Talk:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States

Kentaji Brown Jackson is from Florida

The article claims that no justice from the state of Florida has been appointed. Kentaji Brown Jackson grew up in Miami. Doesn't that make her from Florida? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:9D6F:509B:89FB:4256 (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sherman Minton as a Catholic

I was reading this section about Roman Catholics on the court and noticed Sherman Minton was listed there. I find this just a bit curious. Minton was, if anything, agnostic. He shunned religion almost his entire life, and only, very rarely, attended mass with his wife following his retirement from the court. He was in no way a practicing Catholic while he was a sitting Justice. At best, he was nominally Catholic, and arguably he only attended Mass in his retirement to please his wife. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I think he should be removed the table, but the information in prose is acceptable. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• The contention of his being Catholic is sourced - I'd appreciate a source for his Catholicism being nominal, and for his agnosticism in practice. bd2412 T 15:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry for just replying! Radcliff, William Franklin (1996). Sherman Minton: Indiana's Supreme Court Justice. Indianapolis: Guild Press of Indiana. ISBN 1-878208-81-0, page 10. Also: Gugin, Linda & St. Clair, James E. (1997). Sherman Minton: New Deal Senator, Cold War Justice. Indiana Historical Society. ISBN 0871951169., p.304. I am the primary author of Minton's wikipedia bio. His biographers agree, he was nominally catholic. He stopped attending church as a child following his mother's death. (His parents were protestant) He openly spoke against Christianity on several occasions. His wife was catholic, and he began to attended mass with her only after his retirement. He was certainly not a practicing catholic while on the court, so I think to include list him as a Catholic justice is misleading. Afterwards, he could be called catholic as he began attending mass - so that benefit of doubt can be given. The bios do not use the term "nominal", but its a fair assessment. I think its fair to at least note he was not a practicing Catholic while a justice. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The article currently says: Some accounts note that Sherman Minton, appointed in 1949, was also a Catholic; however, during his time on the Court he was a Protestant, though his wife's Catholic faith was noted at the time in relation to the notion of a "Catholic seat". Minton joined his wife's Catholic faith in 1961, five years after he retired from the Court. I think this already does inform the reader that he was not a practising Catholic while on the Court. If you feel it can be expressed more informatively, please feel free to edit as you see fit. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree, my sole point was that I don't think his name should be included in the table that lists catholic justices. He was not a catholic justice. I think the prose in the article is fine. I don't even really think its a very big, deal. I initially just raised the point here because I was curious if anyone else felt the same. I am inclined to leave it as it is you believe it to be ok. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Native language

I'm away from my sources right now, but I seem to recall from the Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court that Frankfurter was the only justice who was not a native speaker of English. Should this be mentioned, perhaps in the Geographic section? Magidin (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide the source, I think that would be fine. Thanks for finding another area of demographic diversity to plumb! bd2412 T 13:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked the Oxford Guide, but I cannot substantiate the claim that Frankfurter is the only justice whose native language was not English; of the foreign-born he is almost certainly the only one, since the only other justice to be born in a non-English speaking country, Brewer, moved to the US at about a year old. That English was Frankfurter's second language is mentioned in passing in the Opinions, Style of entry; page 611 of the 1992 edition, mentions: "Frankfurter is a special case. English was his second language; his feel for words has been compared to Nabokov's. That comparison is extravagant, however, unless it merely stresses Frankfurter's fascination with ornate words, such as adumbrate, excogitate, quixotism, and sub silentio." So while Frankfurter was definitely not a native speaker of English, and is likely to be the only one, I cannot positively reference that he was the only one. Nonetheless, it might be worth mentioning that he was not. Magidin (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Brewer, you should be careful. Many native-born citizens whose parents are immigrants speak their parents' language(s) at home, only learning English on the playground or in their first year of school. In cities like NY and LA you will find whole neighborhoods like this; formerly it was also common on the parts of the frontier homesteaded by immigrants. But this is WP:OR.

One could infer from the article (although it doesn't say -- it really should) that Brewer was a native-born US citizen because his parents were citizens. Was he brought to the US before he learned much Greek? Also, what was Frankfurter's native language, Hochdeutsch or Yiddish or both? Is Sotomayor's native language English or Spanish or both? A section named "Linguistic background" would be of interest, since the court will be deciding some immigration and naturalization matters soon. — Solo Owl (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Widows and widowers.

In light of the death of Justice Ginsburg's husband, I am interested in appending the section covering marriage to indicate which Justices were widowers while on the bench. If anyone knows offhand of a Justice having lost their wife during their term of service, please let me know. bd2412 T 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Oliver Wendell Holmes did, since there are reports of James Clark McReynolds crying at her funeral; I'll double check that next week. William Rehnquist's wife died in 1991, while he was Chief Justice. Magidin (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

While I respect the opinion of BD2412, that the informal pictures of some justices livens up the page. I feel that they undermine the respect usually aforded to a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, especially since most of the images used in this article are portraits of the justices in their judicial robes. Also I am not saying that BD2412 has issued any bias but there might be precieved bias with the informal images used only with female justices.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aiming for a gender distinction; I would just as soon have a picture of a male justice with their appointing president, if one is available. I just thought those two pictures (Reagan/O'Connor and Obama/Sotomayor) to be particularly good pictures. It is also difficult to come upon good pictures of past Justices with their appointing presidents. Here, for example, is an image of Thurgood Marshall with LBJ, but it's not particularly clear. bd2412 T 17:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I didnt think that you were I just didnt want the article to be precieved that way. And for the record, I think you have done a terrific job with this article. Kudos. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rehnquist's page has a photo of him being sworn in by Burger, with Reagan and Scalia in the frame; not as informal as O'Connor and Sotomayor ones, but a bit less than the portraits. Magidin (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rehnquist is not particularly demographically interesting, though. O'Connor was the first woman, Sotomayor the first Hispanic. A picture of Rehnquist could conceivably fit in the religion section for his being the only Lutheran, but that is a minor distinction, and we would then have two pictures on the page with Reagan, which would seem to overstate Reagan's significance in court demographics. Nixon with Rehnquist would be more apropos, since Nixon put Rehquist on the court in the first place. bd2412 T 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about the Protestant Justices section; perhaps a portrait of Swayne, then, for that section. Or the still that appears in this youtube video. It is highly unlikely that there will be anything other than portrait photographs for Justices prior to mid-20th-century in any case, just because "candid" photographs were so uncommon. Magidin (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Marshall/LBJ photo could be made to work if a higher quality version were available, which could be cropped and sharpened a bit. bd2412 T 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, by the way. bd2412 T 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Still not up to encyclopedic standards. Perhaps if you increased the gamma, those of us who cannot distinguish shades of dark gray could see it. Thanks. — Solo Owl (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on it when I get to a computer from which I can engage in that kind of tweaking. I am constrained to a degree by the quality of the original image. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Just a note for someone that's better versed in formatting references used in legal articles, but someone should really work on harmonizing the reference formatting in this article. I've gone through the body text and fixed the dash errors and reformatted the dates in the footnotes. Before my editing, there were hyphens being used inappropriately and 3–4 date formats in use in the footnotes. There is still a mix of formatting styles with some using templates and the rest hand-formatted in different styles. I have no opinion on switching them all to templates, which might be easier, or to convert all of the notes to hand-formatting. I just think that the formatting should be consistent no matter the approach. Imzadi 1979 → 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess consistency in formatting would be nice. I plan to get this article up to featured status over the next few weeks. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then I'll see what I can do on that note, because consistent citations are a part of the FA criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 02:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - let me know what formatting is best for this purpose, and I'll fix as much as I can. bd2412 T 02:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of use of European American on this page

Recently, User:The Universe Is Cool and I have disagreed on the use of the term "European American" to describe Justices previously identified in the article as "White" or "Caucasian". I believe the phrase "European American" is unusual as a demographic descriptor, and that the more common terms, "White" or "Caucasian", should be used. I believe that because "European American" is an unusual way to describe white people of European descent, it will tend to mislead readers into thinking that Justices described in that way were actually born in Europe, or have some other unusual connection with continental Europe beyond that of typical white people born in the United States. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that there have been several actual European-born Justices. I have reviewed the sources referenced in this article, and have searched for others, but have not found a single source referring to the Justices as "European American". I would therefore like to gauge whether there is consensus to stick with the use of "White" or "Caucasian" to describe these Justices in this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of this issue is ongoing at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States#Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page. bd2412 T 23:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Religious affiliation.

In the section Religion, it says that of the 112 justices 91 were Protestant, 13 Catholics, 8 jews and 1 without any religious affiliation. However 91+13+8+1 = 113. Either the numbers are wrong or someones religious affiliation needs to be better explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.13.190 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Only twelve were Catholic while on the Court. Sherman Minton was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism after leaving the Court. bd2412 T 22:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Should Cardozo be counted as a Jewish justice in this section. He was of Jewish heritage and heavily involved in that community, but according to the rest of the article, as an adult he did not recognize that as his religion and was agnostic. It doesn't seem to fit as his "religion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.160.127 (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Political affiliation

I've read recently, that in many US Supreme Court cases, the differences of opinion are often composed of a bipartisan divide, that is, a liberal view against a conservative view. Have any other WP contributors heard this idea before? If so, can you help me find reliable sources?

Five members of the current Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents. Four justices were nominated by a Democratic president. The standard (and simplistic) view of the current Court's politics is:

THE CONSERVATIVES: Scalia (appointed by Reagan) , Thomas (appointed by George Bush, Sr.), Alito (appointed by George W. Bush), and C. J. Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush). "SWING JUSTICE": Kennedy (appointed by Reagan). Justice Kennedy is more moderate of than the conservative justices. His views tend to be more libertarian than, for example, those of Chief Justice Roberts.

THE LIBERALS: Breyer (appointed by Clinton), Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton), Sotomayor (appointed by Obama), Kagan (appointed by Obama). University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law

On the other hand, is there a controversy over whether the above idea is true? That is, do sources generally say that liberal vs. conservative politics doesn't really enter into Supreme Court rulings, or do some say yes while others say no? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Political affiliation is not appropriate for an article on demographics. Also, "conservative" vs. "liberal" here is not really political, but rather judicial leanings. This is discussed in the judicial leanings section of the Supreme Court article. Also note that this is the first time in many years when the political leanings of the justices match up the party affiliation of the presidents who appointed them. Prior to his retirement, John Paul Stevens was considered the "leader of the liberal wing" (appointed by Ford); Eisenhower famously said that he had only made two mistakes while in office, and both were sitting on the Supreme Court (Earl Warren and William Brennan); and another recent justice considered a solid liberal was Souter (apointed by George H.W. Bush). Also, the vast majority of cases do not break down along the traditional conservative/liberal divide. Last term, only 20% of cases were decided by a 5-4 vote, and though most did break down along the lines above, it was by far the largest percentage of such breaks in the last 10 years. I would strongly recommend reading Tom Goldstein excellent post, Everything you read about the Supreme Court is wrong, and look at the statistics compiles by SCOTUSblog.

But in any case, these discussions do not belong in this article; if anywhere, they belong in the Supreme Court of the United States article itself. Magidin (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that political affiliation goes beyond the scope of this article. Although it is not necessarily outside the realm of demographics, it is too close to the core concerns of the politics of the Supreme Court. bd2412 T 05:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Children

There is discussion about marriage on the demographics page, but there is nothing about children. I believe that having children keeps people in touch with more modern advances in technology. The latest technological gaffes by the SCOTUS highlight this. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have never had children, and they are the youngest on the court. The other justices are pretty much grandparents which just serves to emphasize their distance from our fast-paced tech-driven world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCA4:C6F0:21F5:CAA9:D592:267F (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:128.12.253.5

User:128.12.253.5 has sought to edit this page, primarily by changing all instances of "African-American" to "black", stating in his edit summary, "You can't use white and African American. Even ignoring the fact that African American is used improperly on this page, its use, for purposes of consistency, the term European American would be required". Other editors clearly disagree with this proposition. Let's discuss and see if we can reach a consensus. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Garland nomination

There's been at least two (well-meaning, I am sure) edits adding Merrick Garland to the discussion on Jewish justices; here and here. I reverted both of them. There are a few references to nominees and potential nominees in the article, but they are all either failed nominations, or about speculation on the first potential nominee of a particular group. It seems to me to be a stretch to be adding Garland to this article at this point in time. Magidin (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The nomination does not itself effect a change to the demographics of the actual court. bd2412 T 18:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And yet another addition... Magidin (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just removed the discussion of Garland completely since the only editors who have discussed it here are opposed and because there is no evidence in the sources that were given or even in Wikipedia's article that Garland identifies as religiously Jewish (which is what the section is supposedly discussing) as opposed to ethnically Jewish (which is the only thing we seem to have any actual evidence for). 207.30.77.162 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand your distinction of "religious" versus "ethnical". A lot of your rewriting has been reverted by another editor (I wasn't entirely happy with it either), but I've "restored" the simple removal of the Garland discussion, since it is now moot. Magidin (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of the 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225339/http://capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7371.shtml to http://capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7371.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529010636/http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/26/would-sotomayor-be-the-first-hispanic-supreme-court-justice-or-was-it-cardozo.html to http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/26/would-sotomayor-be-the-first-hispanic-supreme-court-justice-or-was-it-cardozo.html

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) 19:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Demographics of the 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008010142/http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/perry.htm to http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/perry.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706073606/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38052618/ns/us_news to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38052618/ns/us_news
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321033051/http://www.conceptionabbey.org/TowerTopics/TTWinter2001/CThomas.htm to http://www.conceptionabbey.org/TowerTopics/TTWinter2001/CThomas.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/john_paul_stevens_second_oldest_justice_ever
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://chrome.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/histBio.html

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) 19:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Timeline for Protestant Justices

Could you please add a timeline just for Protestant Jaustices? I really need one. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:C7C:3525:AAE9:5A67 (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Gorsuch and Catholic justices

We need to stop the back and forth. The whole point of the reliable citation is that, as of last report, not even his brother knows whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or not. We count Thomas on the basis of what he considers himself (he was not counted as a "Catholic justice" when confirmed), so Gorsuch would be a "Catholic justice" if he considers himself a Catholic, regardless of what Church he attends on a regular basis, and a "Protestant justice" if he considers himself to be a member of the Episcopal Church. We don't decide that for him. I favor the previous neutral language rather than trying to shoehorn Gorsuch into the count by hook or by crook, leading to caveats. The current phrasing is bad, ("With Anthony Kennedy's retirement in July 2018, the number of Catholic Justices went down to four, and returned to five by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, or six if Gorsuch is demarcated as a "Catholic.") because it didn't go from four to six if Gorsuch is counted as Catholic; so it should have to say "down to four, or five if Gorsuch is considered a Catholic, to five by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, or six if Gorsuch is demarcated as a "Catholic"." or some similar locution, which is a mess. We don't decide for him; he isn't saying; his immediately family is unsure. I say we go back to the previous version, With Anthony Kennedy's retirement in July 2018, the number of Catholic Justices went down by one, and returned to its previous number by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.) Magidin (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to adjust the language to accomplish both ends. bd2412 T 01:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

In public participation and on official membership record, which has been made public, Neil Gorsuch is a member, and an active member, of the Episcopal Church. This was confirmed by reliable media outlets and by the parishes themselves. I think it is appropriate for the article page to note that this includes media speculation that hey may conceptualize his faith as being Catholic and also a member of The Episcopal Church. However, the facts should be clearer. It is not 'uncertain' what his membership his. He himself has been clear through his public membership and participation. I think Neil Gorsuch speaks for himself through his voluntary, public, and committed membership in The Episcopal Church. What is fair to say is uncertain is that he may very well consider himself to be Catholic and Episcopalian at the same time. Many Americans identify with one more more Christian denomination or even religion. So, that I think is accurate to say and explain.

I also wanted to take a moment to note the apparent contradictions in the CNN(2017) article. It simultaneously says that Gorsuch "joined" Holy Comforter and that the Gorsuches were listed as members "according to church records" and that there is no record that he formally joined. So, we have to take the reporting with that grain of salt. Part of reviewing sources includes reviewing the accuracy and reliability of a report. I do not think that the source is unreliable. However, the reporting for that article has some ambiguity. I'd even say that it is the article that is complicated, unnecessarily so, and not so much the Gorsuches' faith. It does come across that the CNN article is unclear given what church records say. Other sources also confirm that the Gorsuches were members belonging to their Episcopal churches at which they attended mass.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Neil Gorsuch and his wife were married in The Church of England, also a part of the Anglican Communion of which The Episcopal Church is the US branch. Several other media outlets, other than CNN, also report that Gorsuch is a member of St. John's Episcopal Church.SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

First, thank you for all the work. I'm wary of taking information and performing synthesis, though, which we are treading close to here, I think. I'm okay listing him (with appropriate caveats) in the protestant portion section, and mentioning the potential ambiguity in the catholic section, at least until we have some definitive statements that don't require Wikipedia to perform synthesis. Magidin (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I will add my thanks for that excellent work. I think the thing to do is basically to present the evidence, and let the readers decide what it means to them. bd2412 T 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Regarding the recent edits about Gorsuch by me, @2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:55E1: and @BD2412:, do we agree that any claim that Gorsuch specifically isn't Protestant is unsupportable? In addition to the sources above, journalists from Washington Post and Denver Post and a social scientist from Gallup have written specifically that he is an Episcopalian (Protestant), and used to be a Catholic. (Also, many other sources from within the Episcopalian Church claim him too, but their potential bias is maybe too much to be worth considering here.) I couldn't find the contrary position expressed (that he is nevertheless a Catholic). CNN reports in detail that there is ambiguity. TheFeds 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with that. BD2412 T 05:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Reference to secularism and "religious fictions" in the lede

