Talk:John Roberts Supreme Court nominations

Mass duplication
Way too many things are duplicated across articles here. People will edit one version without editing the other, they'll get out of sync and then we've got a lot of work on our hands. I think that the articles may need to be reorganized again, unfortunately. The Judicial views section is almost entirely duplicated by the original article. Does anyone have any suggestions? Dave (talk) 21:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The duplicated material in the original article should be boiled down and summarized with the details left here. I've started on the task but, unfortunately, don't have the time right now to finish it. Alternately, most of the duplication on views could just be removed from the original article on the grounds that 1) it's mostly speculation anyway, and 2) it won't be of continuing interest after the confirmation hearings. --Paul 22:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We need a standard for what belongs in the biography and what belongs here. I suggest we only include here what has gotten some attention in the media in the past month and whatever gets brought up in the committee hearings once they begin (the issues over which the hearings will center on), plus the process/schedule information.  Everything else, his past opinions, his life, and his career, belongs in his biography.  NoSeptember  16:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I halfway agree. I think that you're right that old stuff doesn't belong here, but I think that it doesn't necessarily belong in the biography (if for no other reason than length).  We can have multiple subarticles.  See Summary style.  For example, we might want an entire article dedicated to covering his views on every issue so that we can just summarize that article in the biography and in this article. Dave (talk) 17:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

At this point, wouldn't it be more appropriate, and efficient, to consolidate the article on his confirmation hearing with his biographical article? AusJeb (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. There is much detail about the nomination and confirmation process that is too focused to be included in a biographical article. What is missing from this article, actually, is the table of the confirmation vote (see Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination). bd2412  T 20:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Notes" section
The superscript [17] in the article links to entry #5 in the "Notes" section, and entries #1-4 don't link back to anything. Does anyone know how to fix this? --zenohockey 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * External links (like ) currently on Wikipedia are part of the same numbering system as footnotes. Three solutions: (a) convert all external links to notes, (b) don't try to number the notes separately - use * instead of #, and (c) use Template:NamedNote to enforce a separate numbering system. A and C are impractical on articles that are in flux. B has the disadvantage (currently - may be fixable) that you can't tell what notes go where when you print the page. Rd232 16:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Gay Rights
"The Los Angeles Times reports that Roberts was "instrumental" behind-the-scenes in working to get Romer v. Evans declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court." What, exactly, does that mean? he was supporting gay rights and trying to get the amendment declaired un-constitutional, or he was trying to get the ruling overturned? Darker Dreams 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * He was supporting gay rights. That's why some of the extreme groups on the Religious Right are opposing him. --203.17.44.84 21:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

subsequently nominated
I changed to "subsequently nominated" from "subsequently renominated" because Roberts was not nominated for Chief Justice twice. --User:andrewrowe

Catholic Minority?
I was under the impression that Catholicism is the largest religious group in the United States, but this article claims "If Bush nominates another Catholic to the court, then the court for the first time will be majority Catholic (and seven of nine will be religious minorities: Catholic or Jewish)." Is it really considered to be a minority? --131.238.229.143 20:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No single religeous denomination is claimed by >50% of the US population. You are correct that Catholics make up the largest single denomination.  To view Catholics as a minority, you have to sum up all the other Christian denominations into "Protestant", then "Protestant" is more than 50% of the population.  See United States - Religion Demographics. Johntex 21:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw that article; that's why I am curious. I think labelling Catholicism a minority gives the false impression that Protestantism (the presumed majority) is one united religion in the same way Judaism is and Catholicism is.  But if that's the convention, fine.--131.238.229.143 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Judaism is one united religion? -- BD2412 talk 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"No Religious Test"
EDIT: Reread the section in more depth, changed my mind. I think it should stay, but it needs to be shortened and could probably use some polishing --203.17.44.84 00:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Quasi made a stab at shortening, but he axed most of it. The fact that no one even realizes the consitution forbids what so many liberal abortion supporters are advocating (and would not tolerate for if one of their own nominees was asked about her religion) is amazing! You have a sitting US senator who wants to impose a religious test on a nominee (and if it is not a religious test, then there is NO basis for religion questions being asked). This is a fascinating legal issue, for sure. And it is 100% abortion-related. That is the only reason for any concern about his faith. Never mind that abortion was originally outlawed nationwide by Protestant legislatures. I restored some of what was deleted. 214.13.4.151 05:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 214, I don't oppose this section of the article out-right, but it's very biased as-is. For one, your source (thanks for adding it) is an advocacy group (the non-partisan Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights).  Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy.  It's fine that you want to represent their POV here, but we need to present the alternative as well.  Also, it appears to me that about 2/3rds of those quotes aren't calling for a religious test, they are simply probing Roberts to see how he would vote given certain issues -- and yes religion is a part of that.  None of those quotes say "Catholics can't be on the supreme court."  Yet this is what your 'spinning' this section to say.  Please meet me at the middle on this one.  --Quasipalm 13:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S., I've added a RfC.

