Talk:George W. Anderson (judge)

Bot-created subpage
A subpage at George Weston Anderson/fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This guy didn't end the raids
One bias source tells us that he 'effectivly ended the raids". I don't think so. The raids just were over. They had been over by Febuary of 1920 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.108.85 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The raids occurred in Nov 1919 and then Jan/Feb 1920. There's every reason to believe that Palmer wanted more but was frustrated by Post at the Dept of Labor and then by Anderson's decision. There's no way to know if there would have been more raids, but this decision was one more thing that took the wind out of Palmer's sails. So "effectively ended" is probably overstatement -- not because the raids had already ended but because several things were coming together to stop Palmer's efforts.


 * Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WRONG! The raid ONLY stopped because of palmers wrong assertion that there was goBold texting to be a revolution on may day. That is why it ended. That is a fact Nothing stopped palmers efforts. He wasn't frustrated by anything. Post deported over 500 of them and still had to defend himself before congress. And Hoovers testimony saying tat "bolshivism was destroyed" obviously helped bring an end to them. This judge did little or nothing. It is no coincidence that the last raids were in Febuary. Post had to defend himself from impeachment, not Palmer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.23.44 (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above comment ("WRONG etc....) is wrong on several counts. Post did not deport more than 500--those earlier deportations were not on his watch. He also defended himself successfully. And sure the May Day flop was part of the deal as well. So I still think that "effectively ended" is an overstatement, but I don't think anyone should make categorical statements ("That is a fact") about this sort of history.


 * The WRONG commenter also says that the May Day flop ended it and then says that Hoover's testimony helped. So it's not just one thing. Right.


 * And whatever ended the raids, the statement that "this judge did little or nothing" is contradicted by what he in fact did, even if it was not as critical as "effectively ended the raids." And he took some heat for the decision, as the entry notes. The Justice Dept. wasn't lying down.


 * And what this entry now says is not that he ended the raids. It says: "he effectively prevented any further resumption..." Always worth reconsidering, but I don't get the big deal.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bmclaughlin entry is missing points. Hoovers testimony that 'Communism is destroyed' to congress should show any reader that the Justice Dept did its job. So yes that would have an effect on 'ending it'. So to did the 'flop' that Bmclaughlin mentions. The people were not going to go on if they believed somenone cryed wolf. So yeah, its not just one thing. Those two things are the big ones!

Bmclaughlin mentions that the statment that this judge did little or nothing is contradicted by what he did isn't correct. What did he do? He handed down a decision after the fact which had no impact on anything since the raids where clearly over. No judge ruling would have brought the raids to an end OR prevented a continuation at that point. The Justice Depts actions were clearly over by then. I already noticed its says "he effectively prevented etc etc etc". I argue he didn't do that either. But you are correct, its no big deal

Defining quotation.
"a mob is a mob, whether made up of Government officials acting under instructions..or of criminals and loafers" Seems to good a quote to go unrecorded.

86.143.212.55 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)