Sotomayor, joined the Court in 2009." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.185.130 (talk)

First: Please sign your comments; use ~~~~ for an automatic signature. Second, please indent your comments; use as many : are necessary to provide good indentation so it is clear who you are replying to. Third, try to avoid leaving multiple blank lines in your comments. Now, the reason I used a semi-colon instead of a period is that I think the two sentences are related; you may disagree, but it is hardly a question of what "should" or "should not" be, rather a question of personal taste. To Bbb23, I wouldn't eliminate that sentence, since it is connected to the previous sentence relating "firsts" in the 20th century. Instead, I would make it a new clause of the previous sentence, making it read "...and a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981), while the 21st century saw the appointment of the first Latino justice (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009)." Magidin (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for belaboring this, Magidin, if I understand properly, it would read:

The 20th century saw the first appointment of a Jewish justice (Louis Brandeis, 1916), an African-American (Thurgood Marshall, 1967) and a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981), while the 21st century saw the appointment of the first Latino justice (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009). All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the appointment of Thurgood Marshall in 1967. Marshall was succeeded by Clarence Thomas, also an African-American, in 1991; the first Latino justice, Sonia Sotomayor, joined the Court in 2009. All justices were males until 1981, when Ronald Reagan fulfilled his 1980 campaign promise to place a woman on the Court by appointing O'Connor. O'Connor was later joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. After O'Connor's retirement in 2006, Ginsburg was joined by Sotomayor, named to the Court in 2009 by Barack Obama; Obama then appointed Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in 2010.

I like the century progression part, too, but when read as one continuous paragraph, it's very repetitive for Marshall and Sotomayor. How about this?

The 20th century saw the first appointment of a Jewish justice (Louis Brandeis, 1916), an African-American (Thurgood Marshall, 1967) and a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981), while the 21st century saw the appointment of the first Latino justice (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009). All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the 1967 appointment of Marhsall, the 1991 appoinment of Clarence Thomas (also African-American), and most recently the 2009 appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. All justices were males until 1981, when Ronald Reagan fulfilled his 1980 campaign promise to place a woman on the Court by appointing O'Connor. O'Connor was later joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. After O'Connor's retirement in 2006, Ginsburg was joined by Sotomayor, named to the Court by Barack Obama; Obama then appointed Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in 2010.

I also took out the last 2009 for Sotomayor at the end of the paragraph (already mentioned twice). Does that work?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that it would raise the same issue as before: we are contrasting Marshall, Thomas, and Sotomayor with "Caucasians of European heritage". (No problem for me, but since we are discussing this, clearly problems for some). The point of the period after Marshall was to do a bit of separation, and not tie together the "Caucasians of european heritage" with the appointments of Thomas and Sotomayor. Perhaps the repetition might be broken if we move the gender clause first, to wit:

The 20th century saw the first appointment of a Jewish justice (Louis Brandeis, 1916), an African-American (Thurgood Marshall, 1967) and a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981), while the 21st century saw the appointment of the first Latino justice (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009). All justices were males until 1981, when Ronald Reagan fulfilled his 1980 campaign promise to place a woman on the Court by appointing O'Connor. O'Connor was later joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. After O'Connor's retirement in 2006, Ginsburg was joined by Sotomayor, named to the Court by Barack Obama; Obama then appointed Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in 2010. All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the 1967 appointment of Marhsall. Marshall was succeeded in 1991 by Clarence Thomas (also African-American); Sonia Sotomayor is the first Latino justice.

Magidin (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Better but still a little awkward for me. One more suggestion, and then I'll leave it:

The 20th century saw the first appointment of a Jewish justice (Louis Brandeis, 1916), the first two appointments of African-Americans (Thurgood Marshall, 1967; and Clarence Thomas, 1991), and the first appointment of a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981), while the 21st century saw the appointment of the first Latino justice (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009). O'Connor, whom Ronald Reagan appointed, thus fulfilling his campaign promise to place a woman on the Court, was later joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. After O'Connor's retirement in 2006, Ginsburg was joined by Sotomayor, named to the Court by Barack Obama; a year later, Obama also appointed Elena Kagan. All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the 1967 appointment of Marshall.

--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good to me, with only two caveat: first, we lose the information that Thomas succeeded Marshall, so that there was only one African-American in the Court at a time; I would suggest changing "Thurgood Marshall, 1967; and Clarence Thomas, 1991" to "Thurgood Marshall in 1967; and his successor, Clarence Thomas, in 1991". Second, the second sentence has a level-2 clause, first with "whom Ronald Reagan appointed" and then a sub-clause to that, "thus fulfilling his campaign promise"; this makes it awkward (an aside to an aside, as it were). Perhaps replace that one sentence with: "Ronald Reagan fulfilled his campaign promise to place a woman on the Court with the appointment of O'Connor, who was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when the latter was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993." How's that? Magidin (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I like your first change and understand why you want to make the second, but I'd like the sentence to begin with O'Connor. How about:

The 20th century saw the first appointment of a Jewish justice (Louis Brandeis, 1916), the first two appointments of African-Americans (Thurgood Marshall, 1967; and his successor Clarence Thomas, 1991), and the first appointment of a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981), while the 21st century saw the appointment of the first Latino justice (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009). O'Connor, whose appointment fulfilled Ronald Reagan's campaign promise to place a woman on the Court, was later joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. After O'Connor's retirement in 2006, Ginsburg was joined by Sotomayor, named to the Court by Barack Obama; a year later, Obama also appointed Elena Kagan. All justices were Caucasians of European heritage until the 1967 appointment of Marshall.

