This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
You quote a justice saying “with absolute surgical precision” and only need one source citation to back up that fact. You provide the correct source citation, but unnecessarily tack on multiple other citations that are opinionated news articles. The entirety of this article is obviously biased. You’ve got to start quoting professional sources, not popular sources. If I wanted to read the news I’d go read the news. Carpedm333 (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree. The citations are not "opinionated" on the area you suggest. What was written was absolutely factual and relevant, and the citations all come from verifiable sources. The only time opinionated sources are used is to cite that some people have a belief. If you disagree, you may find and replace with a better source. Having multiple citations is perfectly useful, as well, in case one link breaks, or to show coverage from multiple sources, or to establish notability of something included in the article. Also, this can provide secondary sources, which is preferred by Wikipedia standards. aaronneallucas (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should add information about HR 5746 (originally a bill concerning NASA's ability to lease unused property) which was passed by the house, amended by the senate, then re-amended by the house, effectively changing the entirety of the bill to be the John Lewis Voting Rights act. Apparently this is part of a strategy to bypass the filibuster, since the rules are different when the senate considers legislation that has already been "approved" by both chambers. 74.192.149.95 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
