Talk:John Roberts/Archive 3

2000 Election Stance
The entire early paragraph about the 2000 elections is is written from an anti-Roberts POV -- the writer attempted to hide this in "quotations", but the paragrpah, especially early in the article, gives it a completely anti-Republican and anti-Roberts POV. We can all find real quotations from news sources to give this article a zing in either politcal direction - this paragraph should be removed.

Agreed Paul 21:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Clerks
Roberts was a clerk with the supreme court... that made me think: are there any lists of people who acted as a clerk with the names of the justices they clerked for? I surely can't find that information on Wikipedia. Are there just too much clerks? Or is the information not available? 81.241.66.46 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Adoption
I don't see any reason why the article should not mention that the Roberts' children are adopted. It's not exactly secret information, it's mentioned in most of the news articles. Let the reader decide what is relevant. Rhobite 04:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned and it is relevant vis-a-vis his Catholicism, which disallows the use of birth control. Having two (and only two) children is to some Catholics quite suspect because it seems likely (but not necessarily) to imply the disregarding of the Church's teaching on the matter, as I learned in a conversation with a friend yesterday. The fact that they are both adopted means that this concern and potential criticism is greatly mitigated. --Flex 12:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * YOU DON'T BY CHANCE WORK AT THE NY TIMES, YOU SCUMBAG? THE FACT THAT THEY ADOPTED IS PROBABLY A TIP THAT THEY COULDN'T CONCEIVE...
 * Well, if you would like to present some evidence that he and his wife use birth control, please do. Anyway, I don't see how you can conclude that because they don't have any children of their own, they use birth control. -JPO
 * Did you ever think that maybe either Roberts or his wife may be physically incapable of producing children? That could explain why they adopted children.
 * Being in a scenario with Fertility issues, and in the process of an Adoption, It sure seems like a very common scenario to me. I wouldn't want to speculate about any medical issues in that family, but its a very common reason for adoption.--WAHooker 18:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Better not speculate about something like that. People adopt for many reasons. And there are ways to not get pregnant without using birth control. Congratulations on your adoption, by the way. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Roberts and his wife adopted two infants in 2000 after being unable to conceive...". Shouldn't there be a minimum of etiquette in an encyclopedia?! I can't imagine such references to private personal matters in an article in the Britannica, for example. This isn't the National Enquirer. I feel it shouldn't be mentioned. --RCSB 04:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the left-wingers who hate Roberts are trying to make him look bad at any price; I'm surprised they didn't drag Anita Hill back out to say she had sex with him, and it was all his fault! Sick hypocrites: if he was some left-wing commie loser, they wouldn't care WHAT he did, as long as he supported their "cause"; much Less if he couldn't have kids or not. Would they care if he violated a Catholic Church directive? Spare me. How about driving drunk, crashing off a bridge while attempting to cheat on one's wife, then leaving the victim to her fate, and lying about it for decades afterward. There's a "righteous Democrat" for you. (Sept.)

Respondents? Petitioners?
I've not heard these terms are they British? In the US we say "plaintiff" and "defendant"-whicky1978 14:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, on Judge Judy, or in trial court during a civil case, we say "plaintiff" and &;;quot;defendant," but Roberts was an appellate lawyer, which means he represented clients after their trial was over and they were appealling (or being appealled against) in a higher court. The party appealling is known as the "petitioner" and the one responding to the appeal is the "respondent." TheGoodReverend 14:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not that simple. In the U.S., there are instances in which the parties in the trial court are "petitioner" and "respondent", and instances in appellate courts in which they're not.  I have no idea what terms are used in the U.K. JamesMLane 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure, if someone wants to look up each of those cases and make sure that the official position of the party Roberts represented was "petitioner" or "respondent" and not, e.g., "appellant" or some other term, that's fine with me. I'm content to let these general terms stand.  They are still more applicable than "plaintiff" and "defendant." TheGoodReverend 14:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There are two general instances when "petitioner" and "respondent" are used instead of "appellant" and "appellee." One is the vast majority of cases before the Supreme Court. There is no right of appeal before the Court; a party aggrieved by a circuit court or state court decision must file a "petition for writ of certiorari" with the Court. If the Court grants the petition, it issues the writ to the lower court to "certify," or send up, the case. The person who lost the lower court decision is thus the "petitioner," and his opponent, who has to "respond" to the petition, is the "respondent." The second instance this is used is when federal circuit courts review administrative decisions. Instead of an appeal, someone who loses an administrative hearing (such as a soon to be deported immigrant) files a petition for review with the court. That person becomes the petitioner, and the government becomes the respondent. So yes, in a nutshell, the terminology matters. --Saucy Intruder 16:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Petitioner" and "respondent" are generally used for civil cases and in appellate courts. "Plaintiff" and "defendant" are usually reserved for use in criminal matters, and even then in trial court only. Neutralitytalk 04:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * There's some variance among the states, but a fair generalization is that most civil cases are between a plaintiff and a defendant (or more than one on each side). I'm less familiar with criminal practice, but it's certainly common, and perhaps uniform, that criminal matters are generally captioned "The People of the State of ____ v. Lane" or whatever.  The side that isn't the defendant is variously referred to as the People, the State, the prosecution, or the government.  I don't think I've ever seen "plaintiff" used in a criminal case.


 * Now, returning from that excursion to the question of writing the article, I question whether even including that column in the table is a good idea. What's the point?  I suppose a reader familiar with these terms could look over at the abbreviated case name and thus know the name of Roberts's client, unless, of course, the name of his client wasn't included in the abbreviated case name, which can happen.  What if we drop "Petitioner" and "Respondent" and substitute the name of his principal client?  Most readers would care more about whom he was representing than about whether he was attacking or defending a circuit court ruling. JamesMLane 11:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Role in Florida recount
I had included a direct reference to Bush v. Gore and the GWBush campaign in the explanation of Roberts's roll in the Florida recount. Paul deleted this, reasoning that it was already addressed in the recount article itself. I'm thinking it might be helpful to draw the direct connection to Bush because he's the president who ended up nominating Roberts. Should we add the direct connection back in? TheGoodReverend 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are attemting to add evidence that supports some possible corruption of Robert's part(not to say that YOU are POV, you are probably neutral). I understand that facts that suggest integrity AND possible corruption should all be included to balance the article; however, given the nature of judge nominees (90% are of pol. party of presidient) and their frequent ties to minor politics(not running for office/interest group leaders..ect) such as liberal/conservative organization membership, these sort of connections can apply to almost any nominee, nothing unique to John Roberts or any other SCOTUS judge. Voice of All(MTG) 19:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This issue has crept back into the article.

This statement"While an attorney at Hogan & Hartson, Roberts accepted an invitation by Florida Governor Jeb Bush to fly to Florida to advise the governor on Republican legal efforts to stop the Florida election recount." in the article is possibly NPOV. The article I saw about this (which is the one listed in Sources) only mentions"'He came down and met with the governor briefly and shared with him some of his thoughts on what he believed the governor's responsibilities were after a presidential election, a presidential election in dispute,'"It seems that without further testimony on this subject, the article's stating that the trip was to "[...] advise the governor on Republican legal efforts to stop the Florida election recount" is a bit argumentative and unsupported. --Paul 21:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Memberships
216.254.30.152 removed the reference to Roberts' membership in the Federalist Society and yet the Washington Post reports that he is a member. Which is the truth? --Paul 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That may have been me... see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002393165_member21.html for the news story (credited to the Washington Post, but published by the Seattle Times), for the story about him not actually being a member.--Sharon 18:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Good Find! --Paul 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

1973
In Early Life 1973 refers to the year, not the school. This can be understood by the fact that the article about the school states that the typical class size is around 100. Please note and allow my correction, whoever is administering this page.

Voice vote v Unanimous consent
A correction or two was recently made to the Views section regarding the use of these two terms by Paul.h. There is a reference to this in the second to last paragraph of the Career section as well. It may need reconciled as well. I don't know enough about the difference to be comfortable doing it however.


 * Thanks for pointing this out. I've made the correction in the Career section. --Paul 19:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Roe vs Wade
I reverted a claim that said that Justice Roberts could overrule Roe. I think it is just inacurate. Indeed, Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginburg, Souter and Stevens (5 justices) are in favor of Roe. So Roberts will not be able to change it. However, he will be able, if he wants to, to overrule Scotus jurisprudence about Partial-Birth abortion laws.--Revas 02:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, but this elaboration (including the reference to the Court's lineup on Roe) should be in the article. Stevens is 85, after all.  If we're quoting Roberts's comment about precedent, it's important to note that the consideration he cites wouldn't apply if he joined the Court.  JamesMLane 06:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Kennedy is regarded as a safe pro-Roe vote because of his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If Roberts were to be confirmed, and if he really believes that Roe was wrongly-decided (certainly seems possible), and if he would be willing to ignore precedent (not at all clear) and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Roe would still survive 5/4 with Souter, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens voting to uphold.


 * I don't see why it is proper to editorialize and hypothesize about what might happen on a future Supreme Court in an article about John Roberts. There has got to be a better way to approach this than the one currently in the article. --Paul 14:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I still disagree. As of today, Roberts can not overrule Roe if he is confirmed by Senate. We shall speak about the possibility to overrule Roe in an article about Stevens retierment. And as of today, he has no intention to do so. However, we can say that he can, if he wants to, overrule Stenberg v. Carhart.--83.112.227.28 15:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The nomination's possible impact on future decisions involving reproductive rights is one of the main subjects being discussed. We should give the reader the context.  Furthermore, it would be highly misleading to quote Roberts's statement about following the law as an appeals court judge -- a completely noncontroversial position -- without clarifying the distinction.  Not every reader has enough knowledge of the legal system to pick up on that point.


 * An anon has added this sentence: "Roberts has expressed that he vehemently disagrees with the decision and has worked towards overturning the decision in the past." If the statement is true, it will need some rewording, but I'm not sure it's even true.  Is there any direct support for this?  (The fact that Bush nominated him is certainly indirect support, but that's not good enough.) JamesMLane 21:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The section on Roe v. Wade now quotes Roberts's testimony about following precedent and then says that his statement "may or may not apply to his actions as a Supreme Court justice, however, as the Supreme Court could limit or overrule these precedents, while the lower courts cannot." This is simply wrong. There is no "may or may not apply" uncertainty. The consideration he was citing is just totally inapplicable to his possible role on the Supreme Court. Circuit Court judges are required to apply existing Supreme Court precedent. Supreme Court Justices often have a tendency to follow existing precedent, in the interest of stability and predictability in the law, but that's a suggested principle of prudence, not a requirement.

I understand the desire to quote his Senate testimony, because it's one of the few occasions on which he's commented publicly on the law of reproductive rights. It's seriously misleading to quote that statement, however, without putting it in context. It seems like most of the objection voiced here concerns any "speculation" about the voting lineup on the Court on overruling Roe. In the news reports I've seen about initial reaction to the nomination, that issue has been the single most prominent. At some point there should be a section in this article about the politics of the confirmation process -- who was on each side and why, how they argued, etc. That section could certainly report how both sides have viewed the possible impact on Roe. In the meantime, I'll reword this passage to convey the distinction between his Circuit Court role and his possible Supreme Court role, while trying to ignore the elephant in the room. JamesMLane 17:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not "totally inapplicable". There's decent evidence that he would maintain precedent even if he disagreed with it.  There are some relevant quotes in the "general approach" section, and I can send you the whole article if you want.  On the other hand, I agree that the current format is confusing, as both the commerce clause stuff and the Roe stuff are in at least two separate sections.  I would definitely support any improvements to this issue. Dave (talk) 17:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * If there's "decent evidence" for that point then such evidence could certainly be cited. All I'm saying is that the quotation in text is not evidence for that point.  I'm guessing you're referring to some statement by him that gives a nod to the widely accepted idea that courts should be cautious about overruling precedent, even in those instances when they have the legal power to do so.  (There are also some related principles that wouldn't apply to Roe.  For example, if the Court in 1973 had adopted a controversial interpretation of an ambiguous passage in a federal statute, someone who opposed the decision then might logically oppose changing it now.  The reasoning, aside from the general value of stability, is that Congress could have changed the statute if the Court had misread it.  A significant period of legislative inaction can be taken as an indication that an earlier decision was correct.  That argument doesn't apply to Roe, which set a Constitutional limitation.  Amending the Constitution is much harder than amending a statute.) JamesMLane 18:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not "some statement by him that gives a nod" to minimalism. Cass Sunstein believes that Roberts is unlikely to significantly expand or reverse previous decisions on rights or limits on federal power.  But while I think the quote is relevant, I realize that my Sunstein argument isn't stellar and that more should certainly be added on this issue.  Right now, I'm trying to figure out a good way to reorganize the article so that there aren't redundant sections as I mentioned above. Your version is an improvement.  How should we reorganize the article so abortion and the commerce clause don't appear twice? Dave (talk) 18:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the Sunstein article, but he appears to be drawing such inferences as he can from Roberts's comparative handful of judicial opinions. It would certainly be more informative to include a quotation from Roberts directly addressing the problem of the extent to which a judge should adhere to a precedent that s/he considers wrong.  I wouldn't be surprised if no such quotation is available, however.  As for the organization, what are now sections 4, 5, and 6 could be combined into a section with a top-level heading like "Views expressed", a second-level heading for each issue area ("Environmental regulation"), and third-level headings for his different capacities (what he argued as a government lawyer, what he argued as a private lawyer, and what he wrote as a judge, although the first two might well be combined).  The drawback would be the weakening of the distinction between what he said as a hired gun and what he said out of conviction (speeches, law review articles, and judicial opinions).  If it were reorganized that way, it wouldn't mention abortion in two different sections.  On the other hand, it would mention his judicial career in many different sections, instead of presenting all his significant opinions together. I don't have a strong opinion about which organization would be better. JamesMLane


 * My feeling is that most readers (especially right now, with him in the news) would prefer to see his views categorized by issue rather than by date/capacity in which he expressed them. I do see the drawbacks of such an organization now that you pointed them out, however.  If the views section included references to the decisions (e.g. mentioning how he voted and why, but not going into detail), that might be enough to make the article seem less choppy and easier to navigate while maintaining the separation you noted. Dave (talk) 20:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be against combining the sections because there is a great gulf separating arguments made as an attorney and decisions rendered as a judge. Roberts has explicity disassociated his personal views from arguments he may have made while working for others as an attorney.  It isn't correct to quote from briefs he had a hand in without noting Robert's caution and noting that most commentators say you can't tell anything from arguments a good attorney may make for a client, and it isn't fair to try to do so. --Paul 21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Combining the sections would imply that what Roberts argued as an attorney is an equal expression of his views.  Leave them separate.  The media is already conflating them.


 * I find it interesting that when President Clinton was nominating hundreds of judges, to pack the circuit courts that the Democrats left practically empty when Bush Sr. was president, the Democrats quite loudly cried in chorus to the Republicans: "No litmus test!" Now, when asked why they voted against Roberts, some prominent Democrats say it was because "He might have over-turned Roe vs. Wade." And, "He wouldn't have supported our cause." -litmus test. The so-called "Democrats", who don't really believe in a free, democratic society, know that the key to their successful political strategy for DECADES has been to pass their agenda un-constitutionally and illegally, mostly through the Supreme Court, not allowing the Congress to VOTE on things, as would happen in a real democratic republican society. Lying hypocrites. (Sept.)

Sound Clip of Nomination Announcement
I have uploaded and added to the page under a new section, Media, the announcement of the SCOTUS nomination, including both Bush's and Roberts' remarks. It is ripped from the RealVideo movie of the event which was published at the White House web site. I think it is quite appropriate for this page because it captures Bush's justification for the nomination and Roberts' remarks about the Supreme Court, etc. However, please comment on whether or not you think it is a good idea. I would like to have replaced the photo of Roberts with Bush at the podium with an actual 320x240 video of the event, but I'm not quite sure how to get the .rm video into .ogg format. My mencoder chokes trying to decode the RealPlayer file (funny, since mplayer did just fine with it). But, of course, there are other considerations which lead me to believe that the video is a bad idea (how many people can actually play OGG video?), and the sound file together with the still photo are sufficient.--Mm35173 19:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Tenure as a judge
If I'm reading this right, Roberts has spent a grand total of two years on the bench, in only one position. Isn't that pretty low for a Supreme Court nominee? The article is silent on this point. I'd be surprised if no one at all had pointed out that, perhaps, he needs more experience before joining the highest court in the land. Tualha (talk, contribs) 10:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone say that this necessarily makes him unqualified, though I bet Democrats will make the argument. Mostly, from what I can tell, it's been an issue because of the ambiguity, rather than inexperience.  See, for example, the section on "general views on the constitution" and any of various news articles about him as a "stealth nominee." Dave (talk) 13:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Chief Justice Rehnquist had no direct judicial experience before being appointed to the court. There are numerous examples of Justices appointed without prior time on the bench. --Paul 16:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad somebody mentioned this. It brings a sense of reality into the article. Somebody is wondering about something that SHOULD matter when considering the next Chief Justice: experience! (Sept.)

Table at the bottom of the page?
The Categories table at the bottom of the page looks messed up to me. In particular, the middle bottom cell has some of the text obscured, so that it is partially unreadable.

Can someone with better HTML-fu than I have take a look at that?

Thanks! --WAHooker 14:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jane Sullivan Roberts
I don't think it is appropriate to have an entire section of the article devoted to Jobn Roberts wife. His wife hasn't been nominated for anything. What's next, investigations and detailed listings on his parents and sisters? --Paul 14:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I fixed that. I kept the information in there, just not in her own section. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

French Fry comments
I added back the editorial by a judge and the comments by a law professor on the subject (which were added by me when I was not logged in). I think that they help clarify the discussion, and I think that they're sufficiently qualified. We don't have to limit ourselves to government documents, and this is likely to be a big deal in the confirmation process. The question of whether or not Roberts could have legally ruled differently than he did is quite important. We could probably get by with paraphrasing the arguments and not citing sources, but I feel that's bad form. I'm willing to compromise, if someone disagrees, though. Dave (talk) 17:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed text:
 * Roberts has been criticized for the decision by Stephen Fortunato, an associate justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court for the decision, which Fortunato called "outrageous," concluding that Americans' "values and our respect for the Constitution do not envision little girls' being handcuffed and humiliated for eating a French fry in a subway station." According to law professor Eugene Volokh, the editorial wrongly implied that the decision was based on Roberts' views of the Fourth Amendment, when in fact, it was controlled by Atwater v. City of Lago Vista and that any other decision would have improperly overruled the Supreme Court.
 * I think the criticism has a place in there, but I am going to delete it for now. My reason is that to view the source, you have to be registered with ProJo. I don't have a problem with having this in here, but could you get sources that are just point and click? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I didn't need to register when I viewed it before. I think the Providence Journal only allows you to view recent articles.  I'll try to find a mirror. Dave (talk) 18:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I removed this the first time, I'd like to explain my reasons. The paragraph quotes criticism of Roberts from a op-ed piece and then quotes from a blog criticizing the editorial.  Certainly this approach is even handed, and the two people quoted apparently have qualifications marking their opinons with some wieght, but it precisely because we are talking about opinions that their inclusion is incorrect and non-encyclopedic.  Further, using such sources is ultimately the top of a slippery slope.  If Wiki articles are going to start quoting criticism from the op-ed pages of the world's newspapers and discussion from blogs where will it stop?  What standards can we use to decide which opinions are worth documenting?  What rules will tell us when enough opinions have be listed?  The NPOV and fair approach is to quote the decision, and if the logic of the decision is questioned by a concurrence or dissent, quote that.  But it seems quite wrong to state the opinion and then drag in a bunch of opinions.  We are building a repository of knowledge here, not a history of contemporary argument. --Paul 20:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The politics surrounding Roberts' nomination are important, and the best place to get that is often by quoting partisans, which don't always write for the New York Times front page. The logic wasn't formally questioned by another judge (because it was perfectly good logic), but it was publicly disputed, which is notable. Dave (talk) 14:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant where a source comes from if it is a valid source. The fact is that the source in this case was not a blog but a law professor accurately critiquing the editorial by some state court judge.  And even if a source is not on the internet does not make it any less valid.  It is relevant and appropriate to include the quote.  --Noitall 14:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * The point is that this is a contemporary event, and editorials and blogs are going to provide an almost infinite source of both criticism and praise for hundreds of things related to Roberts and his career. If you start making a Wiki article a repository for contemporary political argument, there are no rules for what could be included and what should be excluded. You will end up with a clipping service instead of an encyclopedia article. Facts and "established consensus" are what belong in an encyclopedia. My argument is that the inclusion of editorial and op-ed material &mdash;neither of which are facts or "established consensus"&mdash; is inappropriate.  BTW, "the fact is" that Eugene Volokh's commentary on Fortunato's editorial was published in Volokh's blog: The Volokh Conspiracy.


 * The very nature of politics is such that there is no consensus, and politics are a crucial element of his nomination, as are analyses of his decisions. You said that it was important to quote dissent "if the logic of the decision is questioned," and it was by a judge and a law professor, just not in a government document.  Dave (talk) 21:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Quoting:"The very nature of politics is such that there is no consensus, and politics are a crucial element of his nomination, as are analyses of his decisions"This is exactly why this stuff doesn't belong in this article, and why Wikinews exists. An enclyclopedia article is not the correct forum for arguing about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court."You said that it was important to quote dissent 'if the logic of the decision is questioned,' and it was by a judge and a law professor, just not in a government document."I didn't say it was important, I said it was a fair approach. I specified a concurrence or dissent because they would be by Judges on the same panel as Roberts and would have the same weight as his opinion.  Plus, they are limited; there are a finite number of dissents and concurrences on any judgement.  There are tens of thousands of opinions about Roberts, his memos, and his decisions by judges and and law professors.  The Wikipedia standards mention a Neutral Point of View and verifiable facts as being positive characteristics of an article.  These characteristics define a sphere of knowledge where we find reference material.  Op-ed pieces inhabit a different sphere and I maintain they do not belong in this article, even if the op-ed piece in question had been written by Sandra Day O'Connor herself. --Paul 22:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Saying that political controversies are off-limits for inclusion in an encyclopedia seems to miss the point. Controversies are encyclopedic. That's why we have articles like same-sex marriage, Abu Ghraib prison, sociobiology, race and intelligence, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Taiwan, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Libertarian economic views, starve the beast, Social Security privatization, and Objectivist philosophy, to say nothing of political groups like MoveOn.org or USA Next. There's no consensus on whether same-sex marriage is fair, sociobiology is reductionist, race has causal relations with intelligence, whether Taiwan is a country, cutting taxes cuts spending, or Ayn Rand knows what she's talking about. That doesn't mean we can't include good arguments from qualified people on both sides. Limiting ourselves to government documents or even factual accounts would impoverish the discussion of any of these issues: Is Bush a moron? Are the goals of USA Next desirable? What are the ethical arguments involved in prisoner abuse? Do the Palestinians have the right of return? None of these questions can be answered within the confines you're trying to set up because they're not uncontroversial legal questions: they have ethical and/or political controversies surrounding them, and that requires listing opinions as well as facts. That doesn't violate NPOV unless those opinions are presented as fact--which the paragraph in question does not. Saying what people think (as long as it's verifiable) is perfectly consistent with WP:NPOV.


 * I think you are taking my argument too far. I understand the usefulness of articles on race and intelligence and Libertarianism and their like, but those are articles about issues. This article is about John G. Roberts, Jr.  The test of what should be in an encyclopedia article about John Roberts is: two years from now, whether he is confirmed or not, what is relevant?  Whatever would have to be removed from the article then, should be removed now.  Be honest.  Two years from now, will Rep. Welxer's rantings about payback for services rendered re: Bush v. Gore be germane? Starting a daughter article (see below) to handle the confirmation process and controversy is a good way to separate the op-ed page material from the encyclopedia material. By the way, I disagree about the enclycopedic appropriateness of "Is Bush a moron?" and to a lesser degree with "is cutting taxes spending?".  Neither of those topics should be dignified with discussion because they are themselves moronic and --within common English usage-- obviously untrue.  --Paul 16:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Saying that there are too many opinions about Roberts doesn't mean we should include none, it just means that we should include the best ones. I think just about every editor here would disagree with you that an op-ed written by Sandra Day O'Connor would not be significant. Dave (talk) 02:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

First Paragraph
I agree with Paul's switching "served" to "spent," but what's the reasoning behind moving private law practice up in the paragraph ahead of the agency jobs? It seems to me that the time in the Adminsitrations is more notable and should go first. Why do you think the private practice should precede it? TheGoodReverend 17:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I arranged his mini-resume in reverse chronological order (just like a real resume), from his present position back to his earliest ones. Just seems to make more sense to do it that way and it has no POV. For instance "time in the Adminstrations is more notable" is certainly something that can be argued about. --Paul 18:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think his private practice (specializing in appeals) may be more relevant here, since he will be dealing with appeals lawyers all the time when he is on the court. The same is true of Thurgood Marshall, his appeals work for NAACP seems more relevant than his various government jobs before he got on the court. NoSeptember 18:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Both these arguments make sense, and I like where NoSeptember is going, but one difference between what you stated about Marshall and the way this is presented about Roberts is that this seems vague, almost to the point of being inconsequential. Viewed as descriptive phrases, "appeals work for the NAACP" seems relevant in a way that "fourteen years in private practice" does not. One way to think of what I'm saying is, an average guy who spent fourteen years in private practice probably wouldn't have a wikipedia article devoted to him, but a person who, with no other notable accomplishments, argued appeals for the NAACP for years might. Perhaps it would be useful to make the reference to private practice a little more specific and therefore notable, maybe by saying something like "fourteen years as a federal appellate litigator." TheGoodReverend 02:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The battle for confirmation to the Supreme Court
I think we need a new section called "The battle for confirmation to the Supreme Court" with 2 subsections "For" and "Against". We could place the current media preliminaries here (the story about investigating his kids, the story about his work for a Gay rights cause, etc.). These will keep coming until and during the hearings in a few weeks. We can be NPOV about how the media is reporting these issues.  NoSeptember  13:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that a section on the confirmation process would be a good addition. "Battle" is rather inflammatory, how about just "SCOTUS Confirmation Process"? Items could include the competing claims over the Solictor General documents, what questions are appropriate to be asked and/or answered? how the media and the blogosphere are reporting the confirmation process, etc. Rillian 15:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we need a new article to cover the confirmation process including speculation on Roberts' views. If it isn't handled that way, the next six weeks will see the current article grow by 2 or 3 times, filling up with "he said she said" stuff, which will all have to be removed from the article after the confirmation process is over. There is already a great deal of material in the Roberts article that could be spun off into a sub-article --Paul 15:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A daughter article is not a bad idea, for the week or two of the hearings period, this story will get as much editting as an election campaign. Also note a "Media attacks" section has now been added to the article, which is covering the issues I noted above.  NoSeptember  15:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with daughter article on the "Roberts SCOTUS Confirmation Process (Hearing?) After the process is done, a summary could then be added back to the Roberts main page. Rillian 16:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

How about "John G. Roberts, Jr. SCOTUS Nomination and Hearings"?

Here's my nomination for spin off material:


 * 4 Adoption records and the press
 * 5 Views

* 5.1 General approach to the Constitution * 5.2 The Commerce Clause * 5.3 Federalism * 5.4 Judicial activism and deference to legislatures * 5.5 Record as an attorney * 5.6 On Roe v. Wade * 5.7 Neutrality


 * 6 Notable arguments on behalf of clients

* 6.1 As Deputy Solicitor General o 6.1.1 Abortion o 6.1.2 Environmental regulation o 6.1.3 Separation of church and state * 6.2 Private law practice

plus some material buried in other sections. --Paul 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If "spinning this stuff off" means moving the bulk of it elsewhere and just summarizing it here, that sounds like a great idea. I don't think this article should be totally devoid of arguments he made as an attourney or claims he made before Congress, though.  See the guideline on "Summary style" for a discussion of how I think this article should be laid out. Dave (talk) 21:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Summary Style? --Paul 22:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops. I typed [WP:SS] and assumed that redirected to summary style, not submission standards.  I actually meant Summary style.  The idea is to make overviews of everything available here with detail spun off.  Thanks for catching me. Dave (talk) 01:48, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The proposed article format sounds fine. Be bold and create it, just don't get married to the first draft, as a lot of editors will refine it to what will become the consensus version.  NoSeptember  23:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Presumably the subarticle should include this press release and the response to it (e.g. this). Dave (talk) 02:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Article created at John Roberts Supreme Court Nomination and Hearings, let's get busy. Rillian 8 August 2005


 * I haven't considered whether the split is a good idea, but any such daughter article should follow the MoS, including the use of sentence case in article titles. I've therefore moved it to John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings. JamesMLane 18:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Roberts in favor of Schiavo's right to die
Schiavo "I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy," Wyden said, in a telephone interview after the meeting. "His answer was, 'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.' "

In discussing how the law is evolving on end-of-life care, Wyden said Roberts cited a dissent by Justice Louis Brandeis in a 1928 Supreme Court case, in which Brandeis famously spoke of "the right to be left alone." Legal scholars view that dissent as a pithy formulation of the right to privacy -- a principle that, years later and in a different context, formed the basis for the court's ruling in Roe vs. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.


 * Hmm. I thought it was the Congress's job to "establish" new changes in the law, as the "legislative" (law-making) branch of the government. The Supreme Court is supposed to just follow precedent, and to follow as closely as possible, "original intent" (of the "Founding Fathers", who WROTE the U.S. Constitution), until the law-makers (who are democratically accountable to the voting public) change their minds. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make new laws. They are just supposed to say, first of all and foremostly, "Now, what did the Founding Fathers originally intend", and apply it to the case. This is what it means when Judge Roberts says that he is a "strict constructionist". It means that he would try not to breathe new meaning into the Constitution. Also, the "Supreme Court" only means that they were supposed to be the "highest court in the land", not "supreme" over the entire nation. Not nine litte, un-elected, "supreme" dictators. By the way, who is going to step in when the Supreme Court repeatedly "oversteps its bounds"? (Sept.)

Klan Act, and Bray case
There was an interesting article in the NY Times today about Roberts' argument in a case that tried to use the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act against antiabortion protesters. I've added some relevant text and references to the Ku Klux Klan article. One thing I don't quite understand is how anyone could try to use the Klan Act in 1991 if its criminal provisions were ruled unconstitutional in the 1882 Harris case. I'd welcome any insights anyone could provide at Talk:Ku Klux Klan. Seems like this also ought to be discussed in the Roberts article, although I understand that most people (even on the left) see the TV ad as misleading.--Bcrowell 18:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Confusingly, the ad is discussed at John Roberts Supreme Court Nomination and Hearings, not here. I'll see what I can find out for you. Dave (talk) 22:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've commented out my intermediate replies. Anyway, here's what I can tell.  They argued (and apparently won, in lower court) that because there was a "criminal component" (presumably tresspassing) to O.R.'s actions, the Klan Act still applied.  The Supreme court disagreed:
 * Today the Court assumes that the same sort of scienter requirement should apply to 1985(3) because 18 U.S.C. 241 is its "criminal counterpart." Ante, at 275. [506 U.S. 263, 335]
 * The Court is mistaken. The criminal sanctions that were originally included in 2 of the Ku Klux Act were held unconstitutional over a century ago. United States v. Harris
 * I'm not a lawyer, and that's a lot of jargon, but my reading is that the criminal component thing was a way of getting around U.S. v. Harris, but that it failed in Bray. Dave (talk) 22:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not a lawyer, and that's a lot of jargon, but my reading is that the criminal component thing was a way of getting around U.S. v. Harris, but that it failed in Bray. Dave (talk) 22:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Soldier of Fortune case
User RGTraynor, whose current special interest is working on the Soldier of Fortune magazine article, inserted the following into the high-level summary of Robert's career:"-- during which he was one of the attorneys for Soldier of Fortune magazine in the landmark Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine case --"It is true that Roberts was one of the team of attorneys hired by the magazine to work on this case, however, this is an obscure case, not a "landmark" one, and a reference to it does not belong in the high-level summary of Roberts career where the only other case referred to is United States v. Microsoft which is a landmark case. I have removed the reference because 1) it does not belong in the high-level career summary of this article, and 2) there is no reference to the case, as there is for United States v. Microsoft. If RGTraynor would like to write an article on Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine and discuss its relevance to Robert's views on the First Amendment (which would be a bit of a stretch given that he was on a team of attorneys arguing the case for a client) the appropriate place to do it would be in the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings which discusses Robert's work as a Judge and attorney and the relationship thereof to various constitutional concepts. --Paul 05:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is relevant, what a Supreme Court Justice nominee did before when he practiced law; what somebody did before is what they will probably do in the future. Just like when Hillary Clinton used to represent the murderous, revolutionary Black Panthers during the sixties (at the height of their career). Even, for instance, when the Black Panthers raped a naive, young, liberal, white girl who was helping them, and then beat her to death with baseball bats. And when Bill Clinton tried to get his U.S. citizenship revoked when he was a radical anti-war activist in England during the Vietnam War. Yep. Peoples' backgrounds are important. (Sept.)

"Civil Rights" section POV?
All the cases in the "Civil Rights" section (recently added by an anon users) are written to suggest that Roberts is hostile toward minorities. The wording needs to be changed so it does not suggest Roberts is a racist.


 * I'm inclined to agree and I removed them from the article. Mainly because they're under 'Judicial Opinions', despite none of them being during his time as a judge. Someone may want to rewrite it and put it in a section where it belongs, but I dont have enough knowledge of the cases. --203.17.44.84 04:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Does he live in Bethesda or Chevy Chase?
I thought I read somewhere that he lived in Chevy Chase, not Bethesda as the article says. I could be wrong. (For those who don't know the area, the two are right next to each other and for practical purposes might as well be considered the same. But, the distinction is notable.)  Andyluciano 17:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Views and Hearings
The section on Confirmation Hearings and Views displays the following text:

See John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings for details on the 2005 Supreme Court nomination and confirmation hearings. Please add any new material dealing with views and current analysis to that hearings article.

However, it then goes on to list Roberts' views and on certain issues and includes quotes about certain issues. My question is this, is it really appropriate to list some views, but discourage people from adding new ones? I understand why people do not want this article to be a list of quotes and opinions, but I do not think we can give allow some views and not others. Also, the wording the the above text seems to discourage any additions on this page which strikes me as very un-wiki. Any comments? --Gpyoung talk 19:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

3rd Catholic Chief Justice
If confirmed, Roberts would be the third Catholic Chief Justice in the nation's history, and one of four Catholics on the court. If Bush nominates another Catholic to the court, then the court for the first time will be majority Catholic (and seven of nine will be religious minorities: Catholic or Jewish). ~Anon. Hyde

I have added information regarding the religious test being posited consistently and exclusively for devout Catholic (aka pro-life Catholic) nominees to the federal bench - including Robert - juxtaposing that to the blanket prohibition of any religious test (barring any disqualification for judicial office based on a person's adherence or non-adherence to any religios belief), contained in Art 6 of the US Constitution. 214.13.4.151 13:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

early life
There seems to be duplication in this article about his early life. I'd merge the two sections myself, but someone is wiki-stalking me, so I figure it would be better for someone else to do this. Ruy Lopez 05:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Plurality Catholic Supreme Court
With Rehnquist's death, the Supreme Court's membership became for the first time plurality Catholic by religious affiliation, with three Catholics (Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) of eight justices (also plurality Protestant with three Protestants as well as majority-minority, with five members of minority religious groupings, e.g. non-protestant). The confirmation of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice would add a fourth Catholic Justice to the Supreme Court, confirming the primacy of the Catholic plurality, and an additional Catholic named to the court would for the first time create a Catholic majority Supreme Court. -- unsigned
 * Except that the U.S. is a secular democracy with an independent judiciary. It is notable that there are so many Catholics, but it is religiously and politically a non-issue, making a phrase like "confirming the primacy of the Catholic plurality" meaningless. There was a time into the last century when the Catholic Church in the U.S. had political objectives, but this has no current meaning beyond the justice's individual leanings. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Agent Roberts
Should it be mentionned that he's an agent of the Matrix? Come on, with a name like that and not a single misplaced blond hair over his blue eyes...

