Talk:Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

message: Why do only a few presidents have the number rejected in parentheses next to their name? - 18 Oct 2005, Anonymous
:Good question.  I can fix that.  :-)  --Kralizec! 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So the William Paterson page says he was in fact an associate justice. Why is he listed under George Washington as unsuccessful? Superdosh 00:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * A quick look through the articles indicates that he was later re-nominated by Thomas Jefferson, and that time it was successful.  But he still counts as an unsuccessful nomination. —Cleared as filed. 03:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for clearing that up! -- Superdosh 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Other pages do not agree. List of nominations to the SCOTUS clearly shows Paterson as having been renominated by Washington on March 4th, 1793, with the Senate confirming that same day. William Paterson lists his time as an Associate Justice as March 11, 1793 - September 9, 1806 (his death). He was not renominated by Thomas Jefferson, as Jefferson was not in office until 1801. --Cylar 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Paterson 

message: I think that in each instance where a nomination failed, it would be a good practice to note which Justice had vacated the seat to be filled, and which Justice the seat ultimately went to.  BD2412 talk 02:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we note the ultimate outcome in each case? 

message: According to the main article, he took the oath of office on his death bed the day he died, which would appear to make his nomination technically successful instead of unsuccessful. Jon 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwin M. Stanton 

message: List of failed nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States has now been merged into this one, and what was missing from the prose article that was in the list has been fleshed out with some borrowing of passages from a couple of other articles (noted in the summaries).  I also cleaned some stuff up while I was in there, removing all the links from the headers and placing them in the text, and other tweaking as necessary.  So there you are.  It's not perfect by any means, but now we don't have redundant articles anymore.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge complete 

message: While reading, it became to me that the formatting of the table is unwiedly and difficult to read. Instead of having a multitude of footnotes for a very short table, I suggest that each footnote be merged into the "outcome" column, or perhaps placed into a new column of its own. 71.145.150.160 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table formatting suggestion 

message: *:File:Explainer Supreme Court Justices.webm
Suggested free use educational video file for use in the article.
Public domain as product of United States Federal Government -- VOA News. 
Cheers,
— Cirt (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested free use educational video file 

message: This page was recently converted, without discussion, to a redirect to a page lacking the contextual information provided here. This should be discussed before further efforts in this direction are made. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the revert; I agree that a simple redirect does not appear to be adequate here. Just because there is a sortable table that includes the names of the individuals does not, by itself, subsume the information in this page. Magidin (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's discuss any proposed redirection of this title.