Talk:Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Requested citation adjustments on 18 March 2019

The opening paragraph that explains the structure of the court, tenure of justices, etc., cites the very partisan Heritage Foundation, making the article’s credibility sketchy from the start. Perhaps cite the US Constitution itself and/or federal statute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billtaverner (talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

All but two of the citations in the opening paragraph are to Administrative Office of the United States Courts; the two exceptions are the Safire column on the use of SCOTUS, and the one you mention. The one you mention is about the meaning of "good behavior" in the Constitution, justifying that it means that Justices hold their office until they resign, retire, or are removed from office through impeachment. This is not controversial in any way, so I don't see why citing Heritage on this particular point would be a problem. You cannot cite the Constitution to explain what the Constitution means; nor is there a federal statute to explain what "good behavior" means for the tenure of Supreme Court justices. If you have a source that actually addresses that point, please provide it. For evidence that there is little controversy here, I checked the Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution, and this portion does not have any essays associated with it. Magidin (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Federal law is more specific than "the law"

I believe that "It can also invalidate an executive act for violating the Constitution, or for being unlawful." is poorly worded, for multiple reasons. First, "unlawful" isn't specific at all. An executive act can violate state law, but that doesn't mean the executive act can always be struck down. This is because executive acts can usually override state laws, just not federal laws. Second, the Constitution is the "law", so if it can be struck down for being "unlawful", then you can remove the Constitution portion, because the Constitution is part of the "law". I think that a better way to word this sentence would be "It can also strike down an executive act for going against federal law." An executive act can't be struck down for violating a state's laws. BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I have no problem with "violating federal law" rather than "unlawful"; but I would still want to mention the Constitution explicitly lest it seem by omission and contrast to previous sentence that the Constitutional inquiry cannot or is never made in the case of Executive actions (consider the Travel Ban, where the inquiry was, in part, whether it violated the Religious clauses of the First Amendment, by singling out a particular religion for disparate treatment). Executive actions can only override state laws when in areas of federal supremacy. I don't understand your "Second" point: the previous sentence talks about "statutes" (which are laws passed by a Legislative body), and the Constitution is not a statute. And the sentence at issue only talks about "executive acts", and the Constitution is not an executive action or order. (An executive action could be struck down for violating a state law if it is an area of state supremacy and it contradicts state laws; though an argument could be made that in that situation you are striking it down for being unconstitutional in violating the Enumerated Powers Clause). "Going against" is too vague; it really should be "violating". The reason for separating the previous sentence and this is precisely that statutes can only be struck down for being unconstitutional, while executive actions can be struck down for either violating (applicable) law, or for being unconstitutional; both reasons apply. It is clearer to have both mentioned explicitly, even if arguably "violating the law" includes "violating the constitution". I would suggest "It can also strike down an executive act because it violates the Constitution or federal law." Magidin (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely agree with that suggested sentence, I just think a different word(s) should be used other than "violate", since that is in the previous sentence as well. BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

How about "It can also strike down an executive act because it infringes on the Constitution or federal law." I think that could work instead. BobRoberts14 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

The cited uscourts.gov page states – The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). As such, a good way to word the sentence(s) would be something along the lines of – The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute or an executive act for violating the Constitution. Drdpw (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that would not be the best way. The Supreme Court can overrule a state law or an executive action for infringing on federal law, they don't have to violate the Constitution. Your sentence only mentions the Constitution. BobRoberts14 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Hmmm.... a lot of relatively recent litigation on Executive orders has been on whether it violates federal law (such as the census dispute on whether adding the question violates the APA, and similarly with EPA actions). And for that matter, U.S. v. Nixon was about executive acts that violated the law, not the Constitution. That should be somewhere, even if it is not in the lede, though I'm hard pressed to figure out where. Magidin (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"To infringe" means "to encroach", not "to violate" or "to break", so I don't like that phrasing. We talk about infringing rights, and infringing on Congressional/Executive/State power, but we don't generally talk about "infringing the law" or "infringing the Constitution". "Break" doesn't quite sound right because while we do talk about "breaking federal law", we don't say "breaking the Constitution". I realize "violate" is being used twice, but I don't really see much remedy there. Magidin (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Recently there has been litigation on this issue, such as multiple lawsuits pertaining to Trump's tarrifs on steel and aluminum, and his duties on goods from China. None have made it to the Supreme Court so far, but if they did, his policies could be struck down if they were not authorized by the powers given to him, or because they were unrelated to "national security". Neither one has to do directly with the Constitution. BobRoberts14 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Also, I have heard many times "the law was struck down for infringing on the Constitution", but I'll see if I can think of a better way to word it. BobRoberts14 (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

A google search for "infringing on the Constitution" returns 198,000 hits; by contrast, "violating the Constitution" returns 3,320,000, or over sixteen times as many. "infringe the Constitution" gives 349,000 hits, while "violate the Constitution" gives 5,170,000. I don't much like word repetition, but I think it's warranted here. Magidin (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That said, I just looked at your new wording, and I'm fine with that. Magidin (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Magidin Sounds good, thanks for resolving this :). Sorry for breaking the rules earlier, I didn't know what I was doing since I have only been editing Wikipedia for about three days. Bob Roberts 03:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Flowchart

Does anyone else think the "flowchart" recently added to the "Appointment and confirmation" section by Drdpw is appropriate to this article? It seems to me to be (at best) unnecessary clutter. Substantively, it is dubious because it places undue emphasis on the hypothetical case of recess appointments, which are solely of historical interest. Roughly 2/3 of the items in the flowchart are only there because of recess appointments. On the other hand, while focusing minutely on that one aspect of the appointment process, it ignores many other contingencies, such as --

• Nominee withdraws their nomination before the Senate acts (Harriet Miers);
• Senate adjourns sine die without taking a vote on the nomination (Merrick Garland);
• Nominee dies before the Senate acts;
• Nominee dies after confirmation but before receiving commission (Edwin Stanton).

All of these are missing from the flowchart, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some other cases that neither I nor the flowchart designer have thought of. Finally, the flowchart emphasizes the formal process and ignores the real-world political processes involved in any Supreme Court nomination. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, my main problem is that I cannot read what the thing says (reading it on a desktop) as it is too small, even if I click on it to get it full screen. The chart is in the relevant sub-article, so I would not object to the more detailed discussion/chart being relegated there. Magidin (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I added the flowchart because I thought it appropriate. That said, I do have a problem with the flow chart because of its small size, which limits its usefulness, and so wouldn’t object to its removal from this page if there’s a consensus to do so. Drdpw (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox "term of office"