--I'm sorry, couldn't resist, feel free to delete-- Jules LT 17:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nomination, confirmation, and appointment
If Judge Roberts is going to be appointed today, then it is true that there is no need to nitpick on whether he is Chief Justice-elect or whatever. However, whether he is to be appointed today is important, at least theoretically. Here are the steps required for a nominee to gain an office appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate:


 * 1) Presidential nomination
 * 2) Senatorial confirmation
 * 3) Presidential appointment

Number 3 is the crucial step. We all know that step one and two have taken place, but step 3 must take place before Roberts can become Chief Justice. Even after Senate confirmation, the President could theoretically change his mind, reject Roberts, and nominate another person. Obviously, the President is not going to do that to Roberts, but until he appoints Roberts, Roberts is not Chief Justice.

The oath of office doesn't factor into this equation either. Roberts can become Chief Justice before taking the oath. However, he cannot exercise the office of Chief Justice until he takes the oath. That's the difference. Either way, it's highly likely that Roberts has already been appointed, so I'll just make a note of it in the article. Pmadrid 18:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, considering that he was just sworn into office in the White House less than one minute ago, I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind about step #3,... Dr. Cash 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional oath and judicial oath
Roberts doesn't technically become Chief Justice until he takes the judicial oath of office provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Anyone care to find a place in this article to gracefully and unparenthetically note this nitpicking detail? 66.167.138.84 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As noted above, he becomes Chief Justice after he is nominated, confirmed, and appointed. However, he can't exercise the office until he takes the oath you just noted and the oath to support the Constitution.  So, as of right now he is Chief Justice, but he can't execute his office until he takes the judicial oath. Pmadrid 05:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Name: John G. Roberts, Jr.
Who calls him this? Every single article or news story I've seen about him calls him "John Roberts" or "Judge John Roberts". I realize that some people on this site have a bizarre fetish for unused middle initials, but shouldn't the page be at the most common name? Googlefight [http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=John+Roberts&word2=John+G.+Roberts%2C+Jr. shows] well over 5 times as many responses to "John Roberts" than the lengthier alternative.


 * There is one good reason to go by "John G. Roberts, Jr." instead of simply "John Roberts": there are multiple John Roberts as can be witnessed at John Roberts (disambiguation).  However, this reason would be stronger if the "John Roberts" page were the disambiguation page or even if it were to redirect to the disambiguation page; instead, "John Roberts" redirects to this page.


 * — DLJessup (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The article title is correct, but I have seen some overuse of "John G. Roberts, Jr." in some of the related articles and charts. In a list of judges he should be referred to as "John Roberts" with a proper wikilink to this article. There are some justices whose middle names are well known (John Paul Stevens, Sanda Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg), but Roberts is not one of them. NoSeptember 15:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Look at list of all other Justices and Chief Justices.  None of them are referred to using the middle name.  I think we should do what NoSeptember suggested- refer to him in the listing of justices as "John Roberts", but leave the name of this article as "John G. Roberts, Jr.".--Big Blue 19:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

O.K. he seems to be a likeable guy
So, what's all the controversy about? I mean, I'm not American, but if this guy will stop Activision from selling Soldier of Fortune. Hey, he's my kinda guy.
 * I have not personally analyzed or read about him, but I heard my AP Environmental Science teacher rip into him. He was saying how Roberts lived his life wanting to serve as chief justice, how he's always on the fence about everything.  He was saying how Bush ought to nominate a guy who has strong opinions.  Of course, anybody who has had strong opinions (I'm looking at you r, Robert Bork) has been shot down. Hbdragon88 05:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Dare I suggest your teacher means "strong opinions that agree with mine"? Even so, many (including me) feel that the "strong opinions" a judge should have are to uphold the law, not apply it in accordance with their "strong opinions." The amazing thing is that these confirmation hearings revolved around real issues, for a change. When opponents spoke of "a living Constitution" they meant that the Constitution should be interpreted according to certain goals, not according to what it says or intends. That may be a noble goal, but this is supposed to be why we have legislatures and electorates. But, as I say, it was refreshing to have real cards on the table, even if some were shrouded in euphemism ("privacy" when they meant "abortion"; "respect for precedent" when they meant "Roe v. Wade." Democrats have had the habit of calling Republican nominees for court or office "stupid" (Reagan, Bush), "crazy" (Bork, Janice Rogers Brown) and "extreme" (anybody to the right of Teddy Kennedy). For Clarence Thomas, they could only hint at "stupid" so they instead dug up a woman to paint him as a "sex-crazed Negro," oddly the nost vicious insult they could up with, but they used it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think he was meaning like living or dead Constitution, strong government or strong state government. Hbdragon88 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Honorable"
I removed "The Honorable" from the introduction and photograph illustration. No disrespect intended. This is just for consistency. I checked the biographies of other justices, including Thomas, Scalia and O'Conner, and they did not include honorifics.

I do not think encyclopedia entries include honorifics in most cases.

JedRothwell

On violent videogames
I for one, just hope that Mr. Roberts stops big corporation from selling violent content that only justifies their lack of creativity. Being "Mature" does not mean to be "Violent". Violent videogames do cause harm. It's not the same to watch Pac-Man in a dark room than to watch a man with a machinegun blasting his way through a city while glorious and heroic music plays in the background. It's time big corporations like EA and Ubisoft stop pretending they are the good guys and christians and psychologists the bad guys. 168.243.218.8


 * Yeah, right. That kind of narrow-minded thinking was what led to crazy things like the Hays Office and the Production Code.  If such restrictions were still in place in the motion picture industry, Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese would never have been able to push their undisputed creativity to the heights demonstrated in movies like The Godfather and Goodfellas.  Furthermore, Roberts has made clear his strong respect for precedent, which presumably includes the existing Brandenburg test for provocative speech.


 * After all, games don't kill people. People kill people.  Read up on proximate cause sometime.


 * Finally, your superficial understanding of the industry is illustrated by your mischaracterization of EA (which does not and will not make Mature-rated games).--Coolcaesar 04:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed his name to CP
I changed his name to CP from "Jr." Please understand that CP is less ambiguos than Jr. Jr. can mean "Junior" whereas CP MEANS "Cerebral Pares."


