Talk:John Roberts Supreme Court nominations

message: Way too many things are duplicated across articles here.  People will edit one version without editing the other, they'll get out of sync and then we've got a lot of work on our hands.  I think that the articles may need to be reorganized again, unfortunately.  The Judicial views section is almost entirely duplicated by the original article.  Does anyone have any suggestions? Dave (talk) 21:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
The duplicated material in the original article should be boiled down and summarized with the details left here. I've started on the task but, unfortunately, don't have the time right now to finish it. Alternately, most of the duplication on views could just be removed from the original article on the grounds that 1) it's mostly speculation anyway, and 2) it won't be of continuing interest after the confirmation hearings. --Paul 22:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. There is much detail about the nomination and confirmation process that is too focused to be included in a biographical article. What is missing from this article, actually, is the table of the confirmation vote (see Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination). bd2412 T 20:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass duplication

message: The superscript [17] in the article links to entry #5 in the "Notes" section, and entries #1-4 don't link back to anything.  Does anyone know how to fix this?  --zenohockey 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: External links (like ) currently on Wikipedia are part of the same numbering system as footnotes. Three solutions: (a) convert all external links to notes, (b) don't try to number the notes separately - use * instead of #, and (c) use Template:NamedNote to enforce a separate numbering system. A and C are impractical on articles that are in flux. B has the disadvantage (currently - may be fixable) that you can't tell what notes go where when you print the page. Rd232 16:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notes" section 

message: "The Los Angeles Times reports that Roberts was "instrumental" behind-the-scenes in working to get Romer v. Evans declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court." What, exactly, does that mean? he was supporting gay rights and trying to get the amendment declaired un-constitutional, or he was trying to get the ruling overturned? Darker Dreams 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was supporting gay rights. That's why some of the extreme groups on the Religious Right are opposing him. --203.17.44.84 21:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Rights 

message: I was under the impression that Catholicism is the largest religious group in the United States, but this article claims "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)."  Is it really considered to be a minority? --131.238.229.143 20:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No single religeous denomination is claimed by >50% of the US population.  You are correct that Catholics make up the largest single denomination.  To view Catholics as a minority, you have to sum up all the other Christian denominations into "Protestant", then "Protestant" is more than 50% of the population.  See United States - Religion Demographics. Johntex 21:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that article; that's why I am curious.  I think labelling Catholicism a minority gives the false impression that Protestantism (the presumed majority) is one united religion in the same way Judaism is and Catholicism is.  But if that's the convention, fine.--131.238.229.143 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Judaism is one united religion? -- BD2412 talk 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic Minority?

message: Zoe, when dicussing a controversial issue, POV is most appropriate - essential even - when labeled as such.  If other POVs need more treatment, then by all means add it.  And I have added to articel this link   to a list of references to demonstrate that frequently (perhaps even most frequently) the issue of most concern to those who wish to ask the nominee such religious questions is abortion.  That is certainly worth noting.  Otherwise the reader who does not follow the matter closely would have no idea that that is often what the fuss is all about. 214.13.4.151 10:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After listening to the confirmation on the radio, I've noticed that euthanasia is also a big concern -- so I added a note about that.  I also added a bit more and removed a sentenace that was already covered in paragraph one.  Please feel free to copyedit and let me know what you think.  --Quasipalm 15:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good addition.  I am baffled by your remark "not everyone thinks they are personal, that's pov" that you noted when you removed the word "personal" from the heading "Roberts' personal religious beliefs".  The views a man holds are de facto his personal views.  If a man adopts the religious belief that every word written in the Koran or uttered by Mullah Omar is true, then he adopts the Koran or Mullah Omar's pronouncements as his personal religious beliefs.  They are personal because he adheres to them.  Such an analysis is not POV - it is common sense. 214.13.4.151 10:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are multiple defenitions of "personal."  I just looked it up and found two slightly different ways that subheading could be read: 1) Of or relating to a particular person  2)Private.  Since the section is all about how some people see his religious views as private and some see them as open to public inquiry, it could be easy to read that heading as using defenition 2 rather than 1.  In which case "Roberts' personal religious beliefs" would be the same as saying "Roberts' private religious beliefs" -- which would be slanting the section a bit.  But perhaps I'm just splitting hairs.  ;-)  Either way, I tend to think that the simpler version is clearer.  --Quasipalm 13:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly understand the distinction you are drawing, but the very people who are pursuing and advocating this line of questioning often use the term "deeply held personal beliefs" or similar pharses using the word "personal" often as a substitute euphemism for "religious" (see a quote from this very section of the article for an example). 214.13.4.151 04:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  religious test 

message: There should be some mention of Harry Reid saying there wouldn't be a filibuster, Pat Leahy saying that he would support Roberts (which was a total shock to many people on both sides of the aisle), and the upcoming confirmation votes in the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate.
Should a new section be created under this article, or under his biography? --JamesB3 10:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should confirmation votes/maneuvers go? 

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.
::Happy though I am to be Catholic through and through, I find it distasteful to put so much stock in the religious affiliation of public servants.  I thought we had moved beyond the point where we put so much weight on religion instead of merit and qualifications. 214.13.4.151 14:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who wrote this section -- but it's notable, so it fits in this article just fine IMHO.  You spent so much time writing that section about how catholics are persecuted by the Left and the media, but you oppose noting that they will be the most prominent group on the Supreme Court after Roberts.  I get the feeling you're pushing a POV here, but I'm not quite sure what that POV is...  (Not trying to be accusatory, I think we all have at some point.)  :-) --Quasipalm 18:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quasi, you seem intelligent enough to notice the consistency of my posts: the  one obvious theme in both segments of the article is that merit, not religion, should be considered when appointing public servants.  Trying to make an issue out of the religious beliefs of a judge or nominee is antitheitical and distasteful to most Americans' own views - as well as to the principles and words of the Constitution. I have decried, in both sections of the article, the singling out of a judge's religion as if it were noteworthy to his ability to do the job. And to keep such a religious plurality scorecard is just crass. It is good that -- despite the obvious bigotry against traditional Christian religious beliefs (e.g. Abortion is always murder, marriage is always one man to one woman) that Schumer, Durbin, Kennedy and Feinstein express -- faithful Catholics (such as Scalia and Roberts) can make it to the highest bench (I believe Justice Thomas was Episcopal when he was confirmed, and Justice Kennedy rejects some of the most fundamental Catholic doctrines just as Durbin and Sen KEnnedy do, so no one objected to his being Catholic).  In other words, there are many bigots who think that the only good Catholic is a bad (unfaithful) Catholic. 214.13.4.151 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with your logic, 214, and a share some of your sentiments -- but wikipedia is about creating the world's best encyclopdia -- not creating original research.  If you think John Roberts is being treated unfairly because he is catholic, write your senator, write in to your newspaper, rally other catholics -- there are any number of things you can do.  But it's not your place to mold wikipedia into your own soapbox about perceived anti-catholic bigotry.  --Quasipalm 17:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plurality Catholic Supreme Court

message: I've added a couple sources in the "2000 Presidential Election" section, but am unfamiliar with the footnoting system used in this article.  If someone would edit this to bring them in line with the practice followed here, I'd appreciate it. TJRC (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote help request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Roberts Supreme Court nomination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050903004320/http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/Issues/supremecourt/roberts_spin.cfm to http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/Issues/supremecourt/roberts_spin.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on John Roberts Supreme Court nomination. 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  tag to http://wbztv.com/politics/John.G.Roberts.2.255623.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050929004531/http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2677570_300.mov to http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2677570_300.mov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050904001055/http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072303.asp to http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/072303.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050814065249/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050819022038/http://voanews.com/english/2005-08-10-voa22.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-08-10-voa22.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608064851/http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=712&p=local&a=5 to http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=712&p=local&a=5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050722082007/http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3001 to http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3001
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050721040345/http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050814065249/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Roberts Supreme Court nomination. 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/20051123111625/http://www.catholicleague.org/research/rippingroberts.htm to http://catholicleague.org/research/rippingroberts.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050808233911/http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/12316546.htm to http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/12316546.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050811234100/http://factcheck.org/article340.html to http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified