Talk:Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination/Archive 1

Redirect
Went ahead and redirected this to Merrick_Garland, for now at least. This, of course, doesn't preclude a separate article if/when there's sufficient information to do so. Tyrol5  [Talk]  16:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

White House video
A video expressly promoting Garland has been included and re-included in the article. The video is non-neutral as it has a nakedly promotional tone; more importantly, its inclusion in our article is blatantly non-neutral as it implicitly signals to readers that we are taking the White House's "side" on his nomination, and, by logical extension, on Garland himself. As informative as the video is there is no way we can include it in our article. (I posted this same issue at Talk:Merrick Garland.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I commented at Talk:Merrick Garland. Let's keep the discussion centralized there. bd2412  T 17:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I commented as well over at Talk:Merrick Garland. I agree with the centralization point simply as a matter of convenience. Neutralitytalk 17:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

scholars section
Way too much detail. the block quote is excessively long, listing the names of all the law firms signed etc. All of the letters are largely saying the same thing, repeating their arguments over and over again is superfluous. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "intricate detail" tag is a poor choice. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, to which it links, applies to things like overlong plot summaries, lyrics, statistics and software updates.  A debate over a SCOTUS confirmation completely dwarfs such things.  Nor, FWIW, do I see a problem with undue weight:  given the stature and scope of those commenting, it's not that long at all.  It's too important (WP:ENC, WP:WEIGHT) to prune, and not even close to big enough to spin off.
 * Instead of a tag and pruning, we should find and include coverage of authorities who hold opposing views, e.g. that GOP Senators are doing the right thing, and weight those opposing views accordingly. I suspect that opposing views are less widely-held than the already-covered view that Garland ought to be considered, but am not certain. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 05:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the content originally; I agree with Middle8's comment - the authorities are very important, and they lend a scholarly perspective (from a historical and legal point of view) that I think as an encyclopedia we should emphasize. I have, however, have cut the names of the law firms (which I agree are probably not necessary). Neutralitytalk 17:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Game theory
A separate section on "game theory" seems wp:undue. I moved it below for further vetting.--Nowa (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Approaching the issue from game theory, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight has proposed that Garland is more conservative than any judge likely to be appointed following the next election, and that an unintended consequence of rejecting Garland would be to move both Congress and the court further to the left. 


 * A number of commentators have pointed out that Merrick Garland is a more "conservative" nominee than the Republicans are likely to get from a President Clinton (and possibly from a President Trump),, , ; what Nate Silver does is to reduce this to the math. Since Silver is an expert in such analysis, I think it is perfectly justified. bd2412  T 13:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Since this article is about the nomination and since Silver is a well-known statistician, I see no reason not to include it. Neutralitytalk 14:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Page move premature?
Granted, I get that the nomination has been made, but what if Obama withdraws, or Garland pulls out? Do we switch it back? Seems to me like the page should have been left where it was, and only once a nominee is confirmed move the page... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. Even if Merrick Garland never makes it to the Supreme Court there will need to be an article at this title. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A failed Supreme Court nomination is a rare and often historically significant event. If this nomination fails, it certainly will be. bd2412  T 16:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because there's precedent doesn't inherently make the precedent good. Just sayin'. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, coming back and thinking about it for a moment, Harriet Miers is a horrible example since at the time there was no vacancy on the Court. Sure, she was nominated to replace a retiring O'Connor, but SDO stayed on the Court after W withdrew her name, nominated Roberts, withdrew Roberts, and nominated Alito. Bork is a better, more relevant example, I guess—but even so, that nomination was more remarkable for being the flashpoint of SCOTUS nominations being highly escalated in the political arena. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible photos suggested for use in the article
Possible photos suggested for use in the article:

Supreme Court nomination process
-

The profile photo currently used in the infobox is up for deletion at Commons.

Suggest swapping it out with one of the free-use-licensed profile photos, above.

Also the other images could be possible suggested photos for use in the article.

More pictures and free-use-licensed media at Merrick Garland and commons:Category:Merrick Garland.

I wish everyone best of luck and collegiality in the editing process,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: Thanks to research by at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Merrick Garland.jpg, the infobox profile photo will likely not be deleted. So I leave it up to the Wikipedia community about how to use the other images mentioned, above. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggest replace profile photo currently nominated for deletion on Commons

 * Suggestion: The profile photo at top right of this page is currently nominated for deletion on Commons at: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Merrick Garland.jpg.

Suggest replacement with another suitable free-use-licensed photo such as:
 * File:2016 March 16 Merrick Garland profile by The White House.jpg
 * File:2016 March 16 Merrick Garland by The White House 02.jpg

Other photos and free-use-licensed media files may be seen at:


 * 1) Merrick Garland
 * 2) commons:Category:Merrick Garland

I wish you all the best of luck in the editing process,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: The profile photo can stay, the above linked deletion discussion was later closed as Keep. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested sister-links for External links sect
Suggested sister-links that could be added to External links sect:

Perhaps editors and/or readers may find some useful material there,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)