--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Anyone else (in particular, our anonymous editor) like to chime in acceptance or suggest further changes? Magidin (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks to all for their input.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we got over this whole racist thing last week? Why did someone add the part about Sotomayor not being white because she is a white Hispanic? Also, Latino is the correct word here, not Latina. 209.166.185.130 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "racist thing." In any event, the sentence you just changed was not the part of the subsection being discussed. You apparently just noticed it, that's all.

"Criticism" section.

The "Criticism" section was removed by an editor acting in good faith, and has since been restored by another editor. I agree with the restoration of this section. We have extensively discussed the inclusion and content of such a section, and its removal or reconfiguration should not take place absent further discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that its simple removal should not be done absent discussion. I can see the point of the editor who did it (based on his comments elsewhere), and I can certainly see the advantages of taking the sundry criticisms and trying to fit them into the flow of the narrative in other sections (much like the recent stuff from Goldstein was put into the Judicial leanings section rather than the Criticisms section). It's a bit too much for me to undertake at this point, but if someone wants to discuss and initiate it, I can try to lend a hand (or an idea or two). Magidin (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

One place to start is with the crticisms that, in my view, don't belong in the article at all. For example, the "Lifetime tenure" bullet is really a long-standing criticim of the entire federal judiciary, not just the S. Ct. Similarly, the "Courts are poor check on executive power" bullet, even though it may single out the S. Ct. (understandably, the highest court is the biggest target), is also a comment on federal judges generally. Another problem category are comments for which there is no balance. For example, the "Creating a culture of legal intimidation" bullet reports on the comments of one critic. Generally, Wikipedia, when reporting on an outside point of view, also gives the counterpoint. A more difficult category is represented by the "Federal versus state power" bullet, which really is an analysis of S.Ct. decisions and shifts in their holdings. That kind of "criticism" should be properly incorporated into areas of the article that discuss such issues, or, if not, in articles about the cases or concept themselves. The best kinds of bullets (even if they are arguably not as sexy) are the ones that address the institution themselves like "Not choosing enough cases to review" and "Secret proceedings" (although all courts deliberate "secretly"). Also, we should bear in mind that a criticism section isn't per se verboten. From my reading on Wikipedia, it's a judgment call as to whether such a section is appropriate (see Wales comment).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is because the Supreme Court is final that people may be more concerned about lifetime tenure and secret deliberations for Justices than they are for other judges. The reform proposals regarding the issue of life tenure, in particular, are directed only towards the high court, and ignore the lower courts. With regard to the lack of balance, the solution there is to discuss the counterarguments that have been made in the polity. If a criticism seems to be so isolated that presenting it here gives it undue weight, then it should be removed. bd2412 T 02:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The finality of the S.Ct. is overblown. The vast majority of cases are final in the lower courts because the S.Ct. does not accept review. The importance of the lower courts should not be underestimated. As for secrecy, that, too, is distorted. All courts, S.Ct., lower courts, and state courts don't discuss pending cases. It would be a breach of judicial canons for judges to do so. We agree on the point/counterpoint issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How does it work?

i came here specifically looking for how supreme court justices cast their vote, or otherwise indicate their opinion on a case. as far as i can see there is nothing in the entire article on *how* the court goes about performing its function. maybe a new section is called for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.219.170 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think what you are looking for is Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We used to have an extensive section on it here, but it was moved to the Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States article. I think we should have a small summary with a pointer here, though. Magidin (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a Dablink in the See Also section to address where to find "how does it work?" But I am not sure this is the right way to go. Might be better to have a short discussion of very basic procedures in the body of this article, and then a link to the more extensive discussion on the separate page. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ⇒)} 23:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(changed section header to be normal) I merged your change into the bulleted list. It didn't look good where it was and it gave it too much importance. The small summary that Magidin suggested is still a possibility, but in the interim, your addition was helpful. A friendly suggestion: please include edit summaries when you make changes to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that linking to Procedures in See Also ought to be an interim solution, while we await Magidin's new section. Missing edit summary: absent mindedness.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ⇒)} 12:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Politicization of the Court

An editor added this section today based on a NYT article. I've gone in and repaired the references and some other errors but have left the substance of what the editor added untouched. The question is whether this belongs in the article and, if so, whether it belongs where the editor put it. If it belongs somewhere in the article, then we need to address the content of the section. The NYT piece is long and there's a lot of judgment in what we put in and what we don't, and how we put it in. Some might also think that the section is related to the Criticism section. Certainly, the NYT article can be seen as criticism of the court.

What I like about the NYT piece is that it addresses law clerks generally, as well as the criticism of the justices in their selection of clerks. Notably missing from the Wikipedia article is any real discussion on S.Ct. law clerks. If we leave this section in, at a minimum it needs some foundation as to what law clerks do (which is in the NYT article conveniently).

I intentionally didn't alter the WP editor's judgment as to what went in the section until the threshold issue of whether it belongs at all is addressed. Comments would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the input is, generally speaking, fine. I don't much care for the title of the section, though, or where it was placed, as I do not think it really reflects the content. Indeed, it would be much better on a short section on clerks, with these comments added by way of weaving criticisms into the body of the article (see recent discussion on this). Most of the substance should probably be used to beef up the very short paragraph at the end of the section on federal law clerks in the U.S. which contains some criticisms. As to where to locate it inside the article, I would suggest (without having the time currently to actually implement such) expanding the section on Salary to indicate that justices and retired justices also receive office space, staff, and a certain number of law clerks, and have "Law Clerks" as a small subsection, which could include this and other criticisms (too much power, they craft too many opinions, whatever). Magidin (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also: for some possible further comments on this issue, see [6], which links to several articles addressing the NYT piece. Magidin (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch on the blog. I agree pretty much with everything you've said except the location of the law clerk discussion in the article. I would put it as a separate subsection of Supreme court membership, equal to Salary, etc. However, I don't think location is going to be a real sticking point. The toughest part is who is going to take the laboring oar to expand the information. I currently don't have the time, although I might in the near future.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I explained myself properly, so I think we agree about location. I am thinking of taking the current Salary section, and replacing it with one which discusses what Justices "get" as part of their appointment. Inside that section, I would put (at the same level with one another) Salary, office space and staff, and law clerks; the section on law clerks will likely be the most substantial of those, but yes, at the same level as Salary. Magidin (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Some more links to messages addressing the NYT piece are at [7]. Magidin (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Political Leanings and Politicization of the Court

Both these sections, Judicial Leanings, and Politicization of the Court, belong down under "Criticism." They suggest or discuss ideological bias. Not that I am naive enough to think the reality approaches the judicial ideal of objective decision-making. Merely that these lively topics do not belong up in the dry factual discussion of history, names, dates, seniority, seating, salary and so fotth. Its purely an organizational shortcoming, no disrespect intended to the learned opinions expressed on one side or the other. I am reluctant to pick up a ton of verbiage that a lot of people have worked on, condense it, and load it into Criticism without getting a consensus first. So let's hear your thoughtsElijahBosley ^{(talk ⇒)} 22:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the law clerk issue, the idea is to put in a section that addresses law clerks and their role vis-a-vis the justices. That, without more, should not be controversial, nor should it be regarded as criticism. Then, the NYT piece (and any relevant commentary sparked by it) may be included as criticism, thus fulfilling one possible objective of weaving criticism into the body of the article, as opposed to a separate section (recognizing that another valid objective is to have a standalone section called Criticism). So far, again with respect to the law clerk issue only, the only consensus has come from Magidin and me. I think it's fair to say that we agree, at least broadly speaking, on how this should be done and that neither of us, at the moment, has the time to do it. Magidin will forgive me if I presume too much from his posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay-I've drafted in my Sandbox an expanded "critique" section, condensing and moving the "Politicization" and "Leanings" materials down where they belong. Have a look at theSandbox, give me a yea or nay, here on the Supreme Court talk page. IMPORTANT DECISION: the Supreme Court page is currently 167 kilobytes long. Too long. That is largely because of the citations, which are numerous and lengthy. Lawyers used to be paid by the word, and it shows. Should we keep this Supreme Court page just a dry recitation of names, dates, salary, etc., and move the more interesting Criticisms of the United States Supreme Court to its own separate page? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ⇒)} 13:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First: The problem is that we (or at least, I thought we) are hoping to get an effort underway to get rid of (most of) the Criticism section as a purely stand alone section. There are some very good arguments to be made that having a separate section with criticisms lends undue weight to many of the criticisms. If the criticisms come from far and wide and are prevalent, then they deserve to be included in the body in the relevant sections; if they are more isolated, then highlighting them in a separate section gives them undue weight. From a stylistic point of view, it would be better to not have the criticisms in the separate section and put them instead into appropriate parts of the body. See the brief discussion above. Your effort would be a step in the other direction. Second: I don't like what you did with the Judicial Leanings in any case. You are moving the generally informative section (what the leanings of the justices are, as generally perceived) into a section about "criticisms". What exactly is it about saying that Ginsburg, Breyer, and to a large extent Sotomayor, are considered the "Liberal wing" and that Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are the "conservative wing" that is a 'criticism'?

As to your final question: I think that trying to weave the criticisms into the narrative of the body would accomplish the objective of hydrating the article (i.e., making it less dry), while keeping the important information around and not strewn around separate pages. I don't think overall length should be an issue as long as we keep the specific sections reasonably to the point.

Unfortunately, as I've intimated in my last few posts, I'm not enjoying an overabundance of time at the present: the semester just started, and my grading load is a bit heavier than it usually is. So, alas, I'm not in a position to try these ambitious goals at present. (And no, I'm neither paid by the word nor am I a lawyer; I'm a mathematician). Magidin (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2010(UTC)

Thanks very much for having a look at the Sandbox and for your thoughtful critique of expanding the Critique Section. I must respectfully differ on the point of folding the various critiques into the body of the text which would (in my view) conflate opinion with fact. It is a fact there are nine justices, and they get such-and-such a salary, and they sit in certain rank of seniority. It is opinion, in contrast, that the Heller decision (2nd A gun rights) was conservative, or the Roe decision (abortion) was liberal. The justices themselves--whether or not being disingenuous--would say they just interpreted the constitution. Ideology (they would insist) has nothing to do with it. To put it in mathematics professor terms: you would say that any given geometric result is based on proven axioms and logic. If a bunch of outsiders were to accuse you of reaching a result based on personal ideological bias rather than objective mathematical analysis, you would certainly consider that a criticism. The analogy is inexact because law, unlike math, is very inexact. But you get the drift anyway, to say the justices bring to their decisions anything less than objective detached Olympian fairness is something of an insult--though it has become so common in modern politicized parlance as to be an article of faith among academics and TV taking heads. BUT--bottom line, your vote is nay, and I won't do anything unless we have a pretty good consensus for Yea. Thanks again for your thoughtful view.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ⇒)} 14:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

But it is also a fact that such-and-such criticize the court as being Y; that is, it is a fact that certain people consider Heller a conservative decision, that certain people consider Roe liberal, etc. I'm not suggesting, by any means, to take the criticisms listed in the criticism section and convert them into the "impersonal editor voice" and fold them into the article. I was thinking of stating that there are certain criticisms and perceptions, and identifying them as such (opinions, criticisms, with sources and suitable citations). Pretty much like the final stuff on the Leanings section; if the current phrasing suggests that Goldstein is making anything other than an argument about what he perceives, then it needs to be changed, but I thought it was fairly clear that the paragraph represents arguments of opinion (not of fact) based on facts (the facts are that certain decisions came down a certain way, etc, the opinion is about what this means). I think it makes more sense to have that section close-by to the discussion of judicial leanings than separate. I think you agree, since you were proposing to move the entire discussion down to the Criticism section, so we are just disagreeing on where to put this particular item.

To be honest, I've never been very happy with the criticism section as stand-alone, in that there are a lot of criticisms listed there that are definitely widespread and generate a fair amount of discussion (both scholarly and otherwise; e.g., lifetime tenure, televising proceedings, etc), but there are other criticisms that seem to me to be more isolated or idiosyncratic ("Culture of legal intimidation", "poor check on executive power") that do not seem to me to be on the same level; yet by being listed in that section they are in essence given the same deference and weight. So that may very well be coloring my view of this. And to also be fair, there weren't that many people weighing in on the general idea of getting rid of the section by weaving the material into the article in relevant sections, either. So I may very well be on the short side of a consensus here.

Generally, I'm thinking along the lines of the structure section on the POV policy page: A more neutral approach can result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other. Magidin (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that not all Criticisms are created equal. I also agree that the liberal v. conservative thing is Encyclopedia worthy. Its just where to put it that's problematic. Separate page? Separate section within this page? Or folded in? I am having conceptual difficulty seeing how to fold in, say the judicial activism/political ideologue debate with undebated facts like say, birthdays, appointment years, and salary. But no rush. We'll see what the consensus is. Best, ElijahBosley ^{(talk ⇒)} 16:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even have time to read your sandbox (sorry), also I'm too tired. From what I've read of Magidin's comments about your proposal, I agree with him. I also don't think we've reached a consensus on the Criticism section itself anyway. Finally, and most important, when and where were lawyers paid by the word?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When were lawyers paid by the word? In the days of English Common Law, when any cause of action had to have its own writ: incomprehensibly long ornate writs full of atrocious Latin. About that time Shakespeare wrote Henry VI (Part 2, Act IV Scene II) in which Jack Cade speculating about how to create a utopia says, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Lawyers are now paid by the hour. If the client is rich, amazing numbers of hours. I was astounded when I first went into court (maritime law/ federal practice) that teams of lawyers with rich shipping clients spent weeks arguing over a trifling trade mater. Yet in that same courtroom a poor man would be deprived of his future, a 40 year jail sentence, in less than an hour. Well--as to the Sandbox I'll keep the voting open a week or so in the hope some kind soul out of charity gives me at least one weak thin insincere face saving "yea."ElijahBosley ^{(talk ⇒)} 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the history lesson. That explains quite a bit, actually. Thankfully, not all lawyers are paid by the hour (or 1/4 of an hour or 1/10 of an hour), even now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's been a week and nobody likes the idea of separating fact from opinion and moving the opinions down into the Criticism section, as for example here in my Sandbox. Largely because nobody likes the Criticism section. Making Criticism a separate page may be the best way to go, though artificial. Besides, Magidin likes calling justices or their opinions conservative or liberal, to their face (don't try it with Scalia: a Chicago law school professor made the mistake of suggesting in a law review article his Catholicism tempered some opinions, and Scalia now refuses to have anything to do with the entire University of Chicago Law School.) So I will take down the experimental rewritten Criticism section in my Sandbox, take my ball, and go home.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While I've met one Justice in person, I didn't call him anything to his face other than "Mr Justice". And telling Justice Scalia "your Catholicism tempers some of your opinions" is a very far cry from calling him a conservative justice or a liberal justice. The latter is a description of judicial philosophy; the former is a claim that personal issues that are completely separate from judicial philosophy have affected judicial opinions. But thank you for the parting sideswipe, for sure. Magidin (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Madigan my apologies: I did not mean it as a sideswipe, merely gentle ribbing. Scalia once told a friend of mine the reason he had nine children: "My wife and I were young, in love, and playing Vatican roulette." Now was that Chicago law professor wrong to question whether Catholicism might tinge or temper Scalia's view of, say, abortion? But Scalia would deny it, vehemently, as he would with equal fervor deny making conservative (or liberal) decisions. Because, as was once memorably said on a Law & Order episode: "A judge is not supposed to care who wins." Anyway best wishes, and keep up the good work.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep conflating things. The following are not equivalent: (i) "Scalia allows his Catholicism to temper some of his opinions." (ii) "Scalia makes conservatives decision." (iii) "Scalia is a conservative jurist." (iv) "Scalia is considered a conservative justice." The first two are certainly criticisms: the first asserts that Scalia allows things outside the law to influence his decisions on the law; the second asserts, by implication, that Scalia is "decision oriented" (which is what he has said he disagrees with, when I have heard him talk about it). The third is an attempt, right or wrong, to describe his judicial philosophy (he might disagree with the specific adjective, because he has his own way of describing it; but he does not object to people describing justice's judicial philosophy: he does it himself). The fourth, which is what is in the article, is a description of what commentators and others have said about Scalia. The article should, of course, not make assertions like (i) or (ii); even (iii) is at best borderline, and in my opinion crosses the line; the article should, and does, stick to assertions of the fourth type (including the individual's description if that is reliably available and easily condensed). The article says that it is "popularly accepted" (probably not the best way to phrase it; certainly, better references would be best) that Scalia is part of the conservative wing, also comprised of Roberts, Thomas, and Alito; that Breyer and Ginsburg are "generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing", that Sotomayor "is also seen as a member of the liberal wing". These are descriptions of how they are perceived, i.e., of type (iv). To take those statements and say that I am "calling them x to their face" is hyperbole at best. Certainly, if the Justices (or any other reliable and notable observer) disagrees with these perceptions, then this should also be mentioned and sourced. But it is an objectively observable fact that Scalia is seen as a conservative, that Breyer and Ginsburg as seen as part of "the liberals", etc. These are factual descriptions; factual descriptions of opinion, yes, but not opinions themselves. And, no, I'm not related to Elvira. Magidin (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a set: 1) "Magidin" has six letters in it; 2) People say Magidin is nice, some say very nice, but others disagree; 3) "Magidin" includes three vowels. Now--what doesn't belong in this set? If the page were a Venn diagram, John Venn would huff off and take up golf. Not that it matters, I am ambling off to greener pastures. But someday I may return, and I will bring retired Justice Souter. And boy is HE crabby.