Please explain the basis for asking a nominee during confirmation hearings, or as part of an inquiry to determine how a Senator will vote on the nominee, what his religious beliefs are? In light of the "no religous Test" for public office clause, such questions are not only out of line, they are unconstitutional. And if a Jew (or Atheist!!!) was asked similar questions to determine if his personal religious beliefs would influence his judicial acts, the press would RIGHTLY go ape with outrage. Amazing that there is no problem to do the same thing to a devout Catholic or traditional Christian. This is not POV, this is constitutional fact. If you wish to pare down the number of quotes, I would agree that 7 or 8 would be a representative sample. I have tried in earnest to remove any POV and make the section neutral. I remind you that those quoted are all of a POV that opposes that of the Catholic League. The quotes simply prove the FACT that the other POV exists - and the people quoted actually provide the analysis/explanation of that POV. 214.13.4.151 14:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The basis is simple: religious views often frame an individual's views. Pardon me for assuming, but it seems that you too have strong views about abortion in part due to your religious views.  So, if you were running for office, and I was interviewing you, I might ask, "How does religion frame your views on abortion."  This is not an unconstitutional test of religion; this is the media asking a question.


 * Since you seem to be confused about what the constitution is saying, let me point to an example. What WOULD be unconstitutional would be for congress to pass a law saying that only Protestants can be judges, or that atheists may not.  You seem to think that the press is being unconstitutional by asking Roberts about his personal religious views -- which is nonsense.  The press can ask whatever questions they like (and they all need not be listed in this article)


 * My initial point however, is that this section as is has these problems:


 * Length. There simply is no need to have every quote ever listed here.  Pick a few that are the most notable and write them into a few paragraphs (and lose the list) noting why they are important.
 * Original Research. This was my original concern, but now that you added a source, it doesn't seem that this is 214's research being presented, so good job there.
 * Bias. Presenting a single advocacy group's POV does not make for a good section.  Perhaps we could find some opposing viewpoints?  I'm sure you would object if I added sections to an abortion article straight from Planned Parenthood, without presenting alternate views.
 * --Quasipalm 14:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I see the need to pare down - I did so - and the ones I left are ones in which the press, commentators, professors and political advisors being quoted are ADVOCATING that senators use what many consider a an unconstitutional religious test. That s the concern. The quotes themselves function as explanations and presentations of the opposing view. I edited my original comment above - please take a look. I also edited the article to strive for balance. 214.13.4.151 14:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I see why it's relevant to note which politicians are seeking to block Roberts from the court based on his being a Catholic. Unfortunatley, I don't see that any really are.  However, having some media person saying such could be notable, but we certainly don't need to see them all.  Perhaps a few that are examples of such calls would suffice.  --Quasipalm 15:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotes
214, here's my take on the quotes listed. --Quasipalm 15:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Senator Dick Durbin: According to law professor Jonathan Turley, “Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral.” [Los Angeles Times, July 25].
 * That's a good question. I'm more interested in the answer then the question -- do you know what the answer was?
 * If Roberts gives the wrong answer - Durbin won't vote for him based on his religious beliefs.214.13.4.151 16:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Roberts would be voting against his confirmation based on his views of the laws of the United States, which may or may not be directly influenced by his religious views.
 * Wrong! - the question is expressly about what "his church considers immoral" - the question and answer are not based on simply on the law, but precisely upon how the nominee's religous beliefs would effect his judicial acts. Asking him about the laws of the country are fine - but  not about his personal religious views (including the teachings of his church). 214.13.4.151 05:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Christopher D. Morris, Vermont writer and critic: “Asking the bishops to testify [before the Senate Judiciary Committee] would be healthy. . . If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats [to deny pro-abortion Catholics communion], the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing 'Roe v. Wade' as a precedent.” [Boston Globe, August 9]
 * This is also an interesting question -- but asking someone to testify is not imposing a religious test -- so I fail to see relavence. Morris is not saying, "Catholics can't be judges."  He is saying, "How would this catholic react to cases that the catholic church takes strong views on?" In other words, "Will Roberts be bullied by bishops who threaten to refuse him communion?"
 * If Roberts or the bishops give the wrong answer - Senator X won't vote for Roberts based on his religious beliefs - and the law requiring Catholic recusal is unconscionable.214.13.4.151 16:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Senator X? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  We can't say that a question might lead to a possible no vote by an unnamed senator, perhaps because of this question  -- there are too many ifs involved.


 * Surely you are being too coy - Senator X is any senator who asks such a question or bases his vote on the answer to such questions.214.13.4.151 05:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Mario Cuomo: Regarding questions that Cuomo would like to see the senators ask Roberts, he said: “Are you going to impose a religious test on the Constitution? Are you going to say that because the pope says this or the Church says that, you will do it in no matter what?”  [Meet the Press, August 7]
 * Good question, but Cuomo is asking Roberts if he would impose a religious test -- he's not saying that a Roberts is subject to a religious test himself.
 * Actually, in context, Cuomom was asked about a religious test, and instead of answering honestly, he turned the question around - even so, Cuomo's re-phrased question poses the same problem: If Roberts gives the wrong answer - Senator X won't vote for him based on his religious beliefs.214.13.4.151 16:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See above.
 * See above.214.13.4.151 05:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * E.J. Dionne: “If Roberts’ religious views are important to him, why should they be off-limits to honest discussion?” Dionne also said that “it would be helpful if Roberts gave an account of how (and whether) his religious convictions would affect his decisions as a justice.” [Washington Post, August 2]
 * Also not a religious test -- just a media person asking a question about what would inform Roberts' decisions.
 * Do you not understand that the ONLY basis for Dionne or anyone else wanting the question answered is to arm Senator X with the religious reason to vote against Roberts? In fact, Dionne is actually, in contect,advocating senate inquiry into these matters: If Roberts gives the wrong answer - Senator X won't vote for Roberts based on his religious beliefs.214.13.4.151 16:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See above.
 * See above.214.13.4.151 05:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Bill Press: “It is absolutely essential to explore Roberts’ religious beliefs as part of the confirmation process. . . Fair to question Roberts about his faith? Of course it is.  And those who suggest otherwise should not be taken seriously.”  [Tribune Media Services, July 29]
 * He's not saying "Catholics can't be judges." He's inquiring about his faith vis-a-vis the court.
 * Press mentions the confirmation process expressly: If Roberts gives the wrong answer - Senator X won't vote for Roberts based on his religious beliefs.214.13.4.151 16:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See above.
 * See above.214.13.4.151 05:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * People for the American Way: “It looks as if a full-scale ‘Religious McCarthyism’ campaign has been launched. The Right’s win-at-all-costs advocacy disguised as ‘defense’ now routinely includes slanderous attempts to intimidate Senate Democrats and their political allies by trying to paint opposition to the nominee—or even questions about his views on the right to privacy — as being rooted in anti-Catholic or anti-Christian bigotry.”  [July]
 * This is an interesting viewpoint -- but relate it to Roberts and a religious test.
 * PFAW does in fact advocate that Senators inquire about the religious views of conservative court nomineees. This comment in context is simply part of thier game plan - make deeply held religious beliefs an issue, and then claim to not be attacking the nominees religious views:  If Roberts gives the wrong answer - Senator X won't vote for Roberts based on his religious beliefs (about the "right to privacy" - which only a fool does not understand is left-speak for abortion)214.13.4.151 16:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See above.
 * See above.214.13.4.151 05:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Suzanne Malveaux: “We’ve learned a lot more about him in the last 12 hours. We know he’s Roman Catholic.  We know his wife is a part of a group, a pro-life organization here.  What does that say about the candidate?  How important is that going to be in this confirmation?”  To which Donna Brazile responded, “I think it’s going to be one of the many issues that gets scrutinized when members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sit and talk to him about his views.”  [CNN, Inside Politics July 20]
 * Yeah? So what.  Suzanne Malveaux has nothing to do with the confirmation process.  This isn't a religious test.
 * These two talking heads are advocating that Senators inquire about Roberts' religious beliefs: If Roberts gives the wrong answer - Senator X won't vote for Roberts based on his religious beliefs.214.13.4.151 16:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Talking heads talk about a lot of things, not all of which are noteworthy here. Also, see above about Senator X.
 * Brazile is an influential democratic advisor on a national laevel - she has an influence on and is predicting (based on her inside information) and advocating that the senate inquire about his religious views.214.13.4.151 05:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

First, each quote is advocating that senators consider (or demonstrating that senators are considering) the religious views of a nominee when determining their vote on the nominee. Please explain how, if that is a legitimate area of inquiry, why it would be a legitimate are of inquiry? Questions asked during the hearings are devised to assist senators decide their vote on the nominee, not to foster an amiable conversation about lofty topics. Do you agree that the only reason they would ask the religion questions during the confirmation hearings would be to see if the answers about the nominee's religious beliefs might effect the senators vote? Bottom line and undisputable FACT: if the nominee answers the "wrong" way when asked about his religious beliefs, his answer might be the basis for a senator voting against him. That fact makse such questions a de facto religious test.

