Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive 2

Proposed portal
I have been working on Portals for a while, and have put together a proposed new portal to cover U.S. Government topics. The proposal is at Portal/Proposals, with a mock-up of the portal at User:Kmf164/United States Government. For a better idea of how portals work, check out Featured portals. My thoughts were to use part of the portal to highlight featured articles and pictures. Another part of it could highlight current events (news stories, as well as things like current/pending legislation, nominations, Supreme Court cases/decisions, etc.). The third part could be some topic directory. The last section could highlight WikiProjects and things to do. I'd like to know if has suggestions on improving the draft. Also, would anyone here be interested in helping to maintain it, should it be approved. Maintenance would most importantly involve keeping the current events updated, but also choosing articles and pictures to feature, maintaining the list of articles/categories, etc. I think the best place to provide input is at User_talk:Kmf164/United_States_Government. Thanks. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 18:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Another article requiring cleanup
The article on Todd Mitchell is just a copy-and-paste job of the U.S. Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Mitchell,. Someone needs to rewrite it and move it. --Eastlaw 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I made the new Wisconsin v. Mitchell article, but it needs the SCOTUS template. I'm not confident enough to put one on. Oh, and I redirected Todd Mitchell to the case... I might have been a little too hasty, though. Sorry for any inconvenience. Lemonsawdust 08:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome job with the case article! Thanks so much for doing that. Don't worry about the SCOTUS infobox or the redirect. If someone else doesn't beat me to the punch, I'll do the infobox tomorrow. As to the redirect, it's the nature of collaborative editing that people disagree and you might get reverted, but you did the right thing bringing it up for more input, so kudos to you! Thanks for helping out (hope to see you at the next project collaboration!) Cheers and happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by kchase02 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, almost ten days after I said I would, I finally did the infobox and some other review. Thankfully, the new infobox template is much easier to deal with.--Kchase02 T 04:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 term
I just created this to summarize all per curiam opinions by the Court for the current term. These are ones for which writing a full article would be unnecessary, because the opinions are relatively short and do not establish new law. I'm going to make redirects for each case pointing to this. This only includes opinions, not unelaborated decisions such as denials of cert. (which number in the thousands per term) or decrees in suits of original jurisdiction.

Please help me improve the introductory text explaining why these opinions are separate in this manner, and improve the formatting and style, which future articles for past terms can follow. Postdlf 18:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reviving the project
I've been bold in updating the project page. I've noted things that I thought could be controversial. I don't want to upset any long-standing conventions, but I also think some things are ripe for change.
 * As paranthetically mentioned throughout the project page, the bench section seems to have become defunct as infoboxes succinctly summarize the relevant content. Should infoboxes be subst'd, like here, or can we figure out templates, like here. Postdlf has recently indicated that subst'ing them may be the way to go.
 * In 4.1 (project phases), citations section, I moved the wikilink from the date to the case name. I don't think the date contributes much. Dates might contribute if they were linked to the category for year in law, but not to just the year, IMO. Obviously, having the name linked is very helpful, unless you're already in that article.
 * Do the "Guidelines and article outline" need to be revamped? I have no suggestions here, though perhaps my ideas about briefing cases from con law class (example) influence my predeliction here.
 * In particular, should we expand the introductory text per an old suggestion that it ought to have more info for the layman to rapidly grasp the gist of the case?
 * Part of the project now is to add case citations to every article. I think that for a general-usage encyclopedia, adding the citations is rather useless if the link pages will include the necessary citation information. (Roe v. Wade only sporadically includes such citations.) I'm eager to hear more opinions about this. Obviously, it still makes sense to include citations in the case list.

Also, there are some old ideas that I culled from the talk page: Any ideas or comments anyone has are welcome.--Kchase02 (T) 16:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * US Code formatting? standard is: 18 U.S.C. § 1344, also see here
 * This is an OK source of new cases to write up, but note that some are listed b/c of the good performance by the lawyers.

I forgot to add a few. I updated the to-do list on the project page. I also think the infoboxes should be slightly different: in the "Laws Applied" section at bottom, Constitutional Amendments, etc. should be written in Arabic, not Roman numerals. (1,2,3, not I, II, III) for quick reading. I don't even think lawyers use Roman numerals for these (though they do for Titles of Acts, etc.). --Kchase02 (T) 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the Blue Book citation form for constitutional amendments and articles is roman numeral form; clauses and paragraphs are arabic numeral form. I've been wikilinking these, so simply rolling over the cite gives the full title of the amendment.  You have the proper U.S. Code cite form above.
 * I'd recommend against expanding the introduction too much; that's what the wikilinks to other articles are for. For example, a case like Jones v. Flowers, which involves a rather specific issue of the due process requirement for notice in state tax sales of houses, shouldn't have to explain what due process means, because the case did not explore that fundamental of an issue.
 * I'm not sure what case citations you're talking about&mdash;the U.S. Reports cite in the body of the article, or the list of citations for the opinion in the infobox? With article text, it should at least include the U.S. Reports cite at the start of that case's article.  If an article refers to other decisions, I don't see why we need a rule as to whether it should be included.  I've wavered between including it in the body of the article and dropping the cite in a footnote.  It should probably just depend on the particular article; if the paragraph has too many references to too many different cases, then omitting or footnoting the citations may be a good idea.
 * I don't like the law school brief form of outlining, with the issue, result, etc. headers. That form is better as a study aid rather than substantive encyclopedia style writing.  The issue should be given in the context of describing the issue that the Court granted cert. on (which I've tended to put at the end of the background section, as it predates the decision that the article is actually about).  My preference can be seen at Jones v. Flowers and Hartman v. Moore.  The background of the case section may or may not need additional subheaders, as used in Hartman, and which ones are appropriate will vary.  If the article has a lengthy discussion of each stage of the lower court proceedings, as in Near v. Minnesota, then each stage provides a logical division.  "Analysis" seems particularly inappropriate, because it implies that it's the author of the article analyzing the opinion.  The only appropriate analysis is the Court's own explanation of its judgment, in which case it's really a section about it's opinion (i.e., The Court's decision), or a description of scholarly analyses of the Court's opinion, in which case something like Critical response would be better, or how the Court has subsequently interpreted that opinion.  I've been using Subsequent developments for both relevant events and case law that follow from the opinion; Subsequent jurisprudence would also work if it's just focusing on later case law building off of or changing the decision.  Postdlf 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a sample outline.

I moved Postdlf's sample outline to a subpage to make the TOC easy to read.Kchase02 (T)

I think I may have been too presumptuous about changing things. In any case, part of my intention in messaging you was to get your input about that, so it's not all bad. Agreed about law citations in infobox. Perhaps adding a link to the bluebook would be helpful. How's this one?  I'll also concede the intro paragraph issue. The guideline (and your sample outline) already says to state the importance of the case there, and that's what I was going for. In terms of case citations (in the text of the article) I like the idea of not having a hard and fast rule, though perhaps we can leave the suggestion that's already listed in project phases. I changed the date link back for consistency's sake. No point us going through cases and reversing it. I still think it's silly, but I'll live with it. I wonder if all these suggested changes are really a good idea after all. They might involve re-writing a lot of articles when perhaps it'd be best just to remove the bench section and stick with the old outline. I don't have a good feel for how many articles were actually written with the current outline. How about if we replace the current guidelines with Postdlf's preference and say it's "desired" (the current word) for cases that don't already have working outlines? If they're not consistent anyway, at least we can get the new one's to an outline we like. I take it "the bench" section ought to be replaced by infoboxes? I'll edit the project page a bit to reflect. I'm going to start messaging people who are listed and invite them to get them (re)involved. I hid the members who haven't edited in the last month.--Kchase02 (T) 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bench section was made obsolete by the infobox. There is not normally a reason to repeat the whole membership of the Court within the article.  Authors of opinions should be given as a rule, and I typically will state who joined a concurring or dissenting opinion in the article text as well, but not all the joining votes.
 * Yeah, that's what I've been doing (with my haphazard law school brief articles, but hey). I agree. --Kchase02 (T) 18:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article outlines (people have been messaging me about them. How about if I clean up Postdlf's sample outline and place it alongside the current one, with a msg that either is "suggested for articles that do not already have working outlines". At the next page edit, I'll also remove all the self-referential parantheticals.
 * I didn't get a response to my last (unsigned) msg, so I'm going to go ahead and change the page as described. --Kchase02 (T) 05:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting issues with original jurisdiction and multiple opinion cases

