Talk:Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 1

message: This article nowhere (except possibly outside the history) section mentions that the Court is also a Constitutional court (it mentions only 'federal law'), also it does not mention that it has the power to strike down laws.  Morwen - Talk 07:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Assuming knowledge

message: Is there anything to be said on this page about the Red Mass?  It isn't mentioned anywhere else on the Wikipedia.
"The Red Mass, a colorful religious ceremony of the Catholic Church, is celebrated in the United States before members of the Supreme Court, members of Congress, and other high government officials."
from Christian Ethics Today
-Scm83x 02:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Mass

message: Is there a list of cases somewhere? I'm trying to find a place to link Uniao do Vegetal from, as they are currently before the court, but have precious few links to them. Sam Spade  23:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases#Cases_awaiting_decision, thanks ;) Sam Spade  23:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cases 

message: *It should be noted that the above comment was by a know sockpuppet of a baned vandal, the vandal was baed from making extreme POV edits, see  and   for refrence of some this users previous activity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If this user keeps vandalizing the page, it may be time to get an admin to protect the page for a few weeks. It looks like even Jimbo has tried and failed to coax this bozo into compliance with the NPOV policy! --Coolcaesar 23:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary to go so far as protecting the page.  The same JoeM bozo keeps on vandalizing Roe v. Wade under various sockpuppets.  We just ban them all on sight.  Pretty easy to spot his crap because he's not all that bright.  Postdlf 02:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical revisionism

message: Text as of 18:03 8 Jun
,
:Foremost among these cases was Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). On February 20, 1809 a decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. Peters stated that the power of the federal government was greater than any individual state. 
The Peters citation was added by SmartyRG on April 1 
User 69.141.171.99 edited thusly:
:some idiot put "United States vs. Peters" so I took it out
And so it was removed. However, the case of 2/20/1809 that stated that "the power of the Federal Government was greater than any individual state" was indeed United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115 (1809).   Since the information is factually correct, I see no basis for the excise of Peters from the text, and duly replace it.Simon Dodd 14:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: United States v. Peters: in or out

message: The extreme length of the last column in the Current Justices table makes it look very strange. How 'bout this version instead? - dcljr (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I just tried using a smaller font size and breaking the longer header labels and that made the original version much more palatable, IMO. Still, I'm keeping this version here for comparison in case someone wants to comment on it. - dcljr (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the one who made the original table, I actually like your reoriented version better. A comment in the featured article discussion stated that the bullet points were easier to read, but I disagree. I wonder if I'm in the minority, though. BTW, for some reason, I don't see the text as smaller using Firefox. --Saucy Intruder 05:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also use Firefox (on Win95, if you can believe that, in 1280×1024 with font size 20) and the difference is visually subtle (when simply comparing raw text size), but significant for the layout of the table. Have you tried a side-by-side comparison with and without style="font-size:small"? - dcljr (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the original, in the smaller font size. It has good legibility and the content is better suited to that format. - nick 00:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reoriented table 

message: Since O'Connor is no longer on the court, is it appropriate to keep her on the chart? I think a tag saying she is vacant, such as
"Note: this seat is currently vacant, formerly occupied by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This seat will remain vacant until a candidate is confirmed by the Senate."
or words to that effect until the nomination has been confirmed. Depending on how long the confirmation process takes, we may have an empty spot on the court for a while, and it is not representative of the court to have O'Connor still there.--Offkilter 23:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote from O'Connor article: "O'Connor said she expects to leave the high court before the start of the next term in October 2005. Her retirement from active service will take effect upon the confirmation of her successor."  She is not off the bench yet. NoSeptember 23:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, here's a link to her retirement letter:http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-070105letter_wr,1,1144116.story?coll=la-headlines-politics, which states that it will be effective upon the "nomination and confirmation" of her successor. Ddye 00:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: When to replace O'Connor

message: Since it's possible and has occured in the past a mention of what happens in the event of a tie would be nice. Kent Wang 07:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the outcome or disposition in the event of a tie is that the lower court's decision stands (as if the Court had never granted cert).  But I'm not 100% sure and I don't have a cite for that.  Maybe it's in the Supreme Court Rules.  Anyone know about the intricacies Court procedure? --Coolcaesar 07:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a tie upholds the lower court decision, but such decisions are often not given much credit as settled law, and the issue often comes up for review again. NoSeptember 13:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Was this the original intention, as the first court had six members? Kent Wang 15:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt too much focus was on the possibility of ties.  Early justices rode circuit, so having one justice per circuit was likely more important.  Also, many early court decisions were worked out to a consensus unanimous decision. NoSeptember 15:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens in a tie? 