Imagine this scenario:
 * Q: "Mr. Atheist, do you believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights?"
 * A: "Well, no - I don't believe we have a creator - so I don't put any stock in religious views - even those espoused by the Declaration of Independence."

And you can imagine Senator Right-wing basing his vote to not confirm on that answer. That is a religious test. 214.13.4.151 15:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but under your interpertation it seems that religion should not be talked about under any circumstances when someone is nominated for the Supreme Court, simply because if they answer wrong some senator might not like his answer. It also seems that you think nobody should mention religon when talking about a nominee publicly either. To me this is a big stretch. I too don't think there should be any religious tests, but I do think that questions about an individual's viewpoints vis-a-vis their faith are reasonable.

BUT, I digress, it seems we're talking more and more about our views and less about the article. When I have some time I'll take a look at this passage again and try a rework that I'll bring back to the talk page here. --Quasipalm 16:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In plain language, it is unconstitutional to use religious views as a basis for determining who will be confirmed or appointed. To ask questions about a nominees religious views is done for only one reason (to elicit a reply that will shed light on whether the nominee should be confirmed).  The point is, all senators will then assess weather the answer given is adequate.  Simply choosing not to answer has already been stated by ssome senators and commentators as reason enough not to vote for the nominee.  Much like taking the fifth in court, where the accused is NEVER called to the stand by the prosecution because to do so is by itself a violation of the Defendant's constitutional right (by being placed into a position by the prosecution where he feels compelled to invoke the fifth amendment the Defendant's rights are violated.  Subjecting a nominee to the very questions about his religious views is itself a violation of the clause, because he would be forced to invoke the clause which for some would be grounds to vote against him. 214.13.4.151 04:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Legitimate might be inquiry into whether the nominee holds as a judicial philosophy the belief that a hypothetical judge must rule in accord with the Constitution and law, despite what that hypothetical judge's religious beliefs are. But that might even be tricky if there are cases hinging on that issue that may come before the court. Do you see the distinction of this question? It does not require the nominee to reveal his private religious beliefs. I really am shocked that anyone would think that subjecting nominees to an inquisition about personal religious beliefs is a Constitutional way to determine who is suitable for federal office. 214.13.4.151 12:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Arlen Specter and Jimmy Durante -- Separated at birth?
Am I imagining this, or is Specter looking more and more like Jimmy Durante? I half expect him to start singing Inka Dinka Do during the confirmation hearings. paul klenk

religious test
Zoe, when dicussing a controversial issue, POV is most appropriate - essential even - when labeled as such. If other POVs need more treatment, then by all means add it. And I have added to articel this link  to a list of references to demonstrate that frequently (perhaps even most frequently) the issue of most concern to those who wish to ask the nominee such religious questions is abortion. That is certainly worth noting. Otherwise the reader who does not follow the matter closely would have no idea that that is often what the fuss is all about. 214.13.4.151 10:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * After listening to the confirmation on the radio, I've noticed that euthanasia is also a big concern -- so I added a note about that. I also added a bit more and removed a sentenace that was already covered in paragraph one.  Please feel free to copyedit and let me know what you think.  --Quasipalm 15:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good addition. I am baffled by your remark "not everyone thinks they are personal, that's pov" that you noted when you removed the word "personal" from the heading "Roberts' personal religious beliefs".  The views a man holds are de facto his personal views.  If a man adopts the religious belief that every word written in the Koran or uttered by Mullah Omar is true, then he adopts the Koran or Mullah Omar's pronouncements as his personal religious beliefs.  They are personal because he adheres to them.  Such an analysis is not POV - it is common sense. 214.13.4.151 10:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there are multiple defenitions of "personal." I just looked it up and found two slightly different ways that subheading could be read: 1) Of or relating to a particular person  2)Private.  Since the section is all about how some people see his religious views as private and some see them as open to public inquiry, it could be easy to read that heading as using defenition 2 rather than 1.  In which case "Roberts' personal religious beliefs" would be the same as saying "Roberts' private religious beliefs" -- which would be slanting the section a bit.  But perhaps I'm just splitting hairs.  ;-)  Either way, I tend to think that the simpler version is clearer.  --Quasipalm 13:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly understand the distinction you are drawing, but the very people who are pursuing and advocating this line of questioning often use the term "deeply held personal beliefs" or similar pharses using the word "personal" often as a substitute euphemism for "religious" (see a quote from this very section of the article for an example). 214.13.4.151 04:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Where should confirmation votes/maneuvers go?
There should be some mention of Harry Reid saying there wouldn't be a filibuster, Pat Leahy saying that he would support Roberts (which was a total shock to many people on both sides of the aisle), and the upcoming confirmation votes in the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate.

