Talk:Antonin Scalia/Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018
Change "He believed that the constitution permitted the death penalty but did not guarantee the right to abortion or same-sex marriage, and that affirmative action, as well as most policies that afforded special protected status to minority groups, were unconstitutional" to "he believed that the constitution did not forbid the death penalty, nor did it explicitly guarantee the right to abortion, same-sex marriage, or affirmative action. As an originalist, he believed that the constitution had no stance on these types of policies and should, thus, be handled by legislators rather than the courts." Hunterst15 (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems ok to me but I would like to see someone who frequents this talk page review it as well before making the edit. Fish +Karate 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My thought is that the change would leave open the possiblity that Scalia believed abortion to be guaranteed by way of Griswold style penumbras, which I think he made clear he did not believe. Similarly, Scalia did not believe the legislature could authorize affirmative action. I will listen to what the OP has to say if they care to say more, but as it stands I do not believe the change would accurately state Scalia's positions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are fair criticisms of the edit. I think you're right. My concern with how it is currently written is that it gives the impression Scalia believed the constitution specifically allowed the death penalty and specifically denied rights to abortion and same-sex marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterst15 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the death penalty is provided for in the Constitution.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - Scalia didn't believe in penumbras at all, that's the point. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  19:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He did not, but the proposed text hints he did. "explicitly guarantee" does not exclude an implicit guarantee.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this edit is not supported by a clear consensus of editors at this talk page, I am closing this request with . Please continue the discussion on the talk page. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018
change 3rd sentence in second full paragraph in section "Individual Rights: Abortion" from "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor authored the decision of the Court, allowing the abortion regulations at issue in the case to stand but not overriding Roe," to "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concurred in the Court's decision to uphold the abortion restrictions at issue is the case, but declining to overrule Roe" or something similar. O'Connor did not write for the Court in the Webster Case. In fact, there was no "opinion for the Court," in whole, but Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the lead opinion, not O'Connor. No other justice joined O'Connor's opinion, so she spoke for herself only. Also, the correct verbiage is "overrule" not "override". Dougmock (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Provide reliable sources for the first claim. Also "overrule" is no more correct than "override" in this context, it is just your preference. They both mean exercising one's authority/superiority to cancel decision/agreement. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As to the first point (provide sources), that can be obtained by Wikipedia's own page on the Webster decision. But here is the link to the opinion from the Cornell Legal Institute, clearly showing that O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, not an opinion for the Court.   No other justice joined O'Connor's opinion; Again, she spoke only for herself, not for the Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmock (talk • contribs) 21:12, May 20, 2019 (UTC)


 * As to the second point, "overrule" vs. "override," your response to me is simply incorrect. It is not a matter of preference.  These are terms of art in the law.  A judge "overrides" a litigant's objection.  A higher court (or the Supreme Court reviewing its own work, since their is no higher court in that case) "overrules" a previous holding or decision, not "overrides" it.  Not just a matter of "(my) preference," but a matter of how these terms are used as terms of art in the law.   And the way it is put here is especially inapt, since Justice O'Connor could not, on her own (remember, no other justice joined her opinion) "overrule" or "override" Roe in any event, whichever term you might "prefer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmock (talk • contribs) 21:12, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018
"The couple raised nine children, five boys and four girls.[154] Two of the sons, Eugene Scalia and John Scalia, are attorneys. Paul Scalia is a Catholic priest, Matthew had a career in the army, and Christopher is a writer. All four daughters, Catherine, Ann, Margaret, and Mary, have families."

"All four daughters, ..., have families" --> should be change to the following:

Ann Banaszewski works as a patient safety companion at a Chicago-area hospital, Catherine Courtney works as staff for the Volgenau School of Engineering George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, Mary Clare Scalia Murray is an editor for Conversation with Women, a website for Catholic women to "share our stories, and support each other in our journeys of faith.", and Margaret Scalia Bryce leads a marriage ministry, the Cville Marriage Ministry, with her husband at the Saint Thomas Aquinas University Parish in Charlottesville, Virginia.

This is the link for the information: https://www.romper.com/p/who-are-antonin-scalias-kids-the-justice-has-9-children-28-grandchildren-5639

KLucot (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)KLucot
 * Since the children, other than Eugene, are not notable and are not public figures, I do not think we should put specific information about them in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per above and WP:NPF. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image
I propose replacing the current infobox image, which is Scalia's official 2013 Supreme Court portrait, with his official 2005 Supreme Court portrait. While there is a presumption to use the most recent official portrait for living officeholders, there is no such presumption for deceased people. Therefore, the image selected should be the most aesthetic and representative one of his time in office. The 2005 portrait is both more aesthetically striking and more representative, as it is close to the midpoint of his tenure on the Supreme Court.  Ergo Sum  01:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, the 2005 image was taken by a private photographer and the rights acquired by the government. If so, it is not in the public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember researching it when he died and the 2013 image is PD and the other is not. See here for the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Influence section is very lacking
The Influence section speaks almost nothing of Scalia's intellectual legacy. I've just added something to it, but it deserves a much more thorough account. It should address the role he had in catalyzing the originalist/textualist movement in legal academia and in the judiciary. It should probably also discuss the disconnect in the influence he had on lower courts, compared to the relatively small influence he had on the Supreme Court during his lifetime (albeit not posthumously).  Ergo Sum  01:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's a recent bio out on him and no doubt many law review articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Criticism?
There needs to be more on criticism of Scalia on both his decisions and his philosophy. He led conservatives on the court for my years. On gun control and this caused a massive deviation in policy in the US. Citizens United was a disaster for the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferythomas (talk • contribs) 12:01, March 8, 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on Details of Death
Please elaborate on your problem with the proper edits to the section? 6 sentences are worth adding as they give a fuller picture. Who found him? Who recorded details of his death? are questions that people have. And the answers are well sourced. You have a problem with AP, latimes, NPR?? Coffee retired awhile ago. Don't be a deadbeat. If anything, the 4 sentences (2nd to last paragraph) are superfluous. Less importantly, I agree that Nino doesn't need to lede, but a pronounce guide is probably worth keeping. AOKuneff (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I guess what I'm wondering is, why does the reader need that level of detail? It has nothing to do with his career.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A lack of an autopsy is very interesting. I see you are concerned about superfluous levels of detail, so I have reworked it to balance worthwhile information without being too detailed AOKuneff (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It still seems overly lengthy discussion of the autopsy, which has been fruit for conspiracy theories. I'll wait and see what others think.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "fruit for conspiracy theories". what does that mean? it is simply a fact that no autopsy was performed on Scalia. AOKuneff (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly, thus it does not seem necessary to me to say that this one supported it or others opposed it etc. An autopsy is not a normal procedure when a man of 79 dies. I wonder that we have to spend a paragraph on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He was certainly well enough to go on a hunting trip. He was also very high profile, but the handling of his being found dead by Dominguez, Poindexter, etc is also summed up in those sentences. It certainly adds a greater amount of information than a chair draped in "black wool" paragraph, so I feel we reached a good compromise on quality and brevity. AOKuneff (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk: Wehwalt
I have spent the last 5 or 6 weeks working on content related to. I have spent the last week or so working on Nino (name). I believe that Scalia is the only person on the page that is/was known by that nickname that does not now have the nickname in his WP:LEAD. Can you explain your rationale for removing his common nickname?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My objection was to it being in the first paragraph of the lede. I would have no objection to it being in the body of the article, perhaps associated with his Ninograms.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And I should add, it's hardly his "common" nickname. I seems to be used by only a very few people. I doubt anyone but fellow justices and a few others called him Nino.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, to include it in the WP:LEAD, which is a summary of the body of the article, it goes without saying that it is in the body of the article. The content has been stable in the main body just where you say it should be. The article says friends and colleagues. So the colleagues would be fellow justices. Are you asserting he had just a few friends? You have objected to the first paragraph of the WP:LEAD, but have not stated an opinion about any other paragraph of the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What about saying something about his "Ninograms", from his nickname "Nino" or some such somewhere in the lede?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Ninograms, but I do now that biographical subjects are suppose to have their alternate names bolded in the WP:LEAD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is so the reader knows the article is about a person who may be referred to by a nickname. I doubt there are many reliable sources calling him "Nino Scalia". Can we take this to article talk please?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , That I don't know. Like I said, I was researching people who have content on WP that support "Nino" as a referent to them as part of a broader research project on derivatives of Antonius. this is what I am talking about. Scalia is a person with such content on WP. I did not review the source, but saw the content in the article suggesting that this is a nickname of his used informally. For some of the people on the list it is their primary referent. I do not contest that is a secondary referent to Scalia. I am just thinking that alternate names (I thought including secondary names) are suppose to be bolded in the WP:LEAD. Thus, I plugged it in at a location that you thought was too prominent (Lead paragraph). I am just asking if it doesn't belong in the LEAD somewhere.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've added something. I don't think it should be bolded though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

LLB
If anyone sees that Scalia has an LLB, and thinks it's weird and wants to change it, it's true: Harvard still awarded LLBs in 1960. I was briefly confused by this reference:. But yeah, Scalia technically got an LLB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlsonaar (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Antonin Scalia Law School in lede
Do people think we should make some mention of Antonin Scalia Law School somewhere in the lede? I'm on the fence, but leaning toward inclusion. Having a law school named after you is a big deal. For reference, I read that only 9 Supreme Court justices have their names on a law school.  Ergo Sum  14:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

✅  Ergo Sum  19:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2020
Change word assked   to  asked Dmcritchie (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Addition of "The Honorable" prefix
All the current members of the Supreme Court have it above their names in the respective infoboxes of their articles, so should that mean Scalia and other deceased Supreme Court Judges get the same treatment if we're being consistent? This came to mind after seeing William Rehnquist have it above his name, when he died in 2005. Josharaujo1115 (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Such things should be decided by RFC or similar, since basically that (rarely actually used outside diplomatic circles) prefix can apply to almost any US officeholder. Additionally, none of the articles on the current Court members is a FA and this is.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rehnquist's article includes 'the Honorable' - Burger's does not. So, there is no uniformity. I agree that all SCOTUS justices should have the prefix, or none should, regardless of whether they are living. An RfC would be suitable. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  12:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would also involve the presidents, due to the issue of Taft. Presumably, if Taft is to be called The Honorable, so should all Presidents. We might just get some pushback on The Honorable Donald Trump.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. Per The_Honourable - "the President, Vice President, members of both houses of Congress, governors of states, members of state legislatures, and mayors are accorded the title", along with judges, White House staff, etc.. I guess I would strongly lean against use of the title for anyone, due to the fact that this would mean adding 'the honorable' to hundreds (thousands?) of individuals. In my view it does not actually add anything. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  16:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021
Change "Scalia espoused a conservative jurisprudence and ideology, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation" to "Scalia advocated textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation, which often led to conservative outcomes and sometimes led to liberal outcomes." 2602:304:B094:AFE0:AC82:24EF:73D:EF0D (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source saying that his jurisprudence led to those outcomes? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

O'Connor did not "autho(r) the decision of the Court" in Webster
See the 2nd paragraph under "Individual rights: Abortion:". I offered this suggested correction 3 years ago, and it was not made. I was instructed to provide a source, which I did. At any rate here is the opinion of the Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/492/490; The opinion speaking (for the most part) for the Court was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, not Justice O'Connor. Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, and no other justice joined it, so she spoke for herself only. Also, the Court declined to "overrule" Roe, not "override." Nobody in the legal field speaks of "overriding" a previous decision. No court ever writes "We override Smith." It is "We overrule Smith." Dougmock (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, : I've fixed that. The source cited in the article says that "[t]he outcome of the case was determined by Justice O'Connor", so I'm guessing someone misinterpreted that to mean that she penned the majority opinion. (I presume O'Connor's concurrence was controlling under Marks v. United States, but that still doesn't make it "the opinion of the Court".) Apologies for the delay. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wha?
Despite "Shelby County v. Holder," there are only two very peripheral and inconsequential mentions of voting in the article. There are none in archived Talk since 2018. How an this be a "best" article without talking about the elephant in the room? Activist (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Judicial philosophy caveats
There is some discussion of scalia's originalism being a cover for enacting his political views. Textualism was also used as such. For example, in castle rock v Gonzales the text clearly stated that the order shall be enforced, he cited a "tradition of police discretion" to determine the law was not requiring police to enforce orders. Thus ignoring the text of the law when politically convenient. The dissent discussed this and can be cited to support the claim that Scalia abandons textualism at times. Bradyjm1 (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is original research.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is original research. As I said, the dissent in castle rock made this point. This is not my analysis. This would be including the views of other justices regarding his use of textualism. This example was just the first to come to mind. Others have also made this criticism of Scalia. How would it be original research to include these criticisms? As discussed, this would similar to the originalism section which already includes such caveats. Bradyjm1 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should rely on the opinions of other justices; certainly we would hesitate to put in his opinions of their views uncritically. Supreme Court decisions are well-studied and there should be analysis of Scalia's opinions from third parties. Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Ergo Sum  20:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Other sources would be fine to include as well but the statement we would not rely upon his opinion of other justices is false since such is already in the section on textualism:
 * 'Scalia noted, "The use of legislative history is illegitimate and ill advised in the interpretation of any statute"'
 * Additionally, the originalism section already includes criticism from other justices of Scalia:
 * "Justice Stephen Breyer questioned Scalia..." Bradyjm1 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference, I think there, is we are citing Breyer simply because Scalia was responding to him. That's a bit different. Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also the issue of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES.  Ergo Sum  22:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was alluding to that. Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the primary source issue with citing the dissent disagreeing with Scalia's opinion? It is a reputable source and the dissent directly says Scalia's textual interpretation is wrong. I'm not adding my own analysis. Here's a quote that succinctly captures the point in the dissent: 'Since the text of Colorado’s statute perfectly captures this legislative purpose, it is hard to imagine what the Court has in mind when it insists on “some stronger indication from the Colorado Legislature.”' some context needs added to clarify but there's no additional analysis needed; so, I see no issues mentioned on the primary sources page you tagged that is relevant to this. Bradyjm1 (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We can cite Bryer if Scalia responds to him in a public conversation but we can't cite John Paul Stevens' dissent - a public written response to Scalia's opinion?
 * I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. In both cases, justices are critiquing Scalia's interpretation.
 * Is the distinction that Scalia is responding to bryer rather than Stevens responding to Scalia? I.e. who is responding matters to you.
 * Or do you see a distinction because both parties are quoted/paraphrased? If so, then we need just include the portion of Scalia's opinion being addressed by Stevens' dissent. However, if that's your concern -- here is another instance of a justice critical of a Scalia option without any responses from Scalia: 'Blackmun felt "it could be cut down to ten pages if Scalia omitted the screaming"'. It is simply a fellow justice commenting on Scalia's work without any response from Scalia.
 * However, all of this is beside the point. I do not care if the dissent is included. Other sources coming to the same conclusion exist. My only point is that the section should be expanded to include this be it by citing the castle rock dissent or any other source that addresses it. The specific source wasn't the discussion I started. I started a discussion on including ANY source about the topic Bradyjm1 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. And we've addressed your points, and we don't agree. Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You did respond, yes. But, as I said, I don't understand the distinction you stated exists. Please elaborate. I asked actual clarifying questions, not rhetorical ones. Please respond to them. Bradyjm1 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, to avoid repeating myself without a good reason, what have I said that isn't clear? Or Ergo Sum for that matter, since we seem to hold similar views. Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the distinction that both sides were presented in the bryer/Scalia conversation? Or that Scalia was the one replying? Or the fact that is was a public conversation rather than written? Something else?
 * I do not know what "we are citing Breyer simply because Scalia was responding to him" means or how it is different than Stevens responding to Scalia via written opinion.
 * If you replied to this and have to repeat yourself, apologies. I don't see it. Bradyjm1 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are multiple problems with what you are proposing. It's original research, whereas the exchange with Breyer was not, since it is in a Scalia biography, a scholarly source. There's an issue with WP:PRIMARY with the Stevens quote, since you need to add what you call "context" to it for it to have any meaning, and there you run into WP:PRIMARY that says you can't interpret, or contextualize primary sources on your own, because Stevens doesn't say that Scalia abandons textualism for political convenience, which is what you are trying to show. You've been told one or more of these by three editors. Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No editor had mentioned that the concern was me using the word "context" . Indeed, no editor had even responded to that comment.
 * The context I was referring to was additional quotes from the Scalia's opinion which the dissent was responding to so that it was clear what Stevens was responding to. This is similar to the discussion with Bryer where the article first mentions Bryer's thoughts before Scalia's response. Without it, Scalia's statement lacks needed context just as the dissent would without portions of Scalia's majority opinion to which it was responding.
 * Earlier you stated the difference was that Scalia was simply responding to Bryer. I asked several questions to get you to clarify this point. Since you didn't mention it above, I'll assume this wasn't actually the distinction between the two sources and this was just an ill prepared response on your part. The real issue was that it was a secondary source vs primary source and original research. As such, see all my commentary above.
 * Now that I've clarified what context meant, your concerns should be addressed. If not, say how and I'll try to clarify or modify my proposal.
 * This is a page to discuss, no? Hence I replied to the thoughts of those editors. I expect responses to my points rather than someone repeating the same points that I already replied to. Are editors infallible? Can my thoughts and counterarguments hold no value? You're being very condescending for no purpose. I responded to the editors points. I expect editors to do the same to my rebuttals of their points instead of repeating themselves as you've done. I never intended to add my own thoughts on the article. All I intended was to say that some justices disagreed in some circumstances that Scalia relied upon textualism. I thought this would be a neutral framing. I don't intend to add that he did so for political convenience. That can be left for any competent reader to conclude on their own (as I did). Though perhaps I'll find those sources that say that he did so explicitly for political reasons to end this discussion despite this being a less neutral framing. As I said (and repeated), my main goal was advocating that the section be ADDED. I suggested a possible source but other sources would be fine. If the dissent's mild rebuke of Scalia is an inappropriate source and editors are too rude to have full discussions as to why then there's no need to continue discussing it. My point is to advocate for a section not a source for the section. There's been no specific commentary on how such a section would be in appropriate. So I assume the main point is fine and someone can use this talk section to help them draft such despite much meaningful discussions being absent in your responses Bradyjm1 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Three editors have explained the policy to you. If I'm not clear, I'm sorry. Have you reviewed the policies that have been cited to you? Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Date of death
I feel as though we should change Scalia’s DOD from 13 February to “12 or 13 February” due to the fact that sources, even today, are divided as to exactly what day Scalia died. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * We had a lengthy discussion on this, and we have lots of footnotes. Is it really worth revisiting? Scalia is not the first person to be discovered in the morning having died in their sleep. Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Corruption
Dozens of major new sources reported throughout 2016, and since, about Scalia's numermous unreported freebies from organizations and people who also had interest in cases that came before Scalia's court. Why is that? I haven't keep up with this article. Let me guess, it was added, then some politically motivated editor(s) removed it...most BLPs would have a very large section for what Scalia was reported as doing, per WP:reliable sources. Cookiehead (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.60.131 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * We cover the most important ones, the ones he addressed officially from the court. Since those included such things as plane rides in private planes, and he had the opportunity to respond, those seem the ones it is most important to cover. Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)