An editor has changed "always white male Protestants" in the lede to "always white male Secularists (in some cases Secular humanists) or Protestants". Reference to secularists or secular humanists is not found in Segal and Spaeth, which is the source to which the other demographic characteristics are attributed. The same editor has added the following paragraph:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits use of religious law or legal fictions as a source of law in its interpretation, and Justices who are either intentionally using religious law (or legal fictions) or subsconsciously doing so have often faced questions about their competency and legitimacy. Two of the Supreme Court decisions most infamous for this are Roger Taney's Papal-based view of the "Person" and "Citizen" ineligibility of Africans he imposed in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Samuel Freeman Miller's claim of "God"-originated law in Bradwell v. Illinois that women were, by their bio sex, unqualified for practice of law and states could deny them law licenses on grounds of their bio sex alone.

None of this is cited. I find this content controversial, and propose that it should be removed. Note that if there is no consensus in favor of retaining this content, the status quo ante will be restored, per WP:BRD. bd2412 T 02:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

All those edits and addition, the whole thing was a mess, IMHO. I've removed it, and I think specific items need to be discussed before trying to re-add them. Magidin (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. If there are reliable sources specifically discussing the secularism or secular humanism of specific justices, let's have them. Also, I think that the question of whether justices were influenced by their religion in specific cases is distinct from this article's focus on the demographics of the Court. bd2412 T 12:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Fix Catholic Timeline

Could you please fix the timeline of Catholic Justices? Because Kennedy's line still continues even though Brett Kavanaugh is on the graph. Please fix Kennedy's line. Please.

The timeline is correct; there just hasn't been enough elapsed time for you to notice that the bar corresponding to Kennedy is no longer growing. It's been, literally, three months, on an axis that is 188 years long. Magidin (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sotomayor's race

She's the second minority Justice and the first Hispanic one, but Hispanic is not a racial classification. Is it correct to call her the second non-white Justice? 2A02:A03F:506A:1700:15C7:69F1:8AB4:D6E0 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable sources have indicated that this is correct. For example, this Reuters story, which says that Sotomayor "would be only the third woman and third non-white justice to serve in more than 200 years of Supreme Court history". bd2412 T 23:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Sotomayor is as white as any Italian Justice. Who decides if you are white or not? White people? Get over yourself. Are we doing DNA test to verify the blackness of whiteness? Are only anglos considered white? Who will determine that? These are merely judgement classifications base on what box to fit someone in. They shouldn’t be used to remain credible. Its makes topics seem very playground argument like. 159.117.175.7 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide a reliable source for this proposition? BD2412 T 18:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Last Justice without a Law Degree: Byrnes or Jackson?

The article states that Byrnes, appointed June 1941, was the last justice without a law degree to be appointed. The page on Robert H. Jackson claims the distinction for him, and Jackson's service started in July 1941. Byrnes and Jackson were both nominated/appointed on June 12, 1941; the vote on Byrnes happened the same day, and he took the oath on July 8, 1941. Jackson's vote was on July 7, 1941, and he took the oath on July 11, 1941. So it seems that Jackson is the correct name to have there, not Byrnes. Magidin (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to this: I think the issue here is that Byrnes was the last one who did not attend law school at all, whereas Jackson did attend but did not graduate. They both were admitted through "reading the law". In any case, some clarification needs to be added there. Magidin (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I noted both of them. I don't know if it's too in the weeds to mention that both were appointed on the same day. Jackson, obviously, was the last justice without a law degree to join the Court. BD2412 T 04:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Geographic background

The Geographic Background section, fourth paragraph, currently reads: "As of 2020, the Court has a majority from the Northeastern United States, with six justices coming from states to the north and east of Washington, D.C. including two justices born or raised in New York City, two from Maryland, and two from Massachusetts. The remaining three justices come from Georgia, California and Colorado[.]" There's an extra one after Ginsburg's death, and in any case, I'm not sure what all the designations might be. Georgia is Thomas, California is Breyer, Colorado is Gorsuch, New York City are Sotomayor and Kagan. It looks like the rest are mixing where they were born and where they might be from when appointed? Kavanaugh was born in D.C., but presumably is one of the ones described as "Maryland"; Alito was born in New Jersey, Roberts in Buffalo. I'm at a loss here, and in any case I don't think it's particularly good to be mixing born/raised with where they may be "from" when commissioned (assuming that's what the issue is here, rather than orphaned text that was not changed at some earlier point)... Magidin (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to state of birth for all eight: three from New York (Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan), one from New Jersey (Alito), one from D.C. (Kavanaugh); and one each from Georgia (Thomas), California (Breyer) and Colorado (Gorsuch). In light of the next sentences noting that Roberts could be claimed in three states, it seems like state of birth makes the most sense there. Magidin (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