Should a new section be created under this article, or under his biography? --JamesB3 10:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Plurality Catholic Supreme Court
With Rehnquist's death, the Supreme Court's membership became for the first time plurality Catholic by religious affiliation, with three Catholics (Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) of eight justices (also plurality Protestant with three Protestants as well as majority-minority, with five members of minority religious groupings, e.g. non-protestant). The confirmation of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice would add a fourth Catholic Justice to the Supreme Court, confirming the primacy of the Catholic plurality, and an additional Catholic named to the court would for the first time create a Catholic majority Supreme Court.


 * Happy though I am to be Catholic through and through, I find it distasteful to put so much stock in the religious affiliation of public servants. I thought we had moved beyond the point where we put so much weight on religion instead of merit and qualifications. 214.13.4.151 14:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know who wrote this section -- but it's notable, so it fits in this article just fine IMHO. You spent so much time writing that section about how catholics are persecuted by the Left and the media, but you oppose noting that they will be the most prominent group on the Supreme Court after Roberts.  I get the feeling you're pushing a POV here, but I'm not quite sure what that POV is...  (Not trying to be accusatory, I think we all have at some point.)  :-) --Quasipalm 18:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Quasi, you seem intelligent enough to notice the consistency of my posts: the one obvious theme in both segments of the article is that merit, not religion, should be considered when appointing public servants.  Trying to make an issue out of the religious beliefs of a judge or nominee is antitheitical and distasteful to most Americans' own views - as well as to the principles and words of the Constitution. I have decried, in both sections of the article, the singling out of a judge's religion as if it were noteworthy to his ability to do the job. And to keep such a religious plurality scorecard is just crass. It is good that -- despite the obvious bigotry against traditional Christian religious beliefs (e.g. Abortion is always murder, marriage is always one man to one woman) that Schumer, Durbin, Kennedy and Feinstein express -- faithful Catholics (such as Scalia and Roberts) can make it to the highest bench (I believe Justice Thomas was Episcopal when he was confirmed, and Justice Kennedy rejects some of the most fundamental Catholic doctrines just as Durbin and Sen KEnnedy do, so no one objected to his being Catholic).  In other words, there are many bigots who think that the only good Catholic is a bad (unfaithful) Catholic. 214.13.4.151 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with your logic, 214, and a share some of your sentiments -- but wikipedia is about creating the world's best encyclopdia -- not creating original research. If you think John Roberts is being treated unfairly because he is catholic, write your senator, write in to your newspaper, rally other catholics -- there are any number of things you can do.  But it's not your place to mold wikipedia into your own soapbox about perceived anti-catholic bigotry.  --Quasipalm 17:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the entirely inappropriate separate head of "Catholic Plurality Supreme Court." I can't help but believe that whoever posted it does not understand the nature of the US court system. That 4 justices are Catholic, 3 Protestant Christian and 2 Jewish is no more than a trivium. The prominence this "fact" was given implies that this is something which affects the court. The U.S. does not have a state religion and justices are not directed in their decisions by clergy of their faith. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Footnote help request
I've added a couple sources in the "2000 Presidential Election" section, but am unfamiliar with the footnoting system used in this article. If someone would edit this to bring them in line with the practice followed here, I'd appreciate it. TJRC (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Roberts Supreme Court nomination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050903004320/http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/Issues/supremecourt/roberts_spin.cfm to http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/Issues/supremecourt/roberts_spin.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on John Roberts Supreme Court nomination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://wbztv.com/politics/John.G.Roberts.2.255623.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050929004531/http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2677570_300.mov to http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2677570_300.mov
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050904001055/http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072303.asp to http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072303.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050814065249/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050819022038/http://voanews.com/english/2005-08-10-voa22.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-08-10-voa22.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608064851/http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=712&p=local&a=5 to http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=712&p=local&a=5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050722082007/http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3001 to http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3001
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050721040345/http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050814065249/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Roberts Supreme Court nomination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123111625/http://www.catholicleague.org/research/rippingroberts.htm to http://catholicleague.org/research/rippingroberts.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050808233911/http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/12316546.htm to http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/12316546.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050811234100/http://factcheck.org/article340.html to http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)