Three times now a single editor has replace "Life tenure" with "continual with good behavior". I've asked that editor to take it to the talk page rather than continue reverting. His edit was reverted twice, by two different editors (myself the second time). My reasons: the proposed text does not signal that it is a term of art, making it appear to be a colloquial use of "good behavior". The meaning of "good behavior" is complex enough that it should not appear in the infobox. And the entire thing is expounded in the body of the article. For practical purposes, the appointment is a lifetime appointment, and this is how it is talked about (both in the press, in public, and in the Senate during confirmations and votes). The meaning of "Good Behaviour" is technical. The infobox is not the place for a discussion of the meaning of technical issues with constitutional language. As such, I support reverting to the previous text, "Life tenure". Magidin (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I concur; “life tenure” is the common and accepted terminology. As it is also the long-standing consensus term used in this article, I have reverted the edit - the existing consensus term should remain in use unless a new consensus is reached. Drdpw (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Circuit decisions

I may be misunderstanding this, but I'd always thought that the circuit decisions are different to the actual SCOTUS rulings. For instance, 9th is CA, NV, AZ, OR, WA, ID, MT and a 9th circuit ruling only affects those states. But then there were rulings like the repeal of the DOMA which made same-sex marriage legal in ALL states. Am I thinking of this right? Why are there circuits, are those decisions limited to those states? Apeholder (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

A circuit court decision is binding on courts/states within that circuit. If one circuit rules, then in the absence of contrary decisions from its own circuit, a lower court in a different circuit may take that other circuit's opinion as guidance (as opposed to binding precedent). But if the case is taken up by the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court decision applies across all circuits. Repealing DOMA by itself did not make same-sex marriage legal in all states. When the 9th Circuit ruled, that only applied in the 9th circuit. I also think you are confusing the DOMA case (United States v. Windsor) with the case that legalized same-sex marriage in the entire country (Obergefell). When the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, this only gave federal recognition to same-sex marriages that were lawfully done in states that allowed them. It applied to the Federal Government, but did not mandate any state to allow same sex marriages. The same day, the Court also decided Hollingsworth v. Perry which was a separate issue and did not rule directly on same sex marriage, but effectively allowed same-sex marriage to resume in California (and in light of Windsor, be recognized by the Federal government). It wasn't until Obergefell v. Hodges two years later that the Supreme Court affirmatively asserted that the right to marry was guarranteed by the 14th amendment, which required all fifty states (and DC and all territories) to allow, perform, and recognize marriages of same-sex couples in the same terms as marriages of opposite-sex couples. Note that this is different from "nationwide injunctions", where a district or circuit court enjoins (prevents) the Government from enforcing a law everywhere in the country while litigation is taking place (and this practice is controversial). Magidin (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Concur with above. What Magidin is getting at is that one has to carefully distinguish between rights and duties as correlative (see Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld), then understand where those rights and duties come from in terms of different sovereigns (federal v. state) and different sources of law (constitution v. statute), and then understand the geographical scope of the forum in which one is litigating at the appellate level. This is how attorneys analyze impact litigation on any high-profile issue, in order to develop their strategy to maximize or minimize the actual impact of such litigation. Unfortunately, this complexity is irreducible because it is inherent in a federal system that draws a strong distinction between constitutional and statutory law. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Kennedy "retired under" Obama, not Trump

Before correcting this, I want to see if there is a specific reason why Kennedy is listed as retiring under Trump, not Obama. While Trump did make the replacement appointment, the retirement occurred during the Obama presidency. Jacobhamza (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jacobhamza: Kennedy retired in 2018, definitely under Trump. I believe you are thinking of Scalia's death. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh geez, egg on face. Thank you for being gracious in your explanation. Jacobhamza (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is correct. Kennedy retired several years into the Trump presidency. During the Obama presidency, Souter and Stevens retired and Scalia died, resulting in the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan, and the seat being held open until Trump appointed Gorsuch in 2017. BD2412 T 16:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Section: Law Clerks

Currently, in this section, it reads, "Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh served under Kennedy during the same term. Gorsuch is the first justice to serve alongside a justice for whom he or she clerked." This seems to be grammatically incorrect. If both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedyd during the same term, Gorusch is the first justice to serve alongside a justice with whom or she clerked, not "for whom." Does anyone else agree with this? Using "for whom," implies, at least to me, that Gorsuch clerked for Kavanaugh, opposed to alongside under Kennedy. ~~Fromnyc2socal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.155.189.33 (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting that clause. Gorsuch is the first justice to serve with a justice for whom he clerked because Gorsuch served for one term with Kennedy (not because he is serving with Kavanaugh). But I'll clarify a bit. Magidin (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Size of the court

Do we need to add a sentence or two to this section regarding modern calls to expand/pack the Supreme Court? These calls have been renewed lately.[1] StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we do not need to, as, for now and in the near term, is mere chatter. If and when the chatter becomes a concrete push for change or when (presumably) Democratic politicians begin publicly calling for such a change during the upcoming SCOTUS nomination fight, then it would be apropos for us to add a paragraph. Drdpw (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, sure. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Photos

I find the use of photos in this article wanting. They all wallow in architecture and history, completely ignoring the actual court today and it's central role in society. The first photo/drawing, of the Royal Exchange, is particularly dreadful. A quick stroll through commons turned up the following photo, which shows a typical scene of a press conference in front of the building. It includes people, hinting at the idea that this is not an article on architecture.

Unfortunately, the article starts with a history section, and I'm not entirely sure where this might be placed. If anyone has an idea, and/or slightly bolder than me, maybe give it a try. Otherwise, I'll do so at some point unless people object. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree because what you are talking about is something that is merely relevant to the topic but is not the primary topic of the article. That kind of tangential use of photographs is more appropriate in textbooks, and Wikipedia is not a textbook (Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK). From my perspective, the photos currently in the article are entirely appropriate and appear to have been selected and placed with great care. The most important things to illustrate first are the court itself in terms of its actual physical home and the people who make up the court, and the article does that very well. I do agree, however, that there should be at least one photo in the article of a large press conference in the plaza to illustrate the impact of the court on society. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I actually came to this talk page because I had the exact opposite reaction. I was surprised to find the first and only photo of the building a third of the way through the article. Of the 22 photos in the article, five are not of people. The Royal Exchange drawing seems appropriate to me. Most of the subjects covered in the article would be difficult to illustrate with a photo. I think it would be good to have a photo to illustrate the Law Clerks section. There have been some great photos in the news recently of the Clerks on the court steps after Ginsburg's death but I can't find with an appropriate license. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Judicial interference in political disputes

I always get suspicious when I see excessive citations. It's usually a sign of WP:OR. This statement: "The Bush v. Gore decision, in which the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election and effectively chose George W. Bush over Al Gore, has been criticized extensively, particularly by liberals." is supported by six citations, four of them with quotes. One of them is a letter to a newspaper editor, and I will remove that one. None of the quotes support the statement. They are all criticisms of the decision. Two of them say that the decision has been criticized, by "beat reporters and academics" and by "many critics." None of them say that the decision has been criticized extensively, or that the criticism has been made particularly by liberals. Someone has drawn that conclusion by drawing on these sources. We shouldn't be drawing this conclusion, we should simply by summarizing what the reliable sources say. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

Can we make a table or graph that shows the Supreme Court justices over time? It could be something like 9 (or less, in the distant past) bars running down the page with names added at the various points that new justices were nominated. The only thing is that the bar's positions will be kind of arbitrary, but it would still be good to see. Nate Hooper (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You are talking about a "graph" with about 120 entries. It would probably be too large to be informative in any sense. Magidin (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A table depicting the progression of the justices already exists. See the graphical timeline at List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States#Timeline of justices. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Thanks! Nate Hooper (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lede

It is also an arm of the republican political party. it's main duty is to protect the interests of corporations. The supreme court is also a religious institution interpreting law according to religious views. Majority of the court has been appointed by presidents who have lost the popular vote. A third of the court has been chosen by an impeached president. 2 justices are seen as illegitimate as they got the nomination through dubious means at the direction of Mitch mcconnell. Ultimately the supreme has lost credibility to a majority of the population and is seen as a hindrance to progress.

I do not believe this addition is worthy of being in the lede as added by Sven7975 in [Supreme Court of the United States this edit].--intelati^talk 16:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted this vandalism. StAnselm (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ordering of Justices in Jurisdiction

Currently, the final paragraph of Jurisdiction mentions the Justices that serve as circuit justice for the circuit they had been members of in order of circuit number. Should we standardize this to be in order of seniority, as seems to be the default? Should there be / is there an official standard of ordering all lists of the justices by seniority?

Please remember to sign your contributions. As to your question: the Supreme Court itself lists the circuit assignments in the order we give them, D.C. first, then First through Eleventh, then Federal (see circuit assignment page at the Supreme Court website. As such, I would argue for keeping this particular listing and mentions in the final paragraph by Circuit order, rather than seniority. Magidin (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Hello! Can someone update the Roberts Court timeline graph on the Roberts Court and List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition pages? Please. 2600:6C48:427F:F84E:8460:99EA:B541:89F5 (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – What specifically needs updating? The table on each of the pages you have mentioned appears to be current and up to date. Drdpw (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Best way to introduce United States Supreme Court history by court articles?

The articles about United States Supreme Court history by court (e.g. Chase Court, Ellsworth Court full list: Category:United States Supreme Court history by court) mostly introduce the topic by saying The NAME Court refers... which fails WP:REFERSTO. I thought about changing them to The NAME Court was the period in the history of the... as seen on Warren Court, but that seem rather long winded. I started this discussion here as this page likely has more active page watchers compared to the individual articles themselves. What do people think about a neat way to introduce these topics my first thought is go The SURNAME Court began on YEAR when FIRSTNAME SURNAME become Chief Justice of the United States in the Supreme Court of the United States and ended on YEAR when SURNAME retired. Thoughts on the short descriptions as well? Thanks  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"Landmark" cases section's description of cases

In the landmark case section, the Citizens United decision is described as being about campaign finance, but I changed it because it is more accurate to say that the case is about the free speech rights of organizations and the fact that free speech includes political speech. User:Drdpw reverted it, asserting "It was a decision concerning campaign finance". I disagree, because Citizens United (the organization) was not seeking to finance any campaign, but rather, to simply release a documentary that contained political opinions.

Instead of edit warring, we should discuss what an accurate description of that case should be within that section.

--The owner of all ✌️ 16:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Drdpw. There is a difference between what the case was about, and how the outcome was justified. The case was about campaign finance; although Citizens United was not "seeking to finance any campaign", what they ran afoul of was campaign finance law. The ruling was about the underlying campaign finance law, striking down parts of campaign finance law. The first sentence in the Citizens United page says that it was "a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning campaign finance." The Oyez page on the case describes the facts of the case as:

"Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president."

The case about a law limiting expenditures by independent groups on political campaigns. Citizens United did not contest that their actions might be illegal under the campaign finance law (which means they agreed that their actions were covered by campaign finance law): they objected to the law itself.

Now, the Court rooted its decision on free speech rights of corporations, but the case was not about those rights, but about the constitutionality of the campaign finance law. Contrast wit Obergefell, which was decided on Equal Protection grounds, but it is not described as a case about equal protection, but about same-sex marriage. I will note that the lede states that Citizens United "concerned" First Amendment rights. Magidin (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

New Class Photo

I found the new Supreme Court class photo on CNN. Can someone please add it to replace the existing one? Please.

Website where the photo is: [[2]]

Thank You!

It's unclear what the provenance of that photo is (that is, who has the copyright, whether it can be uploaded to the commons). The Supreme Court site still has the previous photo, it's probably best to wait until they post the new one. Magidin (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

On the Supreme Court website, the class photo has been updated. Can someone add it now? Please.

Where I found it: [[3]]

Size controversy in 2010s and 2020s

@Drdpw: Greetings! Regarding this revert, what is your concern that prompted you to ask me to start a discussion? -- Beland (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't speak for Drdpw, but I would probably have reverted as well. It seems like a major addition with some problems (the ' "stolen" seat' remark, for instance). It is also both a little on-going and a little prospective, in a section that is purely descriptive and historical. The topic itself is possibly (likely) worthy of inclusion, but it needs perhaps a little beefing up and clean-up, and a better location; e.g., the "Criticisms" or some kind of "Current controversies" section, perhaps? Magidin (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magidin: Hmm...well, the size of the court was manipulated in 1866 for political reasons, manipulation was proposed in 1937, and manipulation has been proposed again in the 2010s and 2020s. That's why I put coverage of the current size controversy in the "Size of the court" section. The controversy is not merely a current one, and there are a huge number of issues that could be added to a "Current controversies" section, but those are mostly already covered in the "Criticism" section, so "Current controversies" doesn't seem like a good fit. We could make a new subsection under "Criticism" to cover the current calls to pack the court, though it would be weird to have two different sections covering court size manipulation if we leave part of that under "Size of the court"?

How would you propose explaining Democrats' criticism that one or two seats were "stolen" by Republicans? Does that term merely need more citations (quick search turns up: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) or would you want to rephrase? -- Beland (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, the section where you put it is purely historical and descriptive; all attempts described are in the past, and have been both fully studied and conclusions drawn. I did not complain about it being political, so I'm not sure why you think that talking about past political manipulations in any way addresses something I said. What you have is an ongoing issue, that sticks out in a section that does not discuss anything ongoing. You agree it is a current issue. It wouldn't be "two sections covering court size manipulation": one section describes historical instances of size changes and actual attempts at size changes (and some of the reasons for it), the other would describe current arguments about it and informal proposals/calls for it. Note that there isn't even an attempt "on the table" the way that there was with Roosevelt: an actual proposal (as opposed to just talk) with an actual congressional vote. There's a big difference between talking about it, and actually putting forth a law to do it. For instacne (not related to this page, just as a simile) congressional republicans are currently "calling for Biden to resign", but we wouldn't put that in the page on the presidency in a discussing historical presidential censures or impeachments, because they are just at completely different levels. Finally, my problem with the stolen remark isn't citations; it's that it was simply put there with scare quotes; you ask how I propose "explaining Democrats' criticism"? Well, for one, I would like to explain it (give the argument and the context) rather than just throw it out there with scare quotes and as simply a statement. Magidin (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magidin: Sure, I was just mentioning the history of political manipulation by way of pointing out how similar the current controversy is to past controversies and thus why they belong in the same section. I guess I just don't find the present/past distinction to be as salient as which aspect of the court a section is talking about. But since you feel strongly about it, I'm happy to put the current controversy under "Criticisms and controversies" and cross-reference the two size-related sections.

