Talk:John Roberts/Archive 4

Removed
Removed potentially libelous material per policy regarding biographies of living persons. The policy also applies to talk pages. MoodyGroove 15:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Liberal Bloc
The wording "Kennedy, O'Connor, and the liberal bloc ... conservatives Scalia and Thomas" seems... a little flagrant. While it is certainly important to note the effects of political philosophy on a court, grouping four justices together as the "liberal bloc" is a bit unnecessary... Plus, wouldn't it be more appropriate here to simply list the names of the justices and save political discussion of the general court for a more appropriate place, such as the "Current Membership:Political leanings" subsection at the Supreme Court page? I'm not entirely sure why his first decision is particularly noteworthy anyway... I changed it. EB0und 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic Party's growing partisanship...
I just took out the line that article which said how the vote to confirm Roberts was a symbol of the Democrats making this a political event, which it is not supposed to be. That is, by far, one of the most outrageous things I have ever read, and the person who wrote it should not be allowed to edit any political articles. So, the Republican party gave ALL votes to Robers, he is a republican judicial figurehead, nominated by a Republican figure, yet, the Democrats are turning this into a Partisanship debate? Are you KIDDING ME? This is how the Supreme Court hs always been handled. It is not supposed to be based on partisanship or politics, but is usually is, whether we want to admit it or not. Suggesting that one political party is doing more than the other to force partisanship on the supreme court is outrageous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.208.56 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

This is an extremely detailed article
This article is really a testament to what being in the public spotlight will do for an article. Is the article going to maintain this level of detail as Roberts' term goes on? If not, it will become extremely biased towards his pre-Court activities and views. If it does maintain this level of detail, it will become extremely long. Is this going to become JohnRobertsWatch.com?


 * Well, he just doesn't have a record on the court yet. An encyclopedia article always has to deal with the relevant information about the person at the time it is written. In a couple years, I think most of what is presently on this page will be gone. -- WikiAce 22:05, 7 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)


 * Don't you find it interesting that 32 senators abstained for the Burger vote? 24.250.136.236 08:41, 5 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 to 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 of value to this article.  I'm removing it again. --Paul 15:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But your own analogy is an argument in favor of inclusion! After all, Wikipedia discusses the Bush/Kerry 2004 election results in extreme detail (see 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities). If Wikipedia contains that much about the election results, this article can contain one paragraph about an important fact related to Roberts's confirmation. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good point. I recommend, therefore, moving this information to the most appropriate place: the article regarding Roberts's confirmation: John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings. --Markles 12:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the consensus is for removing it all! Perhaps you would look at it and rewrite it based on this discussion. Dominick 15:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Prior discussion was about the statement's accuracy, not it's relevance. It's not a simple fact like 78-22, it is closer to editorializing as the need for a lot of extraneous explaining shows.  The article is cleaner and tighter without the statement, and does not suffer from its omission. --Paul 15:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think the sentence doesn't give the full picture, try rewriting it. But you shouldn't just be removing a fact. If the statement gives both aspects of the fact, then it is NPOV, perfectly acceptable, and furthermore, adds more to the knowledge of the reader. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's unnecessary clutter. Also, all of the qualifiers make it clear that It can be misleading (ergo, opinionating). It's a slightly interesting bit of trivia, but it's unimpressive because it requires all of the qualifiers. "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."      --Markles 04:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Put it this way: News articles have made mention of this fact. When news articles have mentioned this fact, Wikipedia should also mention it, and elaborate on it. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 07:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As for the "unnecessary clutter" argument, that might have applied had this sentence been in the article's introduction, but now the sentence is in the body, which is exactly where such details at this should be given. A complete article is better than one that tries to avoid a major fact. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 07:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We have had 100 (or 98) senators for how long? Since 1913.  This trivia is very germane, but it's typical that the chronic deletists want it removed. 24.250.136.236 08:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there's always been 2 per state, so we've had 100 (or 98) since 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union. --Elliskev 16:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We have had 100 (or 98) senators for how long? Since 1913. Really?  When do you think Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the union?  Trivia is never germain in an encyclopedia article. Remember, "Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information." Just because it is in a news article does not mean it should be in an encyclopedia article. If the Wikipedia community left every "fact" in most articles here, they would quickly become so big and boring that no one who wanted to use them for gleaning real facts and information could ever wade through them. Editing an article is a matter of discrimination, not piling on. That is the difference between a newspaper article and an encyclopedia article. Any "trivia" that requires five times the words to explain as it does to state is clutter and should be removed. --Paul 20:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Other external links ?
Was this on purpose, or does it need reversion? --Elliskev 16:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * no longer relvant. BTW, I've been watching thi article for a while and I have to say it's excellent.  --Elliskev 00:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

$$$
DC Circuit Court of Appeals, he reported in a financial disclosure filing in 2005 that he earned a salary of $1,044,399 Is that his salary or his net worth? Because if Circuit Court judges make a million a year, I gotta get me a piece of that. jengod 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd guess total income. He was a lawyer in private practice long enough to be making hundreds of thousands on his investments a year. Pakaran 02:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Most Federal judges could make more money in private practice, something that irked the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. You can rest assured that Roberts' salary while on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 was more like $171,800.  While that isn't $1,044,399 (total earnings, like Pakaran said), I wouldn't mind seeing it written on my paycheck.  -Parallel or Together? 09:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Beer and Whiskey Wholesalers?
Is this the same John Roberts who was issuing Amici curae on behalf of the Beer and Whiskey Wholesalers?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=203 Sonofabird 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

honorable title
Should the first line of the article read.. The Honorable John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is the seventeenth and current Chief Justice of the United States. (add The Honorable before his name).. Just as with articles on people who are "The Right Honourable", etc.

I'm not going to change it because I'm not sure if it would be proper, but I just figured I'd bring up the point since judges in the United States are refered to as "Your Honor" and "The Honorable".

Ryan Pugatch 02:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Roberts' Son

 * The Robertses adopted two infants in 2000: Josephine ("Josie") and Jack Roberts. Jack's dancing during Bush's White House introduction of his father brought the four-year-old international media attention.

Anybody else see the rather obvious logical inconsistency with the above statement? New Progressive 16:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he was born in mid or late 2000, and hadn't reached his fifth birthday yet. It's not obviously inconsistent. --Paul 01:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Federalism
I think the last phrase of the statement below is maybe a little overboard. Roberts is certainly not like a cabinet member doing as Bush says. He will also be around long after Bush leaves.

"a question which seemed to many observers to foreshadow his willingness to use his authority to assert the principle of Federalism, challenging and overturning any State laws which legalize medical procedures of which the Bush administration does not approve."


 * Actually, the whole segment is awful, and should be scrapped or rewritten. The issue before the Court in Gonzales v. Oregon was not the scope of federal power. It was merely a case of statutory construction, and even Thomas sided with Roberts and Scalia.


 * Second, the term 'federalism,' in contemporary political usage, deals with the strengthening of state autonomy. It is not the opposite of "states' rights," and Roberts was certainly not "assailing" it in his confirmation hearings.


 * In a case that actually has something to do with the scope of federal power, Roberts came down on the side of state autonomy: Central Virginia Community College v. Katz. -- 69.19.2.36 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Roberts Percentage
By the end of the term, I think it would be important to note the percentage of the times Roberts has voted with Scalia. This of course would be a fact that should be used to label him conservative, moderate or liberal...for now. As of March, he has voted with Justice Scalia 100% of the time.

This is not something to start an edit war about. Many Justices articles include the percentages of the times one voted with the other. See the Blackmun and Souter articles for example. If he is a conservative justice it should be stated, period, it's a matter of facts.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Chief Justice Roberts for the first time voted on the opposite group of Justice Scalia, o the 25th of april 2006 in the case Day v. McDonough. 136.145.174.85 15:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He voted against Scalia's side once again in Jones v. Flowers, 27 april.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In Day v. McDonough Scalia's dissent was joined by Breyer. Also, it's noteworthy that there have been a lot of unanimous opinions, especially in controversial cases such as Rumsfeld v. FAIR. But, it's not really relevant how often he votes with Scalia, since everyone knew he was a conservative and he's already on the Court.

Links to video?
I don't think the article (which is already one of the best I've seen) contains links to any video, notably President Bush's nomination of Roberts, or his swearing in. I know the White House site contains those videos. Is there a policy with providing that sort of link, or would that be a welcome addition to the page? Thanks!--Smashingworth 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity
What is the ethnicity of John Roberts? 75.3.4.54 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Roberts is a devout Catholic from Buffalo, a city of many ethnicities. His mother is Polish. What is the father--Irish?? Rjensen 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly German father. 75.3.4.54 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a source? Michael 08:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

roberts is a scottish name.

Jones v. Flowers and Ideology
Recently, a user made substantial additions to the page based upon Roberts vote in the Jones v. Flowers case. I deleted those additions. The user noted that Roberts joined with the "liberal" Justices to rule in favor of a homeowner who's house had been taken by the government and sold to pay taxes. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. Based upon this, the user concludes that this is evidence that Roberts will be a "swing" vote "like Kennedy" and not "ideological like Thomas."

There are three reasons why I deleted this material. First, it is not significantly NPOV. Why is Roberts not "ideological like Thomas" but not "ideological like Ginsburg or Souter or Breyer, etc.?" It's a dangerous road to go down. Second, I think Roberts' vote in ONE case is not enough to make a conclusion. Moreoever, evidence that he MIGHT develop into a swing vote is really not encyclopedic is it? Such a conclusion should be based upon an extensive record and present conclusion about what we know has happened, not predictions on what might happen. Third, the users conclusions about Roberts being a swing vote based on this single case just don't fly. It should be remembered that the Jones v. Flowers case only had 8 justices hearing it. Had Roberts not voted with the 4 liberals and sided with the conservative dissenters, there would have been a 4-4 split that would have affirmed the judgment below without making any precedent. There is a strong likelihood that Roberts was interested in avoiding that and so joined the majority and assigned the opinion to himself in order cause the least damage. Chief Justices do this all the time. This way they can have some control over who writes the majority opinion and can prevent it from being an opinion they more strongly disagree with. Nor is this case a typically liberal or conservative one from an ideological viewpoint. It's just about notice and what steps the state should take before repossesing the house. The sort of thing all sorts of justice might disagree on.