My intention was to best reflect what states were claimed for them at the time of their appointment (which were not necessarily the states where they were sitting as judges or otherwise employed at the time). BD2412 T 20:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That would also be fair and possible; I was confused by it when I tried to go in and remove Ginsburg, but that doesn't mean it was incorrect (or generally confusing to others). You're welcome to change it to reflect the state mentioned in their commission (which is probably more in tune with how it was viewed when justices still rode circuit and it was expected that a justice riding a particular circuit would be a resident of that circuit). Magidin (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it tends to vary by the personal story of the justice. For example, no one ever refers to Clarence Thomas as being "from" D.C., his station at the time of appointment to the court. BD2412 T 17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Indiana or Louisiana

Barrett is a native of Louisiana, grew up in New Orleans, and attended college in Tennessee. Her connection to Indiana begins with Law School (Notre Dame), and her later professional life (professor at Notre Dame and then in the 7th Circuit). While her commission refers to her as being from Indiana, should the Louisiana connection be acknowledged or indicated? Magidin (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Designating where justices are "from" has proved tricky in the past, but in this case the subject has spent most of the last 25 years in Indiana. Sometimes judges "come from" a state because that's where they were previously appointed to a lower court, but she lived there long before she was appointed to the Seventh Circuit. I am therefore not hesitant to label her as from Indiana. I would also note, in passing, that there is no trace of the South left in her speech or mannerisms. BD2412 T 17:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough; I live in Louisiana, and much was made of the fact that she would be "only the second Justice from Louisiana". Magidin (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

And yet . . . the discussion on geography includes an attempt to claim that Roberts might be "from" not only Maryland (where he lived when he was appointed to the Court), but also Indiana (where he grew up) and New York (where he was born and lived until he was five). It also includes an attempt to tie Chief Justice Rehnquist to Arizona as Chief Justice even though the article acknowledges that he had moved to Virginia by then. If we're going to say that Indiana is the only state to be mentioned in connection with Barrett, surely we need to apply the same standard to Roberts (bye bye, Indiana and New York) and Rehnquist (Arizona for associate, Maryland for Chief). Thoughts? (Somewhat relatedly I find the language of states "producing" justices to be strange in this context. Surely Wisconsin is the state that produced Rehnquist since that's where he was born. And in the context of Presidents, states have long and consistently claimed anyone who was born in the state, regardless of where they lived by the time they took office, so I'm not sure why we're trying to be precious about state of residence at time of appointment here.) I guess I'm in favor of acknowledging all the aspects of geography in the justices' lives. We can include the places they were born (which we already do for the foreign-born justices, even though they were all obviously Americans living in America by the time they were appointed to the Court), the states they grew up in (if different), and the states they lived in at the time of appointment. Americans are pretty mobile these days, and our justices reflect that. We should be happy to report all the facts. I would give both Louisiana and Indiana credit for Barrett. (And Wisconsin should come off of the list of states that have never produced a justice, since Rehnquist was from Wisconsin.) LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on Roberts is not a claim about where he is "from", but merely an illustration of the difficulties in saying where someone with some transience in their personal and professional histories is from. Roberts is just an example, though numerous other justices could have been selected for this purpose. However, we only need one illustration. BD2412 T 18:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a quibble, rather than an engagement with the real issue. The article literally says that three different states "may claim" him. If we accept that that is true, we should err on the side of acknowledging all of the claims rather than simply making our own choices about which claims to privilege. Right? Isn't that how WP:NPOV works? Or do we have reliable sources that state that only Maryland should be acknowledged as having "produced" Roberts? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the nomination statement from the White House reads, in its entirety : "John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, vice Sandra Day O'Connor, retiring". The Chief Justice nomination uses the same language. Officially and legally, Roberts was appointed from Maryland. We merely note in this article that he was connected to other placed before that. Similarly, the nomination of Barrett reads, in its entirety: "Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, vice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, deceased". BD2412 T 18:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand how nominations work, and I know what we are currently counting. However, no one reading this article is going to be particularly interested in this kind of very precise legalistic interpretation of a section called "Geographic background." (I also don't think that the text in this section in any way makes clear that this very narrow sense of "geography" is the only one this article accepts, nor does it defend the choice to privilege this kind of geographic claim over others.) Geographic background obviously means something broader than "place these people happened to be living, possibly for professional reasons, at the time of their nomination." The average reader would certainly think that the "geographic background" of a justice would include at least the place they grew up, if not also their birthplace. This is neither a common sense interpretation of the language we are using, nor, as far as I can tell, one which is supported by reliable sources. We should change it. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What language would you propose to add? There does seem to be an interesting trend by which early justices were generally "from" the states where they were born, but this became progressively less likely over time, and the further from the northeast you get, the more likely the Justice was born somewhere else. BD2412 T 19:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for being slow to come back to this. I would language that acknowledges that in a more mobile society, modern justices often have ties to multiple states, such as Roberts or Barrett, and that various states might therefore "claim" the justices, and then I would give credit to every state with a plausible/reasonable claim to each justice (so Wisconsin, Arizona, and Virginia all get Rehnquist; Texas and Arizona both get O'Connor; Louisiana and Indiana both get Barrett, etc.) and I would list the names of the justices for each state and add notes to appropriate names to clarify the shared claim (so for example, Barrett's name would have a footnote that said something like "Barrett was born and grew up in Louisiana, but attended law school in Indiana and worked there as a law professor and judge for 20 years before joining the Supreme Court. Therefore her nomination reflected her residency in Indiana." Or whatever makes people happy.) I don't see any problem with having the numbers of justices from each state adding up to more than the total number of states. Some people are from more than one place. That's real and that's fine, as long as we explain it, it should be good. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A good example would be Willis Van Devanter. Taft specifically wanted to appoint someone from the West to the court. Van Devanter was born and raised in Indiana, but was established in Wyoming at the time of his appointment, and is universally described as being "from" Wyoming for purposes of describing the composition of the court during his tenure. BD2412 T 02:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraph in Religion section

