Talk:Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination

message: Why is this on Wikipedia?  Isn't it basically Wikinews material? Isomorphic 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article parallels John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings, which was continually updated through the summer, and now appears to be a valuable documentation of the nomination and confirmation process. Brandon39 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The people who are concerned are in fact "civil rights" activists.  214.13.4.151 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Test

message: This article may forecast an issue likely to arise in the confirmation process: Miers' stand on attorney fee caps questioned. The article suggests that Miers once advocated that the Texas Supreme Court should have the power to over-ride the legislature and limit attorney's fees. Of course, that's a state supreme court, and may be expected to have a more direct role in governance than the U.S. Supremes.  BD2412 talk 03:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material - MSN article 

message: Could someone provide a source for this section:
"Miers indicated on the questionnaire that she supported civil rights for gays, but opposed the repeal of the sodomy laws"
It's something that may go to the core of her character based upon the gravity of this statement, and is concerning to see it here without any reference to whatever spawned it. magicalspirits 03:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all over the news, how about ? I would like to see the actual survey though, if anyone can dig it up. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed for repeal of sodomy laws. 

message: This looks like a good source of information for someone who wants to dive into it: UMich index of Miers documents NoSeptember 17:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More Information

message: I wasn't sure the reference to trials was accurate, because a contemporary litigator doesn't necessarily try cases.  The first several sources I checked didn't state specifically that she had actually tried any cases.  Then I found her responses to the Judiciary Committee questionnaire, and her description of her experience included the very point I had planned to make.  She wrote:
:I have litigated matters in the Texas state courts and in the Federal courts, predominantly those in Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. My appearances in court included arguing motions, conducting full evidentiary hearings and trials, and briefing and arguing appeals. Given the nature of a modern corporate litigation practice, however, many cases were resolved without actual litigation or without a trial, and therefore are not reported. (Questionnaire, p. 26)
I suspect that, like many other litigators, she's done comparatively few trials.  That's why I modified that line to state that she had litigation experience, "including" trials.  The prior wording over-emphasized what was probably a minor part of her work. JamesMLane 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experience 

message: I think this should be trimmed down and merged with Harriet Miers and Defeated and withdrawn nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States.  There simply is no longer justification for such detailed news-like coverage of this brief and aborted process.  This isn't Wikinews...articles need to summarize years of events, not day-by-day.  Postdlf 15:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Deletion would be 'this information must die'. Merging is 'this information must go over there with that information'. Personally, I think AfD would be a lot better if people stopped cluttering it up with merge cases! Lord Bob 19:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with Lord Bob.  My suggestion to merge was a suggestion to make sure the essential content was included in Harriet Miers and Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States; the latter article can focus on the process more than the former.  Much of the content of this article, particularly the attempts to list evidence of her views subject by subject, can go without being incorporated elsewhere, but that's not a deletion—that's simple editing.  Postdlf 16:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: This proposal doesn't seem like the sort of merger addressed in Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages.  It's really a proposal to delete this article, on the grounds that a separate article isn't needed.  I think it should go through AfD.  I've addressed this procedural question in more detail at Wikipedia talk:Merging and moving pages#Merger as deletion.  (I suggest that discussion of the procedural point should go there, not here, to keep it all in one place.) JamesMLane 19:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Deletion would be 'this information must die'. Merging is 'this information must go over there with that information'. Personally, I think AfD would be a lot better if people stopped cluttering it up with merge cases! Lord Bob 19:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with Lord Bob.  My suggestion to merge was a suggestion to make sure the essential content was included in Harriet Miers and Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States; the latter article can focus on the process more than the former.  Much of the content of this article, particularly the attempts to list evidence of her views subject by subject, can go without being incorporated elsewhere, but that's not a deletion—that's simple editing.  Postdlf 16:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of merger process

message: Anonymous user 4.225.220.166 made a request on Talk:List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States which was motivated by a dispute on this page.  The dispute centers on a sentence which currently reads, "Forty-one of the 111 Supreme Court Justices appointed never served as a judge prior to their nomination."  The question is how many Supreme Court justices have existed.
If one counts up the number of rows in the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States article, there are 111 rows.  However, two of the justices, John Rutledge and Charles Evans Hughes, served non-consecutive terms as Associate and Chief Justice, and therefore are listed twice.  Correcting for the 2 double-counts gives us 109 justices.
I will now revise this article appropriately.
— DLJessup (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Count of Supreme Court justices 

message: In the "Reactions to her nomination" section there is a reference to Robert Schenck, however, the wikilink leads to Paul Schenck. Which one is meant here? --Rob 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Schenck or Robert Schenck? 

message: :Bush himself implied that her religion was part of why he nominated her.
It's not that I doubt it, but I would like to see the source. --A Sunshade Lust 01:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, e.g., http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/13/bush_promoting_miers_invokes_her_faith/  All major media outlets had similar stories after he made that statement.  Postdlf 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush implied 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Harriet Miers 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 https://web.archive.org/20051026013025/http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=246777 to http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=246777
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Harriet Miers 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 https://web.archive.org/20060524165754/http://www.catholicleague.org:80/05press_releases/quarter%204/051005_miers.htm to http://catholicleague.org/05press_releases/quarter%204/051005_miers.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Harriet Miers 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/20070929084322/http://www.dailytoreador.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/03/4341a9b92e04b to http://www.dailytoreador.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/03/4341a9b92e04b
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 13:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified