Talk:Andrew Hanen

Dead links
i'm not sure how to correct this w/o screwing things up, but both of the reference links are dead.Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Cmckain (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
Here's my rationale for flagging this page. It's supposed to be a biography about Judge Hanen, but it instead gives a blow-by-blow description of the litigation in the Texas case. Obviously, this case deserves to be mentioned in Judge Hanen's bio, but most of the details in the current version are off-topic and too specific. For example, the filing dates of various briefs and the minutiae of the Fifth Circuit's treatment of the case aren't relevant biographical details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.176.140 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The case should be its own article. The case has national implications and there is enough coverage of it to make it notable.--ML (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, ML. As for this article, I think that the relevant biographical details from Judge Hanen's participation in the case could be summarized in a paragraph or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.176.140 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree, especially as the appelate stage is moving this past Judge Hanen. Agree with your examples. Believe his ruling deserves treatment in some detail as some of it relates to what the judge considers an ethics issue from defense counsel that evoked a personal as well as professional response. See also my posting in the section below. Regards, Greg Bilhartz (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Texas, et al. v. United States subsection
This subsection was clearly written from the perspective of a supporter of Texas, et al. It should be edited to remove that bias, as well as the overly detailed summary (which should probably be moved/merged into its own article). CarnivorousBunny talk 00:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually much the section on TX vs US was written by somebody who did think the case had merit. For the record, obviously so did Judge Hanen, or we wouldn't be here. But that is neither here nor there. I was assiduous in my selection of terms regarding the case to reflect the opinion of Judge Hanen, who at this point is the only one to rule on the case. Considering the actions of the defendants' counsel it is important to reflect the OPINION of Judge Hanen (whose bio this is!). He was very opinionated (pardon the pun) about that and was very harsh in his ruling. My draft of this section is intended to reflect that, but you'll have to compare against my version of 10 April 2015 to see that. The narrative does seem to become more subjective since then. Inclusion of the details I added, I think, is also central to anonymous' (129.133.176.140) and MaverickLittle's concern about too much detail about the case. I don't disagree that there should be a separate article for TX vs US, especially as subsequent actions on the appeals process (Appeals court) are really outside the purview of Judge Hanen. However, I'm just not the right person to write it. Until then, this is the appropriate location for the section, without which Judge Hanen's article would look much as it did in March 2009.
 * However, I do agree that the comment that "The permits issued by the U.S. Government are a violation of the injunction." is a factual claim that cannot be currently be definitively made (and BTW not my copy :) ). That is, in fact, a significant part of the subsequent legal action and will likely result in its own lawsuit in the future. Adding something like "In light of subsequent disclosure, the plaintiffs argued..." in front of it would probably get it back on track. Otherwise, I think the last 6 paragraphs of the section are objective. They may relate details that some partisan readers may protest or object to; however, they are carefully traced to the narrative in the court record and referenced accordingly. Regards, Greg Bilhartz (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment
I have moved the case content to Texas v. United States. Safiel (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

republican or democrat?
republican or democrat? Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that judges tend to avoid partisan registration, but there are certainly exceptions, most particularly William Howard Taft, a Republican who succeeded Teddy Roosevelt as president in 2009, served two terms then was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme court eight years later after another Republican, Warren G. Harding, became president. Activist (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Andrew S. Hanen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/107thCongress.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Andrew S. Hanen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150331030937/http://www.txs.uscourts.gov:80/district/judges/ash/home.htm to http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/district/judges/ash/home.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

His most important case is tomorrow.
I just added a mention of what might the most important case of his career, which aims to nullify 117 thousand votes and start riots in Houston and elsewhere. That is, if he sides with Trump. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While Hanen is clearly quite conservative, and his decision in the DACA case was seen as partisan, he showed his independence and judicial restraint, as well as his ability to deliver a rapid and urgent response, when he found against the Republicans who brought this case. My edits underscored this, and expanded on the proceedings and issues. Activist (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)