In the end, I don't think this material belongs in an encyclopedic article, nor do I think the conclusions were based on sufficient evidence or even correct in the first place.--Smashingworth 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. I think anything along these lines should refer to Roberts' jurisprudence on certain issues (e.g., the Commerce Clause), rather than saying he's politically liberal or conservative.  And it's far too early to write anything in that regard.  Crazyale 22:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status
When the current term ends in about a month, there will be a strong indication of what type of jurist and what type of decisions John Roberts will be producing for decades to come. And there will be a lot of outside readers coming to this article to learn more. This is a fresh and new topic that is not well covered in reference books. I think we should build this article up to featured article status. It is likely to get a lot of volume of readership for quite a while in the future, and there is no reason an article filled with controversies can't be a high quality one. So I ask, what do you all think we need to add to or improve about this article to bring it up to featured article status? NoSeptember  talk  19:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Age
I think that there is too much information about this and that judge; perhaps it could be condensed a bit to the same effect:
 * Roberts is the third-youngest man to have become Chief Justice (John Jay was appointed at age 44 in 1789 while John Marshall was appointed at age 45 in 1801). However, many Associate Justices, including Justices William Brennan and Antonin Scalia (both appointed at age 50, in 1956 and 1986 respectively), Clarence Thomas (appointed at age 43 in 1991) and William Douglas (appointed at age 41 in 1939), have joined the Court at a younger age than Roberts. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was 47 when he was appointed as an Associate Justice in 1972; on the present court, two other Justices were only slightly older when appointed, Justices David Souter (51 in 1990) and Anthony Kennedy (52 in 1988).

All this "Class" Nonsense?
What's with all the stuff in his early life: "affluent..town" and "upper middle-class"? Is this (a) necessary and (b) appropriate? Seems like Marxist clap-trap, to me. IMO, wikipedia is left leaning, overall. But if whomever is so gung-ho about including this on Roberts, why not do this to every member of the SCOTUS? Please go to their articles and identify their families' class and the SES of the towns they grew up in.

And should this be a new standard for every person in the wikipedia?

Should categories be alphabetized instead of sorted by "type" in the source code?
The category section in this article currently subdivides the categories by "type" in the source code. While that looks ok when editing the article, those subdivisions are invisible to actual readers. So to a reader looking at this article, the categories appear to be fairly jumbled.

I suggest that the categories instead be alphabetized. From what I've seen, alphabetization of categories is more common and is also I think easier for readers (as opposed to editors) to decipher.

One minor exception, though, is that I'd recommend placing Category:Living people immediately after the year-of-birth category. The reason is the "Living people" is acting as a replacement for a "year-of-death" category, so it seems reasonable to place the two next to each other in the list.

Obviously someone might disagree, so I didn't resort the categories myself. Just a suggestion, you guys can decide which way is better for the reader. Dugwiki 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The first case to have been argued

 * "On January 17, 2006, the Roberts Court decided the first case to have been argued before it: Gonzales v. Oregon."

Does anyone else think the syntactic ambiguity of this sentence makes it sound like Gonzales v. Oregon was the first case to be argued before the Roberts Court?

That particular case was argued before the court on December 6, 2005. The first day of the 2005-2006 term, and Roberts' first day hearing oral arguments as a member of the Court, was October 3, 2005. Oral arguments were heard that day in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. Seansz 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the sentence was quite ambiguous. I changed it, but it's now a bit confusing, although it no longer gives the impression that Gonzales was the first case argued before the Roberts Court. It'd be great if someone could devise a somewhat clearer, more elegant way to express the idea. SS451 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further examination, I decided to remove the following paragraph:


 * On January 17, 2006, the Roberts Court rendered its first decision in a case argued with Roberts presiding: Gonzales v. Oregon. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Oregon law permitting physician-assisted suicide did not conflict with the Controlled Substances Act. Departing with the informal tradition that a new "Chief's" first case be decided unanimously, the case was decided 6-3, the majority consisting of Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, and Stevens; Roberts dissented, joining Scalia and Thomas.

The first case argued before the Roberts court was indeed IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, as asserted earlier in this discussion. The case was decided on November 8, 2005 with Justice Stevens writing for a unanimous court. The Gonzales v. Oregon case was not decided until January 17, 2006, over two months after the Roberts court had issued an opinion in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez. It does stand, then, that the first case to be heard by the Roberts court was decided unanimously. Seansz 02:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal finances?
This wouldn't be in a normal article of the chief justice of the supreme court. plus, if its trying to make him look bad, I think its not making him look all that bad, and I'm more liberal than him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.225.242.164 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

If his personal finances are relevant to the article, then surely they would be equally relevant and should be added to the articles of every other notable public person? The cynic in me suspects there is some desire to associate Republicans with wealth - this can be made evenhanded by including the same information for either every public figure or none (if not relevant for some special finance/policy-related reason) 217.154.66.11 11:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Balance of article
Now that Roberts has been on the Supreme Court for close to two years, perhaps his Supreme Court jurisprudence deserves more attention than his two years on the DC Circuit? -- THF 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

seizure
I just got an email alert from cnn (through a subscription service) with the following text: "Chief Justice John Roberts has suffered a seizure and is hospitalized in Maine, the Supreme Court says." Can someone verify and add to the article in an appropriate place? --Entoaggie09 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is covered under the section currently titled "Health Problems". Johntex\talk 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Free Speech
"Roberts espouses a largely constitutionalist approach to free speech protection in the First Amendment. He authored the 2007 student free speech case Morse v. Frederick, ruling that a student in a public school-sponsored activity does not have the right to advocate drug use on the basis that the right to free speech does not invariably prevent the exercise of school discipline."

Does anyone have an objection to changing this or know exactly what it's supposed to mean? He's the Chief Justice of the United States. One would hope that he espouses a constitutionalist approach to the First Amendment, evn if he may have a different idea of its meaning than others. Unfortunately, First Amendment law is not an area of expertise for me, so I'm not sure I'd be of much help in describing what school he falls into.--MikeJ9919 06:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

move
I propose to move this to John Roberts (Chief Justice). NerdyNSK 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Appointer
I removed The United States Senate as Chief Justice Robert's appointer. None of the other Chief Justices are listed as being appointed by the Senate. And, I don't believe it is accurate, as The Chief Justice is appointed by the President. SirParagon 02:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?
I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
 * A1. Benjamin Cardozo
 * A2. Learned Hand


 * B1. John Marshall Harlan
 * B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
} Move approved --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) John Glover Roberts, Jr. → (?) — I have no opinion of this matter. The only opinion that I hold is using Roberts' full name with the junior status and his middle name is a textbook violation of WP:NC(CN). I've never ever heard this name before. Newspapers and such always call him "John Roberts" and back before the Chief Justice time this article was titled John G. Roberts to disambiguate; then it was changed back to John Roberts with a (disambiguation) page for other Roberts. So. I'm proposing John Roberts (judge), John G. Roberts, or back to the old John Roberts. You decide! —hbdragon88 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support the general proposal to move that article from John Glover Roberts, Jr. per nom. Prefer John Roberts (judge) as the destination.  I know he is American but "justice" is somewhat of a regionalism and might be ambiguous considering its other meanings.  Judge is clearer. I have not investigated the importance of the other John Robertses to have an opinion on whether he is the primary meaning. —   AjaxSmack   00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support this move proposal, and my personal preference would be to return the title to John G. Roberts. Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support the move with John Roberts (Judge) as my preference per nom. I think AjaxSmack pretty much summed up feelings on the matter of justice. Narson (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with a general preference to return the title to John G. Roberts. feydey (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support John G. Roberts. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I thought I had been redirected to the wrong article the first time I came here. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * How about John Roberts (justice)? I noticed that is what one of the former justices articles is named (there is no consistant disambiguation. One has "judge", one has "governor", others use their full names like this one does).  TJ   Spyke   06:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Did John Roberts attend Sacred Heart University?
If that's true, can someone please provide a citation for that?

I was under the impression that he matriculated at Harvard as a sophomore because he took enough advanced placement courses in high school to give him advanced standing in college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.9.242 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "multiple" :
 * The Supreme Court | Tilting to the right | Economist.com
 * S:\GPO\HEARINGS\92548.000

Appointed to the Court? Or Nominated and Approved by the Senate?
I've seen this language for other current and former justices of the Supreme Court. They are referred to having been "appointed" by President John Doe. Is it not more accurate to write that the justice was nominated by President George W Bush and approved by the 109th Senate?

I'd be interested to know if there is a good explanation for the use of "appointed" when it is clearly not the manner in which the justice comes to serve on the Supreme Court.

The distinction is that an appointment needs no approval - a nomination does.

75.93.22.57 (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. Appointing doesn't suggest that there's no approval. It just means you're not elected. The same thing happens with other levels of judges. And some judges are even subject to approval voting from voters years after being appointed. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to nit pick, but isn't the term "Appointed by the President and Confirmed by the Senate". Not Nominated and Appointed. Charles Edward 12:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ancestry
says that maternal greatgrandparents were from chechloslovakia, pretty sure that wasnt a country back then, or now... can anyone get a better location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.96.51 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

new opinion!
if you can get a newly elected president to stutter and fumble on his oath, maybe you can put a curse on his entire prsidency. aaaaaa, I guess no one else really minded too much. I think there's some serious US supreme court-white house discord signalled by the very not call-and-response feel to that oath moment. I guess we'll see. 69.141.11.242 (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was hilarious. It was definitely Robert's fault, though. If you watch the Youtube video, he cut Obama off during the first line, and then said "faithfully" at the end instead of the beginning. I don't think he was supposed to say the words "So help me God" either. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1st draft transcript here Headlikeawhole (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Administration of Oath of Office to Barack H. Obama
I object to the characterization of Roberts as having "mangled" the administration of the oath of office. What I saw was that Roberts gave Obama fairly long lines of the oath, apparently believing that Obama knew the oath. That is not the same as mangling the administration. Rather, Roberts could be characterized as overestimating Obama's grasp of the oath. Whoever wrote the statement in the article was showing bias, and the sentence should be recast. 72.83.160.65 (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Roberts and Obama were clearly nervous. Fact of the matter is that Roberts did mix up the order of words. Then again, it shouldn't be in the leading paragraph of the article. 81.244.19.63 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No Obama was NOT nervous. Clearly the CJ was doing it deliberately since, then, Senator Obama had voted for not appointing him as CJ.Imadaqu93 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on being able to read minds and motives. 81.244.19.63 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoever's fault it was, the entire matter is such a non-issue that it surely does not merit mention in an encyclopedia. bd2412  T 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this matter should be the center stage of this dumbass' wikipedia page. He just messed up the only thing he was there to do...twice! Even my dog can recite better. Seriously, he will be known for ever as the idiot that messed up the oath of the first Afro-American President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.43.162 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The chief justice did indeed mix up the words of the oath (twice) and then interrupted Obama when he should have let him speak. It was a very strange incident that must be mentioned in Wikipedia. Since it is rare that people see a chief justice perform in public, this incident is revealing. He was appointed by George W. Bush, so it is part of his legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.152.96 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Heart University
Where is the source, because that doesn't seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.166.81.175 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Oath Flub
ROBERTS: Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?

