Talk:Browder v. Gayle

message: this article is pretty shit and needs clean up. who the hell starts an article with 'Right'..
03:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, this isn't a copyvio. What you didn't mention is that it's from a government site. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Don't include copies of primary sources that are only useful in verbatim. As the text of the judgement is only useful in verbatim, I suggest transwiki to Wikisource or removal. --Wikiacc (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Judgement

message: I posted the Cleanup tag because I can't find a clear statement of the decision!  Who did it apply to? Simesa 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the decision, see the November 10 edit by Speedoflight. Simesa 06:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: :In relation to Edgar Nixon, who also figures in decisions in this case: "He rejected one candidate because he didn't believe she had the fortitude to see the case through.Nixon rejected a second candidate, Claudette Colvin, because she was an unwed mother, and a third candidate, Mary Louise Smith because her father was an alleged alcoholic." (These comments are in relations to choosing someone around whom to organize a bus boycott in Montgomery, AL.)
Do you have a source for the first woman?  It doesn't seem to be Aurelia Browder because she was a business woman and had earned a bachelors but then again it may have been a mistaken impression by Nixon about her. 
Maybe it's Susie McDonald or Jeanette Reese but neither have Wikipedia pages.  Susie McDonald was a member of the landmark Browder v. Gayle case, so she should have a page and I'll look for sources.  Jeanette Reese is a ghost.  I can't find anything but two passing mentions.  The woman was intimidated out of the case somehow, and I want to hear details of that story. Alatari (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is supposed to be her picture:  Alatari (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, sorry, but I don't know. Just worked on that article briefly, and can see it is not well-sourced with specific cites. It's good that the other women have gotten some recognition, too. Will try to do some research.Parkwells (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right - Jeanette Reese was the fifth in the civil suit; the article in the King Encyclopedia Online about Browder v. Gayle says that she dropped out of the case in the first month (February 1956), and nothing more. It does not have an article about her.Parkwells (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Browder was picked as the lead plaintiff for the case but I have not found a reason for that. Because of Susie's age, I suspect she is the one Nixon didn't think had the stamina to continue the criminal appeals path.  Alatari (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Browder's name was first alphabetically; she was also more mature than Colvin or Smith. Parkwells (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions about participants

message: Perhaps I am wrong, but it is my impression that the phrase "heard by the Supreme Court" indicates that oral arguments took place.  Was that the case here?   I can't find records of oral arguments, and the fact that the district court opinion was affirmed on motion makes me think that there were no arguments.  I suggest if no support can be found that there were ever any oral arguments, the phrase "heard by the Supreme Court" be removed from the article.  There was nothing more than a summary affirmance in this case. Robert K S (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the United States, but in Canadian law a "hearing" may be either oral or written (as discussed here). However, even if the term is used the same way in US law, for purposes of Wikipedia it might be better to avoid the term here and clarify that the Supreme Court decision in this case resulted from written submissions only (if that is true). Is the "motion to affirm" common in US Supreme Court practice? Maybe what happened here is that the lower court decision was stayed pending appeal, so the appellants were dragging their heels, so the motion to affirm was brought by the appellees. It would be nice to have more detail on the procedural steps for this Wikipedia article. Did the Supreme Court grant cert? Or was it unnecessary? Or was the "motion to affirm" brought in response to the petition for cert? I looked at some newspapers for November 13-14, 1956 but they did not shed much light on the procedural point, although they say that the November 13 Supreme Court decision clarified its earlier decision from April 1956 (     ). Mathew5000 (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the wire service reports I linked to, the NYT article from Nov. 14, 1956 refers to an earlier intrastate-bus-segregation case out of Columbia, South Carolina, which involved Sarah Mae Flemming and was rendered on April 23, 1956. The NYT says of the April 1956 case, "the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on technical grounds".  Apparently what had happened in April, according to the IIT Chicago-Kent Law Library Blog is that the AP circulated an erroneous report on the day of the decision and then clarified it two days later. But I think that the wire service reports in November 1956 might still have been relying on the erroneous wire service report from April 23. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Heard by the Supreme Court" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Browder v. Gayle. 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/20150723232442/http://origin.www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partIV-chap85-sec1343.pdf to http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partIV-chap85-sec1343.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified