Talk:John Roberts/Archive 3

message: The entire early paragraph about the 2000 elections is is written from an anti-Roberts POV -- the writer attempted to hide this in "quotations", but the paragrpah, especially early in the article, gives it a completely anti-Republican and anti-Roberts POV.  We can all find real quotations from news sources to give this article a zing in either politcal direction - this paragraph should be removed.
Agreed Paul 21:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 Election Stance 

message: Roberts was a clerk with the supreme court... that made me think: are there any lists of people who acted as a clerk with the names of the justices they clerked for? I surely can't find that information on Wikipedia. Are there just too much clerks? Or is the information not available?
81.241.66.46 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clerks

message: I don't see any reason why the article should not mention that the Roberts' children are adopted. It's not exactly secret information, it's mentioned in most of the news articles. Let the reader decide what is relevant. Rhobite 04:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:It should be mentioned and it is relevant vis-a-vis his Catholicism, which disallows the use of birth control. Having two (and only two) children is to some Catholics quite suspect because it seems likely (but not necessarily) to imply the disregarding of the Church's teaching on the matter, as I learned in a conversation with a friend yesterday. The fact that they are both adopted means that this concern and potential criticism is greatly mitigated. --Flex 12:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:: YOU DON'T BY CHANCE WORK AT THE NY TIMES, YOU SCUMBAG?  THE FACT THAT THEY ADOPTED IS PROBABLY A TIP THAT THEY COULDN'T CONCEIVE...
::Well, if you would like to present some evidence that he and his wife use birth control, please do. Anyway, I don't see how you can conclude that because they don't have any children of their own, they use birth control. -JPO
::Did you ever think that maybe either Roberts or his wife may be physically incapable of producing children?  That could explain why they adopted children.
::Being in a scenario with Fertility issues, and in the process of an Adoption, It sure seems like a very common scenario to me. I wouldn't want to speculate about any medical issues in that family, but its a very common reason for adoption.--WAHooker 18:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:::Better not speculate about something like that. People adopt for many reasons. And there are ways to not get pregnant without using birth control. Congratulations on your adoption, by the way. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   "Roberts and his wife adopted two infants in 2000 after being unable to conceive...". Shouldn't there be a minimum of etiquette in an encyclopedia?! I can't imagine such references to private personal matters in an article in the Britannica, for example. This isn't the National Enquirer. I feel it shouldn't be mentioned. --RCSB 04:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adoption 

message: I had included a direct reference to Bush v. Gore and the GWBush campaign in the explanation of Roberts's roll in the Florida recount.  Paul deleted this, reasoning that it was already addressed in the recount article itself.  I'm thinking it might be helpful to draw the direct connection to Bush because he's the president who ended up nominating Roberts.  Should we add the direct connection back in? TheGoodReverend 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are attemting to add evidence that supports some possible corruption of Robert's part(not to say that YOU are POV, you are probably neutral). I understand that facts that suggest integrity AND possible corruption should all be included to balance the article; however, given the nature of judge nominees (90% are of pol. party of presidient) and their frequent ties to minor politics(not running for office/interest group leaders..ect) such as liberal/conservative organization membership, these sort of connections can apply to almost any nominee, nothing unique to John Roberts or any other SCOTUS judge. Voice of All(MTG) 19:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Role in Florida recount

message: 216.254.30.152 removed the reference to Roberts' membership in the Federalist Society and yet the Washington Post reports that he is a member.  Which is the truth? --Paul 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Find! --Paul 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Memberships

message: A correction or two was recently made to the Views section regarding the use of these two terms by Paul.h. There is a reference to this in the second to last paragraph of the Career section as well. It may need reconciled as well. I don't know enough about the difference to be comfortable doing it however.
:Thanks for pointing this out.  I've made the correction in the Career section. --Paul 19:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice vote v Unanimous consent 

message: I have uploaded and added to the page under a new section, Media, the announcement of the SCOTUS nomination, including both Bush's and Roberts' remarks. It is ripped from the RealVideo movie of the event which was published at the White House web site. I think it is quite appropriate for this page because it captures Bush's justification for the nomination and Roberts' remarks about the Supreme Court, etc. However, please comment on whether or not you think it is a good idea. I would like to have replaced the photo of Roberts with Bush at the podium with an actual 320x240 video of the event, but I'm not quite sure how to get the .rm video into .ogg format. My mencoder chokes trying to decode the RealPlayer file (funny, since mplayer did just fine with it). But, of course, there are other considerations which lead me to believe that the video is a bad idea (how many people can actually play OGG video?), and the sound file together with the still photo are sufficient.--Mm35173 19:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound Clip of Nomination Announcement 

message: I don't think it is appropriate to have an entire section of the article devoted to Jobn Roberts wife. His wife hasn't been nominated for anything. What's next, investigations and detailed listings on his parents and sisters? --Paul 14:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I fixed that. I kept the information in there, just not in her own section. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane Sullivan Roberts 

message: I agree with Paul's switching "served" to "spent," but what's the reasoning behind moving private law practice up in the paragraph ahead of the agency jobs?  It seems to me that the time in the Adminsitrations is more notable and should go first.  Why do you think the private practice should precede it? TheGoodReverend 17:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I arranged his mini-resume in reverse chronological order (just like a real resume), from his present position back to his earliest ones. Just seems to make more sense to do it that way and it has no POV. For instance "time in the Adminstrations is more notable" is certainly something that can be argued about. --Paul 18:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: User RGTraynor, whose current special interest is working on the Soldier of Fortune magazine article, inserted the following into the high-level summary of Robert's career: -- during which he was one of the attorneys for Soldier of Fortune magazine in the landmark Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine case -- It is true that Roberts was one of the team of attorneys hired by the magazine to work on this case, however, this is an obscure case, not a "landmark" one, and a reference to it does not belong in the high-level summary of Roberts career where the only other case referred to is United States v. Microsoft which is a landmark case.  I have removed the reference because 1) it does not belong in the high-level career summary of this article, and 2) there is no reference to the case, as there is for United States v. Microsoft.  If RGTraynor would like to write an article on Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine and discuss its relevance to Robert's views on the First Amendment (which would be a bit of a stretch given that he was on a team of attorneys arguing the case for a client) the appropriate place to do it would be in the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings which discusses Robert's work as a Judge and attorney and the relationship thereof to various constitutional concepts. --Paul 05:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Soldier of Fortune case

message: All the cases in the "Civil Rights" section (recently added by an anon users) are written to suggest  that Roberts is hostile toward minorities. The wording needs to be changed so it does not suggest Roberts is a racist.
::I'm inclined to agree and I removed them from the article. Mainly because they're under 'Judicial Opinions', despite none of them being during his time as a judge. Someone may want to rewrite it and put it in a section where it belongs, but I dont have enough knowledge of the cases. --203.17.44.84 04:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Civil Rights" section POV? 

message: I thought I read somewhere that he lived in Chevy Chase, not Bethesda as the article says.  I could be wrong.  (For those who don't know the area, the two are right next to each other and for practical purposes might as well be considered the same.  But, the distinction is notable.)  Andyluciano 17:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does he live in Bethesda or Chevy Chase? 

message: The section on Confirmation Hearings and Views displays the following text:
See John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings for details on the 2005 Supreme Court nomination and confirmation hearings. 
Please add any new material dealing with views and current analysis to that hearings article.
However, it then goes on to list Roberts' views and on certain issues and includes quotes about certain issues. My question is this, is it really appropriate to list some views, but discourage people from adding new ones? I understand why people do not want this article to be a list of quotes and opinions, but I do not think we can give allow some views and not others. Also, the wording the the above text seems to discourage any additions on this page which strikes me as very un-wiki. Any comments?
--Gpyoung talk 19:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views and Hearings 

message: If confirmed, Roberts would be the third Catholic Chief Justice in the nation's history, and one of four Catholics on the court. If Bush nominates another Catholic to the court, then the court for the first time will be majority Catholic (and seven of nine will be religious minorities: Catholic or Jewish). ~Anon. Hyde
I have added information regarding the religious test being posited consistently and exclusively for devout Catholic (aka pro-life Catholic) nominees to the federal bench - including Robert -  juxtaposing that to the blanket prohibition of any religious test (barring any disqualification for judicial office based on a person's adherence or non-adherence to any religios belief), contained in Art 6 of the US Constitution. 214.13.4.151 13:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Catholic Chief Justice 

message: There seems to be duplication in this article about his early life.  I'd merge the two sections myself, but someone is wiki-stalking me, so I figure it would be better for someone else to do this. Ruy Lopez 05:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  early life 

message: With Rehnquist's death, the Supreme Court's membership became for the first time plurality Catholic by religious affiliation, with three Catholics (Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) of eight justices (also plurality Protestant with three Protestants as well as majority-minority, with five members of minority religious groupings, e.g. non-protestant). The confirmation of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice would add a fourth Catholic Justice to the Supreme Court, confirming the primacy of the Catholic plurality, and an additional Catholic named to the court would for the first time create a Catholic majority Supreme Court. -- unsigned
:Except that the U.S. is a secular democracy with an independent judiciary. It is notable that there are so many Catholics, but it is religiously and politically a non-issue, making a phrase like "confirming the primacy of the Catholic plurality" meaningless. There was a time into the last century when the Catholic Church in the U.S. had political objectives, but this has no current meaning beyond the justice's individual leanings. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plurality Catholic Supreme Court

message: Should it be mentionned that he's an agent of the Matrix? Come on, with a name like that and not a single misplaced blond hair over his blue eyes...
--I'm sorry, couldn't resist, feel free to delete-- Jules LT 17:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agent Roberts 

message: If Judge Roberts is going to be appointed today, then it is true that there is no need to nitpick on whether he is Chief Justice-elect or whatever.  However, whether he is to be appointed today is important, at least theoretically.  Here are the steps required for a nominee to gain an office appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate:
#Presidential nomination
#Senatorial confirmation
#Presidential appointment
Number 3 is the crucial step.  We all know that step one and two have taken place, but step 3 must take place before Roberts can become Chief Justice.  Even after Senate confirmation, the President could theoretically change his mind, reject Roberts, and nominate another person.  Obviously, the President is not going to do that to Roberts, but until he appoints Roberts, Roberts is not Chief Justice.
The oath of office doesn't factor into this equation either.  Roberts can become Chief Justice before taking the oath.  However, he cannot exercise the office of Chief Justice until he takes the oath.  That's the difference.  Either way, it's highly likely that Roberts has already been appointed, so I'll just make a note of it in the article. Pmadrid 18:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering that he was just sworn into office in the White House less than one minute ago, I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind about step #3,... Dr. Cash 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination, confirmation, and appointment 

message: Roberts doesn't technically become Chief Justice until he takes the judicial oath of office provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789.  Anyone care to find a place in this article to gracefully and unparenthetically note this nitpicking detail? 66.167.138.84 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, he becomes Chief Justice after he is nominated, confirmed, and appointed.  However, he can't exercise the office until he takes the oath you just noted and the oath to support the Constitution.  So, as of right now he is Chief Justice, but he can't execute his office until he takes the judicial oath. Pmadrid 05:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional oath and judicial oath 

message: Who calls him this? Every single article or news story I've seen about him calls him "John Roberts" or "Judge John Roberts". I realize that some people on this site have a bizarre fetish for unused middle initials, but shouldn't the page be at the most common name? Googlefight shows well over 5 times as many responses to "John Roberts" than the lengthier alternative.
: There is one good reason to go by "John G. Roberts, Jr." instead of simply "John Roberts":  there are multiple John Roberts as can be witnessed at John Roberts (disambiguation).  However, this reason would be stronger if the "John Roberts" page were the disambiguation page or even if it were to redirect to the disambiguation page; instead, "John Roberts" redirects to this page.
: — DLJessup (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Look at list of all other Justices and Chief Justices.  None of them are referred to using the middle name.  I think we should do what NoSeptember suggested- refer to him in the listing of justices as "John Roberts", but leave the name of this article as "John G. Roberts, Jr.".--Big Blue 19:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name: John G. Roberts, Jr. 

message: So, what's all the controversy about? I mean, I'm not American, but if this guy will stop Activision from selling Soldier of Fortune. Hey, he's my kinda guy.
: I have not personally analyzed or read about him, but I heard my AP Environmental Science teacher rip into him.  He was saying how Roberts lived his life wanting to serve as chief justice, how he's always on the fence about everything.  He was saying how Bush ought to nominate a guy who has strong opinions.  Of course, anybody who has had strong opinions (I'm looking at your, Robert Bork) has been shot down. Hbdragon88 05:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dare I suggest your teacher means "strong opinions that agree with mine"? Even so, many (including me) feel that the "strong opinions" a judge should have are to uphold the law, not apply it in accordance with their "strong opinions." The amazing thing is that these confirmation hearings revolved around real issues, for a change. When opponents spoke of "a living Constitution" they meant that the Constitution should be interpreted according to certain goals, not according to what it says or intends. That may be a noble goal, but this is supposed to be why we have legislatures and electorates. But, as I say, it was refreshing to have real cards on the table, even if some were shrouded in euphemism ("privacy" when they meant "abortion"; "respect for precedent" when they meant "Roe v. Wade." Democrats have had the habit of calling Republican nominees for court or office "stupid" (Reagan, Bush), "crazy" (Bork, Janice Rogers Brown) and "extreme" (anybody to the right of Teddy Kennedy). For Clarence Thomas, they could only hint at "stupid" so they instead dug up a woman to paint him as a "sex-crazed Negro," oddly the nost vicious insult they could up with, but they used it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was meaning like living or dead Constitution, strong government or strong state government. Hbdragon88 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  O.K. he seems to be a likeable guy 

message: I for one, just hope that Mr. Roberts stops big corporation from selling violent content that only justifies their lack of creativity. Being "Mature" does not mean to be "Violent". Violent videogames do cause harm. It's not the same to watch Pac-Man in a dark room than to watch a man with a machinegun blasting his way through a city while glorious and heroic music plays in the background. It's time big corporations like EA and Ubisoft stop pretending they are the good guys and christians and psychologists the bad guys. 168.243.218.8
:Yeah, right.  That kind of narrow-minded thinking was what led to crazy things like the Hays Office and the Production Code.  If such restrictions were still in place in the motion picture industry, Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese would never have been able to push their undisputed creativity to the heights demonstrated in movies like The Godfather and Goodfellas.  Furthermore, Roberts has made clear his strong respect for precedent, which presumably includes the existing Brandenburg test for provocative speech.  
:After all, games don't kill people.  People kill people.  Read up on proximate cause sometime.
:Finally, your superficial understanding of the industry is illustrated by your mischaracterization of EA (which does not and will not make Mature-rated games).--Coolcaesar 04:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On violent videogames 

message: This is a generally good article but it is massively overlinked.  Please help make this article more readable.  In general, only the first instance of a topic should be linked in an article.  In other words, please only link William Rehnquist once.  We should not link every occurrence of his name.  We should also put some editorial thought into which links are useful and which are more distracting than helpful.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  overlinking 

message: I removed the name/link of the pastor (Msgr. Vaghi) of The Church of the Little Flower. 
"...Pastor Vaghi's Church of the Little Flower..."
First, a church is never owned by the pastor.  The monsignor merely works there.  Unless (possibly) the article is about the pastor.  If you must, you can state in a separate sentence that Monsignor Vaghi is the pastor.  
Secondly, although this priest is noteworthy in some circles, this article is about Roberts.  It is more confusing than anything to mention Vaghi at all.  (I had to go to another link to find out who he was.)  Then I learn that this priest is noteworthy only because of some of the people who go to his church, one of whom is Roberts.  It's just too circular.  
I would only mention Vaghi if he was more commonly known, like Jesse Jackson.
I think it is great that Roberts is mentioned in Vaghi's piece, however.  Roberts will be better known than Vaghi.  Johno95 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Pastor Viaghi