OBAMA: I am.

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...

OBAMA: I, Barack...

ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...

OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...

ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully...

OBAMA: ... that I will execute...

ROBERTS: ... the off ... faithfully the Pres ... the office of President of the United States...

OBAMA: ... the office of President of the United States faithfully...

ROBERTS: ... and will to the best of my ability...

OBAMA: ... and will to the best of my ability...

ROBERTS: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

OBAMA: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

ROBERTS: So help you God?

OBAMA: So help me God.

ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.214.122 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, and? So what? Not worth mentioning. bd2412  T 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's very much worth mentioning. I predict a cascade of readers coming in during the next few days wondering what the heck happened there. And it's going to be mentioned in plenty of press articles soon enough.--Fangz (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia as no one will mention it a week from now. That's great that you think it is a water cooler discussion topic right now, but in the long run, it's meaningless.  People just tripping on their tongue.


 * It's mentioned in every major news outlet that I've checked. The above transcript came from press articles.  The fact that Obama, in the end, recited the oath differently than it is written in the Constitution I think is worth noting.


 * It's completely non-notable. Even if you think it is, then at least put it somewhere else, not in the leading paragraph. 81.244.19.63 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's put this in perspective using Wikipedia rules: #1 this is not central to Robert's life or career and does not deserve to be in the lede; #2 I'm sure there are blogs all over this, but we need some reliable sources to cite before it can go into the article; #3 if we do get those reliable sources it deserves, at most, a one-line mention further down in the article. This should not be in the opening paragraph of the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is a YouTube video of the oath a reliable source? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.214.122 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above claim is ridiculous. It is so obvious that it should be in the first part. I had never ever heard about this person, and now from the other side of the earth I know who he is because of his errors. This should be the single definition of his wikipedia entry. He managed to make a remarkable thing to mess up 35 words. Wow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.43.162 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll note that all previous chief justices have on their articles mentions of the presidential oaths they administered, even if they happened without incident. The fact that you aren't interested isn't proof of non-notability.--Fangz (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He's got a lot more notability from that than from a one-time screwup during the inauguration. Even if I find his screw-up hilarious as a fellow America. :) &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All the other guys were also chief justices of the supreme court as well. Ultimately, it's not really up to us to judge. We just need to look at the press, and while his error is headlines everywhere, it deserves at least a mention. I suspect to most people right now, he's actually best known as 'that guy who messed up the inauguration'.--Fangz (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course google is not proof, but let us note:
 * John Roberts "appeals court" 118,000
 * John Roberts inauguration 317,000
 * John Roberts "district of columbia" 323,000
 * John Roberts obama 1,590,000
 * John Roberts "chief justice" 607,000
 * John Roberts "White House Counsel" 37,900
 * John Roberts oath obama 145,000
 * And this is within hours of the event. I suspect these numbers will grow.
 * --Fangz (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid indicator of notability. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I do think it deserves a place in the article, and the current version fits very nicely. I do not, however, think this is significant enough in Roberts' life to include in the lede. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Google hits, digging a little deeper reveals that once you get past the first few pages, only a handful are about the flub. There are a lot of hits, for example, for the fairly well-publicized lawsuit to prohibit Roberts and Obama from concluding the oath with "So help me God" (the combination John Roberts oath obama atheist reports 170,000 hits, underscoring the unreliability of the measure). bd2412  T 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which went nowhere, of course. Although Roberts gave him an out. He asked, "So help you God?" and Obama could have said, "Nah, skip that part," but instead said, "So help me God." Given the state of things, Obama is not going to turn away any help. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but my personal position is that we should mention him administering the oath in the leader, and then talk about details like the flub and the two's history later on.--129.67.117.75 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth a footnote at best. It was clear that the both of them were a little nervous. Roberts will likely get it right the next time. This was his first time doing this task. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you have a WP:RS for that, correct? Otherwise this is just your opinion, which has no merit in this discussion. I found two reliable sources to back up my view on this DegenFarang (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be more relevant if other such screwups could be covered for comparison. For example, on CBS it was mentioned that Taft messed it up when he was administering the oath, to Coolidge I think it was, and he got letters from kids telling him he got it wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any information that states that Taft messed up administering the oath to Coolidge, but that Coolidge's first succession was abrupt because of Harding's sudden death, and so at 2:47am Coolidge's father administered the oath to him. The following day Coolidge was re-sworn in by Justice Hoeling because of confusion over Coolidge's father having authority to administer the presidential oath. See article on Coolidge  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.214.122 (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It might have been Hoover. Taft was Chief Justice until 1930 or so. So it could have been Coolidge in 1925 after he was elected (not when he succeeded Harding), or Hoover in 1929, either of which could have been on the radio. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was Taft swearing in Hoover, and he simply got one of the words wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be in the lead paragraph, period. For 95% of Americans this will be their first experience with Roberts and this is going to go down in history. It will be Roberts' legacy. DegenFarang (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * please cite a reliable source that says it's going to go down in history and will be robert's legacy. oh - wait - there's no reliable source. you're just stating your opinion that that will be the case. that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. but that's not what wikipedia is here for. and that's not what the lede of an article is for. and that's not how BLP's are written. come back in a month, and we'll see if this is still 'front page news' so to speak. then, you'll have no trouble finding a WP:RS that says what you believe the future holds. for now, it's a minor verbal gaffe, and not notable by any measure for this person's BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * oh, and to clarify - it is described in detail in the body of the article. it's not hidden or obfuscated. however, it's simply not notable for the lede of a BLP. not yet. again, come back in a month. there's no hurry - particularly with BLPs. Anastrophe (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * you are so wrong it isn't really worth my time to explain why. everything you just said is wrong. DegenFarang (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jay Leno and David Letterman will make fun of it for a few days and then it will be forgotten. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * unless this guy lights himself on fire on live television this article will get more traffic in the next month than it will for the rest of his career. so if there is any time for this to be in the first paragraph, this is it DegenFarang (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * that's not much of a rebuttal. everything i wrote is backed up by wikipedia policy. your earlier edit of the article said "While swearing in the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, Roberts made several errors and was widely mocked on blogs and internet message boards for being an asshat.". you expect to be taken seriously in this matter when posting obnoxious material to a public biography of a living person? you expect too much. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree with you that my first edit was better, but i could not find a WP:RS for that, so until i do, i am ok with the asshat part being left out. DegenFarang (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see a reliable source for why it even matters. Others have flubbed their lines, and technically anyone who inserts his own name (which is most of them) also violate the strict letter of the Constitution. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DegenFarang, you're already beyond three-revert rule. please stop. i'm not going to revert you again, as then i'd be in violation of 3RR - but other interested editors are not so constrained. please stop pushing this point. the flub is mentioned in the body of the article, clearly referenced. it is not notable enough for the lede. drop it. Anastrophe (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the most significant event that has occurred in his life to date, at least in terms of what the general public knows about and will remember...and in terms of what the average Wikipedia reader will be looking for. I have found a source and added it which states the reason Roberts did this may have been in retaliation for Obama voting against him in the Senate confirmation hearings. That shows the importance of this issue. So you drop it, I am clearly right. DegenFarang (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * this is absurd. your most recent edit claims that it was in "retaliation" for voting against him; but you're synthesizing that, because the source 'does not say that. so now you're posting intentionally defamatory claims in the lede of a BLP. which is a shame, since you apparently got all worked up about defamatory statements being added to Barack Obama a while back, but i guess there's an unsurprising double standard here. i'll be reporting you on the BLP noticeboard. note that reverting defamatory/libelous material from a BLP is not restricted by the 3RR rule. Anastrophe (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok well then re-word what I wrote so that it does not synthesize anything. I was trying to add relevance and sources. You keep saying to find a WP:RS so I found one. Re-word it you like, I just want some mention of this in the lead as it clearly belongs there DegenFarang (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't possibly find a source that can prove anyone will care about this for more than a day or two. Crystal-balling is against the wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the one crystal balling. You can't possibly find a source which says this is irrelevant in the history of the United States, John Roberts and Barack Obama. In reality it is a significant historical event to all three...to Roberts it has greater historical significance than anything he has ever done or will do. Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant, stop edit warring DegenFarang (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have to. You're claiming it is relevant, therefore you must prove it. And you can't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, with two sources. Stop edit warring, just knock it off.DegenFarang (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No source you can cite can possibly prove such a prediction. Meanwhile, I predict you will be blocked for edit-warring, as you're at about 8RR at this point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I want you to prove to me that Barack Obama is a significant historical figure. No source you can find can prove such a prediction because Wikipedia is not for crystal balling. Your arguments are pathetic. You clearly vote Republican and simply don't want this included so as not to tarnish the reputation of John Roberts. Get over it, he screwed up and it is very significant. DegenFarang (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that U.S. Presidents are notable figures. That's why they get wikipedia articles. Even Millard Fillmore, who typically ranks (so to speak) near the bottom of the list of Presidents, gets an article. That's consensus. And the last time I voted Republican was before your father was born. At 9RR, you'll be blocked soon, and maybe asking yourself how badly you want to work on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)wow, not that you had any credibility to begin with, but now you're just ranting. i voted for mr. president barack obama, and i respect mr. chief justice of the supreme court, john roberts. it's possible to care about presenting this person's BLP without the ravings of a frothing partisan in the lede of this article while still not necessarily being some evil, pitchfork toting republican. roberts is well known and respected (to those who don't spend their lives immersed in online poker gaming) for his intellect and for his judgements on the supreme court. it's not our fault that you weren't aware of roberts before this; it's your shortcoming. perhaps you might consider actually reading this BLP to familiarize yourself with mr. chief justice. you know. use wikipedia to learn, rather than to defame. Anastrophe (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I'm going to report DegenFarang for edit-warring. Of course, that will take about half an hour, due to the painstaking way that thing has to be constructed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted the complaint. Farang is at about 6RR at this point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Make that 7RR. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DegenFarang, if you are going to revert or undo an edit, please do so with one edit, while explaining your reason in the summary. Do not change the article (after clicking undo) by adding citations and rewording—then saving; add your changes as a second edit for clarity, also with an summary explanation.

When you were combining the undo with the changes all in one edit, you did not give a summary explanation of the changes; only the auto undo message was displayed. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, everyone, calm down and assume good faith. This disagreement should not be an opinion poll on Justice Roberts.--Fangz (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way folks. Roberts asking Obama So help you, God?, isn't original. Check out Chief Justice Earl Warren's administering the oath to President John F. Kennedy. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not be original, but it doesn't make much sense since the prompt begins in the first person, "I (name)", and the oath is to be repeated verbatim following the prompt.--207.224.214.122 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth is, Constitutionally, Obama didn't need anybody to swear him in. All he had to do is say the oath himself. The Constitution doesn't require anybody to administer the oath. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably the swearing-in is based on custom and tradition. Presumably all he has to do is say it and/or sign something that says it, with witnesses. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Administering Presidential Oath of Office section presently concludes with "rather than concluding his prompts in the first person, Roberts concluded by asking Obama, "So help you God?" which the president answered with the traditional, "So help me God."[38] The following evening, in the White House Map Room with reporters present, Roberts and Obama repeated the oath correctly." It should be noted that during the do-over Roberts again said "So help you God?" as a question. The audio is available on youtube. Roberts should be given due credit. It is completely original. CJ Warren did not say the "so help you God" as a question when swearing in JFK, nor did anyone else going back to 1949. Sometimes the second person was used, but no one else quizzed the president-elect. Youtube currently has every president being sworn in from Truman to Bush43, and I recommend them to everyone.Rcmpvernon (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this can be characterized as a flub, however, because there is no official way to phrase it (or to include it at all). I would bet that its phrased as a question and in the second person precisely to avoid the appearance that it is part of the official oath, as this was the basis of the lawsuit against using the phrase in the oath. bd2412  T 22:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, especially since the fact Roberts did it twice indicates it was intentional. This heading appears to be where people are discussing the Oath of Office thing. Should I start a new topic for this? I am asking that people review the audio, come to a consensus, and correct the comment about the second swearing-in. The audio of the first swearing-in is on Roberts' page, why not post the second one as well? note: you need to crank the volume up to hear Roberts say the last phrase, because his voice trails off for some reason. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gpeoZDmOgU Rcmpvernon (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, everyone seems to be conflating saying the last phrase about God as a question and administering the oath in the second person. These are two distinctly different things. The second person was used for Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Nixon. Only Roberts has asked the president-elect a question as part of administering the oath.Rcmpvernon (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

One could say that slipping into the second person just for the last phrase is different than administering the entire oath in the second person, and that is why Roberts put a question mark at the end, when the CJs using the second person to swear in Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon didn't say "so help you God?" If he said the entire oath in the first person the second time (did he say "me" or "you"?), why did he still say the last phrase as a question?Rcmpvernon (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

DegenFarang factor
For 12 hours, or roughly 1 hour per rule violation. Check out his unblock request. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very arguable that Roberts' pause was unusually long and thus the cause of Obama's interruption. It seemed natural to me. And if you listen to previous swearing in ceremonies, Roberts pause sounds somewhere in the mid-range of pause length. I know that no one wants to criticize Obama for anything, but come on. It's alright to admit that Obama screwed up.

Sean Smith, Austin, TX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.63.172 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that Obama needed to be sworn in again and this has made worldwide headlines since the Inauguration proves that this should be in the lead. DegenFarang (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well let me ask you this: should it be in the lead in the Barack Obama article? If Obama was writing the article on Roberts, do you think he would want this in the lead? bd2412  T 17:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Q1, no, because people searching for information on Barack Obama right now are not going to be searching for information about this with a greater than 90% probability. However as far as popular culture and the average citizen are concerned, this event IS john g roberts. anybody looking for information on him right now is almost certainly after it because of this event. and this event is how most americans will remember him. Q2, i doubt it, obama probably doesn't want to be reminded of that silly event. however its inclusion is not up to them as they are the interested parties...we are supposed to decide as objective editors. this is the most significant and well known event for which jgr will ever be known for. so it should be in the lead. DegenFarang (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * your opinion is noted, degenfarang (and welcome back from your multiple blocks for tendentious and disruptive editing). perhaps in a month we'll revisit the matter. wikipedia frequently suffers terribly from recentism, and this is a textbook case. in a month, we'll see just how relevant the world considers this matter, and at that time, perhaps it may be considered notable for inclusion in the lede. reliable sources provide excellent guidance in that regard. Anastrophe (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'suffering from recintism' and keeping articles current are different. wikipedia is not your utopian ideal for how an enyclopedia should be...it serves a purpose and provides information for people who are searching for it. if you put 'john g roberts' into google i imagine this article is one of the top 2 entries. when people search that name right now, what do you think they are looking for? burying this information deep in the article is doing all of those people a huge disservice, because you think that 'recintism' is bad. DegenFarang (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok so it appears we have consensus. I will be adding this back to the lead soon. DegenFarang (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * i'm going to have to assume you're joking; either that or you're interested in getting blocked again. clearly there's no consensus. please do not change the lede per your opinion of what is notable to john g. robert's lifetime. Anastrophe (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "...the most significant and well known event for which jgr will ever be known for"??? That statement alone sounds like a sarcastic joke. The scary part is, I think he's serious. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs, are you a gambler? I'll wager you any reasonable sum of money that in one year, if you poll twenty random american's age 18-50 what comes to their mind when they hear 'Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John G. Roberts', greater than 2/3rds of them will say that he 'flubbed' when swearing in Barack Obama. This will be his legacy, he will never live it down, ever. DegenFarang (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never bet on anything to do with future events. If he were to, for example, become instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade, I have a hunch that will be considered of greater importance than mis-stating the oath of office. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Important to who? I consider myself fairly knowledgeable of current events and US history and I can't name one Supreme Court members who was instrumental in any case in US history. Sarah Palin was nominated for VP and even she could not name one Supreme Court decision she does not agree with. The average American does not know or care what each Justice has to do with any decision...what they do care about his this guys screwing up the single most important historical event in the United States since 9/11 and arguably further back than that. This needs to be in the lead, especially now. How do we take this matter to some kind of dispute resolution because you two are obviously working as a team to silence me and I do not accept that 1:1 is a consensus. DegenFarang (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see... there was the Earl Warren court, that produced the Brown v. Board of Education decision. And I would argue that that case mattered a lot more to Obama than the Porky Pig-like swearing in thing was. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving my point. You are not objective and you should not be inserting your opinion into this discussion. You are clearly at least a hobby-supreme court buff, and that is all fine and dandy and i salute you. however you are going to be naturally biased on issues like this and have a hard time relating to the average wikipedia user, and that is who this page is for. this is not editorial masturbation, where you create a page that fits your particular wants and desires...this is a page for the millions of users who use and read wikipedia everyday. to them this issue is important and will forever be important. so it needs to be in the lead DegenFarang (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am NOT a "Supreme Court buff", I simply paid attention in history class. Warren was a very famous Chief Justice, in part from the Brown v. Board of Education and in part for the Warren Commission investigation of the JFK assassination. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the MSNBC article on the re-swearing in, Taft made a similar flub when swearing in Calvin Coolidge, but that apparently merits no mention in either article - in the context of history, such things are meaningless. bd2412  T 18:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source I had seen said it was Taft and Hoover. The Coolidge deal was that he did it twice, because the first time it was his father, who wasn't an actual judge. Taft, though, might have been known for other things, having been President once. The most important thing he ever did as President, of course, was to start the tradition of the seventh-inning stretch. That was connected with the other important thing he was known for, his walking imitation of a dirigible. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither of them was black DegenFarang (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor is Judge Roberts, although he might have been red-faced. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Jumpin' Junipers. I sure hope Chief Justice Roberts, doesn't mess up in 2013. Or we'll be going through this, all over again. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If he has this same problem in 2013, maybe then you've got something worth including here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again we have a consensus other than two people who are working as a team saying that this should not be included. If nobody else other than this team disagrees, I will be changing the article as per WP:SMD DegenFarang (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus, including my opinion on the matter, is firmly against you. I wouldn't make another reversion against consensus if I were you, admins would not take too kindly to that coming off of your block for edit warring to do the exact same thing. Dayewalker (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I too, am against putting the oath blooper in the lead. To place it there, smack of recentism & besides, the blooper didn't cause a Constitutional crises. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2013
FWIW, if Roberts & Obama face each other at the 2013 Inauguration, they'll get to do the swearing-in twice again. This time 'privately' on January 20th (a Sunday), then 'publicly' on January 21st. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They'll just keep doing it until they get it right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus check
DegenFarang seems to believe that consensus exists that the Oath of Office flub should be in the lead. Just to clarify, I will ask editors to this page to state their position and rationale on the matter. Specifically, the proposal is that the Oath of Office flub should be in the lead. If you feel that the flub should be in the lead, please indicate Support. If you feel that it should not be in the lead, please indicate Oppose.


 * Oppose. The flub is a minor incident, and not important enough to mentioned in the lead. bd2412  T 20:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The blooper, didn't cause a Constitutional crises. Adding it, would be recentism. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minutia. Trivial incident. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Barely notable enough to be in the article, let alone the lede (see WP:LEAD (the lede "should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points [of the article]")). Simon Dodd (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BD2412. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even though consensus is not a vote, this should go a long way towards showing DF that consensus is and was against him. Trivial, no need for mention in lede. Dayewalker (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is trivia. Not only should it not be in the lead, it shouldn't be in the article.--Paul (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I reverted DegenFarang's first edit on this article for three reasons: addition of unreferenced controversial POV material to the lead of a living person's biography, his edit summary said "rvv", and the edit contained "asshat". See his first addition of material here Note: WP:CITE / WP:GRAPEVINE. This was a very deceptive approach, since he did not revert anything—let alone vandalism; instead he was inserting biased material. He assumed our trust by stating that he was reverting vandalism (thereby protecting the article); when he was actually using this edit summary as a deception to insert his personal opinions.   ~ All is One ~ (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is slightly notable, but only as trivia, and trivia is generally discouraged. it is not notable enough to john g roberts biography to be in the lede. what is genuinely notable is degenfarang multiple displays of contempt for the process here (resulting in multiple blocks), and for his fellow editors. Anastrophe (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This is the most significant event in his life and will remain so forever, this will be his legacy. I'm glad that you guys went an got all of your friends to say OPPOSE but consensus is not decided on a vote, I am clearly right and all of you are wrong, so I will be changing the article to reflect the consensus DegenFarang (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you won't. You said the same thing earlier and didn't make any such edit, and it's obvious now consensus is against you. What you're doing now is just disruption. Please accept there's no consensus for your opinion, and just leave it at that. Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am well within my rights to edit this article, see WP:SMD, there is a clear consensus...consensus is not decided by a vote DegenFarang (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are well aware that there is no "WP:SMD" policy. Consensus is against you. Dayewalker (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SMD. An elusive acronym. Maybe stands for "Save My Dingaling". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have warned DF about his usage of "WP:SMD", which does not represent policy and seems to be a juvenile personal attack. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (1)What are you talking about? He's the Chief Justice of the United States. He's done more notable things this month than inaugurating a President and you think that this is a lifetime significant moment? Because of a minor wording flub in the first of his many Presidential inaugurations? (2) What consensus? You're the only one who agrees with you. Whatever consensus is, it isn't that. (3)What is WP:SMD? There's no such thing. Do you mean WP:BRD? Simon Dodd (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that "SMD" stands for something rather vulgar (if you've ever seen G.I. Jane, it was something of a motif in the cage-fight sequence). And that DegenFarang is trolling. In the earlier discussion, he claimed never to have heard of Roberts before the Oath, which would, at the very least, indicate a level of detachment from the news that would make him singularly unqualified to speak to the content of this article. bd2412  T 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the process for getting rid of him? I mean, if he's inerudite and disruptive, it seems insane to waste other editors' time micromanaging him.Simon Dodd (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed this article from my watch list and I will wander back to it in a month or more with several sources proving that all of you fail to recognize how important this is. For now, you can have your way. And Yes Simon Dodd I meant WP:BRD thank you for that clarification. See also WP:PWNT DegenFarang (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A whole month? Recentism (not to mention common sense) envisions a somewhat longer timeframe. Bill Rehnquist, appointed at roughly the same age as Roberts (48, to Roberts' 50), served for 33 years. In view of that, it seems reasonable to assume that, ceteris paribus, Roberts will be on the court through at least 2037, meaning that he will give the oath of office seven more times to at least four Presidents, starting with Obama's successor in 2013. Meanwhile, the court will have decided, with Roberts' vote, somewhere in the vicinity of 2700-4000 cases. He will probably have written anywhere from five hundred to a thousand opinions of varying lengths. You need to listen to what other editors who understand this subject better than you do (by your own admission, as user:BD2412 pointed out above) are saying: this event is trivial. It doesn't belong in the article, it certainly doesn't belong in the lede, and five years from now, it won't be in either.Simon Dodd (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "starting with Obama's successor in 2013" LOL see a filthy partisan! and one who is obviously far more intelligent than the average wiki user. i'm just trying to argue for the masses, and the masses don't know half of the stuff you just claimed or anything about this guy other than this incident...however i concede to the mass of republicans here who don't want this included in the lead, so as i said, i've thrown in the towel. see WP:RNC DegenFarang (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC).
 * It speaks volumes that you assume anyone disagreeing with you on this point must be a political opponent. Not so: of those who've voted oppose here, user:Baseball Bugs is a liberal, and so are User:All Is One and User:Cdogsimmons, so far as I can see (going by their user pages). Moreover, even if you're right that people visiting this article don't know all this stuff - informing them about this stuff is why we're all here! Put another way, if your theory that this is the first time many people are meeting John Roberts, and they're coming to wikipedia to find out more: why is that an argument for inclusion? You don't need to tell visitors something they already know!Simon Dodd (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting argument,..however if we should not include things in the lead which people already know, perhaps this should be removed from the lead of Barack Obama: "The first African American elected President". I'm fairly certain even the average Chinese factory worker knows that DegenFarang (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a very simple difference (although I admit that it turns on an unstated assumption of my previous comment): the point you suggest removing from Obama's article is of central relevance to Obama's article (wags could suggest it's the basis for WP:Notability), whereas the point you suggest inserting into Roberts' article is incidental minutia.Simon Dodd (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes well, this unstated assumption is the reason we have this novel of a discussion in the first place, I think that will be the defining moment of his career, just as it may well be that BHO's career defining event will simply be that he is black, and was elected president. So when it is proven that I am right, I will expect this to be in the lead. DegenFarang (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful-- we have consensus, then! This will go in the lede when Roberts retires, if it is then determined that this was the most notable event of his career (a standard only slightly more restrictive than "when hell freezes over"). See you in thirty years.Simon Dodd (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, referencing a fellow editor as a "filthy partisan" is a personal attack, even when the assertion is laughably untrue, and even when couched in language that makes it easy to retreat into saying you were just joking. If you are indeed proven right, and at the end of Robertson's career on the Supreme Court by death or resignation, this is at the top of the list of things for which he is remembered, I will gladly change my stance on this issue and support inclusion of this incident in the lead. However, it is specious to suggest that this discussion is itself proof of the importance of the incident, as there have been far lengthier discussions on Obama's page about whether various alleged flubs by Obama should be included at all, much less in the lead. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I assumed that the "filthy partisan" line was tongue in cheek. :) Simon Dodd (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what other, more notable things has John G. Roberts done this month?--91.84.213.250 (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to research the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had in mind Oregon v. Ice, Spears v. United States, and most of all, his opinion for the court in Herring v. United States, which Tom Goldstein thinks is of "surpassing significance" (although I recognize that Orin Kerr thinks otherwise ).Simon Dodd (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, this is not editorial masturbation. This article does not exist for the pleasure of those who follow the Supreme Court and all of its machinations. If you think those events are notable in any way to 99% of Americans, you are wrong. DegenFarang (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) You != "Some People". (2) Widespread awareness among lay readers != notability. Whether the man on the street has heard of these cases is beside the point; said man on the street will rapidly discover just how notable and important those cases they are should they ever find themselves on the wrong side of a criminal prosecution.Simon Dodd (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The decisions made by the Supreme Court affect the very meaning of the law, and although some are fairly rarified, there are probably 50-60 decisions handed down per year that directly bear on our lives. Can the government constitutionally force you to sell your house at the rate it deems "fair" and then turn it over to a developer to build a mall? Decided by the Supreme Court. Can you, as an individual, sue a corporation that dumps toxic waste in a river near where you live? Decided by the Supreme Court. Can consenting adults be jailed for sexual activities done in private? Decided by the Supreme Court. And in every instance, each Justice on the Court had an impact on the final outcome, not just on the yes/no, but the shape and reach of the decision. Cases have far more lasting impact than public pronouncements, flubbed or no (consider, by way of comparison, Obama's widely reported remark on people clinging to guns and religion, and compare that to the actual impact of Obama's policies). bd2412  T 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said he wasn't important. I said the average American wouldn't care about those things Senor Dodd mentioned. They would care about this flub, however, as will be proven in time. Also that You !=Some people thing was perfect, and illustrates exactly my point. The people on this talk page are not representative of the average Wiki user and the average people who will be looking for this article. You guys are knowledgeable about the supreme court and justice roberts (most people are not) and you care about these decision (most people do not). So: your views on the importance of this flub != 'most people'. Consensus has been met imo, most Americans would agree with me. Somebody please edit the article. DegenFarang (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your joke is wearing thin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - DegenFarang appears to be the only one pushing this. Consensus is clearly against him. Notable enough to make the page, not the lede.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as consensus is for exclusion from the LEAD. I reckon we can move on, from this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This event will go down in history. See this article and video where Joe Biden quips 'my memory isn't as good as Justice Roberts' when Obama tells him to swear in senior staff. Obama then squeezes his elbow and does not look too amused at the remark, while others in the room laugh and let out defiant 'oooohhhs'. Everybody knew exactly what he was talking about and this will further solidify this event in American history. Another source. Another source. Another source. Obama was required to take the oath a 2nd time with some questioning whether or not Obama was President. This absolutely deserves to be in the lead. I have provided countless sources and a mountain of proof to defend my claim, all anybody else can do is say 'you are wrong, this is not important'. If it isn't important why have there been over 50,000 news stories written on it? DegenFarang (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2009
 * Yes it is. [Farang had stated that concensus was not a vote. He withdrew that comment after I wrote mine.] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I told you on your talk page, you wrote that as I was editing my post. And since you mention it a consensus is not reached by a vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, your posted change came after mine. A minor point. And as a practical matter, when a large number take one side and 1 takes another, consensus goes with the large number. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DegenFarang, didn't you promise to stop this, and that's why you were unblocked? AnyPerson (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was blocked in retaliation for giving bd2412 a warning on his talk page not to break Wikipedia rules. Another admin said this block was improper and he removed it. I did tell bd2412 I would not issue any personal attacks (which I never did in the first place) to expedite my unblock. No mention of me arguing a valid point on this talk page had anything to do with that. Your ad hominem argument has been noted though, thank you DegenFarang (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's completely untrue. You were unblocked because you promised to quit disruptive editing.  The information is clear in your block log.  AnyPerson (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, he was unblocked for promising to use appropriately informative edit summaries and not make personal attacks. (here is the discussion) It would be improper to condition an unblock on his not presenting his views in a discussion, short of an ArbCom ban from the page. Making a case for a point of view - even if the view is absurd and the argument is made poorly - is no offense. Now, if he edits the article itself in the face of consensus to the contrary, that would be a different matter. bd2412  T 05:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He also said, at one point, that when he realized he was going to lose the argument, he decided to mess with us. So that's what's happening again, after a respite. It's trolling behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * New evidence has come to light to support my original claim, as noted by the multiple references above, which nobody is responding to DegenFarang (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of what you just said was not accurate, DF. You were blocked for a personal attack, then unblocked by the same admin when you promised not to make any more personal attacks . No other admin unblocked you, or asked for such . Although it's true you didn't promise to stop this discussion, it is disappointing to see this dead horse being dragged back into the arena again. Dayewalker (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is totally irrelevant to my argument. Please see my post above where I give multiple new references. This is all an ad hominem aregument and an attempt to discredit me. For the record, another admin noted that bd2412 was wrong to block me but that i requested my unblock improperly. While waiting for a new admin to come along and unblock me, I decided to save time and ask bd2412 to unblock me himself. He did so, clearly knowing that another admin would do so anyway. I never made any personal attack, that was the whole reason the other admin said my block was improper, see above where user:simon dodd said he knew my comment was not a personal attack. I would appreciate it if you guys can focus on my argument, and stop attacking me. I just took care to make a carefully worded and well sourced addition to this talk page above, and that is what I would like to discuss DegenFarang (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a one of those sources demonstrates that Roberts and Obama's problems reading the oath will "go down in history", or that it even matters at all. What some of it does demonstrate is that Obama may be lacking in a sense of humor. That might prove to be important, as we're already seeing cracks in his supposedly calm demeanor. But speculation on that is as irrelevant to the article as making a big deal out of the oath stumble. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are only responding to one element of the sources. I also noted that there are over 50,000 news stories about this event. So you think there are 50,000 news stories because Obama has no sense of humor? You think that people called into question that Obama was even president because he has no sense of humor? I'm hoping somebody can step in here and help me out because all I see are some terrible arguments, however it is clear none of you are willing to look past the fact that I am the one making them to see their relevance. DegenFarang (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone saw it, and everybody and his mother covered it - for a day or two. So what? That's how it is with lots of news stories - here today, gone tomorrow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your block log speaks for itself. Everybody can read it an see the truth.  AnyPerson (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that we are on a talk page about the chief justice of the supreme court and a laughable claim of 'truth' such as this is being given. This is like saying anybody can read a police report and see the truth about a crime being committed. There are two sides to every story, what the blocking admin wrote does not represent 'the truth' for any block DegenFarang (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "I am clearly right and all of you are wrong" doesn't sound like DF is interested in anything other than WP:OWN of this article. AnyPerson (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC)I'm not atacking you, DF. I'm just trying to set the record straight because honestly, you've been blocked four times and you don't seem to realize that you ever did anything wrong. The ANI thread is full of other admins who agreed with the block, there's no use in putting up a false front now.


 * This comes back to you refusing to accept things, whether it's the fact that you've done anything wrong, or the fact that consensus is unanimously against you. You're just wasting time, DF, yours and ours. Dayewalker (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? I was blocked for a personal attack that never happeneed. Period. Please discontinue making personal comments directed to me and my character and instead focus on the merit of the arguments that I am making. Also please remove this user does not give a fuck from your user page, you have lost the privelage. DegenFarang (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the page where I first encountered you, DF. I've tried on several occasions to help you, but you don't want it. I'll sum up, everyone on this page knows you, anyone else can read your block log and see exactly what happened. There's no need to try and rewrite that, rather you can just move on now and be productive here at wikipedia.

You claimed consensus, a straw poll was taken. Even though consensus is not a vote, I went along with it just to show you that consensus was not with you, but rather it as unanimously against you. Still, you keep fighting for some reason.

I suggest in the face of overwhelming consensus that we just mark this one as closed, and everyone stop worrying about this point. Dayewalker (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That blog log does not represent 'the truth' it represents what the blocking admin's side of the story. However this point is not relevant and I have no interest in discussing it further. DegenFarang (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Flub New Information
If you wish to continue the last discussion, please do so above, this section is for discussion of the new information only and consensus check for inclusion in the lead. See this article and this video where Joe Biden states 'my memory isn't as good as Justice Roberts' when Obama tells him to swear in senior staff. Obama then squeezes his elbow and does not look too amused at the remark, while others in the room laugh and let out defiant 'oooohhhs'. This will further solidify this event in American history. Another source. Another source. Another source. Additionally, and of even greater significance, Obama was required to take the oath a 2nd time with some questioning whether or not Obama was President. Over 50,000 news stories have been written on it. I think it is clear this should be in the lead. DegenFarang (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In this newscast Chris Wallace states that he is not sure Obama was President until he was sworn in for a second time. Causing the USA to be without a President for more than 24 hours is surely cause for this to be noted in the lead DegenFarang (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I took Wallace to be joking, but if he wasn't, he was wrong. The issue is how the 20th Amendment interacts with Article II; § 1 of the former tells us that Obama's term begins at noon on the twentieth, and § 1 of the latter requires that the President take the oath "[b]efore he enter on the execution of his office." These two requirements are not in tension; even if Obama's oath was defective, that would mean only that he could not exercise the powers of the Presidency, not that he wasn't the President (which is certainly possible; the 25th Amendment, adopted a few years later, presupposes that one can be the President yet unable to execute the office). Lastly, section 3 of the 20th amendment contemplates a scenario in which the President's term has begun but in which the President has not qualified, and I would suggest that failing to have taken the oath might be within the sweep of this provision, in which case, Joe Biden was the acting President for a day. Lord knows, that's close enough for long enough.
 * In any event, Continued oppose. There's no new information here, just reiterations of the old material. You're stuck in the impossible situation of trying to prove in media res a point that is only knowable ex post facto. Simon Dodd (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that it is not clear, not that I cannot prove he was not President. Simply the fact that he might not have been is enough to show relevance, insofar as you cannot simply call this 'minutia' or a 'meaningless flub'. Him botching that oath possibly left us without a president for a day. That is significant in US hisotory, and thus, deserves inclusion in the lead DegenFarang (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If so, then this belongs in the lead in Barack Obama, he being the one who was possibly not President for a day. If, and for as long as, it is allowed to be included in the lead there, I will not object to it being in the lead here. bd2412  T 19:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so. We had a President - Barack Obama. Section 1 of the 20th Amendment leaves no room for doubt on that point. Even if we had a President but the so-called "flub" left him temporarily unable to exercise the powers of the office, which I doubt (see de minimis non curat lex), § 3 of the same would operate to ensure that there was someone acting as President. The Constitution abhors a vacuum; no sensible court would construe it so as to create one. Is it your position that section 3 doesn't apply, or that it doesn't operate latae sententiae? And even if all of this went your way, and it could be shown by reliable sources that your theory is credible, it still wouldn't be notable enough to make it into the lede of this article. I disagree with bd2412 on this much: I can envision two and only two in which this would belong in the lede: (1) when Roberts leaves the court and if this is a notable event in his career, and (2) if this "flub" gives rise to litigation that leads to a significant ruling by the Supreme Court.Simon Dodd (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris Wallace is not necessarily a legal scholar. Katie Couric made the statement that Biden was President for the 5 minutes or so after noon before Obama was sworn in. She had that wrong also. If someone were to pose a legal challenge, it would be that any "official duty" performed by Obama between noon on the 20th and 7:30 p.m. on the 21st was null and void. ("Official duty" means something that makes a difference legally - going to Presidential balls and organizing your desk in the Oval Office do not count). Ultimately that would have to be decided by the Supreme Court, which would then be put in the position of deciding whether their own Chief Justice had administered the oath incorrectly. Now, how likely is it that they would show up their own guy? Not. And if anything, the flubbed oath is more correct than the one Taft administered to Hoover in 1929, in which he substituted a word. More to the point, is there any reliable source asserting that any specific activity by Obama, in the time between the two oaths, is legally questionable? If not, then that's the end of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To Chris Wallace, Katie Couric & all the others who don't fully know, what they're talking about. Obama became US President at Noon EST, January 20th, 2009. That's the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "That's the way it is", I bet Walter could know. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor old Cronkite, calling LBJ Vice President, after announcing President Kennedy's death. LBJ was already President, Walter (ok, we'll give'em a break, he was understandbly emotional). GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I too (again) oppose adding to the LEAD. PS: When is this crusade for inclusion of the 'oath flub' gonna end? GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Continued oppose. I didn't get around to weighing in last time, but considering what was said there and the new information you've now presented, I still believe that the matter should be included in the article but should not be included in the introductory section. JamesMLane t c 12:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When the complaining user gets tired of this game and moves on to his next target. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest, as I did in the last thread this editor brought up, that we mark this as "resolved" and move on. We've argued every single aspect of a trivial moment, and exactly one editor feels it belongs in the lede. Consensus against it is unanimous minus one. I say we close this up. Dayewalker (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's closing time. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Roberts court request for citations
The Roberts court section has a request for citations that is a year old. After a review of that section, I am having trouble finding the unverified claims that may be removed. There is no comment from the user who placed that tag here on the talk page of what exactly needs to be verified. Does the tag still have relevance? Gx872op (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you asked the one who posted it? Is that user still active? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see why the tag was added. It would be a bother to cite everything now; but that's what should have happened as the info was added. Shame. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

wrong information
i cannot edit the page b/c there is no edit tab at the top, but if you look at the source for "administering the oath of office" that was provided, the msnbc link reports that the oath of office was given a second time in the MAP ROOM, not the oval office. someone fix this please!!! Efudacz26 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Naturallyblind (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake! bd2412  T 03:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So Help You God
(moved from closed discussion above) Reason for So help you God as a question and change of person is related to the Newdow lawsuit, which I described in the articleArodb (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your change, please explain how it isn't original research to say this person's lawsuit might have made the CJ change the oath. Dayewalker (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Facts: 1 Newdow filed a lawsuit to prevent Roberts from saying the oath of office. 2This was delivered to Roberts home, where he signed for it, and presumably read it.  3. Roberts had responded to the suit with a claim that the words, So Help Me God, were said AFTER the oath.  4.Every recorded administration of the oath of office (since 1933) did not differentiate by change of mood (statement to question) or person (I to you)  The following are facts. Roberts has never given any explanation for these changes, and other then to differentiate the two parts, the constitutional, from the optional I can think of no other explanation.  The facts alone, all verifiable are notable and relate to his delivering this oath.  If you insist on eliminating the logical connection, perhaps that is required absent published research that states this.  However the facts, even if disconnected do relate do this event, and are appropriately included.  I welcome suggestions how to do this consistent with your interpretation of the principles of this site.  Exclusion of above verifiable facts is not an acceptable option Arodb (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything you've stated above falls under the category of original research. You're taking events and assuming a cause behind them, which we don't do. If there's a reliable source that gives Newdow's lawsuit as the cause of all this, by all means please bring it up for discussion. Otherwise, we're just filling in the gaps ourselves, which doesn't belong on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Flub in lead
Significant time has passed since the annaguration and it is time toinclude in teh lead about how roberts screwed up the oath and left the US w/out a president for a day. Just double checking to make sure what is obvious to most in the world is also obvious to the republican editors who watch this page. thank you DegenFarang (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections here so I added it to the lead. I consider this matter closed we can archive this discussion, thank you. DegenFarang (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * numerous editors have already weighed in on this matter with their objection to your personal POV push. one editor who thinks something is notable does not a consensus make. please stop editing tendentiously and disruptively. also, please stop ascribing motive and attacking your fellow editor's good faith. i have reverted your unilateral inclusion, as the matter has already been discussed at great length, and the consensus is that you are mistaken. Anastrophe (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Anastrophe. Consensus is already firmly established here, and Simon's comments about this being pointy are also very relevant. Dayewalker (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that no objection was made. Standing consensus is and was against you, and if I was too gentle in my warning, I apologize and will make it more clear: you are correct that the matter is closed, you lost, so Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and stop disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Plus, I just have no idea what on earth you're talking about in saying that significant time has passed since the inauguration - it was last month! It hasn't even been four weeks and you think that's been "significant time"? I ask this in all seriousness: are you a teenager? I've only seen such a bizarre sense of timekeeping in the very young. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't do something after a large discussion above decided not to do the very same thing. Prodego  talk  01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DegenFarang has now again edited the introductory section, this time to include the inauguration but not the flub. I checked the bios of the three previous CJ's (Warren, Burger, Rehnquist) and none of them include, in the introductory section, any reference to Presidential inaugurations. There's no reason to make an exception here. I've removed the information. It should not be restored unless and until further discussion on this page indicates that opinion has shifted since the discussions a few weeks ago. DegenFarang, your firm conviction that you are right and everyone else is wrong does not constitute a shift in consensus. JamesMLane t c 19:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know what are you talking about I never saw or participated in any discussion of whether to include the inaguration in the lede, only information about the flub. While all of those chief j's swore in presidents they never swore in the first black president. DegenFarang (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Obama's race is irrelevant in this context. Roberts had nothing to do with his election.  There is no reason to include anything whatsoever about the inauguration in the introductory section.  It is not a major part of Roberts's bio. JamesMLane t c 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * degenfarang was previously blocked for edit warring on this article. his edit on mar 1 noting that roberts swore in obama, and today another edit noting that roberts swore in obama "a second time", constitutes violation of his previous block for edit warring, because it's a continuing attempt to draw attention to the "flub" he consider's roberts's defining moment. 3RR can be imposed on a single edit, if it's part of a continuing pattern of tendentious, disruptive edits. time for another block? Anastrophe (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was never blocked for edit warring on this article (the block was later overturned because the admin who made it was wrong to make it-but it was for personal attacks on this talk page). and i have never re-added anything which was previously decided by consensus to not be included in the lead. i have just added totally new information which has never been discussed on this talk page and has nothing to do with any 'flub' DegenFarang (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The information you added is that Roberts administered the oath to Obama. The "flub" is that Roberts misspoke when he administered the oath to Obama.  You assert that the former has nothing to do with the latter, a position that Anastrophe and I reject.  At any rate, whether or not you acknowledge that clear relationship, your suggestion to add something about the Obama inauguration to the introductory section has now been rejected by Anastrophe and me, so it has now been discussed.  I strongly recommend that you add nothing to the introductory section concerning the Obama inauguration unless and until you have presented your proposed language here and received a generally positive reaction. JamesMLane t c 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I recognize that you two do not agree that the 2nd swearing in should be in the lede. At this time I will not be attempting to make any arguments for inclusion of the second swearing in to the lede, or changing the lede back to include information about the second swearing in. DegenFarang (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had some trepidation when I read your carefully worded avowal that you would not try to include information about the second swearing in -- trepidation that you've now justified by your further edits. There appears to be a general consensus, among everyone except you, that nothing relating to Roberts's role in swearing in Obama is important enough in Roberts's bio to be included in the introductory section.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zilch.


 * The body of the article does include some of the facts that you keep trying to put up top -- that Roberts swore in a man who'd voted against his confirmation, that there was a flub of the oath, and that Roberts and Obama repeated the oath later just to be safe. None of those facts deserves to be moved up top.  That Obama became the first black President is important, and is noted where it's appropriate, but it's not important to the Roberts bio.


 * And if you come back next week with saying that Roberts was the first Chief Justice to swear in someone using Abraham Lincoln's Bible, or that Roberts and Obama were the first Chief Justice - President pair who both had Saturn trine Venus in their astrological charts, or whatever, it will also be removed from the introductory section. Please save everyone a lot of time and drop the whole crusade to put something about the inauguration up top. JamesMLane t c 09:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * well said. degenfarang's edits are clearly disruptive, and will be sanctioned if it happens again. Anastrophe (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that the two of you do not think something should be in the lede regarding Roberts' role in Obama's swearing in. Until such time as it proves historically significant enough (and you can be sure that it eventually will), I wont try to include it in the lede. DegenFarang (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

John Roberts
I need to know what his political affiliation is!!!!!!!! like is he a democrat or a republican???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.178.216 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to know what his political affiliation is, but I would like to see an overview of how his rulings are perceived (i.e. are they liberal or conservative and to what extent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.231.110 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both those points are more likely to be used to gloss Roberts rather than accurately represent him. What, for example, is the liberal position on excessive punitive damages awards, and what is the conservative position? Are there such positions? If so, why do we find Justices Scalia and Ginsburg on the same side? Is there a conservative position on the Apprendi line, and if so, which is it: Roberts' or Alito's (they split in Kimbrough-Gall). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 05:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Roberts is absolutely Conservative. Very very far right. DegenFarang (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are particular issues on which, for example, Scalia and Thomas will differ, or on which Breyer and Ginsberg will differ. Those are the exceptions, though.  The consensus among Court observers is that, on a wide range of issues, there are four pretty reliable liberal votes (Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens), four pretty reliable conservative votes (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas), and one unreliable conservative vote (Kennedy) -- which is why the Court is usually but not uniformly conservative and why Kennedy is so often the key Justice in a 5-4 vote.  The statement in the current text that Roberts "generally votes with the conservative wing" is accurate and should remain. JamesMLane t c 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/John Glover Roberts Jr. 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) 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Roberts's conservative bent
Roberts is generally considered a member of the current Court's conservative bloc. I added that information to the introductory section, with a citation, but Collect deleted it, asserting "Opinions do not belong in lede".

There is, of course, no such Wikipedia rule. Furthermore, characterizing Roberts's conservatism as an "opinion" suggests, inaccurately, that there is some genuine controversy about the matter.

For comparison purposes, I checked the biographies of two other Justices who, like Roberts, are clearly associated with a particular point of view. In each case, the introductory section states the Justice's viewpoint: William Rehnquist is "[c]onsidered a conservative", and William J. Brennan, Jr. is "[k]nown for his outspoken liberal views". In neither article is a citation provided.

Unless there is evidence of some serious controversy about this, I don't see a problem with stating in the introductory section that Roberts is a conservative. That's the general consensus of his conservative supporters and his liberal detractors.

DegenFarang has now muddied the waters with a series of tendentious edits asserting, in the introductory section, that Roberts was picked by Bush to carry out a conservative agenda. That's basically true, and can probably be presented in a suitably NPOV and well-sourced way in the body of the article, but it relates only to the circumstances of his initial elevation to the Court. Justices have been known to surprise the presidents who nominated them. That Bush thought Roberts would be a conservative Chief Justice isn't important enough for the introductory section; that Roberts has in fact turned out be a conservative, in his actual work on the Court, is important and is not seriously contested.

Accordingly, I'm restoring that simple characterization, with the citation. JamesMLane t c 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A lede is for a summary of an article -- not to promote the opinions of a single person. You want it in lede -- fine -- but it is only what Emily Bazelon says, and that is all you can use it for. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i've removed the cite and quote, and simplified the wording. per MOS the lede is preferrably not cited - the cites belong with the material summarized in the body. it's pretty widely considered that roberts is of a conservative bent, this isn't a secret, and cites in the body support that. Anastrophe (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I was just trying to bend over backwards for JML. In this case, moreover, the claim should only be in the body. Collect (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i began writing a quibble with JamesMLane, based on his mention of two specific justices - both of whom are deceased, so BLP doesn't apply. but looking further, it seems most if not all of the BLP's for the current justices take note in the lead of whether they are of a "conservative" or "liberal" bent (ignoring for a moment that those distinctions have been significantly muddied over the last decades, but i digress). it seems not inappropriate to mention his leaning in the lede. Anastrophe (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With elected officials, we give prominence to their party affiliation. The parallel for a judge is an assessment of his or her overall judicial tendency.  In some cases, that assessment might be problematic or a matter of dispute, so it would perhaps be inappropriate for the terse summary of the introductory section.  Where there's no serious dispute, however, I think it's completely appropriate, and helpful to the reader.


 * As for the citation, I included it only in the hope of forestalling an edit war. Apparently, it had the opposite effect, as it caused Collect to form the weird notion that this was merely the cited writer's opinion.  Another alternative would be to dig up a few more citations -- which wouldn't be hard, merely tedious -- and support the sentence with multiple footnotes.  I think Anastrophe's version is better, though. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Try AGF -- the "source" was an opinion source. Citable as opinion.  When one uses a source which is editorial in nature, following the WP rules is wise.  And labelling people whose opinions tend to be variable depending on the issue, for the sake of labelling, is, IMHO, unwise and contrary to NPOV.  As for making personal asides about anyone, that is not only unnecessary, it is contrary to WP rules and guidelines. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a point of order and comment. I see above where an editor said that this type of "characterization" was in two other supreme court bios, but that shouldn't be relevant. My preference would be to leave this out of the lead becasue it seems to be an opinion and is weaselly, imho. Coverage in the main body? OK I guess if properly written and sourced, ect. It might be the "truth", but we know its not about that but rather about citable material from neutral sources that haa been previously published from 3rd parties, yadda, yadda, yadda. Anyways, just my one cent :) --Tom (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For Wikipedia purposes, we treat a statement as opinion when there's serious disagreement about it. When there's a general consensus among the reliable sources, however, we don't call it "opinion" even if there's some inconsequential disagreement.  For example, Wikipedia asserts as fact that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  Many adherents of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories assert that he was born in Kenya.  Does that make his Hawaiian birth a statement of opinion?  No, because there's no substantial disagreement.  What I've pointed out is that the consensus among reliable sources is for calling Roberts a conservative.  That's the view of his supporters and detractors.  By contrast, I'd agree with you on a question like whether Roberts is a judicial activist.  There is no consensus there.  Accordingly, any statement agreeing or disagreeing with that characterization should be characterized as an opinion. JamesMLane t c 03:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. Place of birth is a "fact" even if people dispute where it was, they do not deny that it took place somewhere. "Conservative" is a judgement call -- one man's "conservative" is another man's "left winger."  In fact, there is no reason why a person can not have varying opinions on varying issues -- and it appears Roberts does have varying opinions depending primarily (what a novel concept) on what the Constitution says.   Do you categorize Holmes as a liberal or as a conservative?   White?   Seems to me the desire to pigeounhole people has no particularly valid use here -- is one Amendment to the Constitution "liberal" is used as a reason for a decison, and another one "conservative"?   Collect (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * JamesMLane, I hear what you are saying, but I think you chose a really bad example. Birth place, date, parentage, sex, eye color, ect, ect are verifiable facts. Crack pots might dispute those facts, but after awhile, they are put where they belong, ie conspiracy, ect. People's polical leanings are a bit more tricky. Certain folks make absolutely no bones about where they stand, ie Sean Hannity is a conservative, no argument there. Others however can sometimes be more "gray" especially if the person takes offense at being "labeled" a certain way even if the label applies. Who decides on if the label fits and what criteria is used in that determination? Isn't there a whole dispute on labeling folks as terrorist since one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist? Anyways, I personally hate "labels" especially in the lead section of bios unless it is rock solid and that is where disagreement can occur. That "material" can always be fleshed out further into the article it seems. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom, your example actually illustrates my point. I strongly agree that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."  Either label is properly treated as a matter of opinion because there's generally no consensus.  Roberts's conservatism is different, however.  That's why I keep stressing that there is a consensus on that point.  Throughout all this discussion of treating Roberts the way we treat other Supreme Court Justices, not one person has produced a citation to a single reliable source asserting that Roberts is not a conservative.  While "terrorist" is a label used to denounce, "conservative" is neutral.  It's a denunciation in some people's eyes but high praise in the view of others.  That he is a conservative, though, does seem to me to meet your criterion of "rock solid".  As for putting it in the introductory section, I think that's very useful for the reader who reads only that section -- who wants a quick precis of the Roberts bio without wading through a detailed exposition of his major decisions on the Court.