The opening paragraph in the Religion section reads in part: "Of the 114 justices who have been appointed to the court, 91 have been from various Protestant denominations, 13 have been Catholics (one other justice, Sherman Minton, converted to Catholicism after leaving the Court)." This needs to be updated. The table in the section shows 15 justices under "Catholic". ScotusBlog refers to Barrett as the 115th justice (which matches our numbers: 103 associate justices, 17 chief justices, and of the latter five were previously associate justices: Rutledge, Ed White, Hughes, Stone, and Rehnquist), so I think the numbers should be 115 total and 15 Catholics. Magidin (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this was very out of date. Updated. BD2412 T 17:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Definition of White

Genetically speaking, ethnically Jewish people are not White. This was definitively proven during the Korean War when Primaquine was used on them. Primaquine causes no adverse side effects on Whites, but Jews, Blacks, Lebanese, and other groups of Non-Whites have severe and potentially fatal reactions.

The demographics need to be adjusted, as it paints a false picture, as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim are all equally non-White.

Additional discussion should also be considered for Irish, Scottish, and Welsh origins, as Celts and the like weren't considered White until less than a Century ago, and similar misidentification of Whiteness of them can be as misleading as misidentifying Jews as White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:30D1:C030:3879:A489:BA93:D10F (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that it was neither novel nor controversial for Margaret Mitchell, when writing Gone With The Wind in 1936, to portray Irishman Gerald O'Hara and his daughter Scarlett as white. And that white Southerners during the ACW would have been surprised to hear it suggested that people matching their descriptions were anything other than white. Alekksandr (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This entire discussion is bereft of sources so far. BD2412 T 23:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Edward Douglass White

The table in Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Catholic_justices shows him as Chief Justice throughout his tenure. He was actually an Associate Justice from 1894 to 1910, and Chief Justice from then until 1921. I suggest that the table should look something like this - although I am not sure how to fix the fact that it shows McKenna J as starting in 1895 rather than 1898.

Graphical timeline of Catholic justices:

• I think there is a way to split the color in a single line. BD2412 T 23:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I left a note on the help page for data plots, no telling whether anyone will respond. BD2412 T 21:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Claim that there has never been a slavic justice

In the first sentence of the "Ethnic groups that have never been represented" section, it states that "there has never been a Justice with any Slavic ... ancestry". John Roberts's mother is of Slovak descent. Am I missing something here? I can't imagine something this brazenly incorrect could have lasted for long. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I noted that there was a source from 1959 that claimed this, and tagged it as needing updating. I significantly reduced the section due to sourcing and other concerns. Regarding Roberts, it might be a little complicated. According to this book, his mother is descended from the Podraczkys and Gmuczas, immigrants from Szepes, Kingdom of Hungary (known generally as Hungarians, but potentially either ethnically Hungarian or Slavic). Nevertheless, this is enough information to clarify the section even further by limiting that observation to the 1959 date of the source. TheFeds 22:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Height

I am interested in what the heights of the Supreme Court Justices have been (who was the shortest and tallest, etc.); would it be reasonable to add a section for that here? (The article was one of the top results for a Google search of "supreme court justices height" despite not actually appearing to contain that information as of present). Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt reliable sources for such a list could be found, and I find it utterly inconsequential, your particular interest notwithstanding. Magidin (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I second that opinion. I suppose there may be a source or two remarking on the height of a particularly tall person who was a justice, but we would need something definitive to write that in the absence of comparable information about other justices. I do note, in passing, though, that some members of the Court were rather famously obese. BD2412 T 00:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Retirement vs. death

I am thinking of adding a section discussing the propensity of justices to either retire from the Court, or serve until their death. BD2412 T 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be interesting. Atkinson's book (Leaving the bench) might be a good source. I have it at home, and there was some discussion about how it changed after they stopped being required to "ride circuit", and again after they established the possibility of retirement after a certain length of service. Magidin (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

A thumbnail glance at List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States indicates that 51 justices have died on the bench, which is roughly half of all justices not currently serving. There is a very clear dropoff in that tendency after 1920. There are, of course, political considerations, since a justice might choose to retire at a time when a president of a particular party can name their successor (or, at least, might try to hold on that long). BD2412 T 20:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference to individuals reported in sources as considered for nomination, but not nominated.

User:Drdpw removed from the section on individual states a note stating that "President Nixon reportedly intended to nominate Herschel Friday of Arkansas to a seat on the Court, but changed his mind hours before announcing a different nominee.<ref name ="atb">{{Cite book |last=Margolick |first=David |url=https://archive.org/details/atbarpassions00marg/page/212 |title=At the bar : the passions and peccadilloes of American lawyers |date=1995 |publisher=New York : Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-0-671-88787-2 |pages=213-4}}</ref>"

I have looked through Wikipedia's policies, and can't seem to find one that says that an encyclopedia article can only discuss nominated individuals, even where reliable sources discuss those who were considered for nomination, even with the nomination decision being withdrawn hours before the announcement. Can someone point me to the policy that specifies that, because WP:RS and WP:NOTEWORTHY seem to suggest otherwise. BD2412 T 04:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

RS and NOTEWORTHY are besides the point here. Given that Friday was not nominated to the Supreme Court, whereas Williams and Carswell were, notes about Williams and Carswell are germane (to a list of the Nineteen states have never produced a Supreme Court Justice), but a note about Friday is not. Drdpw (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that you are of that opinion, but I am asking what policy establishes that being nominated as the dividing line for what is germane or not. I assert that the fact that reliable sources report that Friday was, in fact, going to be the nominee up until a last-minute change of heart establishes his circumstance as germane. Per the sources, he is the closest that someone from Arkansas has gotten to being on the Court. The next best case is Richard S. Arnold, whom Clinton initially declined to nominate only because they were from the same state, and chose not to nominate when a second opportunity arose due to Arnold's health issues. I see no basis in policy for excluding mention of the closest case in any instance where one is available, irrespective of the formality of a nomination. BD2412 T 06:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Lack of consistency on where justices are "from"?

There is some lack of consistency about where justices are listed being "from". In the Gender section, for example, Barrett is listed as being from Indiana, and Jackson as being from D.C. Barrett was born in Louisiana, and didn't leave the state until she went to College in Tennessee; her Indiana identification comes from her later professional life. Jackson was born in D.C., but moved to Florida before she started public school, and lived in Florida from an early age until she went to Harvard for undergraduate. I don't see how these two identifications can be consistent with each other. (Unless the D.C. identification of Jackson is from her service as a Federal Judge?) We should either settle for a uniform practice, or add the necessary caveats where appropriate. Magidin (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the key phrase is, or should be, "appointed from". The White House conveyance of the nomination to the Senate says, "Ketanji Brown Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. BD2412 T 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That works, and I think it would avoid any issues about where someone is "really" from. That means changing the header in the tables in Ethnicity, Gender, Catholic Justices, and Jewish Justices. Magidin (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. BD2412 T 20:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)