Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

message: I do not think this sentence is neutral: "The expansion of the conservative majority on the court during the presidency of Donald Trump sparked a liberal response in the form of calls for court-packing." Specifically, I question the milquetoast use of "expansion" versus the provocative expression of "court-packing".
The "expansion" was exceptional — three Justices — one-third of the Court. They are generally recognized as specifically selected to be substantially conservative, and young. 
It began with one seat the Senate Leader had so deliberately left vacant for about a year, by refusing to act on a nomination in the preceding President Obama's term (so egregiously that the seat has often been called "stolen".) It ended with a third seat filled in a relative flash, within days from the end of the presidential term. For this the Senate Leader openly contradicted his own former justification of stalling to gain the first. He had averred that a seat vacated near the end of a presidential term should be filled by the next President, thus representing the interests of the popular vote. These actions by the Senate Leader are most properly identified as egregious "court packing." 
Three justices were "stuffed" in one presidential term, which nobody denied were overtly selected for thoroughly strong conservative views. Furthermore, the sentiment was that these three appointments were explicitly selected to target a challenge to Roe v. Wade, with the expectation of overturning the 50-year precedent. Which then happened, followed by chaos in many states. And yet more long-time conservative goals. This is an exceptionally important part of U.S. history, and the conservative "court-packing" must not be glossed over.
By contrast the "liberal response" was strenuously not "court packing" but a wish to simply rebalance the deliberately engineered conservative political imbalance. In addition, "Democratic" is the specific term for the other end of the spectrum from "conservative". "Liberal" has frequently been used in propagandistic media as a term for disparagement. Democratic is historically the neutral term.
Having pointed out this lack of neutrality in the subject sentence, I leave it to someone with a thoroughly neutral disposition to clarify it. Furthermore, whatever Wikipedia article discusses the manipulation of the Supreme Court and its effect on Roe v. Wade should be linked.IGE (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources calling this expansion court-packing? You may have more success finding sources that say 'norm-breaking expansion' but it seems like a valid point depending on what reliable sources say Superb Owl (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

text: @IGE I agree. I have edited that section to better reflect the context behind the move to increase the court's size, including the unprecedented change in the conservative majority from 5-4 to 6-3 under Trump. I hope this edit goes some way to address your concern. Best - Marincyclist (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court-Packing 

message: Since it has been raised, let me address why it is relevant to include information about who the "median justice" is. The median justice gives you a reference point for the ideological bent of the court, and where the ideological "center of gravity" lies. When the median justice is a strong conservative (as it has been since the death of Ginsburg), that tells you the Court is very conservative. If the median justice is a "swing" justice (as Kennedy was) that tells you the court is more balanced between its liberal and conservative wings. What is not relevant in a 6-3 court is a discussion of "swing justices" because there isn't one or two justices who "control the balance", as for example was the case in the 1930s, when Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Owen Roberts formed the center of the court; because there isn't a 2 or 3 block of justices who side with the liberals some of the time and with the ultra-conservatives the rest of the time. The language was changed from "swing justice" to "median justice" (following the retirement of Justice Kennedy) precisely for this reason, and yes, it is important. If we had a court in which, say, Justice Alito was "the median Justice", that tells you a lot about the ideological bent of the Court. When we had a Court in which Potter Stewart or Byron White were the median Justice, it was a very liberal court (just after Fortas joined the Court). So, yes, the "median justice" is an important concept, even in a 6-3 Court (or even a 7-2 or an 8-1 court).  
Knowing that someone as conservative as Roberts or Kavanaugh (who was considered teh most conservative justice in the D.C. Circuit) are the ideological center of the Court right now is an indication of just how far to the right it is, and not just that it is "dominated by conservatives". Magidin (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @Magidin - I used some of that analysis in the body (citing an existing source) - have removed those notability templates and replaced them with one requesting an 'update' for data beyond 2021. Is this enough detail on this topic for this subsection? We also always have the main article: Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices if it takes a while to explain. Superb Owl (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the "median justice" is relevant 

message: Supreme Court of the United States#Selected landmark Supreme Court decisions
Should we remove any decisions already mentioned in the article? Seems like that might be more consistent with WP:See also not wanting us to repeat links already in the body of the article. Superb Owl (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also - Selected landmark decisions 

message: The lede had stated that the court grants "only 75-80" certs in a typical year. Editor Needforspeed888 changed that to "fewer than 100", with an edit summary stating the Court had been granting fewer cases (which the edit would have made less clear). After I reverted, it was changed to a larger range of "50-90". In any case, I went to the paper cited as a source, and the only reference I can find to the number of certs granted appears in page 67, Section 10.2, where it says "In a typical year, the Court grants   certiorari in about 80 of the more than 7,000 cases in which
Supreme Court review is requested." So this citation does not support a claim that the number has dropped off, and does not support a range of 50-90; it also did not really support the range of 75-80. Looking at the table in the [ https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/ SCOTUSBlog Stat page] (under "pace of grants"), looks like OT22 had about 60 grants, OT21 had about 67, OT20 about 71, OT19 about 61; but this is WP:Synthesis. We either need a better source, or the text needs to be changed to what the source actually states, which is "about 80". Magidin (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range of certs granted 

message: This court decided that FEDERAL LAW OVERRIDES STATE LAW in the early 1800s. Can this be used? The reason I have asked is that STATE LAW PERMITS DRUG USE while FEDERAL LAW does NOT. This may become part of the current US ELECTION CYCLE, in which someone getting pot in a state could get arrested for it by the Feds. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibbons vs Ogden 

message: This article does not seem to explain how/when a justice becomes chief justice of the SCOTUS. It is explained in the dedicated Chief Justice of the United States article, but it seems like it should at least be mentioned here.
Perhaps the first sentence of the "Nomination, confirmation, and appointment" section should be amended to: "Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court, including the position of chief justice" (with "chief justice" linking to the dedicated page.) Chconnor (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No info re: appointment of chief justice?