Talk:Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 7

God save the United States and this Honorable Court
I am astonished to see that the traditional chant that is recited at the arrival of the Supreme Court Justices is not included in this article. Here it is from the Supreme Court web site:

''When the Court is in session, the 10 a.m. entrance of the Justices into the Courtroom is announced by the Marshal. Those present, at the sound of the gavel, arise and remain standing until the robed Justices are seated following the traditional chant: "The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"''

This needs to be added to the article. -ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is very little about the specifics of Oral arguments in this article; at best, it would go into an appropriate section in the Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States article. And somehow, given your user name, I think we would not agree on how much prominence such a bit of trivia deserves. Magidin (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States would be a better article to include this bit of information, if it merits inclusion anywhere. By the way, you might be interested to know that the Supreme Court itself has ruled that the "God" referenced in such proclamations is not the "God" of the Bible, or any other extant religion. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not a first amendment guy, but that doesn't seem right to me. Individual Justices have taken that view in separate opinions (e.g., as the article you cite notes, O'Connor in Elk Grove, Brennan in Lynch), but others have disagreed in separate opinions (e.g. Scalia in McCreary County). What the court has held, it seems to me, is summarized in Marsh v. Chambers, which relied on an entirely different approach. No SCOTUS case holds the ceremonial deism approach to be governing so far as the court's formula; do any hold it to be governing for similar applications? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Court has ruled on the opening phrase in the Court. The Court would be hard pressed to claim that the mention of God represents a reference to the "God of the Bible" and also assert that it does not violate the Establishment Clause; when Scalia has argued that certain religious observance do not constitute an Establishment, he argues that they are ceremonial and do not convey endorsement (Thomas does not believe the Establishment Clause applies to the States, but certainly believes it applies to the Federal Government; I don't think he has expressed a view there on endorsement). Magidin (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

History section
When I originally split this article up in November 2005 (dif), the goal of the history section was to provide a very concise passage outlining what would be covered at far greater length in the sub-article. It has become bloated and problematic; it needs a rewrite, but I don't want to just plunge in with so high profile an article.

The problem that catches my eye is the recentism of the last paragraph. It is a striking contrast that while the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson courts—spanning some 23 years—are dispatched in a single (and admirably terse) sentence, citing but two cases on one area of doctrine, the Roberts court—six years and counting—is given three sentences, one extremely long, with sixteen haphazardly chosen cases. I say haphazardly, because it would seem to me that the weighting is all wrong: Leegin is cited, for example, yet preemption has been a far more visible theme in the Roberts court than has antitrust, see, e.g., Troy & Wood, Federal Preemption at the Supreme Court, 9 Engage no. 3, 7 (2008), and some of the cases are simply misrepresented (Ayotte is not a a "major ruling[ ] … in the area[ ] of abortion," it is a ruling about severability which certainly applies to abortion cases, but no more than to other cases). Not that Leegin isn't important, mind you, but if neither Dr. Miles nor even Standard Oil are on a whistle-stop tour of the early twentieth century courts, it is hard to see why Leegin would be on one of the Roberts Court, inappropriate POV hysteria and recentism aside. And needless to say, the list tilts towards a certain quarter's outrage du jour: Perhaps because it is less sexy than spitting feathers about Citizens United, the court's most significant move from the perspective of the bar's daily life, Bell Atlantic-Iqbal, gets nary a mention.

It seems to me that we can deal more concisely with the Rehnquist court, better with the Roberts and Warren courts, and can afford a little more detail to the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson courts (how, for pete's sake, can Butler, Barnette, or Korematsu avoid mention?).

Not wanting to raise problems without at least suggesting a starting point for fixing them, I have a (concededly rough, and concededly too long) proposed replacement: User:Simon Dodd/Sandbox/SCOTUS. To the inevitable objection that this proposal deletes some material, I answer that this is supposed to be a concise summary of the underlying sub-article on the court's history. Nor have I looked too closely at any citations; I've taken the underlying material as a given, aggregating what remains relevant and deleting only links supporting excised material. I also want to make clear that I'm not proposing this as a finished, self-contained replacement—just as a starting point for reforming the existing text. I would like to see the sections on the last two courts pared back even further than I have done so already. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also surprised by the absence of Korematsu from the World War II era cases. This section of the article should be a roughly evenly distributed summation of the larger "history of the court" article that it points to. bd2412  T 04:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I could go even shorter on R&R: User:Simon_Dodd/Sandbox/SCOTUS - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The revised version looks good to me generally speaking. I think pre-emption should go back into the Roberts court summary, and I would suggest listing the amendments in order rather than reverse order (and, because the list gets interrupted by case citations, I would try to see how it reads if we add "amendment" after the ordinal in each as well; as it was, "the Eighth (list of cases)" read a bit strange on first pass to me. Also, you should probably link West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in the New Deal section. Otherwise, thanks for the effort! Magidin (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! Link fixed. On the other points, how's this: User:Simon_Dodd/Sandbox/SCOTUS? (I did two versions, one with and one without your added "amendment" text—I prefer without, although I see the problem you're pointing out.) I put back in federal preemption and shortened the amendment list by removing the fourth amendment cases. I realize that will be controversial, but here's my case for it: the list is at once too long and too short. Too long because it's supposed to be a very short summary; too short because there are other fourth amendment cases that are just as significant which aren't listed. If Hudson, for instance, why not Herring? There's just no stopping point. To be sure, the court sometimes decides cases that will merit inclusion in the summary; for better or worse (I think better, many think worse), Citizens United became instantly notable. Nevertheless, while there will surely be an instinct to react to high profile decisions, a case like Snyder (to take a recent example) is not nearly so pathbreaking and enduringly important as to merit inclusion in what is, again, a whistle-stop tour of the Roberts court's highlights. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh; definitely looks clunky with the "Amendment" in all of them; how about "important rulings in several of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the first..., second... blah"? Having the word "Amendment" before the list would avoid the strangeness of the previous version, but you might not like having that sentence ahead of it. On the plus side, having "including" would also signal that the list is not necessarily exhaustive, which provides some cover for dropping the Fourth. If you don't mind a bit more verb, you could have "including, but not limited to". Magidin (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How's this: "Some of its major rulings have concerned federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine) civil procedure (Bell-Iqbal), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart), and the bill of rights, prominently Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment), Heller-McDonald (Second Amendment), and Baze v. Rees (Eighth Amendment)." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks much better, but I would prefer some signal to the reader that this list is not meant to be all-inclusive; perhaps "...and the Bill of Rights; among the latter are ..." ? Magidin (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't opening the sentence with "some of," and the list of BOR cases with "prominently" do just that? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Some" tells me that the entire list of rulings is not all-inclusive; but I thought we also wanted to say that for the ones about the Bill of Rights the list is likewise incomplete (that is, it is an incomplete list within an incomplete list). "Prominently" does not necessarily signal that to me, but I could be wrong. Magidin (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just made a proposal after experience in another thread, but I think it's apropos here: Let's not make perfect the enemy of better. I understand your point, but it's no less true of the existing text than the proposed revision, so for current purposes, I think it's a wash. In context, I don't think anyone reader will be confused into thinking that Citizens United is a complete enumeration of the court's first amendment cases, any more than in the existing text, anyone would think Hudson v. Michigan is a complete enumeration of the court's fourth amendment cases.
 * Let's put it this way: Does anyone specifically object to the proposed alternative as things stand after the discussion above? If everyone is reasonably happy with it, I'll go ahead and edit, then we can clean up any lingering concerns later. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry; when I said "I could be wrong", I meant that as a shrug of my shoulders and a "but I'm not going to go to the mat for this; what's there is okay by me." Certainly I should have been clearer. By all means, I think the proposal is generally good, and I'm happy with parts, okay with others, and unhappy with none. Magidin (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done—a saving of 9,296 characters, even after adding some additional material to earlier courts. I think it's a significant improvement. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics
I've done a minor revision of the demographics section (dif). For the most part I've simply made the existing content more succinct and changed the running order rather than deleting anything, although a few things have been pruned. Please let me know if there are any concerns. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The opening paragraph is confusing. You say "The Court currently has six males and three females. One is African American, one is Latino..." Makes it seem like you might be refering to the three females justices, and it is only when you hit the "two are Italian-Americans" that it becomes apparent you cannot be doing that. A few strategically placed "Justice"/"Justices" remedy that: change "One is African American" to "One Justice is African American..." and later, "six are Roman Catholics" to "six Justices are Roman Catholics..." Magidin (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call, that works better. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Facilities summary
As with the demographics and history sections, I have cleaned this up, with both eyes on the fact that it is a summary. I've pruned some excessive detail after making sure it's in the subarticle. Most revisions were minor; the only major one was the deletion of the paragraph on the front doors contretemps, which quite obviously doesn't belong here; it's amply covered (excessively so, actually, but that's a fight for another day) in the subarticle. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of... section
I have some real anxiety about this section. While I realize that there is a cognate section for President of the United States (although curiously not for Congress), I'd like to see it gone completely. It's a standing invitation to POV and weighting problems. Obviously criticisms should be well-documented, but that's not helpful either: Do we include every sourced criticism? Just the notable ones (and what does notable mean in this context)? How do we sift the list? Obviously it should only include serious criticisms, but that simply kicks the can down the road: who gets to decide which criticisms are serious? And if it really can't be done away with, I'd like to see it hived off into its own sub-article. I realize that that's the reverse of the general drift of how we handle such articles (see ), but this is a very, very long article, and I would really like for us to be able to get this back to featured article status. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The section needs to be weaved into the rest of the article in appropriate locations, rather than as a stand alone. The threshold should be "common"/"widespread" rather than "serious" (a lone legal expert may be making a very serious criticism, but if it is not generally echoed, then it probably does not belong in this page, perhaps on the hypothetical legal expert's page). I know I'd love to get it done, but I have yet to feel I have to time to undertake such a heavy edit. Magidin (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede
I'd like to revise the lede slightly, to wit:

