Talk:Berghuis v. Thompkins

Justice name check
The "Associate justices" listed in the infobox as dissenting include Justice David Souter, whose name is not listed in support of the ruling or dissent. The dissent was by Justice Sonia Sotomayor whose name is omitted from the list of associate justices.

Can someone check this? FT2 (Talk 04:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a template code error which listed the justices before Souter's retirement. Thanks for pointing out the error. —Kevin Myers 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Note for future - eventually when Law Report 560 is complete, the citation will need to be updated to reflect its permanent reference. For now it is simply "560 US (tba)". FT2 (Talk 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Italics
Several of the quotes in the "Rationale" section are in italics. Is the emphasis in the original or is it added? If the quotes were not in italics, it should not be in italics here. See italic type. If the author of that section wishes to add emphasis, the disclaimers "(emphasis added)" and "(emphasis in the original)" should be used depending on the circumstances. The US Supreme Court often uses italics for emphasis and will add the two disclaimers when quoting previous opinions. The quotation is more meaningful if we can tell if the emphasis is coming from The Court or the author(s) of the article. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in introduction
The sentence is "Others saw the ruling as a sign of strength and a signal that the Court, under its own impetus, was willing to address known issues resulting from the view of terrorism as crime." Am I being stupid here? This makes no sense to me. I think this and the sentence after should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonpew (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree, no idea what this means or how it's relevant. Austincarrig (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Masonpew Yeah, that read to me as a desperate attempt at false balance. "A show of strength against crime" (or whatever) by the Supreme Court is utterly irrelevant to what the case means. lethargilistic (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Masonpew Oh, I see. More specifically, the sentence (which I removed) was putting undue weight on an argument from John "Torture Memo" Yoo that is reflected in the reactions part of the article. Presenting the reactions to this case as "divided" just because of his response that brings terrorism up out of nowhere is UNDUE af, IMHO. lethargilistic (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)