Talk:List of people nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency

Merger
It seems like this list was only created to address the Merrick Garland nomination, and it feels too specific to warrant its own page. I suggest moving it to a new sub-section on List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States.Sysys (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's too specific. See, for example, Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States.  In any event, specificity is not a flaw in a wikipedia article, as long as the subject is notable and there's sufficient content.  In my opinion, putting more than one list at List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States would make the latter list too long and confusing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm redirecting this to List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States given the longstanding merge tag and -- just as important if not more so -- the incomplete and misleading nature of the list. The list includes only nominations in the "last year of a president's last term" and omits nominations in the last year of any term, therefore shrinking the sample size (and distorting the numbers) for no real reasons. The list also excludes "cases where the nomination occurred prior to the final year of a president's last term but Senate action continued into that last year" &mdash; again, this shrinks the sample size and distorts the numbers. Recent scholarship reflects that historically:

"There have been 103 prior cases in which — like the case of President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland — an elected President has faced an actual vacancy on the Supreme Court and began an appointment process prior to the election of a successor. In all 103 cases, the President was able to both nominate and appoint a replacement Justice, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This is true even of all eight such cases where the nomination process began during an election year. By contrast, there have been only six prior cases in which the Senate pursued a course of action that — like the current Republican Plan — deliberately sought to transfer a sitting President’s Supreme Court appointment power to a successor."


 * Neutralitytalk 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As discussed at Talk:List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States, I have re-created this Wikipedia article. I don't think blanking it was appropriate, but in any event it has been substantially revised to fully incorporate the Mazzone-Kar article, which was not available when I initially created this Wikipedia article. Per WP:LISTN, this list meets notability requirements because it is "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." This was true before the Mazone-Kar article, and those authors reiterate the importance of focusing on nominations during an election year ("E"), and on the Senate's transferrance of nomination power to a successor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that User:SPECIFICO has blanked the article and changed it to a redirect, without even coming here to the talk page. I have reverted.  Per WP:ATD-R, "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect."  Per WP:BLAR, "If editors cannot agree the article should be submitted to Articles for Deletion."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a violation of 's TBAN on abortion-related content. I was trying to spare everyone a trip to AE and a serious sanction for this incorrigible recidivist editor.  That's the story.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. "On Political positions of Jeb Bush...it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy."  I've edited lots of articles related to the Supreme Court, even ones that explicitly mention abortion, which this one does not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not what? You have been working on the Supreme Court because you have a theory that the next Justice(s) to be appointed will rule on a test of Roe v. Wade.  Your POV-pushing on Trump articles was due to your attempts to use WP to promote your anti-abortion rights fanaticism and you are continuing that here.  Let's be honest about it.  Do what you will, and the community will decide.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not a violation, and no it's not the story.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nelson book
This edit removed a substantial amount of reliably-sourced material on the ground that it it"cherry-picked" and "POV". The removed material is mostly paraphrasing Michael Nelson (political scientist). As far as I know, what Nelson says here is innocuous and uncontroversial, but if anyone has ever said anything contradictory to what he says, then I am glad to include it. Since we discuss Mazzone and Kar at some length, it seems to balance things out if we also discuss Nelson, since Mazzone and Kar are basically saying not to look at things in the simple way that Nelson does. Therefore, I am restoring most of the removed material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let the talk page discussion run its course. Stating your refusal to accept the revert is not sufficient grounds to edit-war your stuff back in and say "per talk" -- Please undo your reinsertion and await comment by others.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your revert was disruptive. You still have not given any intelligent reason for it.  You must know very well that the material is perfectly suitable if the article is not deleted.  Per WP:Preserve, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."  Blanking material merely because you don't like it is not reasonable.  Per WP:AFD, "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination."  That is precisely what I did.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Article name
Given that this list documents each individual nomination rather than each nominee (so e.g. Reuben Walworth is listed multiple times), I think it would probably make sense to change the article title to "List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency" Orser67 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Integrated contents
I have integrated the contents of this article into Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. Nothing of substance has been deleted; I worked thoughtfully, not hurriedly. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)