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to try your hand at mathematical analogies (in an attempt at talking down at me, perhaps), you might want to make sure your quasi-mathematical statements are actually sensical. If you give a set by extension (naming its elements), then what belongs in the set is the things you named, and what doesn't belong in the set is everything that was not named. So the answer to your question, "what doesn't belong in this set?", with relation to the set that contains the three numbered statements, is "everything which is not one of the named statements". If the page were a Venn diagram, then my grandmother would have wheels (false implies anything). As to the truth value of your statements, only (3) is correct, as far as I know. :-P And in all your huffing and puffing and going off to take golf, you have failed to address the point: you are objecting to an objective, referenced, verifiable report of how people perceive the justices because you think they are opinions themselves, and because you think the justices themselves may disagree. They are not statements of opinion, they are descriptions of opinions, sourced and verifiable, which is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Magidin (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to interpose myself in this discussion because you may then choose to "yell" at me rather than at each other. However, steering clear of math, and moving back to Wikipedia and the justices, one may say in the article that Scalia's last name has six letters in it without a source. It is not reasonably subject to dispute (a little like the legal standard for judicial notice of a fact). Of course, it's not notable, but that's a different issue. One may not say, however, "Scalia is conservative", even with a source, because it sounds like Wikipedia is stating an opinion about Scalia's political philosophy. Some may believe that attaching a conservative label to Scalia is hardly controversial, but others may quibble about the label, and it is not in the same category as the number of letters in a name. On the other hand, one may say that commentators label Scalia as conservative (assuming notability), with a source, because then Wikipedia is reporting what has been stated by others, not what the Wikipedia editor thinks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely; that's my point. The article, in the section on leanings, is not saying that Scalia/Roberts/Thomas/Alito are conservatives, it states that they are perceived/seen as being conservatives. Elijah states that this is "me" (presumably, the disembodied encyclopedic voice behind the text in the article) making a statement about the Justices, in essence that the article calls Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito "conservatives", that the article labels Ginsburg/Breyer/Sotomayor "liberals"; I'm saying the article is restricting itself to the statement that commentators, observers, etc. label them/perceive them as "conservative" and "liberals." The second part, which I think is what is fueling the hyperbole, is an apparent perception by Elijah that when someone says "Justice X is a conservative", that this is a "Criticism" within the meaning of the Criticism section, hence the implication that the disembodied voice in the article in engaging in name-calling towards the Justices. I don't see why it would be perceived that way, even if the Justice in question disagrees. Before Stevens retired, we had a note citing Stevens saying that he considered himself a "conservative", not a liberal, for example. Certainly, if a Justice has made an explicit statement to the point, then it should be added as notable (provided it is verifiable; as in the case of Stevens's statement). If a Justice has said he considers such labels offensive, criticisms, etc., then again if it is notable and verifiable it should be added. But I don't see the descriptions, and especially the report of the descriptions, as "criticisms per se", which seems to be the assumption behind the suggestion to move them all to "Criticisms". Moreover, the criticisms in the Criticisms section are about the institution, not the individual justices, and they generally take the form of "This happens, and that's wrong/bad." Even if you think that, say, a liberal commentator is "criticizing" a justice by calling him a "conservative jurist", though the same word ("criticism") is being used it is being used in a different sense, and the latter is not directed at the institution. So I don't see why it should be classified as a "Criticism" within the meaning of that section of the article, assuming without conceding that there is a consensus for keeping all of those criticisms separate in a section/article. Magidin (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On my way home with my ball, I paused to read today's Wall Street Journal in which "Justice Stephen Breyer expressed frustration with popular perceptions of the Supreme Court as a partisan battlefield." So what does the Wall Street Journal reporter reporting about Breyer's frustration with partisan labels do? Fluffs out the rest of the article with partisan labels. The Court "divided repeatedly along ideological lines," and then the coup de grace: "liberal leaning justices like him" (Breyer.) Justice Breyer must have laughed out loud at the irony, the contrast between what he said and the reporter's gloss. Well, in parting, my thanks to Bbb23 and to Magidini for extensive contributions to this discussion. An outsider seeing all this would ask: if we are all in basic agreement, and we already agreed to do nothing and change nothing, what are we arguing about? Beats me. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't read the article the way you do. Breyer was saying that the Court does not engage in partisan politics, but not that there aren't deep differences between the viewpoints of the justices. The labels conservative and liberal are overly broad and certainly not nuanced, but they nonetheless are useful proxies for analyzing the justices' opinions. It would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that in certain kinds of cases the Court divides in a predictable fashion based on the approach the justices take to the law and to the constitution. Nor would Breyer, I believe, argue to the contrary. He just doesn't want the public to think that the justices' approaches aren't sincere and based on something other than politics.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Elijah, I don't think you should give up, although I can certainly sympathize with your frustration that no one has commented. If you really look at it, though, not too many people have commented on the Criticism section at all, let alone on your suggested changes. As for me, I was busy most recently trying to shut down an out-of-control editor who kept removing the parallel Criticism section in the United States Congress article. Plus, some things on Wikipedia take time but they aren't intellectually challenging, whereas others require more thought, and my brain tends to get tired at the end of the day. The Criticism section falls in the latter category. Anyway, at a minimum, don't discard your sandbox. Maybe someone will come through.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 I think the page organization flawed but the right thing to do is wait 6 months, see how the page evolves, and come back to it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Footnote on "retirement"

