Talk:Melville Fuller

message: Chief Justice Fuller's famous immigration case, Gonzalez vs. Williams, was not mentioned in the article so I added details pertaining to the case, including the mention of Isabel Gonzalez (appellant), and how she paved the way for US citizenship rights for Puerto Rico. Belinda Torres-Mary (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gonzalez vs. Williams 

message: Hi. Mr. Fuller started as Chief Justice of the United States on October 8, 1888, not July 20, 1888. He was confirmed by the Senate on July 20, but he chose not to take the oath, which is what counts as the start for our purposes (and nearly everyone else's). The oath is mentioned here: <http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx>
Quoting from that page:
I clarified the situation in this edit. The other lists on Wikipedia (e.g., List of United States Chief Justices by age and List of Chief Justices of the United States by time in office) use October 8, the U.S. Supreme Court uses it (see link above), Kermit L. Hall lists it as such, and the cited book discusses this in detail (and the book discusses Mr. Fuller's reasoning, which could also be added to the article, if anyone were so inclined). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: MZMcBride, I would suggest that you might want to format the references like I did in Morrison Waite‎. Oyez.org also has all the relevant dates of confirmation receipt of commission, and oath of office. That would be closer to standard.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term of service as Chief Justice 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Melville Fuller. 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/20081204120047/http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/fuller.htm to http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/fuller.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I have substantially expanded this article, so I'd appreciate it if any talk-page watchers would like to read it through to find any embarrassing mistakes. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a mistake, but I would suggest noting that Fuller's death during the Republican administration of William Howard Taft gave the president the ability to shift the composition of the court. Taft could have appointed a Republican to succeed Fuller as Chief Justice, but instead opted to elevate Associate Justice Edward Douglass White. However, Taft did nominate Republican Willis Van Devanter to fill the vacancy on the court caused by White's elevation. BD2412 T 18:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting! From what I gather, Taft and White had very similar judicial philosophies notwithstanding their different political parties. As such, elevating White was hardly the act of altruism that the modern eye might perceive it to be. (Some even think Taft deliberately chose the older White so that he could succeed him when the time came. If that was his plan, it worked!) I'm not sure how helpful this fascinating information would be here, though: it would probably make more sense to discuss it in White's article. If I ever finish Fuller, perhaps I'll work on White. He seems to have been a very interesting character also. (Wouldn't it be great if "Chief Justices of the United States" became a good/featured topic? That would be such a wonderful thing, although it would take eons to complete.) Anyway, thanks so much for sharing this. May I ask your thoughts on this article's readiness for GAN? I'm proud of my work here, but I'd appreciate another perspective from someone who understands both the Good Article process and the law – e.g. you. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I will say that I have only brought a handful of articles to GA status, and never guided the process, but I don't see anything here that falls afoul of GA standards. I have started a stub for the redlinked case, McCray v. United States. BD2412 T 05:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for starting McCray - I was going to do that eventually but I'm glad you've taken care of it. I've now nominated Fuller for GA status, so we'll see what becomes of that. Again, thanks! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion