Talk:Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 3

New Justices Table
I find that the one we have right has too much irrelvant info. I submit we use the more stripped down version, similiar to the table used for the judges on the circuit courts. &lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The table on the main article page shows seat numbers from CJ to 10. Why is there no #5? Is this a mistake or is it simply somthing I'm not aware of? Vbdrummer0 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seat # 5 was eliminated at some point by the US Congress. You may want to check the infobox at the begining of the article; go to Justices by seat. There it will explain at what point was seat # 5 eliminated.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Solicitor General
Shouldn't the United States Solicitor General be mentioned somwehere in this article? Jonathan D. Parshall 00:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedantics
'Appointed to serve for life, they can be removed only by retirement, resignation, or impeachment and subsequent conviction.[1]' I argue that Retirment and Resignation does not consitute "removal". I suggest that the sentence be changed.


 * I'll reword it. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes about arguing before the Supreme Court
Does the last section with Floyd Abrams's quote really contribute to the article? ~ UBeR 04:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does. Luke C 16:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection
This article should be protected. There's been 10 attempts to vandalize it just by looking at the recent history. Thanks, --Vanka5 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a general policy against protecting that day's featured article appearing on the mainpage, because that's the first thing some newcomers see and want to edit, and the hope is that the ability to do attracts them to (or at least makes clear to them the nature of) the project. I don't know if that's a good policy or not (I spent some time last night doing rvv's on this article myself), but it's what the administrators are likely to say if you posted this request to Requests for page protection, which is where one goes to request protects or semiprotects. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism. Please protect! --206.21.166.95 04:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

better photograph?
The photograph titled Image:Supreme Court courtroom in Capitol.jpg is lousy; it's a fairly extreme case of insufficient light. Can a better one be found? Michael Hardy 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Having visited that room myself a year ago, I have 4 pictures, and all of them are darker than the ones here. Take it from me - that room is really, really dark. Raul654 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a photograph on the Supreme Court's own official website. I don't know whether its presence on a government site makes it a free-use or fair-use image, but in any event, someone could call the Court and see if they have a photograph they would be willing to free-license to us. (I can't do it myself because I have real-world dealings with the Court.) Newyorkbrad 22:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Contact information here Raul654 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought any work of the US government was in the public domain. Powers T 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't know whether the pixture is work of the government or not. It probably is, but could theoretically be a private photographer's photo used by SCOTUS with permission (though I don't see a copyright notice). Newyorkbrad 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Retirement
Does this sentence say what is intended? (my bolding) "The fear of mental decline and death often precludes justices from stepping down." -THB 08:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. Maybe they want to keep working to keep their minds sharp?  Powers T 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Term of Office
I Know that Justices essentially serve for life on the court, but at the beginning of the article it says that they appointed for life when the Constitution says they serve for terms of good behavior. I just think that it should reflect what the Constitution prescribes, not just simply how long they actually serve. Thank you. 18:55, January 20, 2007
 * Prior versions of the article did refer to appointment during "good behaviour" in the opening, with the explanation that this generally means for life, but the wording was changed. I don't see an explanation for the change but I suspect that an editor found explaining this technical distinction too wordy in the opening and he or she thought it was sufficient to explain it in the body of the article. If you disagree, this is a Wiki, and you can make the change to how you think it should read, although given the prior experience you should make sure that it flows smoothly and doesn't get bogged down in too much detail in the introduction. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Political leanings
I agree with the content of this paragraph, but I am still uncomfortable with it. . . Perhaps it would be better with a source - there have been many news items since the 2005 changes reaching the same conclusion as does this paragraph, so it seems finding a source that validates the conventional wisdom wouldn't be difficult. Am I nit-picking or does anyone agree? Mdeaton 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I can live with the section even though I don't love how it's presented as stated above, but the two new paragraphs just don't seem to help this section, or the article, at all. Any thoughts?  Mdeaton 14:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and removed those two paragraphs from this section. I think there may be some points in there that may merit exploration, but it needs to be rewritten and sourced.  While there is a unique quality about the justices' independence of the worries of re-election and public opinion polls, it can't be said that they are "free from pressure from either side of the political spectrum."  The Blackmun sentence at the end is unnecessary as well, sourced or not.  Mdeaton 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be more informative to label the justices on the basis of construction; i.e. how they interpret the Constitution. This is really all that matters; for instance the more "liberal" justices handed down the winning decision in the Kelo case allowing private developers to push local governments into using eminent domain for their benefit because of their Loose Constructionism.  On the other hand Clarence Thomas, usually labelled "conservative", dissented in the Raich case because his Strict Constructionist view prohibits the federal government from regulating the matter at hand.  These don't normally fit in with the liberal/conservative dichotomy but if you understand how each interprets the Constitution it's easier to understand how they would make decisions.

Fixing Info Boxes
Hi all. I've tried to update various broekn links, usually by connecting them to an external link. The article is now free of RED links, except in one of the boxes at the very bottom. I'm not an expert on these things. Can someone perhaps remove/update the link for the [Northern Mariana Islands]? SkipperClipper 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Red links are not "broken". They reflect articles that do not exist in Wikipedia, but that some editors think perhaps should exist. "Broken links" refers to external links that lead to pages no longer in existence... Magidin 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Article length and redundancy
I've made various changes this afternoon trying to thin this article out again; last year, I split it into a collection of interrelated articles to try and reduce the size of the main article without losing any kind of descriptive depth, but the main article's kind of crept up in size again. The paradigmatic example of surplussage was the detailed discussion of the cert pool, which is entirely unnecessary since that information is contained in the article on the cert pool. I think - and hope other editors agree - that given the number and depth of subjects around SCOTUS, it's better to have as brief a discussion as possible within the main article and then more deatiled discussion hived off into separate "main articles." Simon Dodd 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Segal Cover Scores
I am about to remove the recent addition of Segal-Cover ratings to the Current Justices Table for 2 reasons:

the first is aesthetic. as NoSeptember comments below on the political leanings section,

"Including a column for each justice's political stance is not necessary, the chart is too crowded as it is. We should take it out of the chart. Keep all references to the political leanings in the paragraph below that already covers this. The labels should be properly sourced to specific articles as Pakaran suggests, now it looks too much like WP:OR. NoSeptember talk 14:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)"

the addition clutters the table and makes the formatting of the rightmost column (prior experience, or whatever) a nightmare.

the second is that the ratings say virtually nothing about the justices' jurisprudence, only the clumsy and inaccurate way the media tried to portray it prior to their confirmation. since political leanings are discussed below, this column is unnecessary. 72.183.240.231 01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. Simon Dodd 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

apologies, for some reason I was thinking new comments weres supposed to go at the top of the page (I've since learned I could have just clicked "+" above). if there is an easy way to move this section, I'd appreciate it if someone would do so to conform with the guidelines.

also on topic: I do think it would be perfectly appropriate to link to the Segal Cover scores under the "See also" section or one of the other sections at the bottom of the page, if the editor wishes to do so, but again, I don't think they should be in the table. 72.183.240.231 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As requested, I moved this to the bottom. Magidin 13:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Magidin! I edit infrequently, so I'm still learning my way around. 72.183.240.231 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My pleasure; I was planning on saying something about this topic anyway... For future reference, I don't know if there is a cleaner way, but the way I did it was to simply edit the entire talk page, move the section to the clipboard (marking it and right-clicking, selecting "cut"), and then pasting it back at the bottom. Magidin 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MAJOR VANDALISM !
Looking at this page it seems to me that the entire beginning is missing. I am not an expert in correcting these things so can someone please do so. Thank You very Much!Vinaq 14:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

Wait......... I think I fixed it! Or maybe notVinaq 14:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

There, I think I fixed it. Dan 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You did. Now, how about remembering that one exclamation mark is enough? Magidin 15:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Request: Additional Detail on SCOTUS decisions
I came to this article looking for information about SCOTUS decisions, particularly how many justices are needed to create a "majority" decision, what happens if there is no majority (3, 3, 3 split?), what happens if justices recuse themselves (do you need 5 justices to set precedent?), etc. Could this be added, or could a link to the relevant article be made more prominent?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 11:56, June 26, 2007


 * A majority opinion requires more than half of justices that are hearing the case. You can have a majority of 4 justices if two recuse themselves, for example. If no opinion receives a majority of votes, but an outcome (reversal or upholding) does, then you often have what are called "plurality opinions", the one with the most votes on the outcome that received the most votes being so labeled. Generally, you need a majority of justices to set precedent, but they need not be the same majority for all facets of the case. In Bakke, for example, one line-up of five justices established that it was permissible to take race into consideration in Medical School admissions, and a different five justice majority decided that the system under consideration went too far (only one justice belonged to both majorities). When there is an even number of justices hearing an appeal case (through recusal or other reasons), a tied vote results in the lower-court's decisions being upheld, but it does not establish precedent. Magidin 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the info. Can we add something like this to the article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 16:19, June 26, 2007


 * Please remember to sign your comments. The information probably belongs in Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States where it should be in extenso. Magidin 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Zinn & objectivity
Actually, the way I've added in Zinn's perspective is objective. It is, in fact, possible to objectively show the opinion of an individual; this is a basic writing skill that I hope other Wikipedians understand by now. My entry is not POV because it simply states Zinn's perspective without claiming it as an absolute (unlike the mainstream claim that SCOTUS is inherently objective). And if we are to learn anything about the world around us, we have to know perspectives as well as dry facts, as dry facts can only get you so far. This is why Wikipedia has allowed for the mentioning of perspectives in an unbiased manner in many of its articles already. -- LGagnon 21:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And no, I don't have to add an opposing viewpoint. You can do that if you want to, but Wikipedia doesn't make that a requirement. -- LGagnon 01:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute, there are two ways your Zinn paragraph fails to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy:


 * "1) While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.


