Talk:2016 United States Supreme Court vacancy

Title
Should the title be "U.S." or "United States"? The latter seems to be more consistent with other similar pages. No? And, by the way, is there supposed to be a space or not between the "U period" and the "S period"? U.S. versus U._S.? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Having received no input, I moved the article: 2016 United States Supreme Court vacancy. Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * After Obama announces his nominee this week, I propose we change the title of the article to "[Nominee Name] Supreme Court nomination" Orser67 (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should move this page to "Merrick Garland United States Supreme Court nomination" immediately. If I don't hear any objections, I will make the move in an hour or two. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Names of potential replacements
I'm going to add the below to the main article. I've left a copy here in case there is some debate as to the exact phrasing of the potential Obama appointees. i.e.: I've intentionally left off any descriptors (age, circuit court, etc.)

Some of Obama's possibilities include:
from several  source: and : also :
 * Sri Srinivasan,
 * Paul Watford,
 * Patricia Ann Millett,
 * Jane Louise Kelly,
 * Merrick Garland,
 * Jacqueline Nguyen,
 * Kamala D. Harris,
 * David Barron
 * Kannon Shanmugam
 * Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar
 * Sen. Amy Klobuchar,
 * Sheldon Whitehouse,
 * Cory Booker.

Republican possibilities include :

 * lawyer Paul Clement,
 * D.C. Circuit judge Brett Kavanaugh,
 * Seventh Circuit judge Diane Sykes,
 * Sen. Mike Lee,
 * 11th Circuit Judge Bill Pryor and
 * Peter Keisler, nominated to the D.C. Circuit by George W. Bush.

LP-mn (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am in favor of removing this list per WP:CRYSTAL. What do other people think? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, I think its okay to leave this here per WP:CRYSTAL's provision that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." However, I deleted the section about republican candidates because the NPR article did not discuss republican candidates . -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Follow-up: see my comments below. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Title
I take it this will be moved to 'First Last Supreme Court nomination' next week to fit with the other relevant articles? Otherwise I don't know why this was created outside of Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)


 * This event is worth a separate article because it is independently notable: it has made the front-page news world-wide, due to the unusual circumstances of several rare things all happening at once. -- The Anome (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical as well. That the vacancy has received press attention makes it notable but doesn't mean it should have a stand-alone article. Lots of details about various political processes get a lot of press attention, speculation, punditry, analysis, etc. Regardless, since there is a logical target for this to be moved to down the road, and because there may be twists and turns in store, I don't actually see a problem with the article and don't think it particularly matters how it's framed now. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

List of candidates that could be nominated by a Republican president
Earlier today, I removed the list of candidates that a republican president could potentially appoint, but the list was re-instered by with this edit. Pursuant to Wikipedia's policies for predictions about future events, I don't think that this information is appropriate for inclusion at this time (see WP:SPECULATION). First of all, the NPR story cited to support the list admits that "given the volatility of the 2016 race, well, Supreme Court nominees in 2017 are anyone's guess." Second, the election of a republican president in November 2016 is not "almost certain to take place" (quoted from WP:CRYSTAL), while in contrast, President Obama has announced that he plans to nominate a candidate in due course. Third, the author of the article appears to have only worked in journalism for three years (see her LinkedIn profile), and I doubt she qualifies as an "expert" for the purposes of WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore, unless anyone can offer a compelling argument for why this information should be kept in this article, I think it should be removed. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, the others are WP:CRYSTAL as well since he has not nominated anyone yet. If that is how you would like to proceed, then there should not be a potential list at all because in your argument the Republican nominees are WP:CRYSTAL. Hence the Democratic nominees are also WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SPECULATION. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me, I would delete the democratic list as well. I think that this kind of speculation should not exist on Wikipedia (note that WP:NOTRELIABLE states that sources are generally not reliable when they are based on "unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion."). However, I think that the list of potential nominees that Obama could appoint does pass WP:CRYSTAL. There are two key distinctions between the list of Obama appointees and the list of potential republican appointees:
 * WP:CRYSTAL states that "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (emphasis mine). President Obama said he will nominate a candidate "in due time." However, a republican candidate winning the November election is not "almost certain to take place." For the record, I would be equally opposed to a list of potential Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders SCOTUS nominees for the same reason. It is simply too speculative.
 * WP:CRYSTAL also states that predictions about "almost certain" events should only be included in this encyclopedia when "[p]redictions, speculation, forecasts and theories [are] stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field." Well-known Supreme Court experts like Richard Wolf, Dahlia Lithwick, and Tom Goldstein have all offered suggestions for who they think Obama may nominate. However, the NPR source cited to substantiate the list of nominees by a republican candidate was written by an individual who has only worked in journalism for three years and admitted herself that "Supreme Court nominees in 2017 are anyone's guess."
 * Given the considerations listed above, I think we should go ahead and remove the section about candidates that could be nominated by a republican president, but I would certainly like to hear from other editors on this matter. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree. With the time delimiting year (2016), there is very little chance (save multiple deaths or impeachments which are not something we have any cause to speculate on), that would give a Republican a chance for a nomination in 2016.  January 20, 2017 is the first reasonable date a Republican could nominate for anybody for any vacancy.Trackinfo (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Undue speculation with list of possibles
Listing anyone that any pundit ever mentioned is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE. If there are some strong consensus opinions, then those can be called out individually. But that a random guy mentioned a random name once is clearly going to fail the WP:10YT, especially after someone(s) is actually nominated. We should only be listing people that we have something significant to say about the speculationGaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree (see my comments above). I think that some speculation might be permissible pursuant to WP:CRYSTAL's expert opinion clause (Tom Goldstein, for example, preswnts a detailed justification for his predictions), but in general, this kind of speculation should be removed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There should be a minimum of two sources, and they must include substantial reasoning, not just a list without description. Reywas92 Talk  00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for new section about potential nominees
It looks like there is consensus here to substantially modify the section about prognostications for potential nominees. To remedy the existing situation, I went ahead and removed the section that included individuals who may be nominated by a republican president (see the preceding section on this talk page for a detailed explanation of why this portion of this list does not comply with WP:CRYSTAL). Additionally, I would like to propose replacing the existing list with the following three paragraphs, which explains in detail how the experts cited here reached their respective conclusions. Because WP:CRYSTAL requires predictions to come from "reliable, expert sources," I only cited sources that developed arguments over a series of paragraphs, rather than the oft-cited lists that only include a sentence or two of real analysis (see, e.g., this list from Dahlia Lithwick). Please let me know if there is anything you think should be changed:


 * BEGIN PROPOSED ADDITION
 * Several experts have published analyses about individuals who may be nominated to fill the vacancy on the Court. For example, Zachary A. Goldfarb and Jeffrey Toobin suggested that Obama would likely nominate D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan. Toobin wrote that Srinivasan would make an appealing candidate because he "has the sort of impeccable credentials that are much beloved by the Supreme Court bar" and that his reputation as a moderate liberal may appeal to conservatives in the Senate. Although they did not name any potential nominees, Princeton University political science professors Charles Cameron and Jonathan Kastellec argued that the Senate would only approve "a highly qualified moderate". After analyzing voting trends for Supreme Court nominees since 1937, Cameron and Kastellec concluded that "even an ideological twin of Justice Stephen Breyer — the most moderate of the court’s current liberals — would fail to get even a majority of votes in the current Senate".


 * Tom Goldstein argued that it is highly unlikely a nominee will be confirmed before the November presidential election, but that "[t]he nomination itself is part of the president’s legacy, even if partisan politics prevents confirmation". Goldstein suggested that the "president’s historical legacy" would be enhanced if he nominated a black woman, and Goldstein also suggested that President Obama may want to nominate a black woman to encourage black and female voters to participate in the election. Goldstein concluded that the most likely candidate was District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, though he also cited an anonymous source "involved in prior confirmations" who stated "the president would not nominate someone from the district court".


 * Likewise, Michael Tomasky argued that it is extremely unlikely the senate will vote on a candidate nominated by President Obama. However, Tomasky suggested that California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar would offer many "benefits" as a nominee. Because he is a well-educated Latino whose nomination may encourage Latinos to vote in the November election, Tomasky argued that Cuéllar would "tie the Republican Party" into "Gordian knots" and could "alter the presidential race dramatically as well".

I look forward to hearing other thoughts about the text listed above. However, I want to emphasize that we should be reporting and summarizing informed, well-developed arguments from experts, rather than unsupported rumors and assertions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I haven't connected every statement with every source, I'll just say this looks a whole lot better, FWIW. I'd say just do it and people who object to parts of the wording can change it piecemeal. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rhododendrites; I went ahead and updated the article per this discussion and the section above on this talk page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename article
We've no other articles like this, concerning past vacancies on the US Supreme Court.

I'd recommend this article be changed, once Obama announces his nominee. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree and time to take action is upon us. I suggest the title Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination. Even if he doesn't get the spot, it wouldn't be a first, Robert Bork's nomination has it's page. --Killuminator (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree this page should be renamed immediately, though I would suggest moving this to "Merrick Garland United States Supreme Court nomination. If I don't hear any objections, I'll make the move in an hour or two. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All previous nominees from Robert Bork to Elena Kagan have articles but they use Supreme Court without the United States prefix. --Killuminator (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, if that's the way it's been done in the past then we shouldn't break from tradition :-) Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

List of pending cases
Over the last few days, has attempted to add a list a list of pending cases that purportedly will be affected by the death of Antonin Scalia (see, e.g., this edit). However, Kcida10 has offered no evidence to support the conclusion that these cases will be affected by Justice Scalia's death. Per WP:CRYSTAL, I have removed the list of cases. I have opened this discussion per WP:BRD so that we can discuss this issue further. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no crystal ball talk. These are some really important cases that are pending after his death.  It's just information and really important information.  I admit some of my last edits where WP:CRYSTAL but this one is pure. Wikideas.jpeg Kcida10 (talk) (Uploads)


 * There are dozens of cases that are currently pending before the Supreme Court. By listing only a few, you create the implication that the cases listed in this article will be impacted by his death, but there is no evidence to support than conclusion. We don't even know if the Court will decide the cases at all; they could be dismissed as improvidently granted. Although you may argue that it is appropriate to include a selection of notable pending cases, any limited selection of cases would place undue WP:WEIGHT on the significance of the cases you selected (relative to other potentially significant cases not highlighted here). Therefore, it is not appropriate to include the listed of cases here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We might as well erase all of Wikipedia then because it's incomplete. People can add to the list. Wikideas.jpeg Kcida10 (talk) (Uploads)


 * If we were to post a complete list of all pending cases, then we would run into problems with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, as I explained above, merely selecting a handful of cases implies that the outcome of those cases will be impacted by Justice Scalia's death, and we have no evidence to support that conclusion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * no it doesn't. We aren't talking about what's going to happen we are talking about what's on the plate.  It's pure apple sauce. Wikideas.jpeg Kcida10 (talk) (Uploads)


 * It's more like a fortune cookie than applesauce. The phrase "expressio unius est exclusion alterius" is apt here (it means "the express mention of one thing excludes all others"). By placing links to a limited number of cases in this section, we create the implication that those cases will be impacted by the vacancy on the court while the unlisted cases are not. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, we don't even know if the Court will rule on those cases this term (or ever); they could be dismissed as improvidently granted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)