Talk:Neil Gorsuch

Political party in Infobox
I removed the political party parameter from the infobox saying that it's not relevant, and my removal was reverted by.

I contend that Gorsuch being a Republican is not important for the infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says exclude any unnecessary content. Because of this guideline, the parameter should be removed. Gorsuch has served in 2 notable positions in his life: a circuit court judge and an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Both these positions are officially non-partisan. He has never been significantly politically active in the Republican Party and has never served in a partisan position in government. Therefore, the fact he is Republican is simply not significant to his notability.

Additionally, the political party parameter is traditionally excluded from the infobox of Supreme Court justices. Lets take the current court, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all exclude the party parameter. Only John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh have it listed, with Roberts being added recently and Kavanaughs being there only because of a brief discussion. In my view, the party is only relevant to a judge if they have held a formerly partisan position. This applies to Kavanuagh (White House Press Secretary) as well as some others like Sandra Day O'Connor (Member of Arizona Senate), Earl Warren (governor of California), and John Marshall (U.S. Congress). There aren't many examples of just people who've held judge positions exclusively having party in the infobox, and from I'm noticed there's always been a tendency to not include the party of judges. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In his confirmation hearings and in coverage of his time on the bench and in his career and sponsorship by Republican figures, he is widely associated with and portrayed as part of the Republican sphere.  SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gorsuch may personally be Republican and may be supported by Republicans, but he's still a nonpartisan judge. Putting his party as Republican in the infobox is not the best way to translate he's part of the "Republican sphere" to the reader. Also, the only source saying he's a Republican is Britannica, which there is no consensus on its reliability at WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Claiming Britannica is unreliable for a public figure's party? Not a good argument. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Britannica is probably fine for something like this reliability-wise. For confirmation, here's some info on SCOTUS judge's voter registrations from Bloomberg Law in 2020. TLDR, Gorsuch was a registered Republican as recently as 2017, but due to laws in Virginia they couldn't confirm his registration after that point. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer were Democrats. Sotomayor was not enrolled with a party. They couldn't obtain info for Roberts, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito.
 * It's not inaccurate, I just think it's irrelevant. The personal voter registration of judges is just not really relevant to anything. Additionally, most of what the infobox field would be showing is just that they don't live in a state where voter registration information is private, or that they aren't a confidential voter. For instance, of course Clarence Thomas aligns with Republicans, and of course Elena Kagan aligns with Democrats; it would be odd that Kagan should have such a field but Thomas shouldn't just because Thomas lives in Virginia. Endwise (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What party he's personally registered to vote for, which is all that field could mean, is irrelevant. His appointment to the Court, sponsorship by Republican figures etc. is all relevant stuff to talk about, but it has nothing to do with that infobox field. Endwise (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Chex, are you confusing Kavanaugh with Kayleigh? Remember that Trump announced his list of court contenders as a key selling point to disaffected Republicans during the 2016 campaign. The arguments for or against inclusion will need to consider the definition and purpose of the infobox. There may be cogent arguments on both sides of that. SPECIFICO talk 12:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not confused. Kavanaugh served as Staff Secretary in the Bush Administration. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You said he was the press secretary. That was Kayleigh, sounds like Kavanaugh? SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gorsuch Furor Shows GOP’s Struggle to Build Ideology-First Court  SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the political party from the infobox of this associate justice's BLP & all the other members of the US Supreme Court. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * all the other members of the US Supreme Court -- I agree, except that Kavanaugh probably has to be treated differently. The discussion at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh about the infobox upheld that the party field makes unique sense for Kavanaugh, because he was the Staff Secretary at the White House under George W. Bush. Endwise (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree, all members should be treated equally. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just meant that, although you can still ultimately conclude Kavanaugh's article shouldn't have it either, his experience in a (nominally partisan) position at the White House means a discussion about Kavanaugh would need to be different than it would for Gorsuch, as what applies for Gorsuch doesn't automatically, without additional thought, apply to Kavanaugh. Endwise (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again I disagree. These Court members aren't elected officials, but rather were nominated (by the president) & confirmed (by the senate). Again, this topic should be at the appropriate WikiProject. An RFC would clear up this matter, nicely. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gorsuch Wins, the Filibuster Loses SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How Justice Neil Gorsuch Has Helped Republicans Reshape The Supreme Court. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC) June 26, 20184:23 PM ET
 * Irrelevant. Would also recommend this matter be taken to the appropriate WikiProject. At worst, pushing a political party on 'one' member or a 'select few' members of the Court, comes across as agenda driven. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges? Maybe it would be best to start a discussion there instead. Endwise (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just a discussion, an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the political affiliation is irrelevant. And besides that, even though he was nominated by a Republican and often votes consistently with other justices nominated by Republicans, that does not even mean that he was or still is registered as a Republican. Recent justices nominated by Republicans, such as Souter and Stevens, often voted consistently with justices nominated by Democrats, and may well have switched their party affiliations subsequent to being confirmed (assuming they were Republicans to begin with). Since they don't run for office, we don't really know their party affiliation unless they continually announce them. For someone like Kavanaugh who actually served in an administration the party affiliation could be relevant to that position, but even that may not be their current affiliation. Rlendog (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If Gorsuch wasn't a partisan Republican, Republican Trump would not have nominated him and the Republicans in the Senate would not have confirmed him. Gorsuch served in Republican Bush's Department of Justice. Republican Bush nominated him to the Court of Appeals. He's a member of the conservative Republican Federalist Society. He's obviously a partisan Republican and to say otherwise is disingenuous. The same is true for most other justices/judges. You might find someone who's genuinely nonpartisan, but I doubt it. Stating that fact about someone on the bench is just that -- stating a fact. Billmckern (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A discussion or RFC will be opening up soon, at the appropriate WikiProject, on this entire matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ask, and ye shall receive: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges. Endwise (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In my experience, those project pages are thinly participated. As I said above, there are arguments to be made on both sides of this question (not that any good ones were made above) but I would suggest going to a site-wide noticeboard with this question -- maybe NPOVN or BLPN -- because it is an issue that can arise on many pages unrelated to politics or the judiciary as well, and there's little point in seeking local consensus on this one page. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think RfCs tend to get a decent amount of participation just in virtue of them being published at WP:RFC/All and etc., and I have notified Talk:Brett Kavanaugh and Talk:John Roberts too (they both had the field added too). If thin participation is a concern, I could maybe drop a notice at NPOVN and/or BLPN too? Endwise (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just posted a notification to the talk pages of all the other justices instead. That will probably be good enough I imagine in terms of getting participation. Endwise (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought your suggestion of notices at BLPN and NPOVN were was a good idea, if you have time to do that.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism
I tagged this lead text "dubious". The references are from before his time on the Supreme Court and among other things entail overly broad self-description.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty confident Gorsuch is still an originalist and a textualist. Do you have any reason to believe he no longer is? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with his writings and the reactions he's elicited since he's been on the court?  [ https://nysba.org/impertinent-questions-the-unusual-case-of-gorsuch-v-alito-and-the-supreme-courts-textualist-approach-to-judging/]  etc.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yea I read the articles. It just seems as though his fashion of "textualism" has been somewhat controversial, but ultimately textualism doesn't have a strict definition. Those sources reiterate his profession to the use of textualism. The one by the Constitutional Accountability Center is a biased progressive source so I don't think its usable. Maybe some type of clause or sentence could be added that his fashion of textualism is controversial. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think it is a poorly-defined term, it certainly does not belong in the lead, where it will mislead countless readers who stop at the lead and never consult the sources or even the article text. "Biased progressive source" ??? Really?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because it's poorly defined does not mean it doesn't belong in the lead. He considers himself that and he's been described as such. Do you think he's not a textualist? What exactly do you want out of this discussion? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Updating photo
All of the other justice's photos on their pages match those found on the current justices section of the SCOTUS website. Should we do that here too to match the other justices, or is there a copyright issue with the photo on the website or something? Pacamah (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

1st Amendment rulings on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause as a SCOTUS Justice
I noted the page has very little detail on his writings on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause as a SCOTUS Justice despite that being an important part of his jurisprudence. I think a section should be added. Some more detail on this. Gorsuch joined a 2 page concurrence from Thomas criticising Locke in his concurrence and called the majority's endorsement of Locke concerning, although joined the majority because it construed Locke narrowly. Gorsuch also wrote his own concurrence also joined by Justice Thomas, in Trinity Lutheran rejecting the reasoning of footnote 3. Gorsuch criticised the distinction between religious status and religious use. He argued the distinction isn't clear and the same set of facts can be described as both status and use. Gorsuch reiterated these criticism more fully in a concurring opinion in Espinoza. He said it is a violation of free exercise either way.

In the COVID-19 emergency litigation, Gorsuch was an active writer for the Court. He wrote a number of concurring opinions. Importantly, he wrote a concurrence in Roman Catholic Brooklyn Diocese criticising Roberts concurrence in South Bay I for what he termed as being too deferential to government and inviting lower Courts to ignore religious liberty. He also compared various establishments including bike shops, liquor shops, acupuncturists etc. to churches for the purposes of neutrality analysis. He reiterated these points in South Bay II.

On these points and several others, I think this page could be improved.

Nosteponsnek76 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Co-author's name incorrectly rendered
In the 2005 entry for "other publications", change "Matey, Matey" to "Matey, Paul" -- 2600:4040:2957:D900:BDF1:B686:BC52:42E0 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Should the 303 Creative LLC be mentioned under the 'LGBT Rights' header?
Given the background of the case was directly about whether or not the company on questions could refuse service to a gay couple it seems like it should get some mention underneath that header if it's not going to be mentioned in the 1st ammendment header. I think it'd belong more in the LGBT rights header anyways given it's direct relation to that subject. 2600:1702:55B0:FC00:F87F:D23D:83EE:8CCA (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)