Talk:History of the Supreme Court of the United States

message: I know it is embarrassing, but the unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 (Mitch McConnell...) should be mentioned in the Roberts Court section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.216.199 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Merrick Garland nomination 2016

message: It is inconceivable that the Supreme Court would rule "that the courts have the final voice in determining constitutional questions."  Even the entry on Wikipedia speaks against such a far-reaching and novel conclusion in United States v. Nixon.  Unless specific language can be found to this effect in the ruling itself, such a statement must be considered the misunderstandings of an uneducated novice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR. The Burger Court (1969–1986), United States v. Nixon 

message: I gave this a rating of C, although I considered B. It is well organized and largely well-written, with good use of images, but it has very few inline citations. – Quadell (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C class

message: From inception, the justices were required to ride circuit as well as sitting together, a severe service at times due to weather and poor transportation. This article should describe this service more fully, and especially since some lawyers declined to serve on the court because of this requirement. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Riding circuit

message: There is a subsection devoted to O'Connor's retirement, the subsequent nomination of Miers and then the nomination of Alito, but this is the first place and last place in the article where such matters are discussed. There is, for example, no mention of the more recent retirement of Souter and the subsequent nomination of Sotomayor. This is inconsistent. Ishboyfay (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominees and retirements

message: I'm about to propose a change to the "History" section in the main Supreme Court article, of which the I just added here may be a casualty. I'm accordingly adding it here; I add this note to forestall objections that it is duplicative having it in both articles. It is now; shortly, it probably won't be.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image addition 

message: Related to Electoral reform in the United States ...
*John Roberts has been criticized of judicial activism regarding the process surrounding the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in a May 2012 article in The New Yorker.Money Unlimited; How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision  (May 21, 2012) New Yorker
and
*Approval Rating for Justices Hits Just 44% in New Poll June 7, 2012
99.181.128.4 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps relevant if the New Yorker notes other criticism, but not related to Electoral reform in the United States.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some items for current Court 

message: Find Law lists several decisions under the years 1760, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768 and 1773 here https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/years that are somehow connected to the US Supreme Court. Some of the details on how this came about can be seen under the first of these cases, as listed elsewhere on Wikipedia Lessee of Ashton v. Ashton. Apart from that, I don't understand what this is all about.
* Prior to the formation of the Supreme Court of the United States, the leading court in the colonies (though not having legal authority over others) was the Supreme Court of the Colony of Pennsylvania. When people started assembling leading cases, they started with those, and then went to cases of the Supreme Court of the United States once one was created. bd2412 T 22:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court Decisions from 1760-1773?