message: There is little on this page to justify it being labeled a current event. While Roberts most certainly is, this page is much more historical. --cpu111 3:29, 20 September
:I agree, although we will see a bit of activity in the article when Roberts is confirmed and when the next nominee is announced. I removed tag. NoSeptember 10:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event? 

message: I submitted as an addition to the article a few days ago, this blog: SCOUTUSblog. Which someone reverted as being not notable. I am resubmitting it here for consideration. I believe it is a fairly well known blog, and a relatively unbiased source of news as far as blogs go. It reports and details legal perspectives regarding recent Supreme Court activities. I have found that it rarely offers opinions either liberal or conservative although it links to both without endorsement. I am not in any way associated with the blog or the firm it is sponsored by, this is not advertising. If you folks want to review it and discuss it, I personally think it is an excellent source for keeping up to date on SCOTUS related news.
Phil 16:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think that blogs should ever be used as an encyclopedic reference, unless for some reason it's the only possible source on a topic, which certainly isn't the case with the Supreme Court.  Blogs have no requirement for a NPOV.  I'd be happy to hear other people's opinions on the subject, but I don't think Wikipedia should link to blogs as a general rule with few exceptions. —Cleared as filed. 21:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the idea that blogs are either superior or inferior to any number of other news sources commonly used as references for information in Wikipedia articles. CNN or FOX News has no requirement for NPOV, is just as true a statement as asserting this about blogs, yet they are generally accepted as sources for information as long as the opinions are strained out. I was submitting the link, not with the intention that information from it be used in Wikipedia, but rather because I believe it is one of a handful of actually qualified and informed updates on current events in the Court--a useful Related Link for anyone researching this topic. Although I disagree with your opinion on this, I understand it, which is why I won't include this again unless there are other opinions offered in favor. Phil 08:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog Addition 

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.
: I've removed this section, as I don't feel that it contributes anything; there are both three Catholics and three Protestants.  Maybe it'll make sense when Roberts is confirmed, although I'm not sure that there's a point to it then either.  Certainly there is a place for the religious affiliation of Supreme Court justices in Wikipedia, but I don't think that this paragraph is the answer. —Cleared as filed. 21:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plurality Catholic Supreme Court

message: Apparently there will be two events to swear in Roberts.  One at the White House today (the constitutional oath), and another at the Supreme Court on Monday (the judicial oath).  This is the way it has been happening for Supreme Court Justices for years, it is nothing new.  My question is when exactly will he become a Justice?  I think the likely answer is today at his constitutional oath, does anyone think otherwise?  NoSeptember 12:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are required. He's officially a member of the court when he takes his constitutional oath (U.S. Const. Art. VI, § 3) and can begin performing his duties when he takes his judicial oath (28 U.S.C. § 453). His official start date is today, Sept. 29. --Saucy Intruder (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really want to add back in the Title column?  We deleted that a couple of months ago (perhaps it was in the "List of Justices" article I'm thinking of) and seems more than is necessary here.  Also we aren't using middle names for all the justices, it seems ok to just list him as John Roberts imo. NoSeptember 16:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chief Justice and Associate Justices are separate constitutional offices. Why would the distinction be deleted? --Saucy Intruder (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of the chart is to convey information in a readable format.  Adding an extra column makes it less readable since some columns of data are quite wordy.  We can designate the Chief Justice in the name column without confusing anybody and keeping the chart readable, as it was before your recent change.  The more columns, the less useful a chart, and we are listing "Associate Justice" 8 times for no good reason. NoSeptember 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Swearing in Roberts

message: Before joining the court Thomas worked in the Washington area for many years (Aide for a U.S. Senator, Dept. of Ed., EEOC, Court of Appeals DC Circuit).  Thomas grew up in Georgia and is listed on the chart as being from Georgia.  Why would he not be listed as being from Virginia instead of Georgia?  I would note that before he worked in Washington, he worked in Missouri.  So if we say that federal government work in DC does not change your state of origin, the case for Missouri as Thomas' state would still be stronger than Georgia.Scalia was also on the DC Circuit - so the same question could be posed about him.  He lived in Chicago before going to the DC court, so Illinois is a good candidate for his State of origin. Ginsburg came from New York when added to the DC court, and New York is listed as her State of origin. NoSeptember 14:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These states come from the official list of Justices on the Court's website.  I suspect the explanation is simple -- in the US, a person with more than one place of abode is a citizen of whatever State they declare to be their permanent residence.  These probably are the states in which each of the Justices was registered to vote at the time of their appointment. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas from Georgia? Scalia from Virginia?

message: The definition reads as
:The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States of America, and is the head of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government, one of three separate and equal governmental bodies, along with the Legislative and the Executive branches.
How if it read thus
:The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States of America, and is the head of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government.
I think this would point a user not aware of the concept of separation of powers to a clearer explanation, and material which even an aware user may find useful. Also, without this, both kinds of users might simply remain unaware of this available material. Lastly, as it stands, its somewhat like a definition nested in a definition. The next sentence (not copied here) would, of course, remain.
I'm not doing the edit immediately, as being a FA, it might already have been considered. Request discussion/response in a week or so, please; depending on which I'd like to go ahead. VivekM 20:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had another look, I'm shedding my timidness and going ahead alreagy. :-) VivekM 21:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold.  Also, I think your suggested text is better than what it replaces. --Coolcaesar 01:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition edit for clarity

message: I know I often use this talk page to complain about articles and NPOV issues, but I figured as a change of pace, I'd commend the wiki writers for this article.  I especially enjoy splitting the history of the court by Chief Justice.  An interesting yet common sense approach.
Good job.Ramsquire 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  KUDOS to Wiki 

message: Could an expert please view 68.156.93.130 contribs. They may be subtle vandalism. - RoyBoy 800 21:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  68.156.93.130 

message: Can somebody find the official picture of the court, with Roberts included? The "photo day" took place this week, yet I haven't found the new pictures anywhere.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New picture

message: Is the Supreme Court "the head" of the Judiciary?  Sure, it is.  But I think that grammatical conventions here require some other descriptions, simply because "the head" denotes to most people a single individual.  And in that sense, the Judicial Branch does not have a single "head" the way the Executive Branch has.  Not even the Chief Justice qualifies for this.  He doesn't have a veto, he doesn't set the docket by himself, and, if he is on the losing end of a 4-5 vote, he is no different than any other member of the court on the losing end.  
My only qualm is that I think that the caveat on the CJ is probably too long for the introductory paragraph.  I may move it myself, but I'd like other opinions. Unschool 02:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I removed it before I realized you had posted something here on the talk page.  But I think it's not only too long, it's just not even necessary here at all now that you've taken away the "head" statement.  The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and provides leadership for the Judicial Branch.  No where in that statement is anything that requires explanation of the Chief Justice's role.  I think that would belong in the Chief Justice article. —Cleared as filed. 02:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree with your assessment; it reflects my own feelings as well.  I was just somehow concerned that some people (including whoever had originally described the SCOTUS as being the "head" of the judiciary) would misunderstand.  I'm definately good to go with this. Unschool 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vaguely recall that may have been me who used the term "head"---though I'm not sure.  By head of the judiciary, I was referring to the Chief Justice's various administrative powers.  For example, he controls the actual daily proceedings of the Court, he is head of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and he selects the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in consultation with the Judicial Conference.  That would seem to make him the head of the judiciary, I think.  --Coolcaesar 06:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Granted, it makes the CJ closer to "the head" than is anyone else.  But in terms of actual power in controlling the branch, his  power is titular (Look at my earlier revision.)  I mean, the fact that he "controls" the daily procedings is not all that important.  The President of the United States does not set his own schedule, yet he still obviously heads the Executive Branch.  Anyway, as Cleared as filed pointed out, this is still moot here, as this is an article on the SCOTUS, not the CJOTUS. Unschool 10:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of the Judiciary? 

message: I've made some minor revisions to the section on SCOTUS' quarters, and some more substantial revisions to the explanation of SCOTUS procedure, which I think was rather lacking before. Most of this is sourced directly from the late Chief Justice's book, which is of fairly indisputable authority, but I've tried to add additional resources that are available on the web. Please advise if any of this violates NPOV. -Simon Dodd 01:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions to procedure