Talk:Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This is an archive of older discussions on the talk page of Supreme Court of the United States.

Correct abbreviation

While "US Supreme Court" is a nice abbreviation, isn't the proper name "Supreme Court of the United States"? That's what it says on their homepage, and that's what gives the acronym "SCOTUS". (I'll move this shortly if there are no objections.)-- Toby 18:55 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

The acronym "SCOTUS" is not an official abbreviation. It is almost always refered to as the "USSC". I realise in the blogosphere "SCOTUS" is more common, but in the legal profession USSC is more common. Mykej 09:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there any nation other than the US which calls their supreme court the "Supreme Court"? If not (or if it is a relatively obscure or uncommon use) there seems little need to disambiguate in the first place. If there is such a nation, it would be useful to have that information in the supreme court article. -- Someone else 19:18 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think that quite a few African countries call them Supreme Courts, though I don't know which nations exactly, nor how to check - I don't have any books to hand that would cover that sort of thing (a random Google check seems to suggest Nigeria and the Ivory Coast at least). Whether there are other nations outside Africa as well, I don't know (but it seems very possible). --Camembert

A Canadian next to me claims that Canada has a "Supreme Court".

-- Toby 07:59 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think in general it's a good idea to specify the US Surpreme Court to make it clear one isn't referring to one of the several state supreme courts. Tualha 08:01, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Appointments process

What about the appointments process and the contoversies, eg. Clarence Thomas. Also the policy of 'reserved seats'. Is this the right place for them or not?

Bush v. Gore

Is there a reason why Bush v. Gore is specifically mentioned? It's hardly one of the most influential cases that one might mention? All the other mentioned cases have particular importance in the history of the court. But the Bush v. Gore paragraph just seems really out of place, both historically and literarily, kinda disrupting the flow of the article. I don't necessarily have anything against it; just wondering if there's a real reason why it's included. --patton1138 20:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, two reasons are that it (possibly) decided who would be President, and also that it in the view of some politicized the court in a way it hadn't been before. But it's definitely easy to overstate the importance of recent history.--Chris 02:49, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Yes, I would definitely say it's an overstatement of recent history. I mean, looking at the other cases in the article - Marbury and Nixon - Bush v. Gore shouldn't even be 50th on that list, methinks. Bush v. Gore is a notable case, hands down, but so is Brown v. Bd of Ed, etc., etc. The two already there involve important SC history, not important case history. And I think Bush v. Gore involves much more the latter than the former. --patton1138 14:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree there is no reason to include this case, especially in light of the obvious bias shown in the text. I believe the paragraph should either be removed completely, or edited to remove the opinion bias. --Originalist 5 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Potential Nominees?

Looking for consensus on a possible Potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States with a list of candidates and mentions. Washington Post lists Alberto R. Gonzales, J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, J. Michael Luttig, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Emilio M. Garza, and Janice R. Brown. Mydotnet 05:47, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Case citation templates

I created Template:ussc to automatically link to FindLaw's text of decisions. It is used as such: {{ussc|volume|page|year}}. For example, for Roe v. Wade, one would type: {{ussc|410|113|1973}}, which produces: 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

I also created Template:ussc-cite, which includes an anchor for the specific material cited. It is used: {{ussc-cite|volume|page|cite page|year}}. For the citation in the article, it would be: {{ussc-cite|410|113|118|1973}}, which produces: {{ussc-cite|410|113|118|1973}}

I hope you find these helpful.

— [[User:Flamurai|flamurai^TM]] 13:12, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Assuming knowledge

This article nowhere (except possibly outside the history) section mentions that the Court is also a Constitutional court (it mentions only 'federal law'), also it does not mention that it has the power to strike down laws. Morwen - Talk 07:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Roughly 10 minutes ago, someone changed the text to just "bah." Perhaps someone can fix that? I would, but I'm about to get offline. --BDD 19:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Red Mass

Is there anything to be said on this page about the Red Mass? It isn't mentioned anywhere else on the Wikipedia.

"The Red Mass, a colorful religious ceremony of the Catholic Church, is celebrated in the United States before members of the Supreme Court, members of Congress, and other high government officials." from Christian Ethics Today

-Scm83x 02:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Catholic, so I Googled it and learned what it is. I'm not sure if that is really relevant to the Supreme Court in particular; it seems to be a Mass conducted for the legal profession in general. And only the Catholic members of the Supreme Court (and occasionally some of the other Christian members) attend the Red Mass.

--