 * 1) Something I need input on is infoboxes and case outlines for original jurisdiction cases. I've been playing with one at New York v. Connecticut, which is a simple case for having only one reported decision.  But overall, the o.j. infoboxes will have to incorporate the fact that the case may consist of multiple reported orders and decisions by the Supreme Court, some of which may have substantive holdings, and the membership of the Court may change over the course of the case (many of these lasted for decades).
 * 2) I also haven't come to a solution for ordinary cases that have come to the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, such as Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.; in that article, I opted just to make an infobox about the most recent of three Supreme Court opinions in the case. Should each opinion have its own article?  Should one article cover all three opinions, or at least serve as a parent article for the separate opinion articles?  If one article is used, should there be one infobox, or three, and should it be modified in some way from the standard?  Maybe the top of the article could just give the entire procedural history of the case and the full case name, and then each subsection of the article dealing with a separate opinion could have a smaller infobox that gives the holding, membership of the Court, and the laws applied in that opinion.  Postdlf 17:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding #1: The uniform Templates that are being used or switched to are:  or  depending on whether or not the case has a US Vol. and Page number.  The members listes are those who issued the opinion, as that is essentially what matters in the end.
 * Regarding #2: I am unsure what to do regarding the senario you mention.  I think the easiest solution is to have a disambig page that points people to the various decision regarding the same case.  Also, in the Infobox there is a field for prior and subsequent history, which should contain the appropriate case information.
 * I hope that helps.--Assawyer 23:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: #2: I agree with Assawyer about breaking them up, but I think a disambig is too simple. Perhaps a page that summarizes the political issues at play in the litigation and then points to the three court case pages, since each case contains distinct legal issues.--Kchase02 (T) 06:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the main article could deal with the main story and political context of the case, and then simply have a single paragraph summarizing each Court decision, with a Template:Mainarticle link to the articles on each individual opinion. Postdlf 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases
All of the lists in this category are lists of cases by volume of the United States Reports; e.g., List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 5, etc. I think these should be renamed to clarify what volume they are in, as the S. Ct. and L. Ed. reporters obviously have volumes as well. List of United States Supreme court cases in United States Reports volume 5? The category could simply be renamed to Category:United States Supreme Court cases by United States Reports volume. Thoughts? Postdlf 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I have the same question I had about the per curiam cases. What's the point? Is the idea just to have an complete list of every SCOTUS case, even if we don't have articles on all (most) of them? --Kchase02 (T) 06:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Collaborations
There was one idea I liked from the old project that never seems to have come to fruition - the Project Collaboration Article, or collaboration toward improving a significant Supreme Court decision to a featured article status. I would be happy to see this brought back; what do you guys think? RidG Talk 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I put in the first vote at the PCA page. Even if it's just you and me, collaborative work is often a lot more fun. --Kchase02 (T) 06:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. However, I can't seem to find your vote at the PCA page (or perhaps I am looking in the wrong place). Where did you vote? RidG Talk 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases/PCA Voting is section 1.2, and add your name to section 2 (wikipedians involved). --Kchase02 T 20:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it, somehow missed it the first time around. Thanks. The line-item veto case sounds fine; how should we split up the work? RidG Talk 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorting the list
How are we sorting cases at List of United States Supreme Court cases? Is it (a) by year and then alphabetically, or (b) by year and then by citation (so chronologically throughout)? --Kchase02 (T) 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bench opinions?
I've been trying to figure out how to classify the different opinions the Court hands down. The term list of opinions at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html includes every case for which full argument was had and a substantive decision rendered, but it also includes per curiams, decrees in original jurisdiction cases (Alaska v. United States), and some completely insubstantial decisions to dismiss cert. as improvidently granted (Maryland v. Blake), or to vacate and remand for consideration in light of a new case (Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams). Are these all grouped together because these are the opinions which the Court announces from the bench, or is there another critiera? Are other decisions such as denials of cert. and orders on motions for amicus participation, etc., not announced from the bench? The SCOTUS procedures article doesn't explain this (yet). Postdlf 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox: "Laws applied"
How is this defined and is it really useful? Most infoboxes seem to only have a few statues and constitutional clauses listed there. It seems misleading to so simplify each case that the court appears to be simply applying these particular laws, when they are in fact applying many more, and applying other legal decisions as well, which are themselves applications of laws. To accurately list the "laws applied" cannot be done in an infobox. This needs to be renamed or deleted. -- Centrx 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're the first person to express this confusion about the header name, btw. It's meant to just note the laws that are involved in the Court's holding, so only one or a few statutes or constitutional clauses are listed because those are what the cases are about.  Applied precedents are omitted because those are often too frequent to list concisely, and it isn't always clear which decisions the Court actually applied and which ones it just discussed, so it's inappropriate data for an infobox (a court decision isn't properly termed a "law" anyway).  And it isn't misleading simplification to not list the background clutter such as the jurisdictional statutes, the FRCPs, etc., that were incidentally involved, but had no dispositive effect on the outcome of the case (if that's what you mean by the "many more" that are actually applied).  Contrast a case in which 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is simply the technical means by which the action was first filed in federal court with one in which the very issue before the Court is whether a federal question has been raised.  Postdlf 02:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, though Postdlf answered the above) There's something of an answer at User:Postdlf/court case infobox, which explains every part of the box. The infobox is partially intended for lawyers, so not all of it need be understandable for the layman, especially that part.--Kchase02 T 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, the article text will explain everything and include a broader view of the decision and everything involved; the infobox is just there for data. Postdlf 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not confused. What is the reason for only listing constitutional and statutory provisions, when the case law may be what a specific decision rests on with equal or greater weight? Why not also have an infobox section for the precedents applied, or include it in the same, differently named section? -- —Centrx→talk 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In virtually every case brought before the Supreme Court, one party is alleging either that the actions of the other party are in violation of a specific statute or constitutional clause, or that a statute is at odds with such a clause. This tells which statute or clause the Court had to interpret to arrive at its resolution. bd2412  T 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whereas the cases used as precedents always have specific, clear guidance as to their application? -- —Centrx→talk 03:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your response - when the Court hears a case, the parties are asking the Court to determine the meaning of a statute or of the Constitution. While they invariably cite case law as precedent for the interpretation, it is a statute or Constitutional provision as to which the Court is making a judgment. bd2412  T 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PCA started
Our current Project Collaboration Article is Clinton v. City of New York. I've already msged the creator and primary editor, Centrx (from the section just above) to let him/her know. I should have something on the article's talk page in a few minutes.--Kchase02 T 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Casebook cases
Does anyone have their law school casebooks? I'd like to get a list of cases commonly used in textbooks for completeness. bd2412 T 02:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hawkins v. McGee, the only case I remember from Contracts. Peyna 02:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (I know it's not a Supreme Court case, but it might as well have been.) Peyna 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New 'Super' Infobox!
I would like to announce the creation of a new Infobox for Supreme Court cases, Template:SCOTUSCase3, created by User:MZMcBride. It combines Template:SCOTUSCase and RecentCase and all of the templates those two templates currently use. It uses "hidden parameters" to hide the fields not used in the particular article. Thus, it allows for a "super Template" that will fit all diffent types of cases. Check it out and give your two cents on the conversion that will likely take place to make this Template the sole Infobox for the project.--Assawyer 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lovell v. Griffin
Lovell v. Griffin has a page now. It wasn't exactly "exhaustive," and it still might need a Supreme Court template, but... well. I think it's okay. Lemonsawdust 12:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added the appropriate categories and template, SCOTUSCase3.--Assawyer 13:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yayy, thank you Lemonsawdust 04:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominate articles for Portal:United States
I've worked for the past month to update Portal:United States and keep it better maintained. Though, I think the portal would be even better with broader participation. One way to do that is instead of choosing the "selected article" myself each week, if others would nominate articles and help make decisions. (same goes for pictures, though these are stocked up through July 29) Articles about U.S. law and Supreme Court are more than welcome on the portal, as it's intended to cover all topics relating to the United States. If you would like to nominate or weigh in on what should be featured, please visit the portal. Thanks. -Aude ( talk contribs ) 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner
I'd like to suggest that a banner be created for this WikiProject - to be placed on the talk pages of articles in the project - to raise awareness of the project among those who edit the SCOTUS pages. An example of a good sample banner is Stargateproject. --Tim4christ17 10:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I did a mock-up of that and a userbox. Thoughts?--Kchase02 T 19:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:WP_SCOTUS
 * Template:User WikiProject SCOTUS


 * Looking good! :)  I'll start putting the banner on the top of SCOTUS talk pages. --Tim4christ17 01:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added made a minor modification to WP_SCOTUS - now it will apply "" to any page that it is on. The Wikiproject category is fairly common and will further enhance awareness of WP:SCOTUS, and since it will appear only on the talk pages, it doesn't overlap with the other SCOTUS-related categories.  It will also help us track which pages already have the banner applied (and thus, which ones still need it.)  --Tim4christ17 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

fixing deprecated ref templates
Thanks to the standard found in an old version of Template:SCOTUS-case (which I recently changed to cite.php), most of our cases have a footnote from the first sentence to an external link in the opinion. However, the ref templates that we previously used, like, etc. seem to have become deprecated, so that the links work bottom-up but not top-down (like at Stewart v. Abend). Unless anyone has a better idea, I'm going to begin going through our old cases and changing them to match the current template (cite.php) so that the ref links will work. The link to the opinion will be in references instead of external links.--Kchase02 T 20:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So I started doing this, but it results in poor formatting for some cases because the references start to alternate between bullets and numbers, as seen at Lee_v._Weisman. I was trying to update them to make them compliant with the format decided in an old straw poll, but I think it might be easier to just get rid of the footnote altogether, as suggested by this choice in the straw poll. Alternatively, I could reformat the other references to cite.php, though I disfavor that option b/c many references (as in Weisman) aren't used to cite somewhere specifically in the article. Thoughts? If nobody responds in a week, I'll treat it as acquiescence.--Kchase T 08:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Flawed links exist
There are at least ten flawed links in place as of July 9th, 2006. I had examined volumes # 40 through #91. Flawed links were in volumes # 58, # 60, # 68, # 70, # 72, # 73, # 75, # 76, # 78, # 79, #80, and # 81. For example, there is a case named Stewart v. United States in 1855 and United States v. Stewart 1856, and a completely different case titled Stewart v. United States in 2005. The links in volumes # 58 and # 60 point to the 2005 case. In volume # 73, The Battle points to Battle (disambiguation). The link might be re-named thusly: The Battle (SC), where SC indicates "Supreme Court case." Some sort of remedy is needed, because more flawed links will be generated (innocently). Superslum 14:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For a case like The Battle (which is a real rarity for case names) I'd say either put it at The Battle (case) or The Battle (YEAR). bd2412  T 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions
With over 30,000 total U.S. Supreme Court cases, there are more than a few duplicate common names for cases. An often cited example is Miller v. California.

Q1: With more than one case that matches that name, if other case pages were to be created for others, what is the naming convention to be used? I haven't seen anybody really talk about this issue, and I think it's very important. For the above example, Miller v. California was decided in 1961, 1968, & 1973 (and possibly once more). So, Miller v. California, 1961, Miller v. California (1961), and Miller v. California (case) among many other choices could be used. I want to hear what people prefer.

Q2: Some cases have names such as Commander-in-chief, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 43 (1864). For obvious reasons, the page name can not be the name of the case. As above, what should the naming conventions for case names like this be? Commander-in-chief (case), Commander-in-chief, 1864, Commander-in-chief (1864), or many other possible chocies. I want to hear what people think so that cases can become more uniform in their naming method.

--MZMcBride 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll treat this as a straw poll.

Q1:
 * Miller v. California, 1961
 * Miller v. California (1961)
 * This option comes closest to the standard format for names, and can differentiate more than paranthetical case. Use Miller v. California as a disambig, of course.--Kchase02 T 18:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Miller v. California (case)
 * other suggestions?
 * Some cases show up twice or more because there were subsequent decisions involving the same dispute. The Turner cable system lawsuit against the FCC mandated must carry rules generated to Supreme Court decisions and are called within the cable TV law circle as simple Turner I and Turner II.  This type of duplication should be distinguished from two cases with the same names but involving entirely new litigants.  (same name by coincidence, there are Reynolds cases: one in 1948 involving the state secrets privilege from discovery and the late 1800s case involving Mormon polygamy.) Bona Fides 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Q2:
 * Commander-in-chief, 1864
 * Commander-in-chief (1864)
 * Again, standard (I guess it's blue book?) format.--Kchase02 T 18:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Commander-in-chief (case)
 * other suggestions?


 * I definitely think we should go with Party v. Party (year) (or In re Party (year) where one party is named). Putting (case) seems confusing and will not work where there are simply multiple cases by the same name. We should instead lock it into one regime, and year in parens being most like the way cases are properly cited/reported should be it. bd2412  T 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Kchase and BD. Postdlf 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm voting for Party v. Party (year), etc. When does the voting end and this become the naming convention? Also, should pages such as Miller v. California be moved to Miller v. California (1973), with Miller v. California becoming a disambiguation page? --MZMcBride 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The 1973 obscenity decision is what most people are going to be looking for under that title, so under general Wikipedia disambiguation policy it doesn't need to be moved.  Template:Otheruses would go at the top to point to Miller v. California (disambiguation) for the lesser known cases.  Postdlf 04:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35
Thought everyone involved in the project would be interested in seeing this. While these lists could be improved (chiefly by changing the title), they obviously need to be kept. Postdlf 03:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So now that this was speedy kept, I think the article titles should be changed to be less ambiguous; List of United States Supreme Court cases in United States Reports volume 35, etc., is my suggestion. The parent category should be Category:United States Supreme Court cases by United States Reports volume. Thoughts? Objections? I would also love to see these finished... One thing I'm unclear on though is what these include. Only bench opinions? Any case in which an opinion was handed down (which would include such things as denials from cert)? Or is that not yet an issue because of the Court practices in the years covered thus far? Postdlf 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right after I moved the volume 5 list article to List of United States Supreme Court cases in United States Reports volume 5, I suddenly wondered why these shouldn't just be moved to a simpler title: List of cases in United States Reports volume 5? Isn't stating the court unnecessary, considering that the U.S. Reports only covers SCOTUS cases?  Although I seem to remember that the first four volumes were actually a collection of other court cases that were considered valuable precedent...  Thoughts?  Postdlf 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with List of cases in United States Reports volume 5 - virtually all cases listed will be U.S. Supreme Court cases, and the handful of others will be clearly delineated as being otherwise. bd2412  T 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree here too. Simple = good. &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 18:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not responding to the AfD, I was out of town. I'm glad the articles were kept. When I created the pages, I used the same naming format as the List of United States Supreme Court cases. I think List of cases in United States Reports volume 5, etc. might not accurately portray to a reader that these are cases from the U.S. Supreme Court. The title sort of makes it seem like something else, unless you're familiar with topic. I don't care either way, as long as there's consensus. Also, whatever is finally chosen, there is a complete list at Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases that will need a find/replace. --MZMcBride 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

New look for case lists
I proposed a new look for the case lists here. Please weigh in on what you think on that talk page. --MZMcBride 03:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS templates
Does anyone know how many different SCOTUS templates there are? And where they're located? If there are enough of them, we should probably create a category for them, to make them easier to find in the future. (possible category: Category:SCOTUS templates). Templates I've found so far: --Tim4christ17 08:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SCOTUSCase
 * WP_SCOTUS
 * User WikiProject SCOTUS
 * SCOTUS-case
 * SCOTUS-case-stub
 * SCOTUS
 * The more I think about it, there are a lot of SCOTUS-related templates. How wide are the parameters? Some that I'm thinking of are Infobox US Chief Justice, Infobox US Associate Justice, and all the U.S. Supreme Court composition 1789-1792, etc. templates. There are also now-defunct templates that should probably be listed for deletion that are listed here. There are probably more, I'll keep thinking.... --MZMcBride 02:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tables of opinions by justice
After seeing a couple attempts to categorize case articles by whether a certain justice filed an opinion, and the rather unwieldy manner in which the justice biography articles try to summarize far too many individual cases, I decided it would be better to construct lists for each justice of all opinions they have filed. I have started these for eleven justices so far (the current Court membership plus Rehnquist and O'Connor), organized by term, and with room for summaries: what I have completed can currently be found in Category:United States Supreme Court opinions by justice. These not only include bench opinions, but also opinions relating to orders (such as dissents from the denial of certiorari, or recusal decisions) and in-chambers opinions (decisions regarding stays) that previously had no place in which they could be documented. I've also figured out opinion counts and statistics for who joined their opinions the most and the least. I'm very happy with how the formatting worked out (see Scalia's 2004 list or Alito's 2005 list for how they look when the opinion summaries are more filled in). I have also created templates for each justice so far that will link to all other opinion articles. Here is what I think still needs work:
 * 1) Most of the opinion summaries are still blank (comment tags within each article help indicate where in the tables this is to be done).
 * 2) The article names are rather unwieldy, but I don't know how much this can be corrected, given that the term and name of the court will need to be included.
 * 3) I still haven't figured out a proper format for state and lower federal court case lists; the voting habits and types of opinions filed will differ (see for example, my complete (?) list of O'Connor's reported state court opinions; it looks like she never wrote a dissent in Arizona).
 * 4) I haven't figured out how to integrate the opinion templates into the justice biographies; just stick them at the bottom with the succession boxes?
 * 5) I haven't resolved the category structure yet, which is complicated by the fact that (most of) the justices will (eventually) have lists for lower and state court opinions as well as SCOTUS opinions (so a simple "Opinions by X" structure won't work).
 * 6) I was rather inconsistent with what I put in the "issue" section; we need something standardized and simple, for better comparison and relation among opinions, yet not something too opaque or simplified.
 * 7) I have not yet incorporated external links to the full text of the opinions.

Won't this be a fun project to expand? ; ) I'd love to see these as the basis for articles on how specific issues have been handled by each justice (e.g., Establishment Clause opinions by Antonin Scalia)&mdash;there are so many useful ways we can organize this information...  If you'd like to get started on new lists, I was using some templates in my user space to help construct them: User:Postdlf/statistics for the statistics section; User:Postdlf/casebegin to start the case table; and User:Postdlf/case for each opinion entry (just make sure you add a table close ( |} ) after the last opinion. Postdlf 19:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this post after seeing your addition of the opinion templates to a couple articles. You deserve somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 barnstars for this and all your work on the justices' opinions. :) &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 17:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists of opinions by term
I've compiled tables for the past five terms that illustrate what actions every justice took in every case the Supreme Court decided by bench opinion: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 terms. I intended for these to be complementary to the current lists we have, as these function primarily as voting records, and don't have info on what the issues in the cases were. The visual format of the information allows a reader to see at a glance exactly what happened in a given case, to compare how divisive the Court's views are over the course of a term and from term to term, and to compare voting records of individual justices to find consistent patterns. I have not yet incorporated external links to the full text of the opinions. Postdlf 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Appelate Court template?
Is there a good template I could use for an article on an Appelate or other Federal court case? --Tim4christ17 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know of one, but if it doesn't exist, one could always be created.... --MZMcBride 01:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures in U.S. Supreme Court articles
I'm in the process of writing an article for Graham v. John Deere Co.,, one of the requested articles on intellectual property. I have JPEG images of the patent diagrams involved in the case, but ironically enough, I was wondering if the inclusion of these images in the article would cause any copyright problems. I'm pretty sure that once images and documents are put into evidence in a court case, they go into public domain, but I would like to hear from the copyright experts here as to whether or not that is correct.

Thanks for your help. --Eastlaw 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP SCOTUS banner
Could the WP SCOTUS banner include options for assessment (i.e. class and importance)? Most of the other WikiProjects use those options to their great advantage. mwazzap 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this might not be a bad idea. Are there any WikiProjects that you know of that have good systems in place now that could be used as a guide? Also, it would be nice to have a new PCA.... --MZMcBride 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CVG has a basic one at Template:Cvgproj. WP:WPBIO has a more complex one at Template:WPBiography. In addition to class and importance, it allows work-groups to be set, and more importantly, notes if the article needs an infobox . Examples for work-groups for WPSCOTUS articles would be groups based on the subject matter of the case or groups based on who was the Chief Justice at the time of the case. mwazzap 07:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Template:Cvgproj doesn't seem to have a ranking system. The Template:WPBiography is complex stuff, but could be reworked to fit this project. What specific fields would be used (list below), and would there be a ranking system in WP:BIO or would there just be indicators of what work is need on the article (e.g. needs infobox)? On a side note, is anyone tied to the current background color? The current color doesn't really appeal to me. --MZMcBride 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:Cvgproj does have a ranking system. Check the source. As for fields to use, as I said before, I would suggest using: 1) class, 2) importance, 3) needs-infobox. I don't quite understand your second question. There is a generial rating system at Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment, though I suggest you use your own examples. mwazzap 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's apparent from my comments (some of which didn't make sense) that it's been a long day. I've added a ranking system to WP SCOTUS. I've also made some minor adjustments (background color, an additional link in the text). The only thing remaining right now is the addition of a parameter. --MZMcBride 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: WP SCOTUS has been given an infobox indicator that adds the article to the appropriate category (Category:United States Supreme Court cases without an infobox) and some other minor features have been added. After two days of writing the code, it seems to me that it is done (for now). If anyone has any suggestions to further improve it, please add them at the WP SCOTUS talk page. --MZMcBride 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the "flag" option for? --Tim4christ17 13:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The flag option is a little device in which you a person is able to mark a page that has a specific issue that needs to be looked at by a member of this WikiProject. It adds the page to a category called Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles that can be watched. It was implemented for issues such as an infobox that somebody may need help with or issues with formatting. A person can flag the page, and receive help without having to put a request on this page or on the article talk page where it may not be seen/noticed. I don't know if it will be used very often, but it's there in case somebody wants to use it. --MZMcBride 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent job! That's much better. I really should learn how to code in...whatever language Wikipedia uses...someday. mwazzap 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful banner! That flag option, esp. would be helpful on several other WikiProject banners.  --Tim4christ17 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the compliments. --MZMcBride 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Another cleanup project
The article for Smith v. Maryland desparately needs to be cleaned up. Apparently, someone just copied and pasted the full text of the opinion from Findlaw. --Eastlaw 13:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Assessment
I've recently expanded Template:WP SCOTUS, a template that serves to help users tag articles based on relative importance and quality. I essentially just lifted the text from Wikiproject Biography's similar template, but I need some help. The text gave examples of articles of varying levels of quality, and I wasn't able to come up with similar examples for SCOTUS-related articles. If someone could take care of this problem, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! -- Zantastik  talk  06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Swidler & Berlin v. United States
Not sure if this is the best place to request it, but an article on the important 1998 case of Swidler & Berlin v. United States (524 US 399 (1998)) would be very nice. It was an important case, ruling that attorney-client privilege does not end at death, and deserves its own article. Thanks a lot. Batmanand | Talk 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've created the page and added info to the infobox. I've also added the article to the To-do list. --MZMcBride 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox - add attorneys
I request space be made in the info box for the names of counsel who argue the cases. They are as integral to the success/failure of the cases as the justices. It's kind of glaring, considering that there have been many times the Supreme Court has adopted the language of a brief of one of the attorneys. --DavidShankBone 23:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an easy fix to make, however I need some help with a few minor details. A) Would you like counsel's name to be next to "Full case name" and "Citations" or would you like it to have it's own blue header like the "Holding" section? And if you would like to have a blue header, what would that be (e.g. Counselors, Lawyers, etc.)? B) With the example case of Roe v. Wade, I believe there --DavidShankBone 03:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)was a different counsel for the original arguing than the rearguing. Also, there were other lawyers with the lawyer rearguing the case that are listed in the decision. Which lawyers would be listed and how would you differentiate? C) Would you distinguish between the plaintiff's and the respondent's counselors, and how? If any of this doesn't make sense, please let me know. Also, if anyone objects to having the counselors in the infobox, please leave a comment below. Of course, the new fields would be made to be purely optional, and therefore would be hidden in almost every case (much like the "Laws applied" section or the "prior history" section. Thanks for any input. --MZMcBride 01:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

there have been many times the Supreme Court has adopted the language of a brief of one of the attorneys
 * Of course, that attorney probably lifted it from somewhere else. Peyna 02:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Alexander Bickel that is not true. Can we keep clichéd snyde remarks about the profession to a minimum, please? MzMcBride - My personal preferences is to have it included in Court membership. Supreme Court attorneys are, in fact, members of the Court. They have to be accepted as members in order to appear before the court. Maybe a bolded "Petitioner's Counsel" and a bolded "Respondent's Counsel"? Here is the application to practice before the Court:  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/bar/barapplication.pdf. If nobody wants them there, then their own section after Members.

As a suggestion to keep the boxes tighter: Under case opinions, I like how we have all the concurrences and who they are joined by, but maybe if we did it more in this format (this taken from New York Times Co. v. United States): per curiam Concurrence by: Black, Douglas Concurrence by: Douglas, Black Concurrence by: Brennan Concurrence by: Stewart, White Concurrence by: White, Stewart Concurrence by: Marshall Dissent by: Burger Dissent by: Harlan, Burger, Blackmun Dissent by: Blackmun

This is how it looks nows: per curiam Concurrence by: Black Joined by: Douglas Concurrence by: Douglas Joined by: Black Concurrence by: Brennan Concurrence by: Stewart Joined by: White Concurrence by: White Joined by: Stewart Concurrence by: Marshall Dissent by: Burger Dissent by: Harlan Joined by: Burger, Blackmun Dissent by: Blackmun

Great work, guys. --DavidShankBone 16:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * List the named attorneys in a footnote; there's no need to have them in the infobox. Attorneys who are notable enough should be mentioned in the article text, as it's a rather interesting fact of a case that a future Chief Justice, for example, argued it.


 * I really dislike the suggested format change for the opinion section of the infobox&mdash;it's simply inaccurate to list joining justices under who the opinion is "by", regardless of how you try to format their names differently, and the boldfaced text simply won't stand out at certain screen resolutions or font sizes. What little space it saves on some case articles is not worth the severe lack of clarity.  Postdlf 23:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point that people admitted to practice before the Supreme Court are not "members" of the Court. They are members of the bar of the Supreme Court.  The term "members of the Court" is limited to the justices. Peyna 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't even raise an argument against me. The fact is, there are three parties involved in a Supreme Court case: the Court, the Petitioner, and the Respondent. As I make clear in that link above to Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court adopted Alexander Bickel's language as their own. Do you really mean to say that is insignificant? Why do we all assume the only people important are the judges, and not the advocates before them? Do you really mean to say that it is not the people--Alan Dershowitz, Floyd Abrams, Evan Wolfson, et. al.-- who raise the arguments, but only those who judge them, that is important to this info box? If so, you give no reason for feeling that way. I've just given you mine. Now, oppose them, argument by argument, and say why the counsel should not be there.

As far as the format change, your argument didn't even make sense to me - so please explain it? Is it simply you dislike change? The people who wrote the opinions/concurrences/dissents were bolded, and those who joined in it were not. We could italicize to signify something different, etc. But it looks clunky and takes up too much valuable space on a page now. How does that not lack clarity? Who, exactly, do you think cares about concurrences and who joins them? Mr. Joe Farmer, or Mr. Joe Lawschool? Are you in law school? How much LCD thinking are we going to go with here? --DavidShankBone 01:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 and the boldfaced text simply won't stand out at certain screen resolutions or font sizes.
 * Are you for real? My screen is five years old, but it always shows "bold" when the text is meant to be "bold."  And so did my Commodore 64.


 * View this page in IE, and change "text size" to "smallest"&mdash;the boldface does not even show up. And please adopt a more civil tone.  Postdlf 02:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My civil tone will come when you actually adopt arguments and support them with reasoning. INstead, you complained. You complained about substantive, useful changes, without backing up your complaints. It's annoying, and I expect more from an attorney. Live up to the bar. --DavidShankBone 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave an alternate suggestion that I preferred for documenting the attorneys in each case, for other members of this project to consider alongside your preference for including it in the infobox. I don't need to "argue" with you or even respond to you to advocate something different than what you have set forth.  And again, please refrain from personal attacks.  It's not how we do things here; we're not being competitively graded.  Postdlf 02:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If attorneys arguing a case are truly notable (in the context of the case) they should be mentioned in the article's text (see Brown v. Board of Education, for example). Of course, this is rare. Otherwise, a footnote would probably be sufficient, but not necessary. Now the infobox change. Yes, the infoboxes, especially for more recent cases, sometimes look a bit ugly with the mess of opinions that the Court has been releasing. I'm not against coming up with a workable system of delineating which justice is joining an opinion to make our boxes prettier. The proposed change, however, is not as clear as it could be. It's a good idea, to be sure, but perhaps needs some tweaking. Finally, please remain civil and stop the personal attacks. These are requirements, not suggestions. · j e r s y k o   talk  · 02:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I truly don't have an opinion either way on the inclusion of attorneys, but I don't want a highly-visible template broken by any erroneous code. Therefore, until there's a consensus on how to proceed, with regards to both the case opinions and the inclusion of attorney's names, the template should not be modified by anyone involved in this discussion. Only after there's an agreement should new code possibly be added to the template. --MZMcBride 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What I am arguing is that the attorneys who argue before the court are as noteable as the supreme court justices themselves. I say this, and I can say I also speak for Floyd Abrams and Evan Wolfson, both who have argued on behalf of the court, who I have met with, photographed, and disseminated. This is a biazarre argument to have to make: that when an attorney is deemed acceptable to present his or her argument before the Court, that this is not significant; the ultimate sign of accomplishment. THat this is not reflected in the info box is in reality a spit-in-the-face of the legal profession. For every attorney who has dreamed of arguing in front of the Court, you say, "You won't even get mentioned." What is this? Who is behind the WIkipedia Supreme Court project? Evangelical libertarians, or people who care about the system, the law, and those who reach its heightest echelons? Shocking. Am I going to have to say to these people that Wikipedia "hates lawyers and hates cops?" --DavidShankBone 02:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the proposed change to the opinions would significantly reduce the clarity of the infobox - but wouldn't be against a "footnote" reference of the lead counsel for each side of the case.  I don't think they are vital to the case - afterall, in those few cases where a precedent has been overturned, the primary difference has been a different court composition - but wouldn't be opposed to a small mention of the lead counsel.  I also agree that the template shouldn't be altered until the discussion is over.--Tim4christ17 talk 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Re:David - Please be aware that by ignoring WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you are only hurting your own case.  As for your last statement - you're saying that being chosen is notable for the attorney, not the case.   By your own argument, the mention that the attorney was on the case should be in the attorney's article, not the case's article.  --Tim4christ17 talk 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I can go along with this line of reasoning. I propose the following guideline:  If an attorney's involvement in the case was significant in someway beyond the duty of zealous representation of a client (something notable other than arguing before the Court and doing what the attorney was paid to do), then the attorney should be mentioned in the case article; else, the case should be mentioned in the attorney's article if it exists. Peyna 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue of a lack of recognition, it's an issue of credit where credit is due. Quite frankly, most Supreme Court cases would have had the same result regardless of counsel.  The Court chose to hear the case for any number of reasons, but it does not rely solely upon the arguments of counsel in arriving at its decisions.  The "good attorney" wouldn't pat himself on the back for persuading the Court when it ruled in his favor, but instead would be glad that he picked the right fight. Peyna 02:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Peyna, you are not an attorney and you have never been to law school, so how would you know? Tim, I understand you don't understand the dynamics of a Supreme Court case but what I tell you as a third year law student, a thirty-year old man who has accomplished a good bit in his life, the people who argue the cases before the court are as significant as the justices themselves. THerefore, anything short of mentioning--yes, lead counsel-- along with the justices makes the info box illegitimate not only in my eyes, but in the eyes of the profession. Of which, Tim, you are not part of. I'd like to hear from some lawyers and law students, who feel that having reached the point where you will present yourself before those 9 people does not merit mention, along with those nine people. At the very least, at the expensive of the concurcences. I don't care. I do, however, speak with weight having met with and discussed the profiles of very important attorneys. Remember, WIkipedia only has legitimacy when ALL members of the community view it that way. To not have attorneys given their due respect, well, did you notice attorneys control most of the government? --DavidShankBone 03:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I know Postdlf is an attorney. So am I. We've both weighed in already. I think it's extremely important to note, however, that your dismissal of other Wikipedians' comments simply because they aren't attorneys is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please address comments and their content, not people. &middot; j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 03:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll make no comment regarding whether I am or am not an attorney, but I will state that I hope I am never a member of the same bar as Mr. ShankBone, he has quite a lack of professionalism. Peyna 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You would never be part of my bar, Peyna, because once more you neither say the why or the how. You simply assert and do not back up.  You are't ready to argue on WIkipedia, littelonge before law school moot court.  Yet you feel cofident in determining the status of who is important enough to be represented in the SUpreme Court info box?  Such arrogance!  --DavidShankBone 03:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll invite you to return to this discussion when you are ready to stop flailing your arms and attacking the rest of us and address the issue at hand. I raised some points, and instead of responding to them, you've called me names.  I know more than one federal judge that would probably kick you out his courtroom on the spot for such behavior. Peyna 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about adding the attorneys in a footnotes section. It's been mentioned several times, but it isn't clear. Would they go below the entire infobox, under subsequent history, under the members of the Court, or elsewhere? --MZMcBride 03:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See United States v. O'Brien, footnote #6, for one way I've handled it. I'm all for using footnotes not merely for supporting references, but as endnotes for dropping details that elaborate on the article prose, but can't be easily digested into it.  Postdlf 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up from me. I wish I remembered to use endnotes for content more often; they can help an article retain it's logical flow (much to the chagrin of Judge "In Text Citations" Bryer). &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 13:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I RESIGN from the Wikipedia SUpreme Court project, made up of people who know nothing about what they make decisions about. It's incomprehensible to me, that anyone who knows the law would question the worthiness of inclusion of those whose intellects and arguments are deemed intriguing enought to be heard. Pathetic. I thought law students and people who know the law and those who comprise it made up this area of WP. Instead, I had TIm Christ questioning the importance of Floyd Abrams. And then the rest of this bunch questioning the importance of those who use their minds to formulate constitutional arguments are in fact, monkeys playing a song anyone can play (hats off Peyna). I resign and I will also voice publicly my resignation, so that if my stuff begins to be edited with this malice in mind, I will stop contributing to WIkipedia. --DavidShankBone 03:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Attorneys
'''I apologize, I was way out of line last night. Please accept it.''' I recently received some bad family news and I think I was taking out some angst on this board, and that is not acceptable.