 * 2) Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance)."


 * BoBo 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But I didn't omit anything that was readily available to me. I just added something, and someone can add something else with an opposing view. Isn't that how Wikipedia works? You're demanding that I write the whole section rather than my small part. Your all-or-nothing policy goes against what Wikipedia normally promotes.
 * If you really want more points of view, add them yourself and stop trying to censor the article. I added my part in an unbiased way; now add what you think needs to be added as well.
 * On a side note, please keep this discussion on one page preferably here. -- LGagnon 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * LGagnon, the addition of a Marxist critique to a description of what most in America regard as a necessary democratic institution in a three-branch government system (see the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me) is in and of itself controversial. Therefore, you should've taken a more cautious, objective and common-sense approach to introducing the topic you wish to present. It appears that you only wish to introduce ideology and not have a balanced discussion of the politicization of the judicial branch.


 * BoBo 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is controversial, but it isn't biased because of that; you're just using ad hominem there. And trust me, I was cautious; I do a lot of political writing offline, and have had to gain those skills to do so.
 * And again, you use ad hominem on me in your last sentence (and you're saying I'm not thinking before I write?). Like I said, you can add other points of view if you want to; I never tried to stop you from doing that, despite what you think, and I'd rather you do that than censor the article again as an easy way of avoiding expanding the section. -- LGagnon 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Before someone adds another "counter-point", please consider what a counter-point is. It's supposed to argue against the argument, not the person making the argument. That is an ad hominem fallacy, which a respectable publication wouldn't bother with, as it isn't even a real counter-point. -- LGagnon 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To begin with, Zinn is considered to be Marxist. See

http://www.sierratimes.com/06/06/01/66_146_215_73_15534.htm

"An Alice in Wonderland moment comes when he is filmed giving a talk about his old boss, John Silber, once President of Boston University. Considerable ire is vented upon him and he is described as a right-wing fanatic. This should alert viewers to just how radical Zinn actually is because Silber happens to be a member of the Democratic Party. Most viewers won’t have the background to know this, and also might not realize that our protagonist’s main intellectual influence is Karl Marx. Nowadays, pointing something like that out invites being labeled a McCarthyist, but devotion to disproven dialectical imperatives tells us much about the intellectual box into which true believers place themselves. While the documentary itself never directly addresses communism, Zinn is shown at an event accepting an award from the Eugenes Debs Foundation. Even should one not be familiar with the name of (perhaps) America’s most famous socialist, they should not fail to be startled by the organization’s president introducing our activist as “Comrade Zinn.” He has also written a play called Marx in Soho, and a snippet from it is shown."


 * Here is another article exposing the Marxist ideology of Zinn:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8145

In addition, the counterpoint is valid. It is included in both Zinn's Wikipedia biography and the article on his book. If LGagnon removes it again, it proves that he is only interested in promoting a POV position. He should also be reminded about the three deletes Wikipolicy that he trumpeted earlier. If one uses a source, one should accept that others may not believe that his source is valid and have every right to provide commentary to that effect.

BoBo 22:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of your sources are from right-wing rags. How about an unbiased source, such as the Wikipedia entry on him? "Zinn's philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism, and social democracy." Yes, Marxism is part of it, but calling him a Marxist is an oversimplification. Might I add, there's no real need to point his political philosophy out in the article; it has no baring on the argument. -- LGagnon 03:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support a (quite) condensed version of the counterpoint to Zinn's claim located in the article currently. Two or three sentences should do it, but at present, it reads more like an article on Zinn than one about SCOTUS. Please try to keep digressions at an absolute minimum. Vbdrummer0 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In general I would support the removal of both the Zinn paragraph and the counterpoint. The inclusion of the Zinn paragraph is anti-NPOV and its inclusion tries to force a Marxist interpretation upon the selection of SCOTUS justices.

BoBo 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article shouldn't be censored just because you can't come up with a counter-point to Zinn's argument. Your bias against the paragraph (which appears to be motivated by your political ideology, not an attempt to improve the article) is no excuse for censoring it. Like I said, if you want it "fair and balanced" with your own ideology represented, then add a counter-point (one that is not ad hominem and actually has something to do with SCOTUS) instead. -- LGagnon 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * LGagnon I admire the fact that you are trying to defend your views or philosophy here. While I strongly disagree with Zinn's views of the Supreme Court, I object to the inclusion of the paragraph you propose not because I am biased against it, but because, like another user pointed out, it seems like trying to impose Zinn's views into an area of the article. However, I would not object if you included your Zinn paragraph in a new section of the article that deals with the topic of Criticisms of the Institution, or something of that sort. It would appear that including the views of Zinn or any other critic of the Supreme Court into a new section would make those inclusion compatible with Wikipedia's POV Policy. Again, if you wish to engage in a political debate about SCOTUS I would suggest that there are other arenas to do that. In the meantime, I would oppose the inclusion of the paragraph the way that you suggest it, but would gladly support you if a new section where criticisms or parallel views of the Court can be placed.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 06:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While I feel that Zinn as an individual is unquestionably biased, the points he presents here are valid, but i feel that they should be presented in a section different than the current one, so i have added him to a section on criticism of the court.

I support the way that Ghettodude has reconfigured the Zinn paragraph and placed it in its own unique section explicitly labelled as a criticism. As long as it remains in its present form, I do not have a problem with the paragraph now. Thanks to Coburnpharr04 for suggesting a viable resolution to this problem. BoBo 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is perfectly fine with me. I agree that this actually works out better, as it seems to be more encouraging of an inclusional section. -- LGagnon 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suing the Supreme Court
This question may seem odd, but seeing as how this is America, has anyone ever tried suing the Supreme Court, or at least seriously thought about doing it? I mean, if the nation can sue an active president, I'm sure there's some way someone could sue the court! └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are several problems with that. The biggest and most insurmountable obstacle is judicial immunity (absolute immunity for official acts), which has always been very strong throughout the history of the common law for the obvious reason that without it, every judge would be sued directly by the loser in EVERY case.  The second biggest obstacle is what forum would have the power to hear the dispute.  And the third is standing.  If you find this issue interesting you might want to consider law school (this issue sometimes comes up in civil procedure classes). --Coolcaesar 07:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack of a legal basis for suit doesn't stop people from trying to sue the Court, or one of its Justices, or the Clerk. A search on Westlaw's ALLCASES database reveals 84 case titles that include the name "Supreme Court of the United States" or some variation on the Court's name.  And, as Coolcaesar suggests, it's usually a disgruntled litigant  (maybe before the Court, maybe before some other court) that sues it.  Curiously, not all of these lawsuits begin in the U.S. Supreme Court.
 * Nevertheless, I agree that such lawsuits are legally frivolous, both for the three reasons previously identified as well as the fact that such suits are unlikely to be able to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
 * Oh, and United States v. Nixon was a criminal case; it wasn't an entire nation suing a sitting president. Criminal cases are brought in the name of "the People," "the State," "the Commonwealth," or (in federal court) "the United States," but this denomination doesn't suggest that the whole nation has ratified the decision to sue.  This is why we live in a representative democracy.  ---Axios023 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

For one to have an actionable cause against a Justice or the Court in general would be extraordinary indeed, but by no means impossible. It is possible that judicial immunity demands in this instance that impeachment proceedings would be the only available avenue of relief; however, impeachment can only be initiated by the House of Representatives, not by an individual litigant. Only one Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached in the history of the United States, Samuel Chase, and he was acquitted by the Senate. Ampermc 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been a while, but I thought this might be interesting and related. Today, the Court dealt with a case in which seven of the justices (Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer; I am guessing that the original suit also involved Rehnquist and O'Connor, no longer on the Court) were sued (Sibley, Montgomery B. v. Breyer, Justice, USSC, et al. According to SCOTUSblog, the case involved a Washington D.C. attorney who sued the seven justices in civil court for $75,000 in damages for refusing to review a case involving a domestic relations and child custody dispute. The lower court ruled the justices had immunity. Since those seven justices were directly sued, they recused themselves. This left two Justices to consider the case, which meant the court failed to have quorum (which by U.S.C. 28 Section 1 is six justices). In the order, the Court cites U.S.C. 28 Section 2109 to affirm the decision below; according to that section, the Chief Justice could send it back to the Court below for consideration by a full court as final judgement, or affirm the result as if the court had divided evenly if a majority of justices believe the case cannot be heard and determined by the end of the next term. Magidin 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"drifted primarily to the right..."
The last paragraph of the "History" section blurbing the Roberts Court reads a bit odd to me. First, I'm not sure what "drifting primarily to the right" on free speech even means (I can make a guess as to what the editor intends it to mean, though that intention isn't really objective, nor does it attempt to account for the campaign finance cases). Likewise, it is hard to even say what the direction of the present court on the death penalty is when Justice Kennedy joined the liberal bloc to create four 5-4 majorities this past term alone (perhaps one can call its current position right-of-center, if that is defined to mean any allowance whatsoever of the death penalty, but one can hardly say in that case that the court has "drifted" right, or much of anywhere at all, in that regard). As for abortion, "to the right" is certainly accurate in an absolute sense, though misleading as there was hardly any place else for it to go. In short, the statement in question is rather misleading in its selective use of cases to provide evidence for the court's direction.

NB: This is of course NOT to say that the court hasn't shifted to the right to a greater or lesser degree (it is in my opinion early in the day yet to say what degree, but certainly it is not wrong to say some degree, which I actually think the use of "drifted" in the original sentence captures pretty well), but perhaps it ought to be left at that rather than the selective and somewhat POV elaboration?

72.183.240.231 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at rewriting it; "drifting primarily to the right" is not a good sentence anyway. I changed it to "moving towards the conservative end of the spectrum", and gave an article by Linda Greenhouse as a reference. Feel free to continue editing. Magidin 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think that is an improvement, though my objection (a stronger connotation than I intend, but it will have to do) to the way the issues and cases addressed are stated remains. (I forgot to mention in the prior catalogue that above all, the clumsy descriptor "desegregation" for the school cases, with the implication that the court did anything like endorsing segregation is rather offensive. I know it is a convenient shorthand, but it is a sloppy use of language, and is a hindrance to clear thought in the way all sloppy language is).


 * I realize that this brief sketch of cases is pretty much the standard template for what has been done for the previous courts, and perhaps any more elaboration would be excessive for the purposes of this article/section, and so I'm not sure what else could be done to address this. I don't really think your final statement ("too early to get a read") is strictly necessary outside of a more indepth discussion of the court than is afforded in this article, or in the background as with the talk page here, as it is certainly true the court has taken some step right, and a simple statement to that effect is not in the least misleading. But perhaps its the best quick compromise for now to address my concerns with the original statement while keeping the templates parallel. Certainly I can't think of anything better for the moment. Perhaps I'll think on it some more over the weekend. In the end though, I don't guess it's really that big a deal (if it was, I probably wouldn't bother, lol!) 72.183.240.231 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of your concerns are valid; I took another stab at it. This time, I put a sentence remarking that it is still early before the "shift to the conservative end", and rather than list the cases as examples of a move to the right I listed them as "some of the major rulings", adding the anti-trust case that overruled the 1911 precedent. Magidin 23:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfect! The slight, simple decoupling of the "rightward shift" bit from the cases and instead simply listing them as "major rulings" solves the problem completely! Well done and thanks. I still don't think the hedging ("too early") is necessary but it's not a problem either, so I'll leave that to your discretion. 72.183.240.231 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While it may be an unessecary comment, I want to praise the way the question of impartiality or appearance of impartiality was handled here. I wish it was so easy in other articles. My thanks and appreciation to you two. Boris B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.163.210 (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

recent changes to membership table
I'm not sure why people keep feeling the need to "improve" the chart, but if they are so compelled, is it too much to ask that they score better than 60% on the states the justices were born in? (Roberts was born in New York, not Indiana; Scalia was born in New Jersey, not New York; Souter was born in Massachussetts, not New Hampshire; and O'Connor was born in Texas, not Arizona). I'm not sure why the state of birth is relevant anyway: it is the state of residency which is listed on their commission, in which case Souter and O'Connor would then be "correct", but Roberts and Scalia are residents of Maryland and Virginia, respectively (and Breyer would have to be changed from CA to MA as well). Don't ask me why Ginsburg and Thomas are listed as New York and Georgia despite having served on the DC Circuit like Scalia and Roberts, but that is how they're listed officially, and I think we ought to revert to doing the same. I'd vote in favor of reverting the whole thing, but I'm willing to hear feedback from others to see if they think the changes are an improvement or not (in addition to the "official" reason, I'd also say any "improvement" would make the table shorter vertically as well, which the current change did not though it doesn't lengthen it either, as a reason why it is not an improvement). If people disagree and think the new format is acceptable, then the four states of birth alone can be corrected. I'm going to be gone for a couple weeks, so I'll leave it to everyone else to decide whether they want a wholesale revision, or merely the minor corrections. 72.183.240.231 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with you in so far as correctness. The state of residence at the time of receiving their commission is, I think, not really all that important, and for most would be covered under "prior positions", so it should neither be added nor be controlling. There certainly was a time when the state the justices were born in (or at least, where they were perceived as "being from") was considered important, so having the state of birth is not entirely amiss (though of course it is far less important today). You should certainly go ahead and fix incorrect information! And I agree with you as far as having the table shorter vertically; that's one of the reasons I reduced the size of the portraits (both here and in the Chief Justice pages. Remember: be bold. Magidin 01:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

State secrets
The controversy about the right of US authorities not to allow trials against them if they claim that state secrets could be revealed as in the case of Khalid El-Masri should be covered. Happily ever after 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Propose changing “Checks and balances” title to: “Limitations on powers”
My I suggest the title of the “Checks and balances” subsection be changed to “Limitations on Powers” or “Limitations on Power of the Court” or something similar. While “Checks and Balances” is a central theme in US Constitutional law it is one that refers to the three branches of government as a whole and not one that refers only to the court. Also the subject matter of these sections seems to cover the limits of the court’s power like “Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review” and “cannot enforce its own rulings” etc.

