Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies

Some of these listed are not controversial
One of the judges listed, Jennifer Reardon, was voted out of committee unanimously and confirmed on a voice vote. She obviously wasn't that controversial. Another (Karen Williams) was confirmed by a comfortable bipartisan margin. Yet two newly confirmed judges who required tiebreaking votes by the Vice President were removed. Others are stalled because they couldn't answer basic questions about the law and Constitution and they aren't listed.

There is one circuit court nominee who threatened to name an underage rape victim and even members of his own party are undecided. Isn't he a controversial nominee? Yet he was removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:6E8B:1252:DCA2:9116 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What makes them controversial just because there was a tie breaking vote? A lot of the sources you cited failed WP:NPOV, that's why many of your additions were removed. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What constitutes a controversy?
I'm struggling with this because many of the so-called "controversies" with judicial nominations in this administration (and probably the last one too) are just based on bad-faith partisan attacks from the party out of power so I'm wondering if we should address what controversy means in this context.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Seconding Nevermore27 here, hence my removal of several non-controversial nominees. Republicans making routine partisan complaints about nominees during their confirmation hearings does not make something a controversy. Little of this received substantial coverage in the media, and what coverage there is is mostly passing coverage of what occurred in the hearings, rather than any sustained debate of whether these nominees are well qualified. These should not be readded, and this article should not be a swath of nothingburgers. On a separate note, this article has a lot of fluff and procedure, like saying who the predecessor is and when they retired and the repeated "a hearing on her nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee" and "her nomination was sent to the Senate" that could be less wordy. The article should have more discussion of why any of these are actually controversies that warrant their inclusion here and even the existence of this article, rather than stuff a reader has to trudge through wondering what's going on. Reywas92Talk 01:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting don't cite content in the article because it's too much to read? Snickers2686 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is about controversies, not clutter of the procedural details of the nominations. There are more cites to nominations and committee actions than to anything controversial. A senator making a statement against a nominee is not inherently a controversy. A senator from a home state opposing a nominee is not inherently a controversy. There needs to be more substance than fleeting criticism by bad-faith political opponents to be included here. Reywas92Talk 05:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes what we need to sort out is what is a "controversy" and what is a "nominee by a [Democrat/Republican] that [Republicans/Democrats] don't like because they are typical nominees by a [Democrat/Republican]". For example, I struggle to see anything controversial about Ketanji Brown Jackson other than Republicans don't like her because she's an attractive nominee for Democrats.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Admin comment: I have full-protected the page for two days. That was a favor to the two of you, so that you don't get blocked for edit warring. Now work out your criteria for what is and is not a controversy, here on the talk page. If necessary, make individual discussion sections here for individual cases where you disagree. Do not edit war. If you keep it up, the next admin may not be as charitable as I am. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What "controversies"?
I skimmed this article, and I don't see what "controversies" there are. Republicans having objections to nominees doesn't make the nominations "controversies". Was this only created because there are other POTUS articles in Category:Federal judicial appointment controversies in the United States? Should this article, or any of the others, even exist? The article title implies Biden making controversial judicial appointments, which does not seem to be supported anywhere in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that I nominated this for PROD in March 2022. I do not remember doing that, but at least my thought process is consistent. Deletion may have been a step too far, but this page should at least be renamed to Joe Biden judicial nominees, and the others in that category similarly renamed, to maintain WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu Just a quick heads up: that page already exists at List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden. Also, most if not all of the nominees listed in the page are controversial to varying extents. For example, Dale Ho's social media comments and his alleged partisanship have caused his nomination to stall since 2021 (he's been confirmed). In the case of Michael Delaney, his handling of a sexual assault case caused his nomination to be thrown in doubt and ultimately withdrawn. I do agree that some nominees on here aren't as controversial, but I'll defer to other editors on that. These are just my initial thoughts, but I do think that this page should stay. Losipov (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is way too vague a definition of "controversy". And we are supposed to avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies for neutrality. At the least, this article needs to be renamed, and likely all of them in that category do as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Saw this on AfD. Renaming all such articles might be a good idea. "List of contested judicial appointments made by..." or perhaps segment the information differently and use eg "List of unsuccessful judicial appointments made by..." etc. Not really sure, but I do agree "controversy" is probably a bad way of defining such a list. &mdash;siro&chi;o 21:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Those possibilities would be better than the status quo. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with these good faith title suggestions is that they aren't accurate in whatever way. "List of contested judicial appointments made by..." would have to include all of Biden's nominees and most of Trump's since at least one senator raised objections to them. The current article lists stalled nominees, so a ""List of unsuccessful judicial appointments made by..." wouldn't work for the current president, although I suppose it might be suitable for past presidents and we could just ax the "stalled" nominees (or come up with a more critical criteria for them). At the same time, just because some people don't see certain nominees based upon their political ideology doesn't make them not controversial, no matter what party someone belongs to. This is especially true when there is extensive sourcing meeting the WP:GNG guidelines suggesting that a nominee is controversial. That being said, I'm open to other title suggestions. Let&#39;srun (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of these candidates are apparently controversial because a Senator thought they were too partisan. If a Senator ideologically disagrees with someone, that's not a controversy.
 * If there's a clear example of conduct that could be controversial then a nominee should be listed, but having nominees listed because; a Republican didn't like their politics, doesn't make sense. 2A00:23C6:D504:A101:690D:3217:6E62:FBE4 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's a clear example of conduct that could be controversial then a nominee should be listed, but having nominees listed because; a Republican didn't like their politics, doesn't make sense. 2A00:23C6:D504:A101:690D:3217:6E62:FBE4 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting Manchin opposition to a nominee isn't relevant for mention
Given Manchin has recently announced he will oppose all Judicial nominees without bipartisan support, and that has been the de facto policy for him for the past year, noting his opposition to a nominees subheading likely isn't relevant. With the exceptions of Abudu, Ho, and Mangi, - who I believe should still maintain mention of Manchins opposition - his opposition wasn't particularly notable in terms of criticism of their nominations. Abudu remains notable because it was the first tallied opposition to a judicial nominee by a Democratic Senator, Ho as there was a statement given out in terms of opposition, and Mangi as Manchins opposition alongside Cortez Masto's effectively sinks his nomination. The other nominees in which he has opposed does not appear to be notable enough to the nature of the nominees "controversy". LosPajaros (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested changes to the passage about Tovah Renee Calderon

 * What I think should be changed:

1. The passage about Tovah Renee Calderon should be removed from this page. In the alternative and at a minimum, the subtitle "Failed nominees" should be changed to "Voluntarily withdrawn nominees."

2. If the passage is retained, the phrase "acting deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division" should be changed to "Principal Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice."
 * Why it should be changed:

1. The passage should be removed from this page because none of the cited references support the characterization of her nomination as "controversial." In addition, the subtitle "Failed nominees" is incorrect because the nomination did not fail. As noted, the nominee was reported out of committee. And as noted in the reference cited in footnote 276, the nominee requested that her nomination be withdrawn before the full Senate could vote on her nomination,

2. The job title is outdated and incorrect.


 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

1. 

2. , 

216.15.22.64 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)