An issue I have is the lack of respect there is for attorneys; not just lack of respect, but hostility. I understand why this is. But the profession itself has become central to the running of our government and how we handle conflicts with each other. Cynicism has become rampant today, taken for granted even, and it has ruinous effects on our culture and spirituality. That's just my opinion. But lumping all lawyers as plagarizers, or ambulance chasers, means we are denigrating our leaders, essentially. Bad lawyers exist, but they aren't the vast majority of those who practice in the profession. Which is why I started my Prominent Attorneys series. Mark Barnes, Floyd Abrams, Anthony Gair, sportscaster Len Elmore and Mario Cuomo are coming, et. al. Because of the community-based standards of Wikipedia, only the best and the brighest, or the noteable worst, can make it on. I want to showcase the good attorneys. Look at John Roberts or Byron White. They were attorneys. Outside the Court, there are attorneys who work in many spheres to better the world around them. And they are important. And it's important--for all of us--that we provide examples of what good attorneys look like; what they do. That's my motivation.

On the Supreme Court issue: lawyers are ranked; they are never seen as equal, most especially within the profession. To be smart enough, to have your lawyering skills deemed worthy enough on a case to argue it when everything is on the line, requres a special person. Their arguments either sway, or do not sway, and to mess up or be unprepared will kill your client's case. We need to make these people known; I feel it is information we have a responsibility to provide to the public. Because these people shape our understanding of our rights and our government. Jay Sekulow, David Boies, Alan Dershowitz, etc. By demonstrating this on Wikipedia, we would be providing information that is not typically considered. For a casual viewer, it pulls the curtain back on who works behind the scenes--just a little bit. That is why I feel passionately about this issue. --DavidShankBone 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we also include the name of the law clerk that wrote the opinion for the judge and possibly convinced the judge to rule a particular way? Peyna 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * David, I think your work on writing articles about notable attorneys is admirable. Your motivation to showcase the best of the legal profession on Wikipedia has resulted in some excellent additions here, and I'm certain that it will continue.  I encourage you to continue working on articles about notable attorneys, as articles about these men and women are truly the best way to tell the world about some of the country's best professionals. We have to be very careful, of course, to adhere to neutral point of view on Wikipedia (which can be somewhat difficult for those of us who spend our time forcefully advocating one side of a difficult issue). I agree with much of what you have to say--lawyers who argue before the SCOTUS generally are of a different ilk than the rest of us.  I say this even though we disagree on whether attorneys who argue before the Court are as notable as the Court members themselves.  But it seems to me that, so long as they meet notability guidelines, articles about these attorneys that are neutral, verifiable, and referenced should be our focus.  In other words, the best way to demonstrate their abilities and professionalism is in an article, not an infobox. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the NPOV which is why I strive to find citations to criticisms for each attorney, which isn't always easy. And, of course, those articles are open to editing--I encourage them to be edited. Peyna I don't agree with your perspective. It takes many people to make influential organizations run. Supreme Court justices have already proven their ability to write, and write well, which is why they sit where they do. Every President relies on speechwriters, yet phrases like axis of evil are attributed to them, without a footnote to, say, David Frum. However, when it comes to counsel before the Supreme Court, they are very significant. In fact, many names appear over and over. One only need read the Floyd Abrams article to have a sense of that. His words, his arguments and his insight have shaped our notion of the First Amendment in the cases he has argued before the Court. That's just a fact. To not list the counsel on the infobox makes it seem like they don't bear mention in the snapshot of the case. However, such as the case of Floyd Abrams, he can't not be separated from some of his cases. I have enough citations (more will be coming as I do more work on it) that prove that. Or, if you want to say that a Supreme Court case is a show, you have the Court, counsel for petitioner, and counsel for respondent--these are the people who talk, act, whatever. They aren't bit players, they deserve bylines on the billing. Maybe not top billing, but definitely bylines. I'm not asking to demonstrate their abilities in an infobox, I'm asking the infobox be complete to show who is raising the arguments the Supreme Court must weigh. Right now, it looks like they come up with the arguments themselves--they typically do not. --DavidShankBone 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Now will saying 'yes' get you in trouble at times? Will saying 'yes' lead you to doing some foolish things? Yes it will. But don't be afraid to be a fool. Remember, you cannot be both young and wise. Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying 'yes' begins things. Saying 'yes' is how things grow. Saying 'yes' leads to knowledge. 'Yes' is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say 'yes'." Stephen Colbert to the 2006 graduating class of Knox College.

What depresses me about the Supreme Court Wikipedia project
I write what I think are impassioned and logical arguments. If all of us are going to view ourselves as gatekeepers of knowledge, then we need to take that task seriously. But I don't see that here. Because I raise a very valid argument that many public personalities support, yet you all let it go unanswered. I stand on the weight of my work, and I invite--goad--you all to look at my User page to view it. I stand on the weight of what I've contributed to Wikipedia to ask for a very minor adjustment: that the attorneys who argue before the Supreme Court receive acknowledgement. So small, yet in my view, very significant. That it goes unanswered, unaddressed, makes me wonder about Wikipedia: will it ever be an accurate representation of what actually happens? Theoretically, we aren't all spending our time here to "fuck around" but believe we are contributing to the public good. There is absolutely now way, in my opinion, we can do that in our smal corner of the Supreme Court world when we dont' acknowledge the attorneys who present their cases. The work we ALL do is on the line here - we either have personal agendas, or we have the desire to find truth and inform the public. Which is it, guys? I really wonder, after days of my posts going unanswered. And, I present myself as a knowledgable person who is worthy of an answer. --DavidShankBone 00:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here is opposed to mentioning the attorneys (if they are worth mentioning) in the article. The issue is whether they need to be in the infobox, which is already huge and cluttered.  There are a myriad of other ways to include the information.  The infobox is meant to provide a quick reference/summary for someone who doesn't want to read the whole article, and therefore, most likely won't have reason to care who argued the case.  If they were interested in that, they would read the whole article.  Infoboxes should be short, sweet, and to the point.  They shouldn't cover every detail of the topic. Peyna 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the first person to respond to you, and then I watched as this situation unfolded in a way I could have never imagined. I didn't forget about this issue, I let the post go dead because you kept flying off the edge. Shouting "I resign" and bolding every other point made me not want to have anything to do with you or this conversation. After thinking about this issue for several days, I'm going to agree with the post made directly above by User:Peyna, a summary of many other posts, that the infobox should remain the way it is. If you feel that attorneys should be mentioned in specific articles where the attorney was notable and had an impact on the case, please feel free to add their names to the text of the article and link to them, but without any consensus, the infobox should remain as is. Thanks. --MZMcBride 02:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)