Talk:Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Addition about LGBT rights case

There is listing of some landmark cases in the subsection Rehnquist and Roberts (such as Wyeth v. Levine, Gonzales v. Carhart etc.,). So I think it would be right to add United States v. Windsor case (Fifth Ammendment to the Constitutuion) as a landmark case regarding LGBT rights. Who is agree? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

While it is probably indeed a landmark, we need some reliable sources identifying it as such to justify the addition, rather than just the personal opinion of an editor. With a couple such references, it would make a good addition. Magidin (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I couldn't input sources here, but in first sentence of United States v. Windsor article it is written: is a landmark case[1][2][3] in which..... and you can find there 3 reliable sources. 46.71.158.180 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too enthused with those references. All three are newspaper reports within 24 hours of the ruling coming down... that hardly seems to provide the necessary perspective. The only instance of "landmark" in the NYT Liptak piece is to say that Kennedy's tone "indicated he was delivering a civil rights landmark"; the NBC News piece calls both decisions "landmark decisions" in the opening sentence but that's it (and note that the Prop. 8 case has not been cited nearly as much as Windsor has recently); the CNN article does not even contain the word "landmark" in the body (it only appears in a hyperlink in the side-bar). Perhaps others will view those references more kindly than I am viewing them right now, but I would prefer some legal sourcing rather than popular-press-less-than-24-hours-after-the-ruling references that make such a poor case for the adjective. Magidin (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Magidin, legal sourcing would be more appropriate than just citing news articles that have just recently come out. This is a landmark decision and it would be best to present the information without adding opinions.Jurisdicta (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court Infobox

Can someone please review my question at the following page: Template_talk:Infobox SCOTUS case#Question about the numerical court decision? After I posted my question (there), I noticed that that Talk Page hasn't been edited since 2013. There was perhaps one edit in all of 2014. So, I figured that there is more traffic here on this page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Impeachment

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase was impeached. This article says otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.111.248 (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Where? All mentions I see explicitly say he was impeached. Perhaps you are confused between the impeachment and the conviction on the impeachment? The two are not the same. Chase was impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate. Same thing that happened to Clinton and to Andrew Johnson. Magidin (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Enigmatic language

An anonymous editor inserted this enigmatic language:

"Howell Jackson was the first Supreme Court Justice to bring his law school graduate, James McReynolds to serve as his clerk in 1893."

The material was removed by another editor.

My question was going to be: What does this verbiage even mean? What does the phrase "his law school graduate" mean? Was the writer trying to say that Jackson was the first Supreme Court Justice to hire, as a law clerk, someone who had gone to the same law school that the Justice had attended? I'm not sure. Famspear (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I will look into this in a couple of days when I have better access to my references. The usual list of Supreme Court law clerks (or formerly "secretaries") who later became justices themselves does not include McReynolds, so the question is interesting even apart from the wording or the law school. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The same editor re-inserted it as:

"[Howell Jackson] was the first zJustice to being a law school graduate and future Justice,[James McReynolds] to serve as his vlerk in1893"

That verbiage doesn't appear to be very clear, either (even without considering the spurious "z" characters in the material), and the material has been removed by another editor. Perhaps the editor who inserted this material was struggling to say three different things: (1) that Jackson was the first Justice to hire a law school graduate -- any law school graduate -- as a law clerk, and (2) that the name of the clerk was James McReynolds, and (3) that McReynolds later became a Supreme Court justice. If that's the case, then it might be easier to express these three ideas in separate sentences. We need sourcing, first. Famspear (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It is true that McReynolds worked for Jackson while Jackson was a justice. Another question is how closely McReynolds' position as "secretary" corresponded with the role of what we would now call a law clerk. I will see what I can find. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
In my admittedly superficial research, so far, I've only been able to determine that McReynolds worked as a secretary for Jackson when the latter was a Senator; that, however, was six years before Jackson became a Justice. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Election year confirmations

Following the recent passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, a number of parties promptly argued on the basis of precedent that candidates for the Supreme Court of the United States should not be nominated to fill a vacancy during a presidential election year.

Arguments for or against can obviously be based by trying out a long list of arbitrarily complicated criteria and cherry-picking the one that makes the strongest argument for the favored side. The question then arises as to what might be the simplest possible criterion.

Bar chart of the number of US Supreme Court justices confirmed in a US presidential election year. Data based on the start year of the justices listed at List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

One such might be the justices listed in the table at List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States who started in a year that is a multiple of four. The bar chart to the right (click on it to expand) counts by year the 19 justices that meet this criterion.

If anyone has an even simpler or arguably better criterion that there is general agreement on, I'll be happy to amend this graph accordingly. To the extent that there is agreement that this graph is a good approximation to actual precedents, feel free to use it as deemed fit. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what it is you are asking or proposing? Are you suggesting a section for the article? If so, what and where? Are you asking for arguments for or against the proposition that "justices should not be nominated to fill a vacancy during a presidential election year"? If so, then surely you know that this is not the place to do so. If you are asking for how to determine which justices may have been nominated and/or confirmed during election years, the New York Times already did the work for you. Magidin (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
To your three possibilities I would add a fourth: 2016 U.S. Supreme Court vacancy. What say you? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I still don't understand what it is you are asking for or proposing. Perhaps I'm being dense, but could you say it explicitly? Magidin (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm proposing much simpler data than either side of this dispute has been able to produce thus far. The NYT data you cited is incomprehensible. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The talk page is for discussing improvements on the article, not for discussing the production of data for an ongoing argument that is playing out in the media. So, you seem to be engaging in synthesis, and synthesis that would be irrelevant to this page anyway. Is that what you are doing? As to your final comment, I find your graph to be uninformative, while the NYT graph is quite clear and comprehensible, so perhaps it isn't the graph so much as other factors that prevent your comprehension. Magidin (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
In addition to all the points above, the graph is inaccurate. For example, Lewis Powell was confirmed in Dec. 1971, although for some reason he wasn't sworn in until Jan. 1972. William Brennan received a recess appointment before the 1956 election (can you imagine the shitstorm that would erupt if that happened today?), but wasn't confirmed until 1957. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Lewis Powell was sworn in when the Court came back in session, which is why the delay from Dec. 1971 to January 1972. (The exact same thing happened with Rehnquist, who was voted on three days after Powell, on Dec. 1971, and sworn in on Jan. 7 1972, same day as Powell). It was Eisenhower's actions with three recess appointments that led to the Senate passing the "Sense of the Senate" resolution that no recess appointments to the Supreme Court should be made but in extraordinary circumstances. Magidin (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested free use educational video file

Explainer Supreme Court Justices

Suggested free use educational video file for use in the article.

Public domain as product of United States Federal Government -- VOA News.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it's inclusion. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Prcc27:, thanks, I'll respectfully defer to your judgement and that of others in the community. Just a friendly suggestion of an educational video file, — Cirt (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes a majority?

The article says in 6.4 that "Cases are decided by majority vote of the Justices." It is my understanding that a majority here means a majority of the statutory number of justices on the court. If, on the current court, another justice dies or recuses him/herself before Scalia is replaced, a 4-3 decision would not set a binding precedent. Gronteam (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect. Both 28 U.S.C. 1 and Supreme Court Rule 4 provide that six justices constitute a quorum. That means a 4-3 or even 4-2 decision of the Court would be valid. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
From what I hear from friends who are actually lawyers (as opposed to myself, who is not one), a majority of justices sitting in a case is a majority, and the decision is binding. However, like pluralities, a majority that has only 4 (or fewer) justices signing up to it is unlikely to be considered a strong precedent, and so would be more likely to be challenged both by lawyers through cases, and by Appellate courts through decisions. Magidin (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed Scalia vacancy text from opening paragraph

It is not appropriate to have current events soon to change in an opening summary of a general reference article. Such information belongs later in the History section (or some other place in this article) or in different articles related to the people involved or other supreme court related topics. This is an encyclopedia article not a news blog.Jszigeti (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is a major thing. It immediately follows a paragraph that describes the Court as consisting of nine members, and it simply notes that there is currently a vacancy. When that changes, the line can be removed. It is not a following of the ins-and-outs of the nomination/non-vote debate, but just a note that the "normally" of the previous paragraph is not currently applicable. Magidin (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Magidin. This is not an analysis of a current event, just a statement of fact about the current composition of the court. I think you are being unduly contentious in removing it a second time, after being reverted and after having a response to your concerns posted here. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Let me add that since there was clearly disagreement, and you opened the discussion, I find it pretty annoying that you went ahead and removed the material again without even bothering to reply in the discussion you initiated. Magidin (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it is important to note in the intro that the current status of the Supreme Court is an exception to the court's normal make up i.e. 9. We don't know how long Scalia's seat will be vacant, but until it's filled I do not think it is unnecessary to note what the current composition is. Prcc27💋 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any consensus? Jszigeti does not seem to be inclined to further discuss or seek consensus, just in doing and justifying the deletion. My opinion: put it back in. It provides necessary counterpoint to the "normally" in the previous paragraph. It is clearly not "volatile" (there's no obvious movement on the issue); we are not going to be covering the ins and outs of the replacement policy, but merely noting that the Court currently has a vacancy; the sentence will be removed once a replacement has been sworn in. Magidin (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware that I needed to come back to defend my edit. I see now there is an alert to that effect but I log in infrequently, only when making changes or checking my history, and did not see it until just now. I see the text is gone at the moment. Thank you. I see no compelling reason to enhance the normal composition detail with current news. There is a place for that in history and elsewhere. I repeat my rationale that a basic reference section in this or any similar article should not be used as a news blog, especially news that few do not already know, in need of regular maintenance. As to the charge of rudely re-deleting the text, what I saw looked like some sort of automatic bot thing had removed my change without any thought involved, so I repeated the edit with full description etc. to remedy that problem. It was not to fight with another editor. Jszigeti (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Outdated Article?

As far as I can tell with my limited understanding of SCOTUS-related current events this article seems to be missing information related to Obama's attempt at nominating Merrick Garland to Scalia's empty seat. In sections that speak about senate filibuster to prevent nominations, where it would be most relevant, it does seem to be missing. I'm not entirely sure if it needs to be in more places than that, but I'll let someone with more experience figure that out. - 50.67.10.202 (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source; as such, on-going commentary on the situation is not really appropriate. Moreover, right now all we may have by way of reliable sources will be primary, opinion-based commentary on the situation, so there is not much that can be added in terms of the nomination. (And there is very little to be said in any case). As far as the filibuster section, technically this is not a filibuster as I understand it, but in any case you again run into the problem of original research. Absent reliable, secondary sources for added content, there isn't much to be added; and given the on-going nature of the event, I think it is best to wait anyway. Magidin (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Parentheticals in article lead section

Hi. As a follow-up to this discussion, I'd like to look at the three parentheticals in the article's current lead section:

The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially known as "SCOTUS"[1]) is the highest federal court of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

The Court normally consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment (though no justice has ever been removed). In modern discourse, the justices are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, the highest profile cases often expose ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or political categories. The Court meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

  1. ^ Safire, William, "On language: POTUS and FLOTUS," New York Times, October 12, 1997. Retrieved August 27, 2013.

I find these parentheticals annoying to read. What about something like this?

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate and largely discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

The Court normally consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment. In modern discourse, the justices are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, the highest profile cases often expose ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or political categories. The Court meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Similar to POTUS and FLOTUS, the Court is sometimes referred to as SCOTUS.[1]

  1. ^ Safire, William, "On language: POTUS and FLOTUS," New York Times, October 12, 1997. Retrieved August 27, 2013.