 * Perhaps it wouldn't be useful to a handful of readers like Collect, who thinks that "pigeonholing" people is of no use, and who seems even to be denying that there is such a thing as a conservative or liberal judicial approach, at least with regard to a Justice who simply follows what the Constitution says. That's a distinctly minority view, though.  Every Justice -- from both sides in a 5-4 decision to the lone dissenter in an 8-1 decision -- will assert that he or she is simply following what the Constitution says, or what the statute says if the case doesn't involve constitutional issues.  I don't think any Justice has ever said, "My seat on the Court is a great place to advance my conservative (or liberal) views."  Nevertheless, among practitioners and legal scholars who consider the Court, the overwhelming consensus is against Collect's opinion.  There is general agreement that many Justices can fairly be characterized as "conservative" or "liberal".  That's not to say that all of them can be, but Collect's blanket rejection of "pigeonholing" is a distinctly minority opinion.  That's why such characterizations are presented in the introductory sections of the bios of many Supreme Court Justices, including even living ones like Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia.


 * Of course, the degree to which Justices can be so characterized differs. That's why, in my comment in the "John Roberts" thread above, I drew a distinction between the current four core conservatives and Kennedy.  Describing Kennedy would be tougher than describing Roberts.  His bio's introductory section notes that he's often the swing vote on the current Court, which seems to me to be the right way of giving the reader the quick summary that's appropriate for that section.  As for Holmes, encarta says he "became famous for his liberal interpretations of the U.S. Constitution", but he's a fairly complex person whose long career on the Court is obviously harder to characterize than Roberts's much shorter tenure.  According to one book about Holmes, he has been "regarded as a great progressive, a liberal, a harsh totalitarian, a positivist, an early realist, an eternal soldier, and lately as a utilitarian and pragmatist. Some have found his ideas hopelessly contradictory; others have chimed to have detected the key that unlocks all mystery" (quotation from this review).  For present purposes, however, we don't need to decide how to word the articles about Kennedy or Holmes.  This discussion is about Roberts, whose orientation can be stated to the reader just as are those of Brennan, Rehnquist, Breyer, and Scalia. JamesMLane t c 00:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Brief is better. So we should say "John Doe is XXXX" when we can not find a solid source to say he is "not XXXX"? An interesting thought.  So if I can not find a cite which says "Charles deGaulle was not a child molester" then we should say he was one?   OK -- so drop the "required to prove a negative" false debate style.   And again, each decision shows Roberts to be a fairly independent thinker -- committed to the Constitution (you call that "conservative"? but it is not a "political conservative" position per se).   Since we do not need' to typify Roberts in the article, there is no need'' to use the word "conservative." Per your comments about the hard-to-pigeonhole Holmes.  The desire to label people whose views are demonstrably complex is errant IMHO. Collect (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read what I actually wrote, Collect, you'll see that it differs from your caricature. I have repeatedly pointed out that multiple commentators -- left, right, and center -- have characterized Roberts as a conservative.  Obviously (or, at least, I would have thought it was obvious), there is no similar array of opinion backing DeGaulle's alleged pedophilia.


 * You're welcome to your personal opinion that Roberts is "a fairly independent thinker". Do you intend that as a contradiction to the assertion that he's a conservative?  If you don't so intend it, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.  If you do so intend it, then I must inform you, with all due respect, that your opinion is irrelevant.  When you have credentials to opine on the subject, and get your opinion approved for publication by some editor, we can consider adding your opinion to the article.  In the meantime, the people who do meet those criteria feel comfortable calling Roberts a conservative.


 * Finally, your reference to "need" confuses me. The issue isn't need; the issue is that this statement meets Wikipedia's rules (such as NPOV) and will be helpful to many readers. JamesMLane t c 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't have any problem with the lede mentioning that Roberts is considered part of the conservative wing so long as it is clear that we're talking about "conservative" in a judicial sense rather than a political sense. We should be careful not to imply to a lay reader's understanding (even if unintentionally) a sense of Roberts that isn't accurate (viz. that he prefers politically conservative outcomes (wrong) rather than having a conservative view of the judicial process (right)). Since the wikilink under "conservative" is currently to Judicial philosophy rather than conservative, I think that's an acceptable solution to a vexing problem. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had overlooked the need to point out that distinction, but I think you're right. Among lawyers, the implication of "conservative" in this context would be understood.  A problem with the link to Judicial philosophy is that the discussion at that article is overly simplistic, but this is the best solution for now. JamesMLane t c 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it you missed my comment about "political conservative" as opposed to being a conservative Constitutionally above then? Collect (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't
In light of this edit by user:Greg Comlish, I don't want to see anyone complaining about or removing the description of Toobin as a liberal on the grounds that it's unsourced. It was sourced when added, see, and the correct remedy if an editor objects would seem to be undoing Greg's edit, not mine. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why mention of Toobin must describe him as a liberal, but, as long as we're doing so, then the mention of the Federalist Society should describe it as conservative. The source already cited does so, so no additional reference is required. JamesMLane t c 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually "conservative and libertarian" appears accurate. Collect (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Federalist Society itself takes no position on issues, see but in terms of its membership is fairly described as "a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order."  The answer to James' question is that Toobin's affiliation colors his view, and telling readers about that bias helps them evaluate his claims and assign them appropriate weight or skepticism. This certainly goes for other authors, too, and to the extent it's applicable to the Federalist Society (which isn't very much, in my own view, but I will defer to other editors on the point), it goes for us, too. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference: A month after he deleted this citation (and I posted the above), user:Greg Comlish complained that the description of Toobin as a liberal was unsourced! See Talk:John G. Roberts - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

David Shapiro on Rehnquist
"Jeffrey Toobin echoed Professor David Shapiro's assessment of Roberts' former boss, Justice Rehnquist, claiming that '[i]n every ..."

The conclusion that Toobin's opinion on Roberts resemble some unrelated person's opinion on some other justice is an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys an idea not attributable to the original source. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it's a SYN violation, and to the extent that it is, it improves and clarifies the article by setting Toobin's quote into its appropriate context, so see WP:IAR. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not accuracy; this is both. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a verifiable source that compares Toobin's opinion to Shapiro's opinion? If you don't then the comparison is just your opinion and it's OR.  Greg Comlish (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede again
With one eye on WP:BLP and WP:LEDE, I have removed a section of the lede that characterizes Roberts as a strict constructionist and an originalist. Roberts calls himself neither. Indeed, he expressly rejected the originalist label during his confirmation hearings, and has not written any opinions that strongly support the application of either label.

What is more, we should keep in mind that there is no need for answering such a relatively fine-grained issues in the lede. If Roberts called himself an originalist, it would be appropriate to say he was in the lede, but given that such labelling is entirely inferential, it is more appropriate to refer to him in general terms as a judicial conservative. Judge Sykes' characterization of Roberts, quoted in the text of the article, is well taken: Roberts' jurisprudence "appears to be strongly rooted in the discipline of traditional legal method, evincing a fidelity to text, structure, history, and the constitutional hierarchy. He exhibits the restraint that flows from the careful application of established decisional rules and the practice of reasoning from the case law. He appears to place great stock in the process-oriented tools and doctrinal rules that guard against the aggregation of judicial power and keep judicial discretion in check: jurisdictional limits, structural federalism, textualism, and the procedural rules that govern the scope of judicial review." But that's too long for the summary that the lede should offer. For purposes of the lede, we can make do with noting that he is a judicial conservative, and get into the finer-grained issues of what that means (there are many kinds of judicial conservative) in the main body of the article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what you've done to adjust the lead is perfectly acceptable. When I wrote it, I was trying to epand it from three sentances and perhaps oversimplified, or overstated. Thank you for the correction. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 12:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes to the lede. At first, what caught my eye was the claim that Roberts had spent two years on the DC Circuit before "resigning." That's kinda-sorta true, but it's a funny way to describe it: he spent two years on the DC Circuit before being elevated to the Supreme Court. No one would describe Barack Obama's career thusly: "Barack Obama is President of the United States. He spent four years in the U.S. Senate before resigning." It's not fundamentally inaccurate, but it insinuates a false conclusion and should be avoided.

In making that change, I noticed that there were some other problems. That line about the DC Circuit was stuck between Roberts' service in the Reagan administration and his service in the Bush 41 administration, so I think that what's happened here is that someone has gotten their wires crossed from Roberts' nomination to the DC Cir by Bush 41, and his appointment by Bush 43. To set matters on an even keel again, I've overhauled the lede's thumbnail bio altogether, simplifying the description of his career somewhat and placing events in correct chronological order. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Swearing in
At risk of reigniting an old controversy, I have edited the section on the President's inauguration. The version we've had hitherto cobbled together a compromise account from various sources in the heat of the immediate aftermath, but the dust has now settled, and, as chance would have it, we have a source that is ideal for cleaning up the section. Jeffrey Toobin's account in the New Yorker covers much of the same ground as ours, and concisely provides both background and an analysis of what happened. Better yet, since Toobin is a liberal writing in a liberal publication, his distribution of blame between Roberts and Obama (viz. both goofed, but the President-elect dropped the first spanner into the works) is reliable as an admission against interest. Toobin also writes, as we did not at the time, with the benefit of emotional and temporal distance, at several months' remove from the inauguration. I have accordingly substituted a quote from that article, although have preserved our preexisting citations under see also signals in the footnotes. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While we're on the subject, I suggest (but am not WP:BOLD enough to do so without raising it here first) that we delete the passage "[a]t the conclusion of the oath, Roberts phrased the traditional postscript in the second person (contra recent custom, which has used the first person), asking Obama, "So help you God?" The president answered with the traditional "So help me God." Well, how else could Obama respond? He could not have simply repeated the Chief's prompt. Nor, is the grammatical person in which the Chief phrased the prompt--regardless of whether or not it is true that recent inaugurations by other Chief Justices of other Presidents have been phrased in the first person--particularly interesting, relevant, or illuminating. This is a non-notable part of a barely-notable event, and I think it ought to be excised. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Since no one has objected, I've made this change. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)