Talk:Courts of California

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Courts of California. 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/20080731223019/http://www.ncsconline.org/D_KIS/info_court_web_sites.html to http://www.ncsconline.org/D_kis/info_court_web_sites.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Challenging inappropriate ahistorical edits by User:Amitabho applying the administrative court rubric to American administrative hearings
It looks like User:Amitabho has some experience with administrative law (including writs of administrative mandate) but not enough training in political science. (I was a history major, but I did take courses in poli sci and political philosophy in college.) As anyone familiar with both poli sci and admin law is aware, the term administrative court is unheard of in the United States because an admin court in countries which have them is part of the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

As Justice Scalia explained (in the quote which I added to the administrative law judge article), admin agencies make rules and adjudicate disputes, but those are pursuant to the executive power, not the judicial power, because of the strict separation of powers under the federal Constitution (which is also adhered to by the state constitutions). Accordingly, User:Amitabho's attempt to apply the "administrative court" rubric to adjudicative hearings held by American admin agencies is original research in violation of WP:NOR, as well as flatly wrong in violation of WP:V. Any objections before I start cleaning up this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hearing no objections, I'm taking out the trash. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Had I seen the original post, I would have registered my agreement with you at that time. BD2412  T 21:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)