I think the version without parentheticals reads better. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally like those changes; I would put that final sentence away from the second paragraph, as it is very much on a different vein than the rest of the paragraph. I know we also touched on the "normally" on the second paragraph. Looking through the history, you'll notice that it was added following Scalia's death. Instead of noting the vacancy in the lead (as a potentially volatile issue and more a matter of "current events" than information on the Court), the word "normally" was added to clarify that the Court does not currently have nine members. Once the vacancy is filled, we can go back to the previous wording (removing "normally"). Magidin (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that there has been no more feedback from the regular watchers of this page. Given the time lapse, I will assume that the silence stands for tacit approval, and suggest that the changes be made as suggested. My one change would be to take the final sentence out of the second paragraph and place it on its own, and that the clause drawing the analogy to POTUS be placed second, not first (I would remove the one for FLOTUS, though). I.e., "The Court is sometimes referred to as SCOTUS, in analogy to other acronyms such as POTUS." with the Safire reference after "SCOTUS". Magidin (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Intention of the Founding Fathers regarding Judicial Review

The article currently says this: "Over the ensuing years, the question of whether the power of judicial review was even intended by the drafters of the Constitution was quickly frustrated by the lack of evidence bearing on the question either way." However, in the article Judicial review in the United States, it says this: "In all, fifteen delegates from nine states made comments regarding the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws. All but two of them supported the idea that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review.[19] Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not speak about judicial review during the Convention, but did speak about it before or after the Convention. Including these additional comments by Convention delegates, scholars have found that twenty-five or twenty-six of the Convention delegates made comments indicating support for judicial review, while three to six delegates opposed judicial review.[20] One review of the debates and voting records of the convention counted as many as forty delegates who supported judicial review, with four or five opposed." So this article says it's not clear what the founders intended, but the other article says that it's very clear what they intended, and indeed support for judicial review was nearly unanimous among the framers. Which story is correct? Which article needs to be changed? Sonicsuns (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Recess appointments

There was a flag on the number of recess appointments; I've provided a new total and reference. I'm going by the table of Nominations and Succession of the Justices in Appendix Two of the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, 1992 edition. The following are the ones labeled as having received recess appointments:

Associate Justices: Thomas Johnson, Bushrod Washington, Brockholst Livingston, Smith Thompson, John McKinley, Levi Woodbury, Benjamin R. Curtis, David Davis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart.

Chief Justices: John Rutledge (later rejected) and Earl Warren.

Accordingly, I've updated the information as saying there have been ten recess appointments for Associate Justices, and two for Chief Justices. Magidin (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Added: however, there is the possibility that the table is incorrect. In particular, the table has an asterisk next to Thomas Johnson's name, which indicates that he was nominated to serve as Chief Justice; however, the article on Johnson states that he was appointed as Associate Justice. However, pending an alternate source, I'm going with this information.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Do ideological beliefs bias certain rulings?

The lede states that "Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, the highest profile cases often expose ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or political categories". I think that's a pretty big claim to be making without a source to support it. In fact it is two claims; one being that the justices allow personal beliefs to influence their interpretation of the Constitution, the second being that this personal bias often creeps in on the highest profile cases. It also assumes that every member of a particular political or ideological persuasion - whether they're Supreme Court Jurists, or some Joe Blow in the street - feels the same way about any and all given scenarios. Now ... this claim might actually be true - at least in some situations - but that doesn't mean it doesn't require a reference. I think the justices themselves would deny that they allow any bias, or personal belief, to colour their interpretations and rulings. The bottom line being that I think a claim like this needs to have at least a couple of sources provided, or it needs to be changed. Thoughts? FillsHerTease (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the important points made in the body of an article. Generally, citations to a statement in the lead aren't needed if the material is already referenced in the body. The statement you object to is well covered and sourced in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Reagan's Justices

There's a section (Tenure) referring to three Presidents who have had Justices serving over 100 combined years. However, the source for this is seven years old and doesn't factor in Reagan who passed 100 about two years ago. This section of the article is outdated as a result and should be updated with a newer source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.147.22.94 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your claim is false. According to the list linked in the given source, Reagan's justices had only served 70.4 years combined in 2010; adding six more years for Scalia and 7 years for Kennedy only gives about 83 years total as of 2017. Kennedy would need to serve until 2034 (!) for Reagan to surpass the 100 years mark. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Chart: Membership (Current justices)

The chart under "Membership (Current justices)" has the age of each justice listed twice (in two separate columns). It is listed in the column entitled "Date of birth (Age)"; it is then listed again in the column entitled "Current age". Is there any reason for this? Should it remain as is? Or should we remove one of the "age" notations, to avoid duplicity? Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Joseph A. Spadaro. I've had it in my mind to "be bold" and change the formatting of that chart to match that on the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States page; but I'll now ask for a green light to do so. What do others think about this? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Drdpw: Thanks. But, I do not follow what you are saying. I quickly looked at the chart contained in the article entitled List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. I don't see any ages listed there, whatsoever. Are you proposing that we eliminate the mention of "age" in this article, also (on the particular chart in question)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the parenthetical "age" in the second column, leaving it after the "age at appointment". Magidin (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Thanks, also, for adding the tenure calculations on the retired justices. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Court Records

These are probably Encyclopedia worthy. But it is trivia. There are probably more worthy records to include. if we think this is a worthy addition.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Totenberg, Nina (April 28, 2015). "Record Number of Amicus Briefs Filed in Same-Sex-Marriage Cases". NPR. Retrieved June 27, 2015.
  2. ^ "Obergefell v. Hodges". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 27, 2015.
  3. ^ http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/11/15/142363047/obamacare-will-rank-among-the-longest-supreme-court-arguments-ever
  4. ^ http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/11/15/142363047/obamacare-will-rank-among-the-longest-supreme-court-arguments-ever
  5. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/25/history-lengthy-arguments-heard-before-supreme-court.html
  6. ^ NORMAN J. FINKEL, COMMONSENSE JUSTICE: JURORS' NOTIONS OF THE LAW 172 (1995) (recognizing Furman as "the lengthiest opinion ever written in the history of the Supreme Court")
  7. ^ Carol S. Steiker & Jordan M. Steiker, Sober Second Thoughts: Reflections on Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment, 109 HARV. L. REv. 355, 362 (1995)


I'd argue against their inclusion. They are, as you say, trivia. Magidin (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Besides being trivia, I doubt that the longest oral argument "records" are correct. Back in the Marshall and Taney days, they used to argue cases for days. "Gibbons v. Ogden, an 1824 case interpreting Congress' powers under the commerce clause, had oral arguments that lasted 20 hours over five days. Similarly, the 1819 case upholding the creation of a national bank, McCulloch v. Maryland, saw six lawyers conduct arguments over nine days." Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/11/15/142363047/obamacare-will-rank-among-the-longest-supreme-court-arguments-ever --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

chart: classifications; moderate, conservative or liberal

For the purposes of an efficient scanning of the information on this page maybe it might be prudent to include a column on the generally agreed upon outlook of the Justices in terms of how they typically interpret the law. Usually, they are classified as liberal, moderate or conservative so a quick small line just to illustrate how the supreme court is presently balanced might be helpful for comprehension. Klosc440 (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean, something other than what appears in the Judicial leanings section? An extra column in the table? Table is a little crowded already.... Magidin (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

easier to read list

In this list of "current justices", the text in the column "previous positions" is much longer than anything else, and it makes the table hard to read. I think it'd be better to move this info somewhere else, or possibly remove it from this page since it's already on their individual pages. I don't do much editing, so I'll hope someone else gets around to it. 2601:645:8004:D170:8D08:B1E4:5222:873A (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Diversity Descriptions

There is no consensus in the discussion. Editors suggested that the RfC be restarted with a neutral and brief summary of the specific passage in the article being discussed and what it is proposed to be changed to. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this page about SCOTUS conform to the Hispanic page description of that ethnicity as distinct from race (‘’regardless of race’’)? Is there a simpler, clearer, fairer way to describe SCOTUS diversity? Martindo (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • I support what appears to be the original phrasing ("Seven justices are of non-Hispanic white ancestry, one justice is African American, and one is Hispanic."), as I've indicated in the discussion section below. It is clearer and more straightforward than the current phrasing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the question? What does it mean to "conform to the Hispanic page"? The Hispanic page is not a set of rules. Is this a question about ethnicity vs. race? I say dump this RfC and start over and be clear what exactly you are asking, ideally refering to one of the pages that comes up in the Google search of ethnicity vs. race to clarify what it is you mean. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Obviously, it means: Should our usage of the term here be consistent with what our article on the term says?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, we should use the term consistently with our well-sourced article on the topic. I, too, support the above-quoted original phrasing. I say this as a super-white dude (98.8% European genome, according to 23andme.com), with half-siblings who firmly identify as Hispanic, despite their mother being half Italian, half Mexican – which would make them something like 4/5 of Euro. stock, all things considered. Hispanic is a complex concept but it is not a "race" in the usual sense, being a mixture of Euro., Americas-indigenous, and (to widely varying degrees) African. It is primarily a cultural concept. The idea that it is a new race unto itself is a charged political PoV, both from a Trumpy jingoistic stance, and from a La Raza position. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I continue to think the best thing to do is just mention the minority backgrounds (ethnicity, race, national origin of parents): "The Court currently consists of six men and three women. Among the nine justices, there is one of African-American heritage (Justice Thomas) and one of Hispanic heritage (Justice Sotomayor). Two of the current members were born to an immigrant parent: Justice Alito, whose parents were born in Italy, and Justice Ginsburg, whose father was born in Russia." I like this because it avoids classifying everyone by skin/ethnicity. AHeneen (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
And "heritage" is a bit problematic; what does "African-american heritage" mean, as opposed to being African-american? Are you creating a comparison between "african-american", considered a race, and "hispanic", considered an ethnicity, by using "heritage" in both? Seems like it. The use of "heritage" here just reads wrong. Magidin (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Summoned by bot. Please cite what specific passage is at issue, whether the language is right or wrong, and if you want it changed. Editors shouldn't have to guess at it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't understand: diversity is in the article 3 times, and how is the page not conforming to Hispanic? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 11:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Courtesy ping Martindo d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this RFC was not phrased clearly, and I'm not sure it was phrased neutrally either. From the discussion in the section above, I take it that the options are
  1. Eight justices are of white ancestry and one justice is African American. In terms of ethnicity, one is Hispanic.
  2. Seven justices are of non-Hispanic white ancestry, one justice is African American, and one is Hispanic.
Between those two, I think the second option is much more straightforward. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I second that the RfC is not clearly or neutrally phrased. I continue to believe that the best way to handle the ethnicity/Hispanic issue in the article is to simply say "Of the nine justices, there is one African-American (Justice Thomas) and one Latina (Justice Sotomayor)." AHeneen (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
"Latina" has been discussed before on this page and decided against; with "Hispanic" instead, I would agree. Magidin (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Of the two numbered choices above I prefer #2 but I dislike the word ancestry. Either all groups should have an ancestry or none. AHeneen's option makes it sound like white is the default. what's the actual question here? Elinruby (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (German) and Stephen Breyer (German/Romanian/Prussian/Polish) identify as Jewish and are usually described in sources as coming from Jewish backgrounds, so I think it is probably better to identify them as Jewish - though Oyez lists religion and ethnicity separately, the bios usually read "born into a middle-class Jewish family" etc. Samuel Alito is Italian, John Roberts is Irish/Welsh/Czech, Anthony Kennedy is Irish, Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican (and should be identified as Puerto Rican), Clarence Thomas is African-American - all of this can be sourced to the Justice's bios on Oyez. Seraphim System (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
again, what's the question here? Elinruby (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Whatever it is, listing the actual ethnicity of the Justices will 100% resolve it (in other words, since Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, the easiest solution is to just say that she is Puerto Rican) Seraphim System (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: you think so? I think it depends on how the ethnicity is stated and on a number of other things as well. I agree that the justices' background is important but there are also subtleties of phrasing that can play into a simple statement of ethnicity. But the last time I looked in here the white folks was off having European ancestries and this other dude, he black, and she, she latina. Or something like that. It probably wasn'y quite that blatant but go look at the proposals -- in one, the the white judges had ancestries and the others just *were*. Possibly like a housepet maybe? I think in the other one the example spelled out the "urban" races then said nothing about whites. Because they're the ones that are normal maybe?
I do want to emphasize that I am not talking about my views here, or at least I hope not, because one thing I just said twists something that may have been innocently intended into something racial. And the other example I gave may sound really racist to some editors. Those are not my words, people. I am trying to warn you thank at least some people will think you sound like that like that so.... the best smoothest running process is the one that is invisible to the user, right? The article will be clearer and better and more easily understook if certain pitfalls are eluded. I do not even know who made the proposals I am talking about. I am a completely uninvolved editor summoned by a bot and frankly the last thing I want is to be in this discussion. But. Ask for my opinion and you may get it.That has been on on my user page for quite some time now. I would be willing to bet five dollars that at least part of this argument is that some people don't understand why some other people care. Both proposals sounded racist to me because there was an unspoken assumption that we are all x and these other people are something else. I have no idea what the argument is actually about here, and I am not calling anyone racist. I am saying that those wordings both struck me as vulnerable to distortion. So why should you listen to me? Well, you rang. And the opinion you got came from a Canadian that grew up in Europe and has lived all over the US for the past 20 years. So I am an outsider but I also know the US very well and sigh, first of all, this is your solution not mine and I really don't care how the judges are discussed in that article. Second, I *will* tell you that many people will indeed care. While we are at it, it probably also matters what order you discuss the justices in. How are you doing that now? Seniority? Elinruby (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
one more point, I don't know WP policy on Hispanic vs Latina, but...I think the best thing to do would be to find an interview where she clearly is referring to herself with no irony at all and see which one she uses. I don't speak spanish well enough to have a useful opinion, but for what it is worth: in New Mexico people almost exclusively say "Hispanic" -- in reference the families that cmae back after the Pueblo Revolt especially. I never spent much time in Miami but I have the impression that you'd hear Cubano, Puerto Rican, or possibly Latino. I was in Florida a while up, but in the Bible Belt no Miami. In California you hear Latino and sometimes Chicano, but the latter usually has something to do with LA... hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Demographics (again)

This edit by @Magidin: placed the mention of foreign-born parents at the end of the demographics section. In my opinion, it is more appropriate in the first paragraph because the first paragraph discusses the current Court, while the proceeding paragraphs discuss demographics in the context of the history of the Court. I'm sure there are many, many more justices in the history of the court that had foreign-born parents. Thoughts about moving it back to the first paragraph? AHeneen (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: first I added the mention of foreign born parents (it wasn't there in the prior version). I originally added it to the top, but it seemed to me that it didn't much fit with the rest of the discussion on race, ethnicity, religion, age, and education. It seems to me to make more sense with the foreign born justices (I realize there were likely many in history, but the connection here is "foreign" prior, and the closest there is today). If it gets moved to the first paragraph, then it probably shouldn't be where I placed it earlier... Maybe after the geographic comments, to which it might more reasonably be somewhat connected. Magidin (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, again, the issue is about how the content is organized. If mention of the foreign-born parents are kept where they are, then why shouldn't the religion and race/ethnicity of the current judges be moved to the later paragraphs that discuss those topics? It seems odd to place just this one comment about the current court after the first paragraph.AHeneen (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is a matter of aesthetics, I think. I confess I'm not entirely on board on the relevance of foreign-born parents, so that is possibly/probably coloring my like or dislike of where the information might be placed. I'm wary of putting it with race/ethnicity, religion, age, and education, because those are facts about who the Justices are; whereas this is about who their parents were. I admit this is not a strong logical argument (it's of course reasonable to say that who the parents were and how they may have raised their kids or who the kids have contact with have relevance to the Justice's positions). It still seems a couple of steps removed from those other topics. How do you feel then, about putting it next to the geographic comments on the opening paragraph, then? The flow would then be: Gender, race/ethnicity, religion, age, education, geographic origin, parental foreign background if any. That actually makes sense to me now that I see it written down. Magidin (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The original intent in proposing that addition to the article was to follow the mention of race/ethnicity. From the "Hispanic is not a race" section above: In my opinion, considering the contentiousness of the race/ethnicity issue, it would be better just to leave out mention of the race/ethnicity of all justices and simply note the minority members: "The Court currently consists of six men and three women. Of the nine justices, there is one of African-American heritage (Justice Thomas) and one of Hispanic heritage (Justice Sotomayor). Two of the current members were born to immigrant parents: Justice Alito, whose parents were born in Italy,[1] [2] and Justice Ginsburg, whose father was born in Russia.[3] ..." (Note: Justice Sotomayor's parents were born in Puerto Rico and moved to New York. Many sources use the term "immigrant" to describe her parents, but since Puerto Rico is part of the US, that's not very accurate.) This eliminates the need to debate about race/ethnicity and implies that the rest are Caucasian. AHeneen (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Several months ago, which searching for interviews of the court members, I came across this video of Justice Alito discussing his Italian background (I didn't watch it all). The reason I suggested the addition was that, because of the contentiousness of the race/ethnicity issue, I thought it should be noted that a couple of the Caucasian, non-Hispanic justices have particular cultural backgrounds and had removed a mention of Justice Scalia as the first Italian-American on the court just a couple hours before (I was adding references to the section and couldn't find a good ref). Of course, to be complete, I searched the WP articles of the other eight justices to see if any of them grew up in a household other than sterotypical white American. For that reason, I think that the best place is right after mentioning race/ethnicity. AHeneen (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Huh; I seem to have completely missed your point, then. I confess I took it as just more information on the justices' background, not as complementing or adding onto the race/ethnicity issue. Viewed in that light, I can see why you would put it in close proximity to those items. Magidin (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to add information about degree of descent from immigrants, let's start by adding it to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, and refine it there, before determining what to include here. bd2412 T 11:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added the information to that article. AHeneen (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A new picture

A new pic of the current SCOTUS has been made - [4]. Its time to update the pic. M.Karelin (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Миша Карелин: And if you look two topics up, you will see that a request was made two weeks ago but that the picture is not yet publicly available. The photo in the article is copyrighted, as are all the ones I've seen in the press so far. Since Justice Gorusch's formal investiture was only at the end of the last week, I suspect the photos were being held. It should be available soon. Magidin (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hispanic is not a race

The US Census does not classify Hispanic (or Latina/Latino) as a race. The authority of the Census comes from its methodology, its fairness, and its accuracy, not from the department that it happens to belong to at present. As a government institution, it is beholden to the public. In contrast, NGOs and other private organizations that publish statistics (e.g., Pew Charitable Trusts) can follow their own agendas and nobody can change that except their own boards of directors.

If you accept the authority of the US Census, you can easily confirm that Hispanics comprise the largest minority language group in the US, bigger than all other non-English languages combined. Language is closely tied to culture and it is accurate to say that this is a large cultural/ethnic group that deserves prominence (and more respect than it currently gets).

But culture isn’t race. And size or prominence doesn’t create a racial category either. There are millions of Americans who have Slavic or Middle Eastern ancestry and still embrace those cultures and languages. They are classified as white regardless of how large and distinct their cultures are.Martindo (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The classification in the US Census of Hispanic follows not ethnographic concerns, but federal law passed by Congress; to state that it is, by virtue of being the Census, ipso facto "fair and accurate" seems at least a stretch. It is also strange to then take "Hispanic" and describe it as a language group. What is the reference for "hispanic" to be a language group, exactly? I am not familiar with such a classification (though I'm not a linguist). As far as government institutions, in my own personal experience I've seen both federal forms that specify that "hispanic" is not to be considered a race, as well as state forms in which "hispanic" is explicitly listed as a race. I'm happy to discuss and reach consensus, but this is hardly the closed-and-shut case you seem to think it is. Magidin (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hispanic is defined by most dictionaries as "related to Spanish-speaking countries". I find it hard to understand why the issue of language needs further discussion in this respect. The simple fact is that there is no objective authority for determining the issue of race (which the US is obsessed about more than most other countries). The US Census is a government authority that takes input from many sources and is ultimately responsible to the public, not to a private board of directors or media echoing. Wikipedia aims to provide outside verifiable sources for content. Simply declaring Hispanic to be "non-white" is POV. I don't see how or why we can avoid using the US Census definition, unless we want to eliminate the demographics section (which I would favor, particularly because there is a separate entry for it that covers the issue in more depth). Martindo (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying there is an issue of language that needs to be discussed. What I am saying, however, is that the fact that you are using "hispanic" to refer to a "language group" certainly raises questions in my mind for the simple reason that I have never seen it used in such a manner. "Spanish" is not a language group: Spanish is a particular language, which belongs to the family of Romance languages. Given this apparent non-standard use of the term, I do think it is indicative that you may not be using the terms in a standard way and that, as such, your personal opinion of the proper way to use the term is suspect. Therefore, what I *am* asking for is citations to justify this beyond the fact that the Census uses this classification. And the reason I want something more than just "the Census does it" was explained above and was ducked by you: the reason the Census does this is because Congress passed a law requiring the Census to do things this way. This was not the result of the Census "taking input from many sources" and coming to a conclusion, or a result of the Census "being responsible to the public". This was the result of Congress passing a law requiring the Census to do things this particular way. Your continued reference to private boards and to "the public" as such seem to me to be little more than strawmen. So... citations, please. Magidin (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Also: stop making the changes in the main page. We need to try to come to consensus first. If that fails, then you can call for arbitrarion. But until then, stop making the changes unilaterally. Magidin (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Magidin, I think you missed the part where I wrote
Language is closely tied to culture and it is accurate to say that this is a large cultural/ethnic group that deserves prominence (and more respect than it currently gets).
Language is intertwined with culture but the Census only surveys language. Culture is a category other than race, and it is important to note it separately in the text. Consensus is not needed in advance of correcting POV, and simply declaring Hispanic to be non-white is POV, regardless of how many people agree with you.
Really the best way to resolve this is to find out how the Supreme Court itself categorizes race. After all, the Demographics section is about them. Perhaps someone can find a 21st century majority decision that explicitly and concisely refers to Hispanic as a non-white race. If you can post an easily accessible reference to this, I will yield totally. Martindo (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I did not miss it. I did, however, fail to see the point, and fail to see how it justifies the claim that "hispanic" is now, apparently, "a language group". Do you have any linguistic references that make such an assertion? As to your final paragraph, you are being either disingenuous or facetious. The Supreme Court is not an authority on demographics. So, which is it: are you trying to be funny, or are you trying to be dense? Magidin (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
And which part of "consensus before editing" is so unclear to you? That's three times you've made the change you favor, despite more than one editor disagreeing and a discussion being ongoing on the talk page. At this point, good faith seems hard to assume. Magidin (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

But, since you asked for it. In Peña-Rodrigues v. Colorado, this term, the Court addressed the issue of impeaching a jury veredict because a juror had bias against the defendant based on his Hispanic heritage. The Opinion for the Court states:

Following the discharge of the jury, petitioner’s counsel entered the jury room to discuss the trial with the jurors.As the room was emptying, two jurors remained to speak with counsel in private. They stated that, during deliberations, another juror had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward petitioner and petitioner’s alibi witness.

(page 3 of the slip opinion); and

Juror H. C.’s bias was based on petitioner’s Hispanic identity, which the Court in prior cases has referred to as ethnicity, and that may be an instructive term here. See, e.g., Hernandez v. New York, 500 U. S. 352, 355 (1991) (plurality opinion). Yet we have also used the language of race when discussing the relevant constitutional principles in cases involving Hispanic persons. See, e.g., ibid.; Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 570 U. S. ___ (2013); Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U. S. 182, 189–190 (1981) (plurality opinion). Petitioner and respondent both refer to race, or to race and ethnicity, in this more expansive sense in their briefs to the Court. This opinion refers to the nature of the bias as racial in keeping with the primary terminology employed by the parties and used in our precedents.

(page 5 of the slip opinion). For the Supreme Court, "Hispanic" counts as "race" or "race and ethnicity". Magidin (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Magidin. This is a Wikipedia article, and it is certainly not surprising to see the term used consistently with our article, Hispanic. bd2412 T 01:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The last edit was made to follow |Martindo's prefered text, rather than leaving the status quo while consensus was being reached. Current text reads:

The Court currently has six men and three women justices. Eight justices are of white ancestry and one justice is African American. In terms of ethnicity, one is Hispanic.

Previous text read:

The Court currently has six men and three women justices. Seven justices are of non-Hispanic white ancestry, one justice is African American, and one is Hispanic.

Current reading is at odds with the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States article, which reads in its lead for the Ethnicity section:

All Supreme Court justices were white and of European heritage until the appointment of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Justice, in 1967. Since then, only two other non-white Justices have been appointed, Marshall's African-American successor, Clarence Thomas in 1991, and Sonia Sotomayor in 2009.

I favor the previous text; and the user requested a Supreme Court citation, and I have provided a recent one in which they identify "hispanic" as being subject to racial classification scrutiny. If there is consensus (not just stubborn insistence on the part of one user) for the change, then it needs to go beyond this one article. Magidin (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Magidin and BD2412. The previous text does not describe "Hispanic" as a race, and is accurate. The current text is awkward and possibly confusing. Frankly, the distinction between "race" and "ethnicity" is purely arbitrary, anyway. Each of the nine Justices presumably belongs to some ethnic group, so it seems peculiar to single out the one Hispanic for special treatment without explanation. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, considering the contentiousness of the race/ethnicity issue, it would be better just to leave out mention of the race/ethnicity of all justices and simply note the minority members: "The Court currently consists of six men and three women. Of the nine justices, there is one of African-American heritage (Justice Thomas) and one of Hispanic heritage (Justice Sotomayor). Two of the current members were born to immigrant parents: Justice Alito, whose parents were born in Italy,[5] [6] and Justice Ginsburg, whose father was born in Russia.[7] ..." (Note: Justice Sotomayor's parents were born in Puerto Rico and moved to New York. Many sources use the term "immigrant" to describe her parents, but since Puerto Rico is part of the US, that's not very accurate.) This eliminates the need to debate about race/ethnicity and implies that the rest are Caucasian. AHeneen (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
There's merit in the suggestion, but there are a couple of issues. First, the section here is meant to be a gloss of the more expansive corresponding section in the Demographics article; so you would need to also argue for a revamping of the corresponding section there. Second, "heritage" I think is not apt here; it has somewhat different connotations. "Descent" would be more appropriate, but I'm not sure I like it. The second part, on immigrant parents, is independent of this and I'm not sure it would belong here; nationality is a separate issue. I would put it where you placed the information on foreign-born justices rather than in the discussion of race and ethnicity. Magidin (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

How about leaving out 'heritage' or 'descent' and simply say: "Of the nine justices, there is one African-American (Justice Thomas) and one Latina (Justice Sotomayor)." (Latina is used since Latino/Latina is more common as a noun than "Hispanic") The first paragraph is about current justices, so the immigrant parents remark is appropriate in the first paragraph rather than the last, which concerns justices throughout the history of the court (I'm certain there are many more former justices with immigrant parents). I think the best place for the sentence about immigrants is beside the remark about one African-American and one Latina.

In fact, the edit I made conforms to Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States which clearly states that Hispanic can refer to any race; therefore it is not a race in itself. I tried to minimize the impact of this debate by editing only the main SCOTUS page, so yes, the text here is at odds with related specialized pages. They can be cleaned up later.
Yes, Census categories are determined by Congress, but who votes for Congress? Public pressure and evolving consensus have changed the definitions of categories over the course of decades. In the meantime, the Hispanic page follows current Census and DOT usage, affirming that position several times in the text. If we want consistency, we should follow it here.
As I stated earlier, and AHeneen suggests, it could work to cut the relevant summary sentence and let users draw their own conclusions by reading the individual Justice info given on this page. Russ R'n'B seems amenable to this. I agree with Magidin that descent is a better term, but it is even murkier than the slippery term race because nearly all humans are mixtures. If we tried to rewrite white Justices as having European descent, then Hispanic descent is indirectly part of that category due to Spanish colonization. Martindo (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Re: "Latina". It's been suggested before. It's been rejected before. I would oppose the use of "Latina" here. "... and one is Hispanic (Sotomayor)" would be better. The reason I don't think immigrant parents works in that paragraph is because you are then conflating nationality and immigration status with race and ethnicity. It makes more sense to put it next to foreign born justices, since that is talking about location of birth and potential immigration into the country; it would be prefaced with "Among current Justices..." to indicate immigrant parents are only a subject for current Justices. Magidin (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I would omit the ethnic/racial background of the justices as a fabric of the article entirely as I do not understand why it is relevant. I find it strange James Wilson, the father of the Supreme Court of the United States is noted as being "foreign born". None of the five original justices appointed to the court in September 1789 were born in the United States of America. Four were born in British America and James Wilson was born in Scotland where the idea of the Supreme Court originated. They were all born British hence the "British brethren" remark in the Declaration of Independence. Meenmore (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the edit made by Magidin on June 13 (based on AHeneen's suggestion last month) and see no reason to redo an RfC. Regarding the Opinion of the Court quoted by Magidin on May 1, I read it and saw no direct statement that "Hispanic is a race" or "Hispanics are not white". What I did see was an application of the concept of racism to a witnessed occurrence of anti-Hispanic prejudice. On another note, I think Latina/o is relevant as a more general term, because there seems to be evidence that Justice Benjamin_N._Cardozo had four Portuguese grandparents, at least some of whom would be considered Latina/o but not Hispanic. Martindo (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Class photo has been requested

The 2010 class photograph

Just an FYI: After seeing this edit, I have submitted a request to the court's Public Information Office for a copy of the official class photograph, along with the name of the photographer, their position, and, if they are not a full-time employee, a copy of their employment contract (to determine the copyright status of the photos, see Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid). All nine justices sat down for an official "class photograph" (2010 one at right) last week, but I can't find an official one online. As Time explains, a small number of media were allowed to photograph the court, so the photos online were mostly ones taken by the media and thus copyrighted. Hopefully, I will receive a response soon. AHeneen (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; until the new photograph is available, we should of course keep the one currently up; thank you for taking the active steps to see if we can get the new one. Magidin (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
AHeneen, many thanks for your work with this! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Here is the response I received: "Dear Mr.-----, We are responding to your email to the Supreme Court of the United States. For your guidance, the Justices’ new full Court photograph has not yet been released. You are welcome to check back with our office at a later time to pursue your inquiry. You may contact the office here or at 202-479-3211. Thank you, Public Information Office Supreme Court of the United States" (For the record: Here is the link I used to contact them.) AHeneen (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been checking the Supreme Court site, and didn't see anything, so I kind of figured. Thanks again. Magidin (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@AHeneen:, The Supreme Court page now has the new picture (a small one, on the "About the Court" tab); it might be worth checking with them again. Magidin (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have re-submitted my request, pointing out that the image now appears on that page of the court's website. AHeneen (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Aaaaaannnnnnddddddd...here it is! The quality of the image is excellent, although the image is not terribly large pixel-wise, so any cropped headshots for use on the articles of the individual justices are limited to about 400-600px square. I am considering a nomination for featured picture, but first would like others to comment about one thing: there's a lot of curtain above the justices. Is the balance of the current image fine, or should it be cropped a little shorter (maybe to 3000x2000px)? AHeneen (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Magidin (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Need ruling on divorce c. 1940

Could someone give me the Supreme Court ruling in which a man from South Carolina went to Nevada to get a divorce, which Court ruled South Carolina had to recognize? I don't know how to find it. This is for an article on history of divorce. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I believe you may be thinking of Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942). But please read the decision itself rather than our wiki article, which is not in good shape at all. (Would someone like to volunteer to get the article up to snuff? I would do it, but matrimonial law is not one of my fields, although conflict of laws is.) Also be sure to read the Court's second opinion in the case, at 325 U.S. 226 (1945), which ultimately reached a contrary result. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@newyorkbrad That's it. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Statistics under Judicial leanings

I've been rather remiss in past years, after adding statistics for 2010, 2011, and 2012. I just added statistics for 2017; it will probably be a good idea to drop some of the earlier ones after adding 2015 and 2016. I figure that, normally, about 3 years to show trends is about right; more than that and it will become unwieldly, less than that and it is prone to random variations. Magidin (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Resign" and "retire"

In the lead there is this sentence: "Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment."

Is it not correct that "retiring" from the Supreme Court is the same as resigning? If so I think "retire" should be removed from this sentence. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Technically, no. A "retired" Justice is still a Justice; they still draw a salary, have an office in the Court building, and a clerk, and can sit on Courts of Appeals by designation. (Justice Souter, I believe, still sits semi-regularly on the First Circuit.) By contrast, a Justice who resigned, which hasn't happened for a couple of decades, would no longer be a justice at all, would not draw a salary, and could take another job (as, for example, when Justice Goldberg resigned to become Ambassador to the U.N.). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the explanation, I was not aware of that. Interesting. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms section seems unbalanced

Of the subsections under "Criticisms," there seems to be an overemphasis of recent, rather than historical events. This seems to be both explicit and implied. I suggest this be made more balanced. Jason Weinman (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Retired justices order

I know this is minor... the retired Justices are currently listed by seniority (Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter). The Supreme Court website, though, lists them by order of retirement (O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy). See here. Either seems fine, but I though I would point out in case we want to go with the Court's order. Magidin (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2018

Could you please update the Judicial leanings section of the Membership section? We need to add Brett Kavanaugh. Again, could you please update the section with adding Brett Kavanaugh? Please. 2601:401:C400:357:C180:8BDD:392C:D4BC (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need sources before we can update that section. All updates must adhear to WP:NPOV. In addition to reliable sources please format all requests as "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y" ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
In the meantime, I've bracketed the paragraph by adding that it covers the period between Gorsuch's confirmation and Kennedy's retirement. There should be sources "out there" to replace the final sentence with evaluation of Gorsuch's first full term, plus the expectation of the new solid conservative majority, but I don't have the time to search for them right now. Magidin (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Could you please fix the time graph in the Seniority and Seating section of the Membership section? Why, because Brett Kavanaugh's line is a little too close to his name, unlike the other lines in the graph. Could you please fix that? Please. 2601:401:C400:357:4515:9041:2A89:6269 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It does look like a problem, but despite all my efforts I could not get it right. Could any advanced wikicoding editor do this please? The specific problem is that Kavanaugh's line starts from 0 and goes right while all other lines start from 0 and then go left. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It's fine, as I confirmed by changing the parameters to plot as if it was 2020. K's tenure was shown as the other Justices, beginning this month and continuing to the end of the chart. It will most likely look more "normal" after some time has elapsed since his confirmation. General Ization Talk 02:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, $now was less than K's start date, by 0.06. I updated $now and it should be clearer. General Ization Talk 02:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018

The sub-section "Justices as circuit justices" is out-dated as a new allotment order after the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh was issued. Here's the link to new allotment order issued on October 19, 2018.[8]

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

US Marshal's law enforcement arm?

I believe whoever wrote that confused US marshals, who are an executive branch force, with Supreme court Marshal's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court. 94.253.238.206 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

No confusion. The U.S. Marshals, as the Wikipedia article notes, is the enforcement arm of the United States federal courts. Magidin (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Who says the Roberts court is more conservative?

I noticed the following sentence does not spell out who it means is saying the Court is more conservative than just before:

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist Court.

I was WP:BOLD and placed a "who" tag, but was reversed and directed to the citations at the end of it. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The sentence ends with two citations with quotes. The second is an article by Linda Greenhouse, which explicitly and specifically says the Court became more conservative after the first term of Roberts as Chief Justice. The "who" tag was misplaced, though you might have requested more (or more recent) citations in talk. I'm adding others. 04:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error(130.193.225.100 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC))

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—130.193.225.100 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC) (130.193.225.100 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC))

You haven't explained what you consider to be erroneous, and the coordinates in the article appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Current president's Supreme Court candidates link in See Also section

The first link at Supreme Court of the United States § See also is Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates and there are no additional links for previous president's nominees. It was changed in July 2017 by an IP editor from Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates. Shouldn't we either remove the link or, for balance, include links for the articles related to at least the current justices of the Court? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1, in response to your above observation, I have removed the DT-candidates article "see also" link, and in its place included one to List of Presidents of the United States by judicial appointments, and more to the point of being inclusive by providing links to articles on earlier presidents' SCOTUS candidates, I've added Template:U.S. Presidents and the Judiciary to the page. Hope this addresses your concern, and is agreeable to others. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I have removed the following paragraph as being too speculative to include at this time. However, I reproduce it below, in case the community disagrees with my judgment on this point. bd2412 T 04:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a political movement afoot to increase the number of sitting judges after the 2020 election if the democrats win and both public and party support for running democrats to make the proposal part of their election platform. This is in retaliation to a shift in the balance in power due to President Donald Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees making the current bench conservative leaning when viewed upon as ‘what justice was selecticted by what president’. This however, does not mean the proposed increase will happen or that all democrat candidates support this change, it is only worthy of note as this is the first time in 3 decades that a increase has been publicly discussed by elected officials. [1]

Totally agree -- too trivial of a "movement" to be included in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree as well. Magidin (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-dems-being-urged-to-back-push-to-pack-supreme-court
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States/Archive_8&oldid=1149962068"