 * I'm not sure if I understand you. Jr. does mean "junior". He is called John Roberts Jr. because he's named after his father. I'm not sure what "Lessar CP" or "Cerebral Pares" means, but I'm certain that "Jr." is the proper designation. Rhobite 19:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from, but as a non-US citizen I do not think Jr. is as clear as you're saying it is. Check out the newest revision. Think we can come to an agreement? Mortek_MC


 * But what does "Lessar CP" mean? It's nonsense, there are zero Google hits for that term. This is the English Wikipedia, so we use English language terms here. I assure you that the term "Jr." is correct in English. Rhobite 19:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Rhobite, it's very understandable that google wouldn't find the term "Lessar CP," for it does not exist as a composite term as you write it. Lessar CP is a combination of the terms Lessar and CP. I think both are quite nicely explained in the english wikipedia. Look up Lessar and look up CP. I also understand that this is the english wikipedia and that english should be used. But please try to understand that non-US citizens / humans / whatevers DO NOT understand Jr. as a single denominator as you've written it. I will put back the Lessar CP extension into the article. Thanks.Mortek_MC
 * Added it as a separated heading at the end of the article. Mortek_MC


 * This doesn't make any sense to me. I've never heard of Lessar or CP and can't find anything that could possibly be relevant anywhere.  Besides, what does it have to do with John Roberts? I think it should go.  Elliskev  16:30 (EDT) 30 Sep 2005


 * It has been stuck in there, and reverted already. It is Jr. He is an American, and American useage is Jr. Dominick 20:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * PS Mortek started this before and the account Mortek was frozen for introducing CP. Dominick 20:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * People, I strongly disagree with you for not incorportating Lessar CP into the article. How can I get it incorporated? Can I talk to some admin or is wikipedia ruled by the majority, ie. an electronic democracy? Yes, my account was locked by someone when I edited the John Roberts article the first time, this was probably due to my negligance. For that I'm sorry. Now, can't we come to some kind of consensus on this matter? I think my solution with a separate heading was good. Some of you might not have thought that. Any suggestions? Thanks. Mortek_MC


 * If you won't tell us what "Lessar CP" means, what language it's in, and why it should be used instead of "Jr.", you'll have a difficult time getting it included in the article. We base decisions here on rough consensus, and the consensus appears to support keeping this curious phrase out of the article. You haven't even explained what's wrong with "junior", a term which is used throughout the English-speaking world (not just the U.S.). Rhobite 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Two disjointed words, Lessar CP. Maybe he subscribes to Laestadianism, secretly and Catholicism is a front. I have never hear the term, anyone who has please pipe in, just to satify me. Dominick 02:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Almost all references to Cerebral Pares (CP) I can find are in another language, except one about disabilities in Sweden. "Cerebral Pares" is apparently a component in a mental disability. Another reason we should not be bulldozed by trolls claiming to make changes that will be "better understood outside the U.S." because "this is an international wiki." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The "pares" is CP may translate to the English medical term "paresis" which a state of incomplete paralysis or a (I believe obsolescent) term for a partial brain paralysis or dementia associated with late term syphillis. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * People, I believe the correct english term for CP is Cerebral Palsy. Lessar is indeed a member of the Laestadian movement. I don't know why this is necessary really. Aren't we all struggling to make wikipedia a better and more information-rich place? Yes, this is an article about a public person and all that, but that does not mean that people who are unable to comprehend the contents ofthe article should be left empty handed.Do you understand where I'm coming from? Mortek MC 09:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This hasn't been funny for quite a while now. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Most votes for chief justice?
"John Roberts received more Senate votes supporting his nomination than any other nominee for Chief Justice in American history."

This sounds like a pretty misleading statistic. There are far more senators now than there were in, say, 1800. -- WikiAce 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Somewhat like saying Bush received the most votes ever in a Presidential election. He did, but John Kerry received the second most ever. I'm going to go and see if I can't find some numbers for other justices and see if perhaps Roberts received the largest percentage or something. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 02:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed the sentence from the article. Looking at this page from senate.gov Supreme Court Nominations, Roberts did receive the most votes, but he is only 5th in terms of percentage majority. Burger, Waite, Stanton, Ellesworth all received greater than 80% support, whereas Roberts was 78%. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 02:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The sentence stood as follows when it was removed:


 * "John Roberts received more Senate votes supporting his nomination than any other nominee for Chief Justice in American history (though it should be noted that the number of Senators has grown over time as more states have entered the Union)."


 * Since the sentence qualifies itself and explains how the statistic could be misleading so that no one will be mislead, there is no reason that it need be removed. I'm adding it back in. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 10:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Since it is notable that Roberts got the most Senate votes (remember the number of Senators has been the same for almost a century) I noted the actual reason that others had higher percentages but fewer votes. In this nomination, every single opponent wanted to register their opposition to prove a political point. In the past, those opposing often didn't wish to go on record against someone who would be invested in an independent branch of government. In short, politics. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Since the sentence qualifies itself and explains how the statistic could be misleading so that no one will be mislead, there is no reason that it need be removed" Certainly there is a reason. It's trivia, and as the immediate arguing about how it might be misleading proves,  there is no reason for it be in the article. 1) it was added to show what a fine fellow Roberts is, and 2) it was attacked and 'explained' to point out that, no he isn't such a fine fellow.  It is just like the petty arguing about the Bush/Kerry 2004 election results, and adds absolutely nothing to this article.  I'm removing it again.

overlinking
This is a generally good article but it is massively overlinked. Please help make this article more readable. In general, only the first instance of a topic should be linked in an article. In other words, please only link William Rehnquist once. We should not link every occurrence of his name. We should also put some editorial thought into which links are useful and which are more distracting than helpful. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Gold Bars
Will Roberts use the gold bars on his robe sleeves like Rehnquist did, as a sign of respect for his predecessor?

Pastor Viaghi
I removed the name/link of the pastor (Msgr. Vaghi) of The Church of the Little Flower.

"...Pastor Vaghi's Church of the Little Flower..."

First, a church is never owned by the pastor. The monsignor merely works there. Unless (possibly) the article is about the pastor. If you must, you can state in a separate sentence that Monsignor Vaghi is the pastor.

Secondly, although this priest is noteworthy in some circles, this article is about Roberts. It is more confusing than anything to mention Vaghi at all. (I had to go to another link to find out who he was.) Then I learn that this priest is noteworthy only because of some of the people who go to his church, one of whom is Roberts. It's just too circular.

I would only mention Vaghi if he was more commonly known, like Jesse Jackson.

I think it is great that Roberts is mentioned in Vaghi's piece, however. Roberts will be better known than Vaghi. Johno95 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)johno95