Talk:Donofrio v. Wells/Archive 1

Reverts
It seems some editors don't like the sentence I added to the article regarding discussion of Justice Thomas' motives. This is properly sourced information that was reported on National Public Radio. I haven't tried to take one side or the other or reflected one particular point of view, simply stated that there has been some speculation as to his motives, and added a reference to the source of this statement. This smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What move? Thomas isn't pushing anything. So speculation on why he is pushing something (when he, in fact, just passively sat around on friday and didn't do anything with this) is, frankly, ridiculous. I don't know what properly sourced means in this context; lots of things are on npr that don't belong as citations in articles here. Lots do, i suppose. Who is making this speculation? Is there something inherently notable in the speculator (i.e. is it hillary clinton?) If it's just some non-involved party, who gives a damm about their speculations as to what goes on in Justice Thomas mind? Uninformed speculation is the whole cloth of conspiracy theory.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hardly think you could characterize NPR's legal analysts who are watching this case "uninformed". You seem obsessed with removing any mention of these various lawsuits from Wikipedia. Thomas is the justice who is suggesting the court hear this case, right? Maybe "pushing" isn't the best word, but he is the justice who seems to feel the court should hear this case, and NPR is a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Juan williams speculated in two directions, 180 degrees apart (he's doing it because he hates obama! He's doing it to help clear obama!) That's now all clear in the article.

Obsessed? I certainly don't like looking at fringe, non-notable articles about tin-foil-hat conspiracies (and about related lawsuits destined to die when no court agrees to hear them, as will happen in this case). So sue me.
 * (edit conflict)*The new edit is actually more in line with what I was going to write in the first place, but I was afraid I might be accused of trying to push one POV or the other. The way you wrote it up, I don't think that will be a problem though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I completely agree that the case is utterly without merit and has zero chance of stopping Obama's inauguration, but it has nonetheless achieved a degree of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't edit on this further, but the other editor has put it back to Thomas "pushing" this case... all he did was allow it to be listed for consideration with 60 others. That's hardly "pushing." And when this is dismissed otu of hand, we can delete this article. People file all sorts of crazy suits about famous people all the time.

uhh why is this nominated for deletion?
it's a perfectly valid article. im willing to be the tag was issued out of a political motivation.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Not to mention reliable news sources don't even address this "case".  Grsz  11  01:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * CNN and NPR aren't considered reliable news sources anymore? I wasn't aware of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a valid article and a valid court case. Let it stand. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYyankees51 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Volokh
Wiki article cited this guy thusly: "According to legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles, the case gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works.[LA Times blog] " Back in a second with the cut and paste of volokh's actual comments, which show he didn't address this case at all, one way or the other .Bali ultimate (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Never mind... it was there, i got confused while reading (blog format quoting an earlier news article).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

impact needs improvement
impact section contains strictly anti-case sentiments and are sourced form highly liberal media sources. i think to maintain a positive balance, we need to add some supporting arguments from various pundits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reapplication
It seems to have escaped notice that under usual Supreme Court procedures, when an in-chambers application is submitted for consideration to a second or successive Justice, that Justice frequently refers it to the full Court for consideration rather than encourage further successive presentations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide a pinpoint citation to the referenced treatise. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My copy of Stern & Gressman is in the office, so I'll take care of this tomorrow. Thanks for noticing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. It is frustrating to read the news coverage implying that Justice Thomas's submission of the second stay application to the full Court was an unusual step or could have reflected some sort of animus. This is completely mistaken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Creepy lede
On a side note, I thought the Supremes only considered legality and constitutionality. Is there any reason to NOT believe that what happened on Friday (or was it on Monday?) was that they decided (1) not to decide (2) anything about what Wells had decided (3)? In other words, they never considered Obama's citizenship at all? Because if that is what happened, this article is "factually incorrect". Why? Of course, with all the emphasis on Thomas, editors have failed to notice a little creepy POVy syntactic construct in the lede:


 * "Donofrio v. Wells was a case submitted to the United States Supreme Court challenging Barack Obama's status as a natural-born citizen. Justice Souter previously rejected the case, but Justice Thomas referred it to the Court for discussion, which involved a challenge to Obama's citizenship by jus soli."

"which involved a challenge" - as I said above: there is no way of knowing whether the discussion involved a challenge, this is not sourced and is actually probably untrue. The lede should be re-written so that "which involved a challenge" refers to "the case". --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree completely, as we don't know what was discussed in the Justices' conference. (If the case was "dead-listed" by the Chief Justice and no other Justice asked for discussion, it might not have been orally discussed at all.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)