Hi Magidin: I don't necessary agree with moving that foonote to the end of the sentence, because that sentence includes several reasons for strategic timing and this particular footnote illustrates "institutional" rather than say, "partisan." If that sentence were a set, you might grade the test a C for including in the set an object that does not belong. But I fight my edit wars only when I deeply care. I did want to offer appreciation for your diligence on a minor matter, so on your talk page I gave you a barnstar ElijahBosley ^{(talk ⇒)} 16:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I moved it to the end is that the other source discusses all of them; you are providing a specific example of one. Yes, I can understand why you want to put it right after "institutional". I would point out, however, that O'Connor's decision had both personal and institutional considerations playing major parts (she wanted to retire to care for her husband; in fact, I'm about to add that second quote to the footnote), and partisan issues as well (like the report that she complained in 2000 as the election returns came in because if Gore won it meant she would not be able to retire for at least four years, and that she only waited until after the 2004 election because she felt that after Bush v. Gore, it would be unseemly to retire during that term, given that she was part of the decision that led directly to Bush being elected). In any case, I tend to like my footnotes at the end of sentences, because my practice when reading is to finish the sentence and then immediately look at references; but I'm not skilled in the art of writing footnotes (current standard practice in math is to avoid them in general). I wouldn't have moved it if I hadn't been planning to edit it to use the cite news template, and won't object if you move it back. Thanks for the barnstar, and thank you for a very agreeable attitude (though I would prefer you not anticipating what grade I would give to problem sets...some students might decide to use it to appeal their grades! (-; ). I can only hope to reciprocate on at least the latter. Magidin (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Court demographics and Judaists

Given how much controversy it generates, maybe we should just lock the section and throw away the key.

ThinkEnemies changed, among other things, Jews to Judaists. I reverted. He reverted back and said it was more "accurate" in his edit summary. No one else has seemed to take an interest in this usage. The word Jew is listed on OneLook (a meta dictionary site) as defined in 29 dictionaries. Judaist is listed in 11. A common definition of Judaist is one who believes in or practices Judaism. By contrast, a common definition of Jewish is relating to the Jews, their culture, or religion. In other words, one can being a Jew without believing or practing the religion. A Google search of Judaist obtains 34,400 results. A Google search of Jew obtains 36,100,000 results. Wikipedia itself uses the word Judaist 14 times. It uses the word Jew 39,591 times.

Ginsburg went to the East Middlewood Jewish Center. She attended a Jewish summer program. In the lead of the article, she is listed as the first Jewish justice. She is in the category American Jews. Breyer came from a middle-class Jewish family. He, too, is in the category American Jews. Kagan is the eighth Jewish justice. Same category.

Only on Wikipedia would this even be worth arguing about. Who uses the word Judaist to describe someone who is Jewish? Don't common usage and common sense count for anything? Naturally, I've left the edit alone for the time being because I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of edit warring, even though I'm not the one who changed the word.

Okay, I'm done. I'll wait for comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur, and have changed it back to Jews, as "Judaists" is a term likely to be unfamiliar and confusing to most readers. bd2412 T 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd now like to broaden the discussion to my "among other things" allusion above. Originally the opening of this section said: "Historically, the Court was primarily composed of white male Protestants." That was recently changed to: "Historically, the Court was primarily composed of male European American Protestants." At the same time, before recent changes, lower in the section, it said: "The Court currently consists of six males and three females; one African-American and eight Caucasians (one of whom is Latino); six Roman Catholics and three Jews." Now, it says: "The Court currently consists of six males and three females; one African American and eight Caucasian Americans (one of whom is Latino); six Roman Catholics and three Jews." (I've bolded the areas of change.) So, we have all these terms: white, European American, Caucasian, and now Caucasian American (which, according to Wikipedia itself, is an interchangeable term for White American). The different terms make me dizzy. I'd like some consistency (and simplicity) in this - I'm not sure how much I care about which term is chosen.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It was fine the way it was before. bd2412 T 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I also concur with keeping "jew" as opposed to "Judaist", and was planning to start a discussion (I saw the change as I was leaving the office). In fact, I was going to point out that at least Ginsburg and Kagan have refered to themselves as "jews" or "jewish" (e.g., for the latter there is the now-famous response to Sen. Graham about what she was going at Christmas). It would likewise be more accourate to refer to the Catholic justices as "members of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" (far more accurate than even the current "Roman Catholics"), but we go with the better-known, common, term. As for "Caucasian Americans", "European Americans", etc.; I would support going back to previous use, and certainly a single use. There is a slight problem with "European Americans", I think, because it is not such a common term; for that reason I would prefer "white Americans" throughout. Magidin (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Jews" is fine, it just looked out of place after "Roman Catholics," IMO. I first changed "European Americans" to "Caucasians" to avoid redundancy and because of the Puerto Rican heritage of Sotomayor (and yes, I know about the Spaniards and don't want to get into a historical debate), I then added "Americans" because I thought Caucasians alone might be too broad. I was close to changing it again to White Americans, so I'd agree with Magidin on that. I was also on the ropes about "European Americans" and if something like, "of European descent" wouldn't be better. †TE†Talk 03:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

All of this is covered in detail at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, which parses out the Caucasian justices by their predominant European ancestry. Regarding the "European Americans" edit, this is not the first time this issue has been raised with the editor who initially made that change. bd2412 T 04:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And I don't think it's necessary to include the detail in the demographics article - the section here is supposed to be a summary. I think it would be fine to just go back to the demographics section in the court article as it was before, referring in the first sentence to "white male Protestants" and in the subsequent paragraph to "eight Caucasians". As for the Catholic terminology, I don't have a problem with the Roman Catholics as a term, but two other possibilities are just Catholics, or Roman Catholics in the first paragraph, and just Catholics in the later paragraph. Or we could leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: My mention of "catholics" was just to provide comparison with the term "Judaist", which was described by the editor who placed it as "more accurate". "Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" would likewise be more accurate than saying just "catholic" or "roman catholic", but we don't go for the "more accurate" term, we go with the usual one (which I think is a good thing). I'm not advocating changing "catholic" or "roman catholic". Magidin (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

An editor has beefed up the Jurisdiction section of the article. Other than minor stuff, what has been added is reasonably accurate, although it doesn't even touch criminal cases. However, I didn't like the section before, and I like it even less now. In my view, the only things the section should address are the original and appellate jurisdiction of the S. Ct. It's not necessary to address the jurisdiction of the district courts, which is covered in United States district court#Jurisdiction. Yet, immediately after saying something about "appellate jurisdiction" (without more), it launches into the original jurisdiction of the district courts. Then, even more jarring, after spelling out the bases for federal jurisdiction, it then says "Exercise of this power ..." Which power is that? Then, finally, at the end, in one of the more relevant paragraphs, it talks about original jurisdiction of the S. Ct. itself. I think the section should be revamped, but I'd like to hear from others first.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm much like you on this; I don't much care for the addition, which gives the appearance of being more precise while actually being extremely vague ("raises a federal question"; "for example" to introduce the list, etc). It should discuss original jursdiction first and foremost, then appellate briefly (and mention that most of it is discretionary, addressing the common misconception that everyone has the right to have their case heard at the Supreme Court). Magidin (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page

Recently, User:The Universe Is Cool and I have disagreed on the use of the term "European American" on this page and at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States to describe Justices previously identified in the article as "White" or "Caucasian". I believe the phrases "European American" and "White American" are unusual as demographic descriptors, and that the more common terms, "White" or "Caucasian", should be used. I also believe that because "European American" is an unusual way to describe white people of European descent, it will tend to mislead readers into thinking that Justices described in that way were actually born in Europe, or have some other unusual connection with continental Europe beyond that of typical white people born in the United States. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that there have been a handful of actual European-born Justices. I have reviewed the sources referenced in this article and in the far more extensive demographics article, and have searched for other sources, but have not found a single source referring to the Justices as "European American" or "White American". I would therefore like to gauge whether there is consensus to stick with the use of "White" or "Caucasian" to describe these Justices in this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Universe's changes and all other changes to the section since, I thought, we reached consensus earlier to change it back to the way it was before. I should have changed it then but failed to. Hopefully, even if someone disagrees that we've actually reached a consensus, they will have the decency not to change it without first weighing in here, something that Universe did not do. I also agree with what BD2412 says above. Just so, it's clear, I'm in favor of leaving the language as it was before and as it is now.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I thought we had too, but I wanted to generate a clear consensus, for both articles. Did you also change the Demographics article back? bd2412 T 01:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, but now I have. I also made some other changes, including screwing up my edit summaries (sigh).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Again, thanks. bd2412 T 01:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I personaly dont think its necessary to use the terms European American or White American. If anything it should be Caucasian but as a white guy I have never been offended by being called white nor have I met anyone else who has either. Plus it just makes the article more difficult to read and adds distraction to the reader. Just my 2 cents--Kumioko (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had a concensus as well. I would like to point out that it is not a just a matter of whether someone is or is not offended by the term, but also of common usage; we are not writing a textbook on demography. "White" and "Caucasian" are not only the common term, it is used in such places as Census forms, affirmative action forms, etc. I see no problem with using those terms, and I think "European American" and "White American" are likely to be more confusing than enlightening. "European American" and "White American" are, at best, still very rare terms, and I would support keeping the old phrasing, as I indicated before. Magidin (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Magidin about the issue of what's offensive vs. common usage.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What is so wrong with the term "European American"? We can say "African American", but God forbid we say "European American"? It doesn't take a physicist to figure out what/who a European American is. It even states that the judges have European ancestry, so what the hell is wrong with using the term? You people are full of crap.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

• Universe: it's bad enough for you to be uncivil here on a Talk page, but don't do it in edit summaries. I've posted a warning to that effect on your Talk page. You don't advance your point of view by this kind of behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that the term European American, for whatever reason simply hasn't been adopted by mainstream as the African American term has. Additionally, the term white hasn't been termed offensive as the term black sometimes is taken offensively. --Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Come back in 50 years when you've managed to convince the rest of the world to adopt your language preferences. Billyboy01 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If you can convince the U.S. Census to start using "European American" instead of "White", then you might have a case. However, our function as an encyclopedia is to report things in terms as they are used, not to push new and unfamiliar terms likely to be mistaken as indications of place of birth, rather than ancestry. bd2412 T 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you (The Universe is Cool) cannot keep it civil, then perhaps this is not the place for you. The purpose of the page is to inform, not to confuse. The problem is, quite simply, that "African American" is a term in common use, whereas "European American" is not. It's not about what you need to "figure something out" or what you may not need. Magidin (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree per Kumioko, bd2412, and WP:COMMONNAME. The term White American should be kept, if The Universe Is Cool still disagrees I suggest he take his argument to Talk:White American and try to have the name changed there, though I'm sure this has come up there plenty of times before. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, to be clear, there is no need to use "White American" either. Just saying that someone is "white" conveys precisely the information the section intends to communicate. In the context of United States Supreme Court justices, the "American" part is redundant. bd2412 T 13:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Very true.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A National Geographic genome mapping project has established that all of us--every last human being--originated in Africa. Genetic proof that even Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Alito are African-American. Let us look forward to the day when nobody feels the need to think about the wording of ethnic classifications. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but that is a different topic. bd2412 T 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In your point of view, how are terms like "African American" or "Asian American" instantly recognizable to people but "European American" isn't? When someone says "African American", people instantly know it's an American of African descent. Someone doesn't think of a person born in Africa when he/she sees or hears the term "African American". How is it any different for the term "European American"? It should not matter whether the term is in common use or not.

I'm done. I don't give a crap anymore. Keep it the way you want. I'm wasting my time. I might just stop editing articles on this website altogether.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

Both "African American" and "Asian American" are terms in very common use to describe certain sectors of the citizenry of the United States. Without that common use and the years during which it has been in common use, the terms would be confusing (as "African-American" was to many when first introduced); the reason it is not is that it is a common term in common use. The term "European American" is not a term in common use. That is the simple, observable, difference, and not a question of "point of view". If your point is that the term should be in common use, or should be "instantly recognizable", then more power to you, but it is not. Wikipedia language reflects common usages as they are, not as they should be. Now, whether the term is understandable or not is, indeed, not a question of whether it is in common use or not (thought I would express my opinion that in the absence of common-use terms like "African american" and "Asian american", the term "European american" would be prima facie confusing). But the point is not whether the term is or is not understood: the question is whether the term is the the common term or not. "European american" is not the common term. Common sense is to use the the term in common use. On top of that, "African american" and "Asian american" refer exclusively to individuals who are U.S. citizens born in the U.S. (even naturalized citizens are not generally refered by those terms), and not encompasing demographic terms (that is why the U.S. Census form says "African american or black"). When refering to individuals, some of which were not born in the U.S. (and one of which in fact was a naturalized citizen, namely Frankfurter) it would be imprecise/misleading at best and incorrect at worst to describe them using the restrictive term, even if the term was in common use. Magidin (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A black lady professor has a book out: The History of White People. She teaches White studies at Princeton. It's an interesting book - the term Caucasian has a sex slave background. The way it seems to go: as you is white, you is alright. Since, by courtesy, all of the justices are alright, they might all be considered white. 12.69.99.122 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Slightly late reply, but I personally would prefer to use European American or White American to Caucasian. Strictly speaking, the latter should only refer to people from the Caucasus, rather than being used as a general euphemism for 'white people'. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Audio and Video

In the middle of the 'Secret proceedings' criticism subsection is:

A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted in 2010 found that 61% of American voters agreed that televising Court hearings would "be good for democracy," and 50% of voters stated they would watch Court proceedings if they were televised.

I think it's notable that supreme court oral argument audio recordings are made and put on the web. (Less notably, transcripts have always been available to some extent.) I'm torn as to where and how to mention the audio - in the Links section - not my first choice. Here in the criticism section? The poll was performed around Jan 30, 2010, and by that time audio recording of oral arguments has been taking place since 1969. I propose adding something like this to the quoted sentence:

audio recordings of oral argument have been promptly posted to the web since 2010. Recordings, which have been made since 1969 are now also on the web.

Would a regular editor of this article make an edit along these lines?--Elvey (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add it in the corresponding criticism section; I would also add it to the article about the Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Note, however, that the audio recordings date back to well before 1969. They were started by Earl Warren. According to the Oyez Project website, the recordings began in October 1955. Peter Irons's book includes recordings from well before 1969. I thought we had a link to the Oyez Project in the Links sections, but I see this is not the case. I'll add it. Magidin (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a short blurb in both (with citation for the Procedures page). Feel free to edit or move it around. Magidin (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't discuss Cert? At all? Really?

I find myself surprised that the article doesn't seem to cover at all the fact that unique among US appellate courts, SCOTUS has the power to decline cases; that seems like something we ought to cover, no? Is there some hysterical raisin why we don't? Y'know, before I add it in?
--Baylink (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It is implied in Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States (under jurisdiction) but you are right that it does not appear to be explicitly stated. Sure, add a line or two in both places. Magidin (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never met an hysterical raisin. What does it look like? Sorry, couldn't resist. On a more serious note, there is a foundational reason why the S. Ct. has discretionary review, which is normal in state jurisdictions as well (although I've never done a state-by-state study of the issue). Generally, the highest court in a jurisdiction with intermediate appellate review can decline to review an appeal. The principle is that generally a litigant has only one appeal as a matter of right.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that we should discuss cert Thehotshotpilot (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Certiorari is covered as a general term, and specifically for SCOTUS, but it is not mentioned at all in this article. I will add it as a See also entry, but an editor learned in the law should expand on it here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of material already written in the Jurisdiction section that has been edited out (does not show in the page), dealing with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If memory serves, it was edited out when most of it got moved to the Procedures article. It may just need some summarizing and cleaning up and be added back in. (I knew we had a section discussing cert...) Some of the material is obsolete and updated versions are elsewhere on the page (e.g., the assignment of justices as circuit judges). Magidin (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Taft serving as a justice and as President

This should be at least mentioned in the main article. This is an interesting tidbit of history that should be included Thehotshotpilot (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in the Chief Justice page (though perhaps not very prominently). There are lots of interesting tidbits: e.g., only Hughes resigned from the Court and was later reappointed (and he ran for president, too; why not mention that?); which interesting ones should be included, and which not? The one on Taft makes perfect sense in the Chief Justice page, but not so much here, in my opinion. Magidin (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)