Talk:Midnight Judges Act

Untitled
As posted to User Talk:WBost22:

I'm afraid you might have made a bit of a misstep with the Midnight Judges article. You have replaced the page that discussed what the Midnight Judges were  with an article about the Judiciary Act of 1801 that doesn't discuss the Midnight Judges concept well beyond the mention in the first paragraph.

Your work is good. I'd like to see it incorporated in the present article at Judiciary Act of 1801 don't flat-out replace that article: Merge your work with what's there). We can redirect Midnight Judges Act to there.  If you can expand the original stub explaining the term "Midnight Judges", we can fix that article -- otherwise, Midnight Judges should probably also redirect to Judiciary Act of 1801, and the stub can be cleaned up and incorporated there.   *Mishatx* -  In \ Out   03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone else has ideas, jump in. *Mishatx* - In \ Out   03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED, per reasonable and unopposed request. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Midnight Judges → Midnight Judges Act — New article describes act, not the Midnight Judges themselves. Replace with previous stub (rev 103900166), move article to Midnight Judges Act and mark or move to talk page of Judiciary Act of 1801 with note to merge    *Mishatx* -  In \ Out   22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move
Support They are basically the same issue, just different terminology. The judicairy act of 1801 is also known as the midnight judge act. if they are not moved, an effort should be made to improve the Judiciary act of 1801

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarification regarding Samuel Chase
The article implies pretty strongly that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached successfully - "Among the repercussions of the repeal of the Judiciary Act was the first and, to date, only impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase." It does go on to differentiate that the move to impeach him passed in the House but failed in the Senate, but shouldn't the above quoted sentence be changed to reflect that Samuel Chase went on to serve as a Supreme Court Justice till his death in 1811? I welcome any explanation as to why it should stay as it is, just thought it looked inconsistent at first glance.

Pragunkhera (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)