Talk:Federal judiciary of the United States

message: Would it appropriate to redirect Courts of the United States here? Or to move this there? Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to redirect from that to this article, since it already exists and is more specific.  --Russ (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with both. The term is ambiguous, and could refer to federal or state courts. Should be a short article listing all the various levels of courts in the U.S. bd2412 T 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: And so I have done. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courts of the United States 

message: I added a mention of an interested Facebook page where we can discuss the SCOTUS, how the decide cases, etc. It's pretty interesting. A Facebook friend of mine started it and it has a lot of interesting interviews with the Justices and such. ~~ iMatti ~~ (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism  

message: Maybe there should be a criticism section about how the courts might be racist, corrupt, or otherwise unfair? 
Benjamin (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: > The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government.
Could a sentence be added, perhaps in parentheses, stating briefly what are the other two please?
For example, something like the following, but I do not know enough about it to add it in myself.
The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. (The other two being THIS and THIS.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.50.201 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other two branches? 

message: Every sentence has fatal errors.  
The first sentence is typical, by clumsily trying to subordinate the branch discussion behind the phrase "national court system."  That first phrase is nonsensical gibberish (very few educated Americans would use such a phrase) and reveals a fundamental lack of comprehension of the difference between unitary states and federations.  Plus one always leads with a discussion of the courts as a coequal branch, as the original text did. 
I'm counting two or three obvious errors like these in every single sentence. No one would say that courts "void" statutes, Article Three is always capitalized, policymaking is one word, "judicial courts" is pleonastic, the summary of what kinds of cases federal courts can hear is wildly wrong, etc.  
Under WP core policies, it is the burden of each editor to submit reasonably coherent and accurate prose supported by citations to reliable sources.  This is especially important when the article has been stable and reflected a longstanding consensus for a long time.  It is not the burden of other editors to clean up prose that appears to be a deliberate attempt to vandalize the article with highly inaccurate information. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're trying, they just don't have an accurate picture of the system. BD2412 T 23:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poor writing by User:Colonestarrice, looks like possible vandalism