I just did some checking, and it appears there is a proposal "on the table". The Judiciary Act of 2021 would increase the size of the court from 9 to 13 justices. It has been introduced as H.R. 2584 and S. 1141, has dozens of co-sponsors, and has been referred to committee. That should probably get added to the proposed section.

As for the 'the "stolen" Garland seat', explaining it as you propose sounds fine to me. What words would you use, and where? When I wrote it and when I read it back, it seems clear to me that the term is in quotes because it's what Democrats use (but it obviously isn't an objective term), and that the "stealing" refers to McConnell's refusal to hear Garland's nomination. I'm sure there's some rephrasing we'd both like, but I'm just unclear on what that would be from your perspective. -- Beland (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Law schools in "current justices" section?

I searched the archives of this talk page and could not find any prior discussion on this topic, please excuse me if this is a settled matter on this page. Many if not all the state supreme court pages (e.g. Illinois, Wisconsin, Washington, etc.) list the law schools and/or legal education each justice graduated from or attained degrees from. A similar column could be useful on this page's section on current justices. Is there a reason this page differs from the others? I welcome any thoughts on whether this column should be added. JustinMal1 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Webbma2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Information Box, Term Length

We all know that where the Information Box says "Life Tenure" for term length, it is incorrect. Even if the idea is that it's essentially life tenure, why not be accurate and say "during good behavior", or if that language from the Constitution is thought confusing, then at least "life tenure, subject to impeachment and removal"? Surely accuracy is important, even in a summary info box. Whatever the resolution to this, "life tenure" is wrong. Friothaire (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, that is fine for the infobox. "During good behaviour" is a term of art and potentially confusing: do they get kicked out if they are naughty? "Subject to impeachment and removal" is likewise too much for the infobox: the same is true of presidents, but we understand that they have a 4 year term renewable once (as described in the corresponding infobox), and we do not describe it as a "4 year term, renewable once, subject to impeachment and removal, and to the 25th Amendment"; and Senators are not listed as being elected to "6 year terms, subject to refusal to be seated by the Senate and to censure and expulsion". Common usage for all federal judges is that they receive "lifetime appointments", so that is perfectly fine for the infobox. Details are in the article. Magidin (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your very reasonable comments Magidin, but I respectfully disagree in part. The Constitution does say that the President has a four-year term, so that infobox is correct as far as it goes. The Constitution does not say that federal judges have "life tenure"; that statement is simply incorrect, and it doesn't matter that it is corrected in the text.

The infoboxes for the Supreme Court of Ireland, Supreme Court of Canada, Supreme Court of New Zealand, and Supreme Court of Australia articles mention "Judge Term Length" as "Until age 70", "Mandatory retirement by age 70", etc., so those do alert readers to the actual end of their terms. The article Supreme Court of Spain infobox says "Appointed for life until retired at 70." The infobox for Supreme Court of Argentina has a longer explanation for "Judge term length": "75 years old. At that age, the President and the Senate can keep the judges for an additional term of five years, following the same process established for the appointment. The five-year extension can be repeated indefinitely". My point is that a slightly longer explanation in an infobox is not off-base for the sake of accuracy.

I suggest one of the following changes for the SCOTUS infobox:

• Don't mention judicial tenure at all in the infobox, but instead just deal with it accurately in the text of the article. The infobox for Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, for example, does not mention judicial tenure; neither does the infobox for Supreme Court of Cassation (Serbia).

• "life tenure unless removed" with elaboration in the article.

Thanks. Friothaire (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

All examples you list that include terms have a term limit and/or mandatory retirement. That is not the case here. Again: common usage, easily verified, is that federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) receive "lifetime appointments". "Unless removed" is not appropriate here, any more than it is in the Presidential infobox (the Constitution does contain information about removal through impeachment; how come that is not there, then, but should be here? It is unreasonable to include it). I don't understand why you would be okay with "life tenure unless removed" (which includes not only information about a different part of the Constitution, but one that has never occurred at all), but not with "life tenure." I disagree with both your suggestions, and continue to believe the current usage is perfectly appropriate. I will allow space and time for others to weigh in, if they so wish. Magidin (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't contest this further, although I still claim the term "life tenure" is at best misleading for casual readers who skim this article, and one of the changes I suggest above would be preferable. Given that the webpage https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-judges says Article III states that these judges "hold their office during good behavior," which means they have a lifetime appointment, except under very limited circumstances, however, and since the section of the article called "Tenure" adequately explains the possibility of impeachment and removal, I'll reluctantly let it go. Friothaire (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a compromise would be to simply change "Life tenure" to a link [[ ]] to the already existing WP article explaining the concept in depth. That hopefully addresses the concern of having to read though the article to understand what "Life tenure" means, and also does not expand the text of the info box for those that already understand that there are exceptions to "life". We do that for other terms in the info box already. I can make the change if you folks agree. Bobsd (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

While I like the idea in principle, the WP article as it currently exists does not seem to be of much help; for the matter at hand, all it says is contained in the second sentence of the second paragraph, which reads in its entirety "United States federal judges have life tenure once appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate." with a citation to a Wayback Machine-archived Yale Law Review article. It doesn't strike me as particularly "in depth". Unless you have a different article in mind... Magidin (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Stevens's habit of naming a court by its newest member

Do we want to add a note (perhaps footnote) of how, for example, Justice Stevens refered to the Court not by the name of the chief justice, but by the name of the newest justice? The argument was that each new appointment changes the dynamics of the court; this goes along with Byron White's remarks that every time you get a new justice, you get a new court. I know it's minor, but does seem interesting to note. If there is interest, I can look up sources and propose a place where it might be added. Magidin (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

White makes an astute point, but I don't see mention of it or a paragraph in the article about how the dynamics of the Court change with the appointment of a new justice. There would need to be such a paragraph for Steven's habit/practice to be noteworthy here. Drdpw (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear: I meant adding both comments in tandem, in a new paragraph, somewhere. I haven't thought deeply about where, I was just ruminating on it. And as I said, I would want to locate sources both quoting the two, and possibly supporting the assertion. Of course, if it is not deemed as particularly noteworthy (more, as you put it, "an astute observation" or an interesting detail), then there is no need to go fishing or thinking about it too much, hence my sounding out the idea. Magidin (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms and Controversies idea

Why is there not a section on packing the court in the criticisms and controversies section? SaavayuAdrin (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Makeup Diagram

I think that a composition diagram such as the one for the US senate may be helpful. See below:

  Liberal: 3 seats

  Swing: 1 seat

  Conservative: 5 seats

PtolemyXV (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. For the Senate, we are talking exclusively about party affiliation. Here you would have to get into arguments about judicial philosophy. Even that is not easily pegged: Breyer is liberal on most issues, but is a swing vote in others, even within the same subject matter (for example, on church-state separation, he is aligned with a strong liberal position on school-sponsored prayer, but is a swing vote on government display of religious symbols). So... I don't think it would be useful at all. Magidin (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The liberal–swing–conservative trichotomy(?) is too imprecise, so I don't think that such a visual would be helpful. Drdpw (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A diagram of their religious affiliations could also be useful as one who reads this article would be misled to believe this is not a religious organization. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:F504:2319:7AB7:FD80 (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent efforts to pack the court

Copied from User talk:Drdpw#Supreme Court (regarding this diff):

I know that on its own the one effort hasn't gone anywhere, but it seems ridiculous for Wikipedia to pretend there has been no attempt at "court packing" since the 1930s. Perhaps there is a summary of other efforts somewhere that can be used, though the article where it would be used doesn't exist except as a redirect.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: I agree with you, the present-day effort should not be ignored. Therefore, I have added a paragraph about it to the article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a start. It's a shame if none of the failed efforts to do it can be mentioned. I don't know if there have been any others.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do with this. It says Democratic presidential candidates in 2020 talked about adding justices not only because of the conservative judges added, but also because Trump wasn't the "legitimate" president because he was not elected by a majority of the people, and the Senate majority who approved the justices did not represent the majority of the people. Pete Buttigieg in particular said it was needed for the Court to be independent. Seems kind of wordy, but this is how it got started.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: The SCOTUS talk page would be a more apropos forum for addressing these matters – broader discussion and communication among editors will happen there. Drdpw (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

As you can see, I did that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a new New York Times article "A Pro-Religion Court" By Ian Prasad Philbrick that goes into the stacking of the court with religious zealots. Of 19 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Court and Political Parties

Hello, Is the American national Supreme Court identified with political parties? Wikipedia does not give a clear answer on the matter, as the information boxes of various articles around the website indicate the following:

–The leader of the current American national Supreme Court is a national government leader represented by the Republican Party

–The American nation acknowledges political affiliations in the executive and legislative branches, but does not acknowledge political affiliations in the judicial branch.

The site is confusing me right now and I wish for a clear answer, yes? Or no? (If there is no clear answer, I would be interested to read a Wikipedia article called United States Supreme Court and political parties, so I can learn about the relationships and common factors between the two topics to discover my own independent clear answer for myself. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.240.194.21 (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I am curious where on Wikipedia you found the statement that "The leader of the current American national Supreme Court is a national government leader represented by the Republican Party." I don't think that is an accurate statement and would like to find and correct any article that contains it. (PS Please sign your posts.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

No, persons in the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government are not formally identified with political parties as are persons in the legislative and executive branches. The information you seek can be found in the article: Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices. Drdpw (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding Party initials of Presidents who nominated the relevant SC justices

I would like to suggest that the initials of political parties (R,D) be included after the Presidents names, for easy identification. As the President is a political figure and a known party affiliation. And it is noted that SC decisions often follow the party affiliation of the Presidents that have nominated the relevant SC justices. Leesjy2k (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the political leanings of Presidents should be included for simple referencing and distinguishing. The SC justices May not appear political in nature but often occur in parallel with the aspirations of the Presidents who nominated them. Leesjy2k (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean to include a simply R or D after the names of each President who nominated the relevant justices. Leesjy2k (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Leesjy2k: I am hesitant about having one more detail added to the table. As the 'Judicial leanings' discusses presidential party affiliation and the judicial leanings of justices, fine tuning that section would, I think, be better than adding "R" or "D" to the presidents' names the table. Drdpw (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Portraits of Justices

The infobox photos of a number of Justices (Roberts, Thomas and Alito specifically) are incredibly old. They are from 2007, which is 15 years ago. They all are significantly older now and it is quite visible. I think the photos in their infoboxes should be switched to more modern ones. It's not hard to find free use ones and it is much more accurate. Let me know what you think. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be the ones in the Supreme Court website[9]. I'd say to stick with those. Magidin (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

If a more recent formal official photo of a justice become available we likely could find consensus for a switch. Until that time, we should leave the photos as they are. Drdpw (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Magidin: @Drdpw: However, we do not use the official portrait of Neil Gorsuch, Sandra Day O'Connor or David Souter. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to switch Gorsuch's to the one on the Supreme Court website. Magidin (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Statistics

Once SCOTUSBlog publishes their stat pack for the OT2021 term, I will update the Judicial leanings section. I would drop the statistics for 2010, 2017, 2018, and put in the ones for OT2020 and OT2021 (with a small caveat that the selection of cases for OT2020 was made in large part by a court that included Ginsburg but not Barrett). I may also try to figure out the update on the percentage of cases decided unanimously/along ideological lines (the paragraph before the OT2010 stats), but I may just remove that. Does that sound acceptable to everyone? Magidin (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

This sentence needs to be updated to reflect the transition from Breyer to Jackson: "Three justices are from the state of New York, and one each is from California, New Jersey, Georgia, Colorado, Louisiana and Washington, D.C."

The reference to California, Breyer's home state, is now incorrect. Justice Jackson may be described as either "from" Washington D.C., where she was born, or Florida, where she spent nearly all of her childhood. 199.107.16.120 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

Edit conversative to conservative 95.193.103.170 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

SCOTUS flag

Was looking at news today and apparently SCOTUS has its own flag. The flag can be seen in this picture here. Ceboswell21 (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Most every US federal agency has an official seal, and is free to reproduce it on a flag for display at official functions or in photographs such as this one. This is not a secret. The Supreme Court's seal, which appears in the infobox of this article, dates from 1782. This article goes into some detail on the meaning of the elements of the Supreme Court's seal. And here is another article on the topic. General Ization ^Talk 04:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that the articles for the US Senate and the US House had those organizations' flags in them. I'm curious if someone is interested is creating a file of the SCOTUS flag for this article. Ceboswell21 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The SCOTUS flag is merely the SCOTUS seal on a field of purple. I'm not sure I would describe it as the "SCOTUS flag"; as I said, it's just another way of displaying the seal. I don't the article will benefit from its addition. General Ization ^Talk 22:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

New class photo

The New York Times has an article with the new "class photo" here [10]. Probably not the definite official one, but worth keeping an eye out for it when it does get officially published and becomes publicly available. Some trivia: first time two women are seated in the photo; and the four women surround the five men. Magidin (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

Can you please revert the class photo back to what it was before? revision will tell you why. Thank You! 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:11B0 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I expect the new official photo will come out in the next few days (the New York Time already had an article about it). May as well wait for that one? Magidin (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:11B0 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Seems concern from IP editor has been addressed, so gonna close this puppy out. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Update SC justice portraits?

The images used for the Supreme Court justices are like massively outdated. Sotomayor and Kagan's portraits are over 10 years old. Thomas and Alito's are over 15 years old. Robert's photo is over 17 years old. Most of them look much physically different now than then. Isn't it therefore the right time to update their portraits? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The portratis for all except for Gorsuch appear to be the ones on the Supreme Court's website [11], so I would argue for keeping them as is. That said, I think we should switch Gorsuch's portrait for the one on that page, so that all of them are of the same provenance. Magidin (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes to using official portraits; unfortunately individual justice portraits are not regularly updated. Drdpw (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeated POV additions by Superb Owl

I noticed User:Superb Owl has repeatedly added POV content to the Critcism and controversies section (reporting the criticisms as fact). Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Goodone21, I would appreciate any pointers you might have on how to word these sections Superb Owl (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You could, for example, identify who exactly has said criticisms. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You were right to add the template based on my first draft of that paragraph and I updated the 'Partisan institution' section for more neutral language and attributed more claims to sources in the text if you want to review that again and see if it's good to go now. Also feel free to simply edit for more neutral language instead of creating a talk page topic on something that sounds like a quick copyediting fix Superb Owl (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent "number of circuits" criticism

SuperbOwl added a criticism about how republican-appointed justices oversee more circuits than democratically appointed justices. Setting aside that the Chief Justice covers three Circuits (the CJ is traditionally assigned both the DC and Federal Circuits, plus one additional one), the only Associate Justice covering more than one Circuit is Alito, who covers the Third and Fifth. But those two put together account for fewer population than the Ninth, for instance (per the numbers in United States courts of appeals): the Third Circuit includes a population of 23,368,788 and the Fifth of 36,764,541, for a total of 60,133,329. The Ninth Circuit, which is assigned to Kagan, has 67,050,034. So, does the fact that Alito is assigned to two circuits while Kagan is assigned to "only" one mean that Alito oversees more than Kagan? I wouldn't say so.

In the process, a column designating "Party" for the Justices was added to the Circuit assignment table to "more clearly show" that republican-appointed Justices currently oversee 10 out of 13 Circuits. I believe that it has long been the consensus that we do not attach party affiliation to the Justices (as opposed to attaching it to the President who nominated them). But I would say that even a "Nominated by" column in that particular table is inappropriate. Magidin (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Magidin's edits as to both of these additions. With respect, Superb Owl seems to be intent on pushing a particular POV into this article. Regardless of whether it is a POV that some of us might agree with, it's simply not appropriate to tweak the article to "highlight" a particular political viewpoint. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's the case for why I think we should list partisan affiliation (note: started a new section on this below): it is, by far, the most significant factor in how a justice votes. While most editors have memorized who was appointed by whom, it's a pain to do the mental math and many many users will not know and forcing them to look up who represents what party makes the page more inaccessible than it otherwise could be. Also, as for the specific table, Kavanaugh also has 2 appointments in addition to Alito. Even if Roberts' 3 appointments is 'tradition' then what's the harm in simply making the balance of power plain? We can always add a population column showing how Democrats' circuits might represent more people than it seems...Superb Owl (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

First: party affiliation of the appointing president is not the same thing as "party affiliation" of the Justice. That's why responsible commentators talk about "republican appointed Justices" or "Justices appointed by Republican presidents", and similarly with Democratic presidents, and not about "Republican Justices" and "Democratic Justices", in the context of the Supreme Court. Second: "Look up who represents what party"; Justices don't represent parties. Third: Fine, I missed Kavanaugh; you still have an issue with your notion of "balance of power": the Ninth Circuit is immense; Kagan oversees a circuit far larger than both Alito's and than both Kavanaugh's. So, is there an "imbalance" there, or a matter of workload of the respective circuits? And exactly how does the Circuit assignment correspond to a "balance of power" issue? Mostly this has to do with emergency petitions, and the consequential ones are routinely refered to the whole Court for disposition. In addition, petitioners may re-file with a different justice if they don't like a decision issued in camera by their corresponding Circuit Justice. This is really mostly an administrative issue, not one of jurisprudential consequence. By my rought estimate, Justices appointed by Democrats cover circuits that include about 27% of the population; while that is short of the one third corresponding their proportion of the Court, you might want to consider that many of the assignments are given to the Circuits where the Justices sat: Sotomayor, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, and Gorsuch all oversee the Circuit where they served, so shuffling some circuits around to try to make thee overall share of the population be closer to one third would scramble that particular administrative advantage of having a Justice oversee a circuit that they are personally familiar with. Fourth: that paragraph was not referenced; can you point to reliable source arguing or saying this, or this your synthesis and your desire to include this observation because you happen to find it relevant? If the former, we can discuss how to properly add it here in talk once your give is the source and quote. Fifth: the table of justices already includes who appointed them, and the article already mentions at least twice that there are six republican-appointed Justices who are also the conservative wing, and three democratic-appointed justices who comprise the liberal wing (under Judicial Leanings, anbd under Power excessess in the Criticism section). Sixth: You want to clutter the table of Circuit assignments with more and more irrelevant information? Sorry, no; not only is the "number of Circuits assigned" issue right now not properly sourced, but the impact is really not anywhere near as consequential as you apparently want to make it seem. Magidin (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

how about this shading as a way to keep it simple? (pending the discussion below on linking justices with parties of the president that nominated them)

Circuit	Justice
District of Columbia Circuit	Chief Justice Roberts
First Circuit	Justice Jackson
Second Circuit	Justice Sotomayor
Third Circuit	Justice Alito
Fourth Circuit	Chief Justice Roberts
Fifth Circuit	Justice Alito
Sixth Circuit	Justice Kavanaugh
Seventh Circuit	Justice Barrett
Eighth Circuit	Justice Kavanaugh
Ninth Circuit	Justice Kagan
Tenth Circuit	Justice Gorsuch
Eleventh Circuit	Justice Thomas
Federal Circuit	Chief Justice Roberts

Superb Owl (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. Great (that was sarcasm). You've added shading and failed to explain what that shading means. For all your comments about making this easier for readers who may not be well-versed in the Supreme Court, or even out of country readers... Did you know that in the UK blue is associated with the Conservative Party and red with the Labour Party? The addition makes the table less readable, and makes it more cryptic unless you already know what you are allegedly attempting to make the table convey for those who don't know it. I don't have the time to revert this and to revert the same change you made to the table of current justices right now, but frankly, it should be reverted. The "imbalance" in circuit assignments argument that you keep trying to push is moot. If you don't have a reliable outside source that has actually made this complaint, then it doesn't belong here. And it just flows from the fact that there are more republican-appointed justices than justices appointed by democrats. It's not a "power imbalance", it's not a "power grab", and your attempts at shoehorning this to make your personal points are starting to grate. If you want to write an essay about all the ways you see the Supreme Court as being imbalanced, then go ahead and get a substack, don't try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for airing those complaints. Magidin (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a legend that should hopefully address this concern around the tables:

Appointed by:

Republican

Democrat

Superb Owl (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Template errors

I noticed two error/notices when last editing the main article: At least one cite web template has a "maintenance warning", and one cite journal template has an error message. With a lot of wasted time I isolated the latter as being the following the reference to Thomas Keck's "The U.S. Supreme Court and Democratic Backsliding", currently citation 318, but I can't figure out what the error is. I don't know what the maintenance warning is, or what cite web use it refers to. Magidin (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the template error also shows up in this page, because that citation template also appears here. Magidin (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Critiques section ordering: chronological vs by notability

I noticed it seems this article flows largely in chronological order and wanted to ask the question specifically about the 'criticisms' section (and possibly others later) as to whether or not it could be ordered by notability instead of chronologically? The reason being that it would direct readers to the most significant/relevant critiques first (which could be information of highest importance or the information that readers are most likely to seek out) as opposed to having to wade through historical and/or administrative ones. Superb Owl (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I switched the order in that section because there are two types of criticisms in that section: one is structural/institutional, the other is about how the current Court is doing its business. I will explain in a bit, but perhaps that just means that section should be subdivided into two. As to wading, that's why they have section headings and why there is a navigation bar on the left. If the reader knows what they are seeking out, they can seek it out, they don't have to read the whole thing to find it.

On the purely institutional side (criticisms about how the Court is structured, either internally or within the federal government scheme) and long-standing criticisms (have been pretty much leveled at the Court by different sides throughout its history) we have Judicial activism, Individual rights, Power excess, Courts are a poor check on executive power, Federal power versus state power, Judicial interference in political cases, Lifetime tenure, Too small, and Selection bias. Criticisms that seem to be leveled mainly at how the current Court is acting: Not choosing enough cases to review (though the criticisms goes back a few years, it's mostly about the last 10-15 years, i.e., the Roberts Court); Accepting gifts and outside income (that section should have something about the Fortas resignation, by the way); Democratic backsliding, Increasing partisanship, and Lack of accountability. Secretive proceedings is a bit of a mixed bag: it should really be historical, but it currently includes a bit about the Roberts's Court increasing use of the Shadow Docket, especially since the Trump years. I would move the criticism about the secretive proceedings on case decision to the top, and split off the specific criticism about the use of the Shadow Docket (and the rise in Certs before Judgeent, also tracked by Steve Vladeck) since the Trump administration, and put that with the ones about the current Court.

It is also difficult to judge "notability": what seems important to you may not be important to others; just witness the disagreement on the importance of how many circuits are assigned to justices that were appointed by Democrats. Magidin (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from - it's a lot of critiques. While some are more structural in nature, one could argue that the fact that the others rely on norms in and of itself shows that the court has structural weaknesses that don't protect against abuse. While notability is tricky for arranging some, it seems like others may be easier - the thinking behind putting democratic backsliding at the top is because the credible accusations of the court playing a major role in permanently undermining democracy seemed like the most significant criticism. Whereas 'too small', for example, is a meaningful critique for more perspectives but probably not as existential as democratic backsliding. When in doubt around notability, we could simply group related critiques together to make it easier to identify redundancy. Superb Owl (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And so we are back to a disagreement of perception. You think democratic backsliding is very important and should be featured. I think that because it is in the main a criticism about the specific operations of the current court, then it belongs grouped with all those criticisms. And because most of those criticisms could be addressed by the court itself if it so wished, whereas the institutional/historical/structural criticisms are by and large things that the Court cannot address, I find the structural criticisms more important, because they are things that cannot be changed except by the concerted work of large parts of government. We are back to the issue of personal perception of relative importance, and so it is "notability" under another name. Magidin (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Arguing that the court could fix things but hasn't can to some sound like saying a dictator should be benevolent but chooses not to, and so we just need to educate this one or get a new dictator (instead of, say, getting a new constitution with free and fair elections). Adopting a systemic view of all critiques would allow us to then focus on which issues are of the greatest importance. The question of tractability is interesting but complex with an even wider range of opinions on what change is most achievable in the short-run than would be the case with a focus on which issues have the most severe impacts Superb Owl (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And absent some source that will tell us how to rank them, which ones are "more achievable" and which ones are "less achievable", which ones are achievable in the short un and which ones are not, which ones have "most severe impacts" and which ones have, I guess, "less severe" impacts, then we come back to "In my opinion this goes first", or else synthesis or original research to justify the ordering. Magidin (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Look, if we break this up into what I'm going to glibly refer to as structural vs. transient (not the subject headings I propose, but I'm about to go away from my keyboard and don't have time to think about it), then I see no problem with listing the Backsliding prominently in its section. We could argue about which should be listed first (I think structural should go first, but that can be hashed out or I can be out-consensused). Also, "could" is not "should". I did not argue the Court should fix it, only that it could. The Court is already taking steps to address the issue of unreasoned far-reaching orders in the Shadow Docket, for example (several injunction requests taken as petitions of cert before judgement and ordering briefing and argument before decision; even if the steps have created other issues). Magidin (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm just having a really hard time seeing any as transient - they all sound systemic. Should we just alphabetize the list until we can come to a consensus? Superb Owl (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Example of difference: that the Court is a poor check on executive power is a systemic concern: it is how the system is designed, and the Court is operating within the system. That the Court's proceedings are too secretive and it is abusing its discretion with the Shadow Docket is not systemic: it's not about how the Court is set up, it's about how the Court has chosen to conduct its business. Selection biases is a problem of the system, and occurs outside the Court; not choosing enough cases to review is entirely about the decisions the Justices are making and is not a problem of how the system is set up. Magidin (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Addition to Criticisms section: Democratic backsliding

Democratic backsliding

Main article: Democratic backsliding in the United States

Thomas Keck argues that the Supreme Court has rarely provided an effective check against democratic abuses, especially at 5 major points of constitutional crisis throughout US History, and finds signs that the Roberts Court seems to play an even more damaging role than most of its predecessors in undermining American democracy. He contends that the situation has come so close to a permanent minority rule, that the outcome of the Moore v. Harper ruling in 2023, would confirm the need for court packing to try and save American democracy. Aziz A. Huq argues that by blocking progress of democratizing institutions, increasing the disparity in wealth and power, and empowering an authoritarian white nationalist movement, that the Supreme Court has already created a "permanent minority" that is incapable of democratic defeat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superb Owl (talk • contribs) 05:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Party affiliation

Reasons allowing party affiliation to appear alongside the justices in some form likely improves this article: 1. Many Americans don't know or can't remember which party selected which justice. This change would make the article more accessible in the U.S. 2. Most global readers would not know the party of each justice, making the article more accessible to a global audience. 3. For those who can remember which party nominated which justice, having the affiliation visible makes it easier to see the balance of power without having to do mental math. 4. Party affiliation of the president who nominated the justice is by far the most highly correlated variable with how that justice votes. 5. Polarization has only increased over time, especially with Federalist Society approved lists of justices, ensuring stricter partisans are nominated and confirmed on the court, making party alignment increasingly relevant. Superb Owl (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

1. The table of justices lists appointing president. Anyone who doesn't know Obama and Biden are democrats and the Bushes and Trump were republicans? 2. You insist on talking about justice's "parties" or the justice's party affiliation; responsible commentators talk about the party of the appointing president, not the party of the Justice. 3. I guess the mental math is hard because counting to six cannot be done with the fingers of one hand? The article already says more than once that there are six conservative justices, all appointed by republicans, and three liberal justices that were all pointed by democrats. 4 and 5: reliable sources and explicit quotations, please, otherwise it's synthesis. In any case, those are not arguments for tables with more and more information that is already present in the text. The table doesn't include their Segal-Cover score, their Martin-Quinn score, or their Judicial Common score, something that would actually be better than just a "high correlation"; and they shouldn't be in the table, because it just clutters tables that are meant to provide only limited information. The information you talk about is already present in the article, multiple times. I do not find your points persuasive enough to change the current consensus and add columns to sundry tables listing an additional R or D, especially when you insist on describing it as the party of the Justice or the Justice's party affiliation. Magidin (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to keep these tables as simple as possible and did some work to help clean them up and simplify them, including adding shading so we don't need a new column for political party. As far as your arguments in favor of distancing justices from political parties, I admit I am still having a hard time seeing how your views would make up a consensus in 2023. Please see the new critique section I added (Critiques->Increasingly partisan) that, as promised, starts to document and source the case that the institution has become more partisan. Superb Owl (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not a place for opeds. This article focuses on the institution as a whole, and the critcism section is not about surfacing current ongoing specific controversies. It is about reporting actual criticisms that have been made in a notable and verifiable way. I have a hard time seeing why the fact that you are suddenly fired up somehow negates consensus that has built over several years in these pages. You don't get to simply declare the consensus no longer exists because you have a failure of imagination or because you disagree: the consensus has been here, and if you want to change in after you have been reverted (as you were) then you have to make a case for it and convince others, not simply complain that you have a hard time agreeing and apparently believing that this will do. I am not arguing in favor of "distancing justices from political parties", I am pointing out that in the reliable, responsible, notable, commentary about the court that exists (you know, the thing we are supposed to be reflecting in this page), justices are not identified with a party, they are at most identified as having been appointed by presidents of a particular party. This is not "my" argument, though it is clear that you are reflecting your argument. As such, it would be both synthesis and original research, and as such inappropriate anyway. Magidin (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who would like to weigh-in that is able to:

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers

Superb Owl (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: I think you have a point in indicating the parties of the presidents, so I added the linked R and D directly under their name, plain and visible. But please don't insist adding huge rectangle of colors under text (which make it difficult to read, please think of users with color vision deficiency) or making the president's name as bold as the justice own name. You're making the table focus less on the Justice own list than the president's one (!). As @Magidin: said above, this is unecessary, and I've met you half way with the clickable R and D being there. Everyone know what they mean and those who don't can just click on it. Please walk the other half and keep it this way.--Aréat (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aréat:, I checked my second (now final) attempt at more legible background colors against WCAG 2.1 standards and you're right about them still not being sufficiently legible as they did not pass the contrast test. Thanks for linking the R and D next to the names and I created an infographic further down in the section to try and accomplish the same goal of being able to easily and intuitively learn how many justices were nominated by members of each party. Feedback and ideas are always appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superb Owl (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree, and I do find the addition of the recent image a good solution as to have the colored composition without making it part of the tables, in which we will keep the R and D links. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Leanings

Superb Owl apparently has decided that the numbers are in, and we can just categorically place Jackson in the liberal camp. She has not even served a full term yet; why not at least wait until SCOTUSBlog publishes their stat pack for the term and we can see where her votes are for the whole of the term? So far, the Court has handed down only 10 decisions on the merits; six of them were unanimous; one was unanimous in part and 7-2 in part (with Gorsuch and Alito in partial dissent); one was 6-3 with Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson in the majority; one was 6-3 with Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson in the majority; and one was 5-4 with Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson in the majority. So in the only closely divided case, she didn't even vote with Kagan and Sotomayor. There just isn't enough data yet, and there is no reason to jump the gun just because you feel that you know enough. At least wait until her first term is over and the data is clear. Magidin (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Magidin, I'm a bit confused as to why you want to wait and see about placing Jackson in the liberal wing because she has so few Supreme Court rulings when Trump's appointees were placed in the conservative camp based on their rulings on lower courts? Superb Owl (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Your confusion probably arises from that not being true. We generally waited to list them in the conservative camp; that is precisely why their lower court record was listed. For example, here is the version from October 11 2017, which does not list Gorsuch as being in the conservative camp: [12]. This was after the end of his first (incomplete) term in the Court. He wasn't listed as comprising the conservative wing until February 2018: [13]. When Kavanaugh joined, he was not listed at all; on October 10, 2018: [14]. He wasn't listed until January 2019: [15]. Barrett appears to be the only one who was immediately listed, with the caveats of her brief track record in the Seventh Circuit. [16], and honestly that was my bad. Note also that this term has been particularly slow in producing opinions, compared to previous terms. Magidin (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Public Information Office of the Supreme Court

I would like to recommend that a section be added to the page which discusses the SCOTUS PIO. It has been in operation for almost a century, and it is the interface to the press and the actual issuer of opinions and orders. There have only been six people who have run this office, who are surely all notable. For example: https://nationalpress.org/speaker/patricia-mccabe/ Mikecap (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead needs to accurately summarize the body

Per WP:LEAD the lead needs to accurately summarize the body, and "including any prominent controversies". Thus criticisms need to be included at the top of the article. Thanks, ɱ (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the lead includes citations. There is a citation for the Good Behavior clause, which is also discussed in the body with other citations under Tenure. There is a citation for the jurisdiction (also discussed extensively in the Jurisdiction section). As I noted in my revert comment, there should be some citations to these assertions, which should be easy enough to find, rather than just a bare statement that "in recent years" (just begging for a "When?" citation request) and "has seen substantial criticism" (which also is ripe for a citation request). Magidin (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I never received a reply to this request. I am happy to agree that the text could be better, but it's better than it not being there. Lack of citations in the lead when it reflects cited body text is not grounds to remove it, only to improve it. ɱ (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Then kindly go ahead and improve it. Magidin (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"2023 USSC ethics disclosures" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2023 USSC ethics disclosures has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3 § 2023 USSC ethics disclosures until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

ToC

This is a very long article with many sections and subsections. It needs a teable of contents to make it more usable. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:BC35:D3D5:41D5:9B57 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits

Hello and thank you for the engagement! I’m somewhat new to wiki but want to make an impact. Some of the controversies appear to be not need and stray away from neutrality. Also, not sure why the rolling stone and intercept are considered reliable sources on a legal page. 47.200.98.58 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest creating sections on this page for each controversy explaining the issue. With respect to Rolling Stone and Intercept, they are considered to be general-purpose reliable sources, but it is correct that Rolling Stone is discouraged as a source for political news. The reference could be tagged as needing a better source. BD2412 T 16:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve never heard of the intercept either and I question it’s reliability on a legal page 47.200.98.58 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You question its reliability because you haven't heard of it? BD2412 T 16:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No it just seems inappropriate for a legal article. And I don’t think it’s widely syndicated. 47.200.98.58 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources generally lays out what constitutes a reliable source. I have actually tried—without success—to propose some limitations on what sources can be used for legal articles. BD2412 T 18:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)