The same section should also have a paragraph or subsection about “implicit limitations on power” since some of the most important limits on the Courts power are not directly cited in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or any other statue that I know of. The second paragraph that starts “The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings…” in this section is a good example of an implicit limitation. The following paragraph (or something like it) should be another implicit limitation/paragraph which I think I should be included: “Decisions of the court must be well argued to stand up to both popular opinion and future challenges; otherwise they tend to be overturned. The most famous examples of poorly written arguments would be the Dred Scott v. Stanford and Plessy v. Ferguson. While well reasoned arguments like Murbury v. Madison can have lasting affects.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.54.58.5 (talk • contribs) 9:18 October 22 2007


 * May I in turn suggest being bold ? Worse that can happen is your changes will be changed in turn. Magidin 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

-Can't login from work plus I am following the Wikipedia guidlines by proposing the change first. -orginal author of this section CJB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.54.58.5 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Wikipedia editing guidelines are that contentious changes be discussed; it is also suggested that with "large proposed deletions or replacements, it may [emphasis added] be best to suggest changes in a discussion." Your proposals seem neither contentious or large, so the wikipedia policy of boldness would seem to apply. Please do not forget to sign your comments. Magidin 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ties
I have no idea where to find this information, so hopefully somebody can find a source. There are 9 justices on the SC, so there is theoretically never a "tie". However in some cases (like the courts recent decision to hear an appeal of the Exxon Vanldez punative award) an odd number of Justices (in this case 1) could recuse themselves, leaving an even number of Justices to issues opinions. So if 4 vote one way and 4 vote the other way, what happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holshy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The lower court's decision stands, but the result does not create a binding precedent. Basically, you return to the status quo ante. Magidin 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of sentences on this in the final paragraph of the relevant section of the Procedures article. Magidin 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

SCOTUS and FWOTSC
The first time I encountered the acronymn SCOTUS was in a published letter to the editor from Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. A quick search of the New York Times on-line archives links to a William Safire column mentioning that quirky letter: "On Language; Potus And Flotus" (October 12, 1997). Safire provides context by explaining:
 * ''"As a Presidential aide in 1969, I first noticed this acronym on a label of an extension of a five-line telephone along the back wall of the West Wing's Cabinet Room. When the button next to that label lighted up, the phone was answered with special alacrity. A similar button labeled POTUS was on the telephone set of H. R. Haldeman, the President's chief of staff, and was used by him for calls both from and to Mr. Nixon."

Safire's column then offers a re-telling of the O'Connor anecdote:
 * "In 1983, as the Secret Service usage about the President began to appear in print, a New York Times editorialist took umbrage at the rampant acronymization: Is no Washington name exempt from shorthand? The Chief Magistrate responsible for executing the laws is sometimes called the POTUS (President of the United States). The nine men who interpret them are often the SCOTUS. The people who enact them are still, for better or worse, Congress.''"
 * "This nine men error drew an amused retort from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who noted the need for updating Times files and tongue-in-cheekily added, If you have any contradictory information, I would be grateful if you would forward it -- as I am sure the POTUS, the SCOTUS and undersigned (the FWOTSC) would be most interested in seeing it.''"

Even the First Woman On The Supreme Court acknowledges that acronymns have become an inescapable (and sometimes ineffable) feature of American English. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the text above so that the "footnotes" become in-line references. Footnotes are not really appropriate for talk pages, and in any case since there is no reference section, they are not showing up. Magidin (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible reordering of the sections?
I was looking at the article, and noticed that the section on "Justices as Circuit Justices" comes before the membership section; it occurs before the current membership is even listed explicitly. I think it would make more sense to move the section on "Justices as Circuit Justices" to a later part of the article. One possibility is to place it as a subsection just after the membership is listed, before "Seniority and Seating", or after "Salary" and before "Political leanings". Another is to keep it as a full-fledged section, and move it to just before "Quarters" (after "Political Leanings"). Yet another possibility is to include it in the "Jurisdiction" section, with perhaps a bit more about the role of the justice as circuit justice (his ability to issue orders or refer them to the court, etc). I think the latter option is the one that makes more sense in terms of the logic of the article (since the circuit assignment is related to the jurisdiction of the Court). Given the large number of reasonable possibilities, however, I think it would be beneficial to hear some opinions before doing so. Comments? Magidin (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Newest section on "usurpation"
The latest section needs more history and more balance. It seems to me that it is what is normally refered to as "judicial activism", the term 'usurpation' coming more from politically motivated sources; while a section on criticisms for activism sounds like a good idea, it surely must go beyond the Warren era; Marshall was accused of it, Taney was accused of it, the Lochner Court was accused of it, etc. All of that would belong in such a section. I don't think I am personally up to the task, but perhaps someone else can help out? And I think the title ought to be changed to "activism". Note that the link to judicial usurpation (a redirect) was a recent creation of the Editor who added this section. Then again, this may just be my impression. Any comments or suggestions? Magidin (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this section belongs. I don't necessarily think it's unfair to include the accusations of judicial activism as part of the fabric of the history of, and public perception of, the Court.  It seems to me, though, that an entire section gives it undue weight - we need to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article about the Court itself, i.e. the institution, its history, and current status.  Criticisms, while noted here, have their own article and need not be duplicated in this one.  This goes for the "Criticism for partisanship" section too (but that could re-open the Zinn can of worms . . .) Additionally, I agree that "usurpation" has become a subjective term of late and is better replaced with the more commonly used "activism." Mdeaton (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding/removing the "votes" column in the table
I agree with the removal of the "votes" column in the membership table that was recently added. First, it is misleading to claim that this is how the justice votes; at best, it is a description of his judicial/political leanings. For instance, Scalia voted with the majority to strike down the flag burning ban in Texas v. Johnson, and Stevens voted to uphold it, which is the opposite of the usual understanding if we say Scalia "votes conservative" and Stevens "votes liberal". So it is imprecise to claim they "vote conservative" or "vote liberal". But more importantly, this information about the political/judicial leanings of the justices is already in the article, in the Political leanings subsection. So rather than clutter up the table with somewhat misleading and in any case superfluous information, let's keep it separate and far more clear than you could achieve in that table. This is not "censorship", as the editor insinuated, but editing. Remember to assume good faith. Magidin (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The excuses for the wholesale censorship of the grid column on the justices' political leanings are laughable, at best:
 * If it were misleading to call it "votes", then change the name to something more accurate, like "political leanings". It's as if you objected to a column called "appointed by", but deleted it instead of changing it to "nominated by", or whatever.
 * EVERY SINGLE PART of the grid is "already in the article". The grid is a summary of information, to make it readily accessible to the readers. Perhaps there's some reason you don't want this information readily accessible..?
 * I limit how much "good faith" I assume, because too often it is not true. And the very best sign of it is lawyering of data someone wants to censor, when they could FIX the technicalities they're using as the excuse to censor it altogether. --Kaz (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To make this crystal clear: The single added column clearly is not damaging the layout or readability of the grid. It is information widely accepted, including within wikipedia itself. I am willing to fix any ACTUAL objections to the formatting, presentation, et cetera. I will do the work, so even the all-too-common editorial laziness "I'm not going to take time to fix it" is not an excuse. The colum CAN be made to work...so state objections, and I shall fix them. Want me to find the accepted footnotes for their leanings elsewhere, and duplicate them in the column? Just say the word. Prefer "moderate" to "swing"? Just say so. There is NO excuse for wholesale censorship of the column. --Kaz (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, kindly calm down. As far as I know, I have not crossed paths with you before, so your "censorship" dig is not appreciated by someone who is simply having an honest disagreement with you. Second, when you say that you are willing to "fix any actual objections to the formatting, presentation, et cetera", it seems you are saying that you are unwilling to accept that anything you put in be removed. Is your work something that should not be removed under any circumstances simply because you think it should be there? Third: you claim that "every single part of the grid is "already in the article."" This assertion is simply not accurate. The table is the only place in this article where the dates of service of the Justices are given, where their prior positions are given, where the Senate vote is given, where their birthplace and birthdate are given, where the president who appointed them is given. This information is nowhere else in this article (though, presumably, it is elsewhere in Wikipedia). By contrast, the political leanings are already explicitly given in this article, in my opinion in far more informative fashion and with references (e.g., the fact that Justice Stevens describes himself as a conservative). Adding them to the table is superfluous in my opinion, and since that information is already available, clear, and referenced, I do not think adding them to the table is necessary or desirable. Needless repetition of information does not make an article better. I cannot be "censoring" information if the information is in the article, and your desire to add the column does not, in and of itself, warrant the hyperbole of accusing those who honestly disagree of "censorship" when they are not suppressing any information but only its repetition. It's not that the information is incorrect, it is that I see no reason to have it repeated when it is already in the article in a better format and with more information and context. To make it, as you put it, crystal clear, my objection is that the information is superfluous, and incongruent with the rest of the table which restricts itself to purely objective information about the Justices, rather than to perceptions of them (however widely held or accepted). Maybe instead you can improve the Political leanings sections by adding more information? Or you could move it up, say to just below the table, if you think it deserves to be more prominent. Personally, I prefer to have the purely objective information of seniority, seating, and salary first before that of the subjective perception the justices create of themselves, but that may just be me. On the other hand, if there seems to be concensus among editors that such subjective information ought to be on the table, be sure I will acquiesce; but one person does not consensus make. (Of course, you could argue the same about my opinion, but I'll note that the table was tinkered with in the past and achieved its current form some time ago with no modification; that suggests a general consensus on it). Not everything I have ever added (or argued should be removed) has withstood the test. Magidin (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have now reverted the information without any new objection, although I have addressed all of your previous objections. This, not my attempts to fix the column to suit your claims of technicalities, constitutes "edit warring" and multiple reversion. State your existant objections, and I will fix them.--Kaz (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did nothing of the sort; if you'll check the history, you will see I have only reverted once. Conflating editors and accusing them of things they did not do may also be the source of the dearth of good faith you seem to be encountering. I certainly am not sensing much coming from you. May I humbly suggest that if you are having trouble finding good faith, it may be at least in part for that attitude? Magidin (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Said editor apparently has a history of that kind of attitude. Suffice to say though, most lawyers and law students realize that while the justices have particular ideologies and beliefs, they are not set upon strict liberal/conservative lines, and they usually make their decisions on jurisprudential grounds, rather than ideological. For instance, Thomas tends to view things in a textualist light, and while that often corresponds to a conservative viewpoint, it may correspond to a liberal viewpoint in another case. Kennedy is hard to pin down, but he has a history of striking down laws more often than he upholds them. Scalia looks to the framers intent, while Breyer likes to look to foreign courts, something Scalia despises (see for example, [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352357/posts this panel debate at American University Law School between Scalia and Breyer]). Trying to display the justices based on solely liberal vs. conservative lines, without any citations, is frankly, inaccurate, and unacceptable under our guidelines and policies of WP:NPOV.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection is not to mentioning this (it is mentioned in Political leanings after all), but that the table is not the right place to have it. The table contains only objective information about the justices, while the political leaning/judicial leaning is perceptual and changing. As for people disagreeing with the usual sorting, Justice Stevens himself objects to being called a liberal, as he made clear in the recent interview that is referenced in that section. Certainly, a better discussion of these issues would be a welcome addition to the Political leanings section, but I don't see how an even terser inclusion in the table is a good idea; not only is it superfluous repetition, but it does not mesh well with the rest of the table in my opinion. As to your other comments, I agree. I noted above that Stevens voted to uphold the flag burning ban while Scalia voted to strike it down, for example; and Stevens voted against affirmative action in Bakke, to give another example. Which is why I think a more expansive discussion makes far more sense (even setting aside the issue of mixing perceptually derived information with purely objective information in that table. And if you look up in this Talk page, under "Political leanings", you can see suggestion similar to your own above, suggesting that talking about the justices's mathod of interpreting the Constitution ("construction") would be more informative. Magidin (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. It's not that we can't say the judges have certain leanings; the article already says that. It's just inappropriate in an objective table. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "Votes" column is inappropriate not only because it is unnecessarily repeating information found elsewhere in the article, but also because it uses one single word to characterize the Justices' voting record, and that is inaccurate as has been noted. Additionally, the editor linked "conservative" to "Conservatism in the US," "liberal" to "Liberalism in the US." etc. which is also fallacious. The "Political leanings" section links those words to the "Judicial philosophy" page which defines each; this is an important distinction and a common mistake; even though the outcomes may often be the same, they are not synonymous.  A while back, I worked on the "Political leanings" section (improvements, I think), but more and more, I feel that this article is not the place to say what the current Court's political leanings are, in either section.  There is information on the significant cases of the Roberts Court in the History section, and the reader can easily link to any Justice's page for more information on their voting record or judicial philosophy.  It just doesn't feel encyclopedic to make any such characterizations here, IMO. Mdeaton (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm de-indenting my reply, but I am attempting to reply to the comments by Mdeaton. I can see your point about not having this information on the page; what I would argue, however, is that it is useful to have a single location where the information of the general judicial philosophy of the current Court is available, rather than having to go search through each of the Justices' pages for it. It is also a case that the interaction of the justices affects each of them (as Byron White used to say, every time there is a change in the line-up of justices, it becomes a "new Court"). For instance, many have been making the case that Justice Thomas's textualism has been rubbing off on Justice Scalia, who does seem (to my layman's eyes) to be focusing more on the text and rejecting arguments that are based on the congressional debate records that explain the intent of the authors of the law/regulation. It would't have to be very detailed (though it should be a bit more precise than the current one), referring to the individual Justices' pages for a more complete or expansive discussion, but I do think that having it all summarized and condensed somewhere would be a good idea. I think this page would be the place to have it in, but I am open to other suggestions. Magidin (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)