"The Supreme Court of the United States is the apex of the legal system in the United States of America. Informally referred to as the High Court or by the acronym SCOTUS, it has ultimate (but discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court Building, and comprises a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices effectively have life tenure."

There are several changes in here, and I'm happy to talk about any of them, but time is pressing, so rather than me guessing users' concerns, I'd rather start by inviting editors to raise concerns or questions they have. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the current version for comparison purposes:
 * "The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States, and leads the federal judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" (majority vote) of the Senate. Once appointed, justices effectively have life tenure, serving "during good Behaviour", which terminates only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment. The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court Building. The Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, but it has original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. The Supreme Court is sometimes informally referred to as the High Court or by the acronym SCOTUS."


 * Now my suggested version (a blend of current and Simon's):
 * "The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. Informally referred to as the High Court or by the acronym SCOTUS, it has ultimate (but discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court Building and consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they are impeached and convicted."


 * I have left out wikilinking and formatting, but the capitalization changes are mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm on board with that revision. I have some uncertainty about "impeached and convicted" (I realize that's technically correct, but I think most people associate impeachment, pars pro toto, with removal through impeachment, a point that we can flesh out in the body of the article), but not enough to object. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. We could change it to "unless they are removed after impeachnment."--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be "...unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment."? Generally, it looks good to me (I'm assuming the suitable citations and links would be maintained, of course). Magidin (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think their ability to resign is fairly implicit. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

dry run, per Bbb23 revisions
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. Informally referred to as the High Court or by the acronym SCOTUS, it has ultimate (but discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court Building, and consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they are removed after impeachment.
 * - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I know I'm nitpicking, but perhaps add "largely" before "discretionary"? I believe there are still appeals that the Supreme Court may be 'required' to hear. Otherwise, keeping the citations (current citation 1 going next to "life tenure"; current citation 2 after "impeachment"; and current citation 3 after "small range of cases").Magidin (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's another good call. I'll leave this until tomorrow morning in case others want to weigh in, and will make the edits if no one objects by then. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Retired justices
Any strong feelings (support or opposition) for moving the retired justices into a sub-article? With three retired justices, the table takes up a lot of space which could be reclaimed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem like enough material for a sub-article... unless you started adding all sorts of things about justices' activities after they leave the Court (i.e., the current material would be merely a stub). No strong feelings either way from me. Magidin (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My primary concern is trying to manage the length of this article, so it's more about getting out what's extraneous than any perceived need to add to that section. I've boldly done so. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Magidin that it doesn't seem like there's enough material for a sub-article, perhaps a better way to reduce the length would be to create a sub-article for the criticisms section, possibly lengthening it to include sections on high profile cases that were either very controversial, or attracted a lot of criticism - so on criticisms of the court and its decisions. And then shortening the SCOTUS section of it to just a short paragraph with a link. Something I would be able to help with if the idea is liked. Also, with the table of retired justices, would it be better to order them by date of retirement rather than by date of appointment? - Ezuvian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezuvian (talk • contribs) 12:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured article status
We used to have it; I want it back. We've made some great headway over the last few days; can we pool our resources and make a concerted effort to figure out what needs to be done before reapplying for FA status? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinions by Justice Kagan and her judicial leanings
I just finished adding Justice Kagan's third opinion for the Court (she has yet to write a unanimous opinion, though this time it was Breyer who dissented). I don't want a repeat of the long list that developed with Sotomayor last term, so I'm proposing that this be the last opinion added specifically this way. After this, I would suggest dropping the Kagan paragraph, and eventually adding some information on her votes, possibly derived from the stat-pack that SCOTUSBlog prepares each term, along the lines of what we currently have for Sotomayor, while we wait for statements from reliable sources on her judicial leanings. I thought it might be a good idea to settle this ahead of time, so I'm mentioning this here in case someone has a different suggestion fro dealing with it. Magidin (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the entire paragraph should be dropped forthwith. I don't know why it's there—save, in context, as a trojan horse for the proposition that it's too early to describe Kagan's judicial leanings—and the whole thing seems like WP:RECENTISM. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with dropping it; my only concern is the experience with Sotomayor getting added prematurely (and without citations) to the "liberal wing" justices. In a very real sense, yes, the paragraph is meant to be pre-emptive of such actions. Magidin (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in reality I think it's pretty obvious that they're both in the court's liberal wing, unless one assumes that our Harvard Law graduate President is a total clot when it comes to such things. I rather think he's smarter than that. Still, the issue is what's verifiable not what's true, and if there are no sources placing SS & EK ideologically, I don't think we leave an unacceptable lacuna in the article if that section doesn't assign them a seating in either wing (or perhaps even disclaims doing so). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With Sotomayor, we had reliable sources placing her (with appropriate caveats) in the liberal wing around this time in her first year, and so she was added to the paragraph immediately after the "solid liberals" with the appropriate quotes and caveats. I suspect we haven't seen the same for Kagan yet simply because she has recused herself in so many cases decided so far, and also because, having not had a judicial career before, people are less likely to "stick their necks out" placing her into an ideological stance than they were with Sotomayor; see McGinnis's comments quoted in the article, and cf. Souter's first year or two with his eventual membership in the liberal wing. (My copy of the **Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court**, published in 1992, says "Predicting a justice's voting patterns over an entire career from a single term is hazardous. Nonetheless, in a number of 5-to-4 decisiosn during his first term Justice Souter joined the conservative majority and signaled he would actively participate in changing the Court's direction.") So I expect not to have any even tentative pronouncements until much later in the term. Magidin (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

SCOTUSblog recently published their most recent statpack on the Justices. I was thinking of dropping this paragraph and replacing it with some statistics on justice agreements so far: to wit, that of 38 opinions so far this term (with Kagan voting in only 18 of them due to recusals), 21 have been unanimous in vote; of the divided opinions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy have been in the majority most often (94% of the time) and Justice Ginsburg least often (59%). The two justices who have agreed the most (in full, in part, or in judgement) are Justices Kagan and Sotomayor (100% of the time at least in part, 94% of the time in full) and Kagan and Breyer (100% at least in judgement, 88% in full), followed by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy (95% of the time at least in judgement, 92% in full) and Roberts and Alito (95% at least in judgement, 82% in full); and the two justices who disagree in judgement most often are Justices Kagan and Alito (35% of the time), followed by Scalia and Sotomayor(26% of the time). Or some other summary people think appropriate. You can see the justice agreement chart here. What do people think?


 * I like it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the paragraph with some of the statistics above and some other qualifiers involving Kagan's recusals, with suitable references to the specific table in the pack. I'll keep an eye out for any future iterations (including their final statpack for the term). Feel free to shorten, qualify, add, or edit as appropriate. Magidin (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lead and jurisdiction sections
User:BernieW650 made changes to the lead and to the Jurisdiction section. I reverted, and he reverted back. I will revert one more time after finishing this message.

Bernie's proposed lead reads: "The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court of federal judicial system in the United States with the primary task of adjudicating on the constitutionality of acts past by Congress and President. Informally referred to as the High Court or by the acronym SCOTUS, it has ultimate (but largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases."

First, I think any significant change to the lead of this article should be discussed first. Second, Bernie's phrasing is awkward. It is certainly not an improvement on what was there before: "The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. Informally referred to as the High Court or by the acronym SCOTUS, it has ultimate (but largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases."

Bernie also added the following to the end of the Jurisdiction section: "There are two ways in which a case can be referred to the Supreme Court. The first is a direct appeal from the lower federal courts if a constitutional issue is deemed to be involved. The second way is by petitioning for a writ of certiorari, which can only be granted with the agreement of four justices of the Supreme Court."

First, there's no source for this statement. Second, it's not accurate. Third, a case is not "referred" to the Court. Finally, it's also covered, at least in part, in Case selection.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also have doubts about saying that the "primary task" is "adjudicating on the constitutionality of acts of Congress" (the President can pass no acts). The majority of cases decided by the Supreme Court each term turn on statutory interpretation, not Constitutionality; they tend to get the lesser press, but that doesn't mean they don't form a large part of the Court's docket. Direct appeals do not require a "constitutional issue", they only require a "federal matter" to be involved (this includes violation of federal law, or interpretation of the U.S. Code, for example). Finally, the so-called "Rule of Four" is an internal rule of the court, which is not even codified. I agree with the reverts. Magidin (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with both of you. Bernie is clearly not a lawyer and has no legal training, plus his syntax is flawed and borders on Engrish.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not being a lawyer is surely not really the issue (I hope! I'm a mathematician). I'm entirely self-(mis?)educated about these things (with generous help from others from time to time, of course). Magidin (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, Magidin. And as long as we're picking on poor Caesar (who agrees with me yet), the reference to Engrish could be construed as offensive. That's why I used the more neutral word "awkward".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court
There's a question about whether the associate justices of the USSC can be said to occupy numbered seats, with one justice succeeding another, or if they are all simply undifferentiated seats. See Talk:John Paul Stevens and Talk:List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat (same questioner). Any informed opinions would be helpful.  Will Beback   talk    19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In his memorandum on the motion for recusal in Cheney v. United States District Court, Justice Scalia writes: "The second example pertains to a Justice who was one of the most distinguished occupants of the seat to which I was appointed, Robert Jackson."


 * See page 16 here. So at least Scalia seems to believe that associate justices occupy specific seats. Magidin (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Created new portal = Supreme Court of the United States
I've created a new portal for this topic. Collaboration and help would be appreciated, just drop a note at Portal talk:Supreme Court of the United States. -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at Featured Portal candidates
Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is a candidate for Featured Portal, with discussion at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Supreme Court of the United States. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Term limits
I came looking to find out how many days the Court actually sits, but can't find it. Anybody know? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  14:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no set number of days. The Court begins on the first Monday in October, and the term continues until the end of June (precise date varies). These days, the Court usually schedules two or three argument days per week for two weeks each month, with breaks in December and in Spring. Sometimes there are also days when the Court convenes and hands down decisions, as well as conference days. But what does this have to do with "term limits"? Magidin (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx. Even a mention of June (& variability) would be an improvement IMO.
 * The period sitting is a "term", isn't it? And the duration is a limit...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  16:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the United States "Term limits" refers to the practice of limiting the number of terms that an elected representative may serve; e.g., the Presidency has "term limits" because a person can only serve two terms as president; there are no term limits for Congress; and several states have term limits for the offices of governor, state representative/senator, and other elected offices. So your usage conflicts with the standard meaning of that phrase.
 * In addition, there is a distinction between the "October xxx Term" of the Supreme Court and a "sitting". "Sittings" refer to the periods, usually of two weeks, in which the Court hears cases, and they alternate with "Recesses" in which the Court still works but is not hearing cases. See the Terms and sittings section of the Procedures article. But I'll add a similar paragraph here. Magidin (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead about alternative names
I have a problem with the phrase "Informally referred to as the High Court or by the acronym SCOTUS." There's no discussion of this in the body (and the lead should summarize the body), and there was no cite in support of the assertions. I added a tag. Another user questioned the tag and has put in a source, ostensibly in support of SCOTUS. I still don't think the phrase is adequately supported. First, it doesn't support the High Court part. Second, it's a primary source of acronyms of another federal agency. That just means that agency uses SCOTUS as an acronym. That doesn't come close to the prominence we are giving SCOTUS in the lead. For those reasons, I've added another tag (with an internal explanation).

I favor removing the phrase completely. I don't think High Court is used much, if at all, at least not in modern times. As for SCOTUS, I know it is used, but just because it's used doesn't mean that it's a common enough name to stick it in the lead. Essentially, we are saying that these are generally commonly used alternate names for the court, and I personally think that's untrue. But more important, we can't say it unless there's adequate third-party support for it. Finally, even if we were to leave some remnant of it in the lead, it begs the question referred to by whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's deja vu all over again. Didn't this come up earlier? Anyway: I generally agree with your take. Magidin (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think we discussed the lead, but not that particular phrase. I added search capability to the archives so I could look, and all I could find was a 2003 discussion (I wasn't here) about SCOTUS and USSC, slightly favorable to my view, but nothing that really fleshes out these issues. Anyway, hopefully, more people will comment as I'm hesitant about removing the stuff without more agreement.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Harej decided, without any contribution here, to change the opening word from "informally" to "also" with the edit summary, "i can assure you that people call it both "SCOTUS" and "the High Court". I don't know about the formality of it all so I agree to revising that." Ticks me off that editors think they can just do things like this on their own with no collaboration. As for Harej's edit summary, it's obviously WP:OR - "I can assure you" isn't a source. In any event, I'm going to restrain my pique and leave it be because it doesn't change the status quo much anyway. Unfortunately, though, the only two people who have contributed to this discussion are me and Magidin, who are in agreement. I will wait some more to see if anyone wants to contribute in a constructive manner. If not, I will change it because clearly no one - except Harej, indirectly and without support - objects.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this information about the informal names is not particularly important in relation to much of the other content of the article, and it is certainly being given undue emphasis by being placed so prominently in the lede. However, let's not get all upset about a source -- I can also assure you that both of those terms are used, at least sometimes, to refer to the Supreme Court, and if you really needed sources they could be found.  (In fact, there was a footnote in the article some months ago concerning the usage of "SCOTUS", although it subsequently got removed.)  But, seriously?  We don't need sources for facts that are common knowledge.  Don't let your pique bleed over into pedantry.  Anyway, I agree with you that these don't belong in the opening sentence, although they might be worthy of a mention somewhere lower down.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My pique was at Harej, not at the sentence. I'd be happy to move them out of the lead, but they would still require sources. I disagree that they are "common knowledge." No one I know calls the Supreme Court the "High Court", and the only I place I see SCOTUS used is on the web, not in conversational references or in hard print. For example, a search of all federal decisions in Westlaw turns up 12 SCOTUS references. Most of them don't have anything to do with the Supreme Court. One reference is "SCOTUS blog postings", which is an entry in an attorney's bill. The phrase "High Court" is harder because there are many references to Maryland's "high court" and Viriginia's "high court", etc. Too many to wade through. I did see some references to "high court" by state supreme court judges referring to the U.S. Supreme Court. I also saw a repeated reference to "high court" that was in a title of a 1965 law review article referring to the Supreme Court. There certainly aren't enough references to it to make it worthy of inclusion anywhere in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any more comments in over a week, I will remove the phrase from the lead. The three of us appear to agree that at least it doesn't belong in the lead. I do not intend to move it anywhere else in the article. I will leave it to others to do so if they wish, but with reliable sources to back up both assertions (I don't consider the current source for SCOTUS to be sufficiently supportive of the assertion).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading, potential (book review) resource
Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir by John Paul Stevens, Reviewed by Walter Russell Mead January/February 2012 Foreign Affairs 99.19.44.155 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of justices
I see this "Article III of the United States Constitution leaves it to Congress to fix the number of justices." in the article.

I do not see this anywhere in article III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.199.168 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Section 1 of Article III requires a Supreme Court, and Article I Clause 6 requires a Chief Justice; this has been understood to mean, together with the "... as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" qualifier of the first sentence of Section 1 of Article III, to mean that Congress is free to establish the number of Justices by Statute, but that a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice must be established. Magidin (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Navboxes
Having both the United States politics navbox and the United States Supreme Court navbox makes this article crowded on the right side at the top of the article. I think the more specific United States Supreme Court navbox is the better choice of the two because it's more specific. What do others think? Pinetalk 07:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

SCOTUS (again)
Mistakefinder added a reference to the "SCOTUS" abbreviation to the lead. I reverted, citing archived talk discussions that eventually led to its removal (e.g., here and currently in the talk page). It has been added back with no comment. I've left a note in Mistakefinder's page making the following argument in essence and with a link to the archived discussion. Among other things, I don't think the new addition is good enough, stating without reference that it is commonly used. My impression is that the press does not seem to use the abbreviation much, though it is somewhat common in Blogs aimed at professionals; but even such sites as SCOTUSBlog usually uses "The Court" when talking about it. Of the many things that the Supreme Court is called (e.g., "the High Court", "the Court", "the Supreme Court", "the Supremes") SCOTUS is just not that common outside a particularly narrow circle. Magidin (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I added SCOTUS since SCOTUS is a redirect to this article and within it there are several uses of it. Yeah I typically don't add unsourced things, but seeing the term used within the article felt like the term needs to be defined at the top. If it's true "SCOTUS" is not common, then perhaps the usage within the article should be removed. Any acronym used should be defined unless well known. I only learned the term today! Maybe leave the only use in "SCOTUSblog.com" and define after it. Mistakefinder (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Sorry; as you were typing your answer, I was reverting again.) As far as I can tell, the only use of "SCOTUS" in the article is as part of the name "SCOTUSblog" and the address "SCOTUSblog.com"; it's the name of a blog, so I'm not sure why we should explain in this article why the people who have the site named it that (and the page on SCOTUSblog makes the connection). If we add a reference to the The Volokh Conspiracy blog, should we add a note in this page explaining that "Volokh" is the last name of the founders of that blog? Magidin (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is 'SCOTUS' used by the NYT: "SCOTUS Lets Feds Reads Times Phone Bills" back from 2006. --S. Rich (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, Magidin. I wasn't saying we should define the blog's name, but "SCOTUS" IS a redirect now. If it IS uncommon, then "SCOTUS" should redirect to "SCOTUSblog" instead, where that article exists. But Srich32977 also gave an instance of use. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Poll
A new editor added recent polling information here. I thought about changing the wording but then questioned the wisdom of including the material in the first place. Polling data is inherently problematic. When we add such data, we open up a can of worms to adding more polls in the future, sort of like health studies. I'm not sure what purpose it serves to show what Americans think now, what they think two months from now, etc. I recognize there is already one poll in the article (about televising oral argument), but that at least is about a very narrow issue. Although this poll arguably relates to the section to which it was added, I still think its inclusion is problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's abjure polls. The Supreme Court is not a democratic institution, was never meant to be, and polling should be irrelevant. Though the court's popularity does potentially bear on its credibility, and in extreme circumstances, might even determine whether the other more political branches of government will give effect to its judgments. This is a point explored in Justice Breyer's rather startlingly candid recent law review article Making Our Democracy Work.  Anyway, I am with Socrates, who asks his friend Crito who visits Socrates in prison awaiting execution, "Why should you care about what the many think?  I care only about the few reasonable people." Crito's response about the harm the excitable hoi polloi can do is worth pondering. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  21:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I, too, would argue for not including poll results directly; quoting notable analysis of such polls as part of an argument about public perception of the Court (that is, taking secondary sources who use that primary data) would be okay as part of presenting general criticisms (for example, I can see this poll being used to argue that the Court is "too politicized"), but directly refering to the polls does not seem to be a good idea. Magidin (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Stat Pack 2011
SCOTUSBlog has come out with their statistics pack for the October 2011 term; I'll add a paragraph following the discussion of last term's statistics later today; let me know what other things should be added to that summary or corrected. Magidin (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
For an article that is rated as highly as this one is, the section on criticisms of the Court is quite weak. It relies too heavily on other pages of Wikipedia to define the meanings of certain terms. The definitions of "judicial restraint" and "judicial activism" are particularly problematical. One can't define what something is merely by listing purported instances of it. The pages for "judicial restraint" and "judicial activism" have deservedly received a mere "C" rating because they provide very little insight into the true nature of these terms. Merely saying that judicial activism involves personal opinions or biases hardly touches the matter. Nevertheless, this article depends on these other pages to define the meanings of these terms on this page, with the result that their meanings appear to be defined here but are in fact undefined or poorly defined. I haven't checked all of the other references to definitions given in this article, but I suspect that these two may not be the only weak ones. I would hope that Wikipedia can do better than this.Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The definitions"? This page does not have as its purpose defining judicial restraint or judicial activism; if you object to the definitions given in the corresponding pages, then the proper place to discuss that are the talk pages of those articles, not here. The purpose of the criticism section here is precisely to describe the criticisms that have been leveled at the Supreme Court, and in order to do so those descriptions must be sourced and backed by verifiable and reliable sources. In practice, this means that they will often take the form of examples of such criticisms (what you call "listing purported instances of it"). It is not an attempt at defining judicial restraint/judicial activism that leads to those lists: it's an attempt at providing verifiable instances of such criticisms being leveled. As such, it seems your complaint is at least partially based on a basic misunderstanding of what is being attempted. Magidin (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me. I was under the mistaken impression that this page was attempting to communicate knowledge. If the definitions of the terms one uses are vague even among experts (as is admitted on the two pages cited here), then what exactly is being communicated by using them? All that has been "verified" is that charges have been leveled by specific people who have their own definitions in mind of what constitutes judicial activism. Given the vagueness of the term, it is unlikely that even they would agree among themselves on its meaning. My point is not that there is no such thing as judicial activism in our country. It is instead that, that if judicial activism cannot be defined, it cannot be addressed. Observations that something is wrong with the judicial system can produce no positive result unless one knows the cause(s) of the problem. There is nothing whatsoever here in this article or on the pages that define the terms which you apparently think are already defined that would allow anyone to understand the cause(s) of the problem. What we have here is little better than a news report. If judicial activism is something to be worried about, and I think it is, then there is a clear need for experts to work on the definition of it. This article needs to rise above reports of what different people have to say about judicial activism. At a minimum, it should recognize that something more than this is desirable.Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again: this page is not the appropriate vehicle for defining the terms; that might be appropriate for the pages dedicated to those terms, but not here. Even there, it is highly debatable if it would be appropriate to propose definitions; at best, those pages should report definitions that are in use in verifiable, reliable sources. As to your point, it is moot. The page is not about what you think is true or what you think is false (or about what I think is true or what I think is false). In fact, the current wording of the verifiability policy states this explicitly: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The main policies for inclusion in Wikipedia are: verifiability, reliability, and no original research. It is not a platform for you to tell experts what they need to do; it is not a vehicle for you to express what is or is not desirable; it is not a vehicle for advocacy. In that respect, you are absolutely under serious mistaken impressions. Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor even a secondary source. It's purpose is to collect information that is available and verifiable in primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, not to produce new information, and certainly not to engage in advocacy. It is not to "produce results" (positive or negative). Your "point" constitutes your opinion, it is original research, and as such has no place in Wikipedia.  What you believe this article should do is in fact one of the things that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to do. Magidin (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are aware of the warning placed on some Wikipedia articles that says that the article in question is in need of expert attention. That is how I feel about this article. I think that the "experts" who put together this page did not do justice to this particular topic and that they apparently don't see anything wrong with that situation. I am entitled to suggest that they point out that there appears to be no agreement on the meaning of "judicial activism" (which is already admitted in the article on it), and that all they do here (given the desire to avoid original research) is list published articles about suspected instances of it. It may be convenient to dodge this issue by pointing to another page that leaves judicial activism undefined, but that is not something that a true expert would do. Judicial activism doesn't have to be defined here. It just needs to be recognized here as a term that has not been clearly defined by experts. That is not advocacy. It is honesty.Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not what you stated in your previous commentary, though. You made an unsupported assertion ("there is no such thing as judicial activism in our country") (I'll even ignore the fact that Wikipedia is a global endeavour; no such as thing as "our country"). You implied that there is something wrong that needs to be changed. You said "experts need to work on the definition". Assuming you mean, experts need to work on properly communicating what the definition is, then this is not the page to do so; but rather it looks like you argue that experts 'in the real world' need to work on the definition as there isn't a proper one; that's definitely advocacy. This page is not a place for a "true expert" to communicate his or her expertise, because, again, Wikipedia is not a repository for original research. I for one am not an expert,and never claimed to be one, so your scare quotes don't particularly scare me. If you are annoyed that your unsourced paragraph was reverted, then you are annoyed at the basic Wikipedia policies and you are directing that annoyance at the wrong place. Magidin (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First, if you are going to quote someone, I think you ought to make a better effort to be accurate and not take their words out of context. My position is actually the opposite of what you said it is. Furthermore, the statement you quoted was clearly presented as my own thoughts on the matter, so it hardly needs to be supported on a talk page. Go back and read what I wrote. Second, by your standard, all someone has to do is get their opinion published somewhere to make it eligible to be cited in Wikipedia (or the press). You seem to consider such opinions as having some value. I see them as fluff. This conversation is going nowhere. My main purpose in opening up this talk topic was to point out to readers the difference between a definition of what something is and a mere list of its reported instances. I think I have done that. 2500 years ago, Plato said the same thing in the Theaetetus. How's that for support? Perhaps some other people who see this talk page will have their own comments about the clearness of the terms used in the section on judicial activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with Magidin that Thetruthisoutthere33's addition appears to be unsourced and that Magidin Roux was correct in reverting. Thetruthisoutthere33, I suggest you read the policies verifiability, reliability, and no original research. This article does have a section on criticisms of the Supreme Court but note how many references support the statements in the article. Unsourced additions such as the comments that you made appear to be original research and/or a statement of personal opinion. Even if a Wikipedia editor has a Ph.D. in a subject that's discussed by an article, they should not be posting unsourced commentary. In a high profile article such as this one, the enforcement of this policy is likely to be strict in order to prevent many people, "expert" or not, from inserting their personal comments and analysis. Pinetalk 07:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Magidin, and I happen to be an expert on the Supreme Court. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I did not revert the addition made; the revert was made by editor Roux. Magidin (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed in my comment. Pinetalk 07:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I actually agree with this particular comment made by Magidin too. You will note, however, that I have not challenged the reversion. I have moved on and have instead chosen to open up a talk page on the usefulness of citing the personal opinions of others (no matter who they are) as a substitute for giving the definition of something. This is a question that does not require expertise on the Supreme Court. The article says that both conservatives and liberals don't like (what they perceive to be) judicial activism. We are told that judicial activism has been going on for a long time, with the implication that we should expect it to continue. How is this information useful? It has been said (elsewhere) that people can agree to disagree. There will always be people who take positions on either side of an issue. This is really all that the citations show. It is a fact that different people define judicial activism differently. Therefore, the debate here is not about a well-defined issue. Consequently, it doesn't have well-defined opposite sides. What I have just said is not original research or personal opinion. My personal opinion happens to be that judicial activism is a serious problem, and that it cannot be addressed until it is defined. I don't like the fact that this high-profile article makes it seem okay to leave things as they are. This amounts to an implicit endorsement of the status quo. I would say that this qualifies as a type of advocacy. I would be satisfied if the article merely recognized the vagueness of the existing definitions of judicial activism. I do not see how such a change could be interpreted as advocacy or opinion or original research.Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And this is not the correct article to be a vehicle for addressing problems with the definition of the term "judicial activism", either in Wikipedia, or in the real world. For the issue within Wikipedia, there is a page dedicated to "Judicial activism", and that is the place where your argument should be made, not here. This page is about the Supreme Court of the United States; charges of "judicial activism" are not confined to the Supreme Court, or even to the United States. You are criticising a section for doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing: it's a section about what criticisms have been leveled at the Supreme Court, not about their truth, accuracy, usefulness, nor their well-foundedness. It's not supposed to discuss that. And as far as the real world is concerned, Wikipedia is not the place for you to make your argument at all. So, again, it seems to me that your problem is not with this article, but with the very foundational policies of Wikipedia. And even if it is not, you are making your case in the wrong place. Magidin (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I am persuaded by your argument that this is the wrong place to discuss judicial activism because judicial activism is not a topic that is restricted to the Supreme Court. I drop my objection. Furthermore, if Wikipedia's policies prevent you and others from even warning your readers that the truth, accuracy, usefulness, comparability and/or well-foundedness of any set of opinions that are quoted in Wikipedia are not a matter for its concern, so be it. I didn't know there is such a rule. I'm glad you told me about it. I think that the rule seriously reduces the value of ever quoting anyone's opinion on anything. All one can be sure of is that Wikipedia wants the person's quote to be accurate. I can't imagine how anyone could think that this information does much to advance a reader's understanding of a subject. Because Wikipedia does not want an author's personal opinions to enter its articles, it may be that Wikipedia is endeavoring to use this rule to discourage quotes of mere opinions. Although I would certainly endorse such an effort, I somehow doubt that this is the case. Anyway, you would know more about their goals than I. Thank you for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether something is "the truth", is "accurate", is "useful", is "comparable", or is "well-founded" is a matter of opinion. According to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to tell readers what is "true", what is "useful", what is "accurate", what is "comparable", or what is "well-founded." It is the job of Wikipedia to be a compendium of knowledge that is published, verifiable, and reliable, and to do so in a way which is neutral, representing all majority and significant minority views on the subject. Wikipedia describes verifiable information that can be found in reliable source. Ideally, it neither endorses nor rejects them, merely describes them and sources them. Describing what you call the "status quo" of the argument about "judicial activism" is precisely it's supposed to do, without taking any sides and without endorsing the "status quo" nor advocating its change. If you can provide reliable, verifiable sources that discuss the need the change that "status quo", then those sources can be cited and their content summarized. For example, if you have a suitable article published in a reliable source which discusses the problems with the definition (or lack thereof) of "juddicial activism", then that would be a fine addition to the article on the subject. But it's not the job of editors to put forth such an opinion or analysis. (If you can find such sources, then they belong in the article on Judicial Activism, of course). Magidin (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the section on Criticism needs to do more than say that criticism exists. It should mention the fact that Article II, Section IV of the Constitution provides for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices. It should also say that the only Supreme Court Justice ever to be impeached was Justice Samuel Chase and that he was acquitted. I know that Chase is mentioned in the history section of this article, but his case ties to the Criticism section as well. It might even be better placed in this section. It shows that criticisms are not merely opportunities to vent about the Court's decisions. They may lead to formal charges. These two things are easy to reference. I suspect someone could find an article about the difficulties involved in impeaching a Justice and the consequences these difficulties have for the independence of the Court, but I am not familiar with such an article.Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that impeachment is possible and that only one justice has been impeached (and acquitted) is already in the article (under Tenure; why do you think it should be listed under Criticisms? It's not a criticism. In essence, you want to add a threat to a section which is about what the criticisms are, not what they can do. Moreover, talking about impeachment in that section is out of place and misleading; not every criticism rises to the level of "do this or else we'll kick you out." Asking for the Court to be more open about its deliberations... nobody has even hinted that not letting cameras into the courtroom during oral arguments would be impeachable. Not choosing enough cases to review? Has anybody, seriously or not, ever suggested that Justices should be impeached if they don't review more cases? In fact, the only criticism that is sometimes followed by a call for impeachment is your particular hobby horse, judicial activism. So I disagree with the suggestion. Magidin (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to disagree. All I did was make a suggestion. I am surprised that you think it is even possible to threaten the Court with anything here. Only the House can challenge the Court. The section on criticisms records certain complaints about the Court while remaining neutral about those criticisms. Some of these complaints are about quite serious issues, but none of them has been considered to be both valid and impeachable. I don't think it is out of place here to say that the Constitution makes provisions in Article II to address a really serious problem if it were ever to arise, but that this has only happened once in history. As it stands, this section leaves one with the impression that people complain about the Court, and that's all that people can do. They can agree to disagree because (as you see it) "the truth ... is a matter of opinion." There is no mention of Article II, Section 4 anywhere in this entire entry on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile this Article is specifically mentioned in the entry on the President of the United States. Apparently, the authors of that entry did not think that talking about it constituted a threat to the President.Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not implying that you are trying to intimidate the Justices; I'm saying that you want to add a sentence saying, in essence, "and justices can be kicked out of office through impeachment". What does it add to the section on criticisms, except to imply that the justices operate under "threat of impeachment"? First, that is already in the article, where it belongs (under Tenure); second, I disagree with your impression of what impression the Criticism section leaves. Third, most of the criticisms about the Court are about how the Court conducts its business; Article II Section 4 is about Impeachment and Conviction of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Putting impeachment in conjunction with criticisms about how the Court operates, what decisions it reaches, how many cases it hears, etc. is out of place. The page on the President of the United States mentions impeachment in the section on vacancy or disability, not in the context of "people complain about how the President conducts his business." As it happens, impeachment is also mentioned in this article in the section on Tenure, exactly the correct parallel to its location in the page about the President. If you want to add the magic words "Article II, Section 4", then add them in that section, where it explicitly mentions "A justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction." P.S. Thank you for your gracious confirmation that I am entitled to my opinion. All you did was make a suggestion (I know that). And what I did was express my opinion of that suggestion, precisely what talk pages are for. Maybe I should have prefaced it with "You are certainly entitled to make suggestions." Magidin (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the criticism section, and can not find anything that I would drastically change. I think that if we were to mention the potential for impeachment at all, it should be in the section addressing lifetime tenure, for which impeachment (like term limits or age limits) is a theoretical solution. bd2412  T 23:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but I am not going to touch the page. Let someone else do it.Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a mention of an interested Facebook page where we can discuss the SCOTUS, how the decide cases, etc. It's pretty interesting. A Facebook friend of mine started it and it has a lot of interesting interviews with the Justices and such. iMatti (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did, and then another editor removed it, and then you added it again. That is called "edit warring" and it is not wanted on Wikipedia.  The content you added is inappropriate for the reasons I explained on your user talk page.  Please do not engage in any more edit warring.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 07:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A reference to add
The Jurisdiction section of this article appears to contain few sources given the amount of information covered. I would like to provide a reference that supports a portion of this section. I am asking for help in making this change because the source I propose is an online Constitution Guide created by The Heritage Foundation, where I work. Below is the sentence as it exists in the article and the code for the citation:


 * It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.

If this source looks ok as a reference for this information, please could someone add it into the section? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. On one hand, I think a significant population may view The Heritage Foundation as a controversial source due to its conservative viewpoint, so I am not sure how it would fly to use such a source to support this neutral non-controversial statement in the article. On the other hand, the referenced article looks like a pretty good overview of the topic of interstate disputes and I personally wouldn't object to its addition for this purpose.


 * It seems to me that this sentence is really basic civics, though. Isn't there a civics textbook or other alternative neutral source that could be used? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of standard sources that can be used to support this statement (which is indisputably true and unlikely to be disputed by anyone). One source that comes to mind off the top of my head is Supreme Court Practice by Stern & Grossman.
 * Here is a list from the Supreme Court's website of recent original jurisdiction cases that are pending or recently decided. The listing confirms that most are disputes between two cases, and a couple are disputes between a state and the United States (federal government). The other constitutional bases of original jurisdiction (cases involving ambassadors, etc.) are no longer used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing this. While I'd like to point out that the Constitution Guide is a guide written by legal experts and isn't a Heritage opinion piece that would be non-neutral source, I understand if you feel other sources are more appropriate here. Thanks again for the input and I've removed the request edit template. Thurmant (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Update on judicial leanings
I tweaked a bit the Judicial leanings section; the first paragraph was originally written about a year after Justice Souter retired, and had no references to Justice Kagan. By now, it should be possible to cite reliable sources on Sotomayor, and possibly some for Kagan as well. However, I don't have the time to go fishing for them right now. If anyone happens to have some handy references, could you please add them and take a pass at the opening paragraph? Magidin (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a See also link to a new page, Ideological Leanings of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, that reviews the recent academic literature in which researchers have statistically analyzed the ideological leaning of each of the justices since 1937. This new page includes two graphs that show the shift in the relative ideological leaning of each justice over time. Should some of the content currently on this page in the Judicial leanings section be moved to the new page or should there be a summary of the new page added here? Randy Schutt (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error
u failed The following coordinate fixes are needed for —86.160.180.140 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me. Are you using an Apple maps app by any chance? :) ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Teaching Company as a source
While I have enjoyed a number of The Great Courses from The Teaching Company, I don't think they will work as RS. Unless they are available at a library, you must pay for them. In this regard, WP:SOURCEACCESS is a concern. The teaching guides typically have references to textbooks, etc., so they can be used as a starting point for getting citations that are WP:V.--S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your concern. In my view, the Teaching Company materials are excellent in terms of information, authoritativeness, written by experts who are highly knowledgeable about their fields -- that is, they are well regarded as reliable sources. Almost all Great Courses lectures are available free from public libraries. Please remember that there is no requirement that a source must be verifiable online, although I myself prefer to use such sources since they're so easy to check and validate; but the rules allow for citing offline sources such as books and, in this case, a CD lecture course. If you don't believe my particular addition, I can take a photo of a section of the transcript in the guidebook and email it to you; my email is thomaswrightsulcer (at) yahoo (dot) com if you'd like to email me first.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Further, from WP:SOURCEACCESS -- Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries. That a source is not easy to access does not mean that it is invalid. Books, CD-audio courses -- they're all good sources here, and not grounds for removing good information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I certainly WP:AGF wrt the materials you cited. Professor Finn (like all of TLC lecturers) has done an excellent job. But as mentioned, I would hope for more accessible sources. He's got references listed in the learning guide -- don't they provide similar material?
 * How about this? The particular course (with variations) is listed by WorldCat. See . Thus we can point to which libraries stock it. By using the   template (not cite news) you can add ISBNs and OCLC #s.  (Also, the quote section in the templates are for the language used, not where the stuff is found.)  --S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it up to your good judgment what you'd like to do. The particular CD set was borrowed from the Westfield Memorial Library in Westfield NJ (didn't find it on WorldCat) but if you'd like to use it or not use it, or redo the reference, I'll go with your view since you've been working on this article a while and have a good sense of what is best. I'm still doing the course and may find more information relevant; perhaps I'll post it on the talk page here first to see if you or others would like to use it. And I can photo parts of the guidebook and email them to folks if they'd like to verify it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tom, take a look at the back cover or copyright page of the guidebooks and the back of the CD/DVD cases for your courses. You will find the ISBNs. They are easy to add to citations. On book templates, the line looks like "|isbn=123456789" or you can just type "ISBN 1234567890" or "ISBN 978-1234567890" the end of the citation. (The ISBN needs to be either 10 or 13 digits to work properly. Some people add all the hyphens they see, but they are not needed.) You've got the reference in hand, so it is easiest for you to match the title & ISBN. Thanks for the offer to copy the material, but what if every interested editor took you up on the offer?--S. Rich (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The ISBN is 1-59803-198-8 or 1598031988 without the hyphens. On the back, underneath the barcode, there's a 13-digit number: 9781598031980. Not sure which (10-digit or 13-digit) to use. Didn't find the OCLC number on the book. And if there were multiple offers to see a photo, I'd send it to multiple people; problem is, most are uninterested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The OCLC won't be on the box. It is a number used by WorldCat.  See  for this particular item.  I am suggesting that you add the data (ISBN and OCLC) in order to improve the reference which you posted.--S. Rich (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I add the numbers to the reference which you reverted, then are you saying that you won't revert it if it is added back again? Hmmmm?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Composition templates
There are a number of templates named like U.S. Supreme Court composition 1836–1837. For those after 1835, the date range uses an endash, per WP:MOSDATE. Those before 1835, however, use a hyphen. Like other inconsistencies of this type, this can be annoying to editors, in particular because there are no redirects for either type in the random few at which I looked. Is there a reason for this split? Should the hyphenated ones be moved? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 04:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Absent objection, I've moved the 16 articles in question. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 04:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and another 21 articles from 1953 to 2005, 2009–2010, and 2010–present. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 06:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Rules of the Supreme Court
Since 2011, the article on the Rules of the Supreme Court has been about the former rules that applied from 1883 to 1999 at the Courts of England and Wales. The U.S. Supreme Court has its own rules, which are changing in July (see http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/ctrules.aspx, particularly 2010 rules, 2013 rules) Separately, http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013revisedrules.pdf is a press release with "clerk comments" that makes it clear what's changing for 2013 and why.

I've added those links as external links for Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States.

What I want to request is for someone to write a new section on the court's rules, so that a hatnote I just added to Rules of the Supreme Court can be replaced with one that redirect readers to an article or section specifically on the contents and history of the court's rules. 67.100.127.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Law Clerks
It seems like there ought to be a section devoted to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices' law clerks. On this page there is a discussion about the politicization of the law clerks under the Judicial leanings section. There is also a separate page called List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. And there is much discussion of the qualifications of law clerks and their connections to SC justices in the United States section of the Law clerk page. It seems like this should all be consolidated somewhere and appropriate links left behind. Does that make sense? Randy Schutt (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In Robles v. Amarr Garage Door's, et al., SCOTUS # 12-10098, this case was "misplaced" by the clerks office with no proper explanation. This case involves the US Attorney Eric Holder and may have been an instance of "quid pro quo". The actions of SCOTUS should never be called into question when dealing with the rights of US citizens. This was unfortunately the second such event in this case alone. See: USDC Kansas, Robles v. Amarr Garage Door's, et al., and Robles v. State Farm. Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) passed the "hot potato". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.64.177.69 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First: You seem to be confusing the office of the Clerk of the Court, with the "law clerks" (assistants) that the Justices employ, which is what the previous comment is about. Second: you are making an accusation ("quid pro quo") without any backing to it. Third: what, if any, is your point? I do not see anything in your comment that indicates how you would improve the article, which is what the talk pages are for, not for you to air your conspiracy theories or vent your complaints about the Court. Magidin (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Established by ..."
IMO "was established by the ratification of ..." is a bit awkward. The ratification process was what the states went through when they endorsed the adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution itself established the court (and Congress and Executive). Perhaps "was established following the ratification of the Constitution....." works better. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we want to get technical (and the recent edits suggest that is the case), the Constitution did not establish the Supreme Court. Rather, it directed the Congress to establish "one supreme court" and such inferior courts as it saw fit. Unlike Articles I and II, which prescribed how the Legislature and Executive were to be elected and organized, Article III did not contain such provisions but instead left it to Congress to determine, for example, how many Justices would constitute the Supreme Court, when and where they would meet, and what the court's procedures would be. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Article III does not "direct" Congress to establish a Supreme Court. The sentence in question says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."  I would say that by this sentence, the Constitution did "establish" the Supreme Court and do not see any reason why the article can't just say that the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution.  Neutron (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You said it better than I could. – S. Rich (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Are you suggesting that President Washington could have nominated justices, and the court could have met, before the adoption of the Judiciary Act of 1789?  How would that be possible?  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the Constitution establishes the existence of a Supreme Court and a Chief Justice (by implication from Article I), but does not establish how they meet, etc. It also delegates to Congress the establishment of any other federal Courts, as well as size and composition of the Supreme Court (except for the existence of the office of Chief Justice). Of course, we are talking pure hypotheticals, but I think a case could have been made for Washington to nominate a Chief Justice of the United States prior to the Judiciary Act, but nothing more. But the language does not direct Congress to establish the Supreme Court, it assumes that a "supreme Court" exists. Magidin (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What we want to avoid is something that says "Congress established Scotus" or "Scotus was established by the ratification ...." The power to ordain & establish Scotus by Congress is not in the Constitution. (Also, the phrasing about establishing inferior courts implies the power to dis-establish such courts.) So I suggest we say 'Scotus was established by Art. III.' And 'the Judiciary Act did such and such....'  – S. Rich (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as I tried to suggest at the beginning, I think we should avoid getting very technical in the lede. How about just saying "established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution" [with appropriate wikilink, of course]?  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I like that phrasing. Magidin (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Well done. bd2412  T 13:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Too transient?
The following has been added to the Retired justices section (suitably sourced):
 * In August 2014, President Obama suggested that there will be Supreme Court vacancies to fill following the 2014 Midterm elections, fueling speculation about which of the older justices will retire.

This strikes me as a bit too transient to be included. Am I being too critical? Magidin (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. In, say, June 2015, when there either will have been a vacancy or not, will anyone care what Obama predicted ten months earlier? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As nobody has spoken up in defense of the item, I will delete it. Magidin (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A general statement re court's influence
The following I inserted as the third paragraph of the head:


 * By saying what the Constitution means, and determining which laws cannot be enforced because they conflict with the Constitution, the Supreme Court is making (case) law and sometimes setting social policy. Their life tenure frees them from the money-raising and most of the politics that afflict the U.S. Congress, and has helped make the Court's influence grow. Nominating Supreme Court justices to replace those who retire is one of the most far-reaching things a U.S. president does.

This was reverted for lack of references.

I'm just putting it here in case anyone feels it's correct and wants to take over and add them. I'm not going to myself. deisenbe (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Too early?
Should we add the two rulings on marriage equality (United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges) to the brief mention of "some major rulings" of the Roberts court in the History section? I don't want to just jump on it. Magidin (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's perfectly neutral and encyclopedic to consider this a major ruling, even though it's just happened. Even the justices seem to consider it a major ruling, given the language in the opinions. It's Roe v. Wade-esque. ~ RobTalk 17:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll wait a bit to hear other opinions; if there are no objections, I'll add it later today. Magidin (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I do guess that the way they are described might elicit some neutrality issues (e.g., "marriage equality" vs. "gay marriage" vs. "same-sex marriage", etc.) If I add it, I would propose describing the rulings as being in the area of "state recognition of marriages". Magidin (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that "marriage equality" is non-neutral, but simply stating "state recognition of marriages" isn't really accurate. I think "same-sex marriage" is considered a neutral description of the issue, and is widely used by both sides of the issue. It's also what Wikipedia uses as a neutral title on pages such as Same-sex marriage in the United States. Alternatively, you could list it as an equal protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment), although I think that could be construed as non-neutral even though it's the actual rationale for the opinion. ~ RobTalk 18:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; I've added them before the Bill of Rights cases. Magidin (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Need for discussion of Supreme court's role in American civilization
This article is full of facts, but not much on interpretation. What has the Supreme Court done for the U.S.? Is there anything similar in other countries, or not? Has the Supreme Court shaped public opinion? Trailed it? How have presidents manipulated the court, or tried to? Has the court been on the "right side of history"? To what extent and when has it, like Congress, been dominated by conservatives and/or Southerners? Liberals? There's a bit on this, but I'd like to see a whole section. deisenbe (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)