Talk:Sandra Day O'Connor/Archive 2

Speaking Style
I was listening to some tapes of oral arguments and heard O'Connor speak with a kind of a lisp. does she have one? or is it just the recordin? Kiwidude 05:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

When I saw her speak in person, she did not appear to have any kind of lisp. This, of course, is my personal impression.

Photo
What a funny photo of O'Connor swearing in Gonzalez. Either Alberto Gonzalez is really short or O'Connor is really tall. And how about O'Connor's hand gesture??
 * it is a very funny and a great one. Kiwidude 05:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Class rank
It's stated that O'Connor graduated toward the top of a Stanford class in which William Rehnquist was valedictorian; however, the Rehnquist article currently tells us that Stanford didn't rank its law students in 1952, citing this article.


 * The article does say that O'Connor was one of ten students selected for the Order of the Coif. Presumably this indicates that, at least by the criteria used by the Order, O'Connor was in the top tenth of her class.


 * — DLJessup (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

O'Connor's retirement: when effective?
Regarding when O'Connor's retirementwas effective....


 * Ok, how about this one. As congress didn't pass a law increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices above 9, it would not have been legal for Alito to be sworn in and begin the work of the court without O'Connor's retirement. Gentgeen 09:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The press release does not say that O'Connor is no longer a Associate Justice. It may be a matter of mere hours until O'Connor issues a press release wishing Alito well and bidding farewell to the Court, but until she actually does so, Wikipedia's policy is to not contain unverifiable statements. JonathanFreed 09:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I applaud Wikipedians' efforts to keep Wikipedia up-to-date. However, O'Connor's actual retirement is not yet verifiable.  We may only need to wait a few mere hours until O'Connor issues a press release wishing Alito well and bidding farewell to the Court, but until that or something similar confirms O'Connor's retirement, it is not verifiable.  All we have now at this moment is a statement of intent, but that is not any more significant than was George H. W. Bush's pledge of No New Taxes.  (Indeed, because Article III states that O'Connor holds office "during good Behavior", it is appropriate to say that she will be merely abstaining from votes, and that she could retake her seat at any time if she so desires.  However, I sincerely doubt that she would instigate such a constitutional crisis!) JonathanFreed 10:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. According to her retirement letter of July 1, 2005, her retirement was effective upon the nomination and confirmation of her successor.  That happened yesterday morning.  At that time, she had not withdrawn her resignation, and it became effective.  You're simply disrupting this article to prove a point. Gentgeen 10:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We have both cited the same letter. It contains a statement of intent and therefore only verifies her intent and nothing more.  It is an inference that she is currently retired and is a "former" member of the Court.  Is it a valid inference?  Almost definitely, but it is still an inference.  An example of an explicit verification would be a post-Alito-confirmation statement by O'Connor that yes, she is retired and is a former member of the Court.  Examples of implicit verification would be her consistent absence from Court proceedings or her lack of objection to being knowingly-characterized as a retired and/or former member of the Court.  I have not seen anybody provide a corresponding citation.  Because content "must be verifiable", I feel obligated to edit again, though I will certainly try for a NPOV statement that is acceptable for all.  This is, I believe, in line with Wikipedia's guideline about being bold. JonathanFreed 12:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You were, in fact, wrong. O'Connor announced to the CEO of her employer that she would retire upon the completion of certain conditions. Her resignation was accecpted by the CEO, at which point it became a legally binding agreement. She never renounced her retirement, and the CEO never terminated the retirement agreement. As soon as the conditions specified in her retirement letter were met, she was no longer a member of the Supreme Court. As evidence of this, her successor was sworn in as an Associate Justice. Under Title 28, Part 1, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1 of the United States Code, the number of Supreme Court Justices is fixed at 9, so if she was still an active justice, the act of swearing in Alito would have been illegal. Further action by O'Connor was not required. Further evidence can be found in the hundreds of news reports stating that O'Connor has retired. In fact, she's starting a new job tomorrow, something that would be frowned upon by a sitting justice. Gentgeen 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI: Per policy, I am responding to to Gentgeen's tone on his talk page, not here. I will respond to his arguments here at a time of my choosing.  Until then, interested parties may wish to read the related discussion in the archive.  JonathanFreed 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * From the beginning, my primary concern has been about what constitutes verification and whether Wikipedia should have stated that O'Connor was retired before her retirement could be verified, and not whether O'Connor was-- for all practical purposes-- retired as of January 31, 2006. Significantly, Wikipedia's policy regarding verifiability has changed since my original edits; it now includes the statement that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".
 * Regardless of the policy version and as I've stated before, O'Connor's letter of July 1, 2005 is merely a 'statement of intent' and therefore does not constitute verification that O'Connor was actually retired as of Alito's confirmation.
 * Likewise, O'Connor's committment to start a new teaching job at the University of Arizona in what was the future was not verification that O'Connor was retired as of Gentgeen's post (above).
 * Alito's swearing-in and 28 USC 1 is also not verification that O'Connor is retired because they do not prevent O'Connor from continuing S.C. work as long as no more than nine justices vote in any one case. Though that seems unlikely, it could happen in a case where a justice recuses him or herself.  Interestingly, CNN has reported that O'Connor is "maintaining a small office in the [Supreme Court's] building ... and she will also have a law clerk at her disposal."  Also, the Federal Judicial Center says that she is in "senior status", which presumably means she is still an Associate Justice, albeit a "senior" Associate Justice.
 * Gentgeen also cited "hundreds of news reports" in his 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC) post as verification that O'Connor has retired. Under the old verifiability policy, I did not consider those to be appropriate verification because those statements could not have been based on anything but inferences regarding O'Connor's retirement.  Why not?  One reason is that O'Connor "offered no farewell speech or public statement", and we therefore had no way of verifying the truth of those news reports.  For verification, we needed to wait for an explicit statement from O'Connor that yes, she was retired, or wait for implicit verification, for example, her consistent absence from Court proceedings or her lack of objection to being knowingly-characterized as a retired and/or former member of the Court.
 * Under the new verifiability policy, I agree that the "hundreds of news reports" that stated that O'Connor has retired are verification that O'Connor has indeed retired, as long as the news reports are from reliable sources. However, we should be mindful that even usually-reliable sources get stories wrong.
 * So, Gentgeen: what specifically in my previous edits did you disagree with? I assume, in good faith, that you did not mean to say that "I" (in general) was wrong, and instead you had something specific in mind.  JonathanFreed | Talk | 07:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is It True?
Is it true that O'Connor told Ginsburg to "shut up and be quiet" when she spoke out of turn?

No. I've read substantially all the literature on relations between the Justices and all indications are that Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg always got along well. If anything like this had happened, it would be discussed somewhere. Did you have a specific source in mind? Newyorkbrad 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the photo?
what happened to the photo that was at the beginning of this article? i know it was deleted but any reason why? i'm going to put it back until there's a definitive reason. Kiwidude 00:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"This is terrible"?
Did she really say "This is terrible" on election night 2000?   Since she didnt resign for another 5-6 years it kind of cast some doubt on it, yes? Ewlyahoocom 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that. In Edward Lazarus' book Closed Chambers it it said that Justice Kennedy was the Justice who most wanted to take jurisdiction over the case. In fact, Lazarus says that Kennedy is the author of the per curiam opinion of Bush v. Gore.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 12:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember reading this in a Newsweek article about her retirement. Can't cite, though. Rmj12345 07:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just added this text to the Bush v. Gore discussion: "Some legal scholars have argued that she should have recused herself from this case, citing several reports that she became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.(ref name="Neumann") The article cites multiple, uncontested sources on this and related incidents, and argues they were grounds for recusal on three separate bases: personal bias regarding a party to litigation, appearance of partiality, and material interest.(/ref)" I believe my citation is solid. I'm adding this to this page both to answer your question, and to draw a line in the sand against possible future partisan removals of this information (as distinct from other removals of this info, such as moving it into a sub-article). Homunq (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am doing a report on Mrs. Sandra Day O'Conner for my american history class..... Thank You....

Justice O'Connor and senior status
I realize that FJC says that O'Connor is on senior status, but I think that is unsupportable for reasons given here. Senior status and retirement are different; senior status is defined by statute, and includes certain duties and responsibilities that O'Connor does not (to my knowledge) undertake. Nor does her resignation letter give any reason to assume that she retired under the auspices of §371(b) rather than §371(a). Simon Dodd 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for referring us to the discussion at the Supreme Court article. Everybody, if you have anything to say about this subject, please comment there, so that all of the discussion will appear in one place.  --JonathanFreed | Talk | 05:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Republican or Democrat?
I can't tell...what is she?

Republican. Newyorkbrad 04:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

-both

umm.........

She was nominated by Reagan, a Republican, but she's a moderate Republican. She has gone the other way in some cases. -- Nish kid 64 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * She was a Republican when she served in the Arizona State Legislature and has always been enrolled as a Republican. Her voting record as a Justice, whatever one might think of it, doesn't change that. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is her political party all that relevant? Aside from the typical rule that Justices typically seek to have their replacements chosen by presidents of the same political party that appointed them, we don't typically speak of Republican Justices or Democrat Justices.  It's not as if we speak of a political party having control over the Court in the same way that we speak of a political party having control over Congress or the Presidency. ---Axios023 03:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Given her status as a former legislator, I think we should include her political party in her infobox. It's true that we don't usually name each justice's party, but given the now rather extreme politicization of the process, we might as well.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When did she die?
when?!?!?!? please answer.

Uhh...she didn't die. Maybe you've mistaken her with William Rehnquist? -- Nish kid 64 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope -- not dead yet. "Senior status" is the technical legal term for when a federal judge retires. ---Axios023 03:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutor, not District Attorney
Sandra Day O'Connor was never a District Attorney, so that category does not apply here. She was a prosecutor, however, so that category does apply. The two are not one and the same.


 * Um... "prosecutor" is a generic term for a lawyer that represents the government in criminal cases. "District attorney" is the term some jurisdictions (not Arizona) use for the office of prosecutor; frequently this person is elected.  "District attorney" can also refer to anyone who works for the elected official.
 * In any event, shouldn't someone verify that she actually worked as a prosecutor before putting her in the wikicategory? As the story goes, the only job she could get as a graduate of Stanford Law School in the 1950s was as a secretary in the San Mateo County District Attorney's office.  If this is the source of the wikicategorization, then she doesn't qualify as a prosecutor because she didn't work there as a lawyer.  ---Axios023 05:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

honorary doctorates
In addition to the honorary degrees listed, she received an honorary doctor of laws from The George Washington University Law School during a graduation ceremony sometime in May 2003 (I was there). There may be others - somebody might want to do some research and comprehensively list them. -VJ 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Ann Coulter's opinion of O'Connor
I removed a citation from FrontPage Magazine regarding Ann Coulter's opinion that appointing O'Connor was Ronald Reagan's biggest mistake. Her opinion about O'Connor is not relevant to this article. It has nothing to do with whether or not Coulter herself is notable; a person's notability does not extend to all statements they make on any subject. What is it that makes the fact that Coulter had something to say about Justice O'Connor notable? I'm removing the statement again, since it seems to conflict with the "Biased or malicious content" section of WP:BLP, particularly:


 * The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Coulter's opinion is her own; it does not represent a substantial criticism of O'Connor. Mike Dillon 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I brought this up at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get an opinion. Mike Dillon 01:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree - Coulter's views, in this case, do reflect the general conservative view of O'Connor, as the article itself notes. The phrasing is obviously Coulter's own, but the sentiment isn't. Korny O&#39;Near 08:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a source indicating that this is the general conservative view, like a news article commenting on the fact that the view is more than a fringe attempt at political sniping, then so be it. However, the way this is presented doesn't make it look that way, especially considering Coulter's tendency to present exaggerated viewpoints to get a rise out of her audience and critics. Also, the placement in the jurisprudence section seems incomplete, since the way the citation is presented doesn't note that O'Connor's pragmatic jurisprudence is the reason Coulter considers O'Connor's appointment Reagan's biggest mistake. You'll notice I left Krauthammer's view in the same paragraph, since in that case the cited article actually does show its relevance to the section. Mike Dillon 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Coulter's opinion may not be Wiki-appropriate, but the failing of the O'Connor article is the absence of legitimate criticism of O'Connor's jurisprudence. The recent Greenberg bestseller, Supreme Conflict, doesn't paint O'Connor in a good light, and there's nothing in the article about it. There are numerous conservative critiques of the O'Connor era . -- TedFrank 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that there is significant conservative criticism of O'Connor, but the opinion that this made her Reagan's biggest mistake seems to simply be Coulter's malicious opinion. Mike Dillon 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you seem to have a standard for citing opinions that's far stricter than what I've seen anywhere else, but, since you feel so strongly about it, I won't fight this one anymore. As TedFrank pointed out, there's other opinion that can and probably should be included. Korny O&#39;Near 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If Korny and the like prefer, we can just include a standard section in every non-ThomasScalia Supreme Court justice's page that includes the usual citations to Coulter, The Weekly Standard, WorldNetDaily, etc. of rightist talking heads blasting a justice for not voting with the right 100% of the time. I did read Greenburg's book and included some citations from it here, but I don't think her griping that O'Connor got to draw the line in cases where she was in the center was significant.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. :) Seriously, though, if a notable source publishes an opinion about the rulings of a Supreme Court justice, whether it's The Weekly Standard or The Nation, I can't think of a single reason not to include it here. The current article, for instance, contains an opinion from the not-very-notable Herman Schwartz of the Los Angeles Times, and I think that's all for the best. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Schwartz is an established professor and legal writer, and thousands of times more credible than a habitual truth-twister like Ann Coulter. Even if he didn't have those credentials, he did write for the LA Times for several years, which justifies his inclusion. "Notable" does not mean "conservative." Ann Coulter is only notable for her loudness and her extremism, and she is not a reliable source, either, so if she's cited for anything but opinion I'm going to be inclined to tag that.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Ann Coulter has been a long-term columnist for Human Events, and has had a number of bestselling political books, so by technical standards I'd say she's at least as notable. But I'd rather not rehash that specific discussion. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lady's Home Journal
It seems a little undignifed to quote it in the opening section. Does their opinion really matter anyway? Steve Dufour 13:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Political Party
Usually it is not correct to put a person's political party if they are a justice simply based on the president who appointed them - but Justice O'Connor was a senator too, so she really is a (moderate) Republican. Shouldn't it be in the infobox?

Agree. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorority Correction
I'm 99% sure Sandra Day O'Connor isn't a member of Kappa Kappa Gamma. It isn't listed on their website under notable people, and I haven't seen it on any other O'Connor bio I've read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.167.251.226 (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section discouraged?
I enjoyed reading the tidbits of facts about her life. Please, please do not remove or delete the items. She is an intriguing woman, and I feel that others can get a good understanding of her as a person by reading the info. 24.251.84.221 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy
In the Retirement and Service on the United States Courts of Appeals section, the article states that the law school of Arizona State University was renamed in December 2006, but in the trivia section it states that it was renamed on April 5, 2006. Neither the article on Arizona State University nor the article on the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law shed light on this. Whichever is correct should be placed in the Retirement section and the trivia point should be removed. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a link to the ASU page which says definitively that it was April 5, not December. I removed the item in the Trivia section. --rpogge Sept. 19, 2007

First Woman Majority Leader
It is often said that O'Connor was the first female to lead a state legislature, but she was not. Margaret Mahoney was the Democratic leader in the Ohio Senate in 1949 and 1950. See the Ohio Women's Hall of Fame page on her here.PedanticallySpeaking 20:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

John Jay O%27Connor%2c III
So, their names are "John Jay" & "Sandra Day"? Hm.

Today, Sanjay Gupta  has asserted that  Away_from_Her  is representative of their circumstance.

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?
I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
 * A1. Benjamin Cardozo
 * A2. Learned Hand


 * B1. John Marshall Harlan
 * B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Presence on the Court
This section does not discuss O'Connor's "presence on the court."

I have removed the following: "In 1985, at a Washington Press Club dinner, intoxicated Washington Redskins player John Riggins drew widespread scorn when he told O'Connor: 'Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight,' then passed out on the floor. The next day, the women with whom she shared an early morning exercise class presented her with a T-shirt that read: 'Loosen up at the Supreme Court.' She apparently bore him no ill will; years later, when he made his acting debut at a local playhouse, she gave him a dozen roses on opening night."

"O'Connor made her own brief foray into acting one night in 1996 with a surprise appearance as Queen Isabel in a Shakespeare Theatre production of Henry V."

I kept the section that includes O'Connor's views on Christian heritage. I placed it under a new heading: "Christian Heritage." I also added a citation.

Not a Moderate
O'Connor was a pretty solid vote for the right. I have added citations proving this. In accordance with this, I have changed the lede to say she is only "somewhat moderate." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why split up the opinions?
The right-wing opinion in the "Critique" section was renamed to "Conservative criticism", while the left-wing opinion was moved into the parent section. Why the split? It seems like an artificial introduction of non-neutrality. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "left-wing" or political about the Green quote, and it's an opinion on Day's tenure from an academic, so it belongs in that section. I don't think I'm alone in seeing something inherently different in the character of the criticism from the conservatives. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a real difference in character: they're all personal opinions on her jurisprudence. And this seems to set up a strange litmus test: if someone wants to add an opinion from, say, an openly left-wing academic, how would they know where to put it? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You've got a litany of rightists complaining O'Connor didn't vote rightist enough. A single comment with no politics in it from a professor who might have defended the separation between church and state in the past does not balance out the rightist criticisms. When you get right down to it, the conservative complaining is just a POV-push, and it's not balanced out. We can remove the rightist stuff if you want. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a different issue altogether: lack of ideological balance. I don't think is such a big problem, since this "litany" consists of exactly two sentences quoting two people, but I think the solution is not to remove any information, nor to rearrange the structure, but rather just to add a left-wing opinion or two. (But if you still think rearranging the structure is the way to go, please answer the previous question.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A solution could be to add liberal voices to the section, but that's not what the author of that section wanted to do, obviously. It was unfair to call that section "Critique" because that's not what it was, nor was it balanced, nor was the supposed left-winger saying anything political. Besides which, it is misleading and dishonest to portray conservatives as criticizing O'Connor and a liberal as supposedly defending her when her voting record is on the whole far away from the ideological left. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's the author of that section? I don't know what you're getting at. Anyway, I'd say it's irrelevant what the intents were of previous contributors - the only thing that matters is what the article should look like now and in the future. Also, I don't know why you say "Critique" wasn't an accurate header - it was a set of opinions on the quality of her jurisprudence. As to the question of balance - again, if that's the goal, I think it would be easier to just find another viewpoint or two that don't come from the right wing, rather than do all this rearranging and discussing - and much more useful for readers. If such viewpoints are hard to find, it may just be that right-wingers have reacted much more harshly to her tenure than left-wingers, regardless of her actual place on the political spectrum, and in that case the article should reflect that. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It does reflect that. It has a whole section on "conservative criticisms." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what about my question from before? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What about it? I'm not making up rules. I've heard from two admins the rules about POV pushing and balancing stuff out. The criticism from the rightists is partisan and not balanced out, and I'm surprised a threadcop didn't remove it when it came in (then again, the most active threadcops I've seen, apart from me, are all conservative). The professor's opinion is not partisan, not much of a criticism nor praise, and more a characterization of her whole career. If you want to find some liberal equivalents slamming O'Connor, feel free; then we can rename the section to something like "criticism." But Green is not a liberal counterpoint to what the conservatives said. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the question I was referring to was: if someone wants to add an opinion from an openly left-wing academic, where would they put it? I should have specified that. Although, to respond to what you said, I find your surprise... surprising, since Wikipedia is full of by-default not-ideologically-balanced sections and pages, like Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That article is different. You know what you're getting going in. You can start a "Criticism of Sandra" page and chock it full of Kraut Hammer and Distort D'Newsa quotes if you want. In contrast, biography pages, especially ones about living people, are supposed to be neutral. I already said that stuff from openly liberal people could go with the rightists with a section rename, or even in its own section too. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for answering the question. I can live with the current setup, then. I will say that I think you should always make sure that your political biases (which you revealed in that last comment) aren't coloring your editorial judgment. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have political biases. I am a moderate. I like sticking to reliable established sources, and tune out partisan crap on either side, which is all that The Weekly Standard and FOX News have ever been. And I am in business school, so how liberal could I really be? Your own biases are quite evident in your edits, and need no pointing out. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at the very least you have a strong centrist bias - a dislike of writing from a political viewpoint that goes well beyond Wikipedia's guidelines. And yes, I have my own biases, as does everyone, but I don't think I editorialize in either main or talk pages. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unanimous rulings
When the Supreme Court votes 9-0, or 8-0 in the case of Freeman v. Pitts, can that not be described as a "unanimous ruling"? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Unanimity is said to occur only when all justices sign a single opinion, like in the Burger Court case against Nixon. In the school case mentioned on this page, there were several opinions, which establishes a plurality, but not unanimity. Read the case; there were lots of different rationales being thrown around. This can happen on the court: if there's a plurality deciding the case in one way, but not a majority agreeing with a single opinion, then a case is decided in that instance, but a binding judgment is not created for the future. These kinds of divergences tend to happen with controversial cases, like the ones on affirmative action. In Bakke, Powell split his vote on different case issues, which created two different majorities. You can read up on this more on your own. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, okay, thanks. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Some Biased content
There is a quote talking about how she failed to stand up to the pressure and then some humorous quote that is useless information and uncited I'm deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.148.215 (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized article
The section on "Personal Life" has been vandalized. The material about her living in Texas, the title of the book, and her high school is all false.

TPOBrien (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Middle Name
I noticed the hidden comment saying that a middle name is needed for the traditional "Early Life" opening, but I don't think she had a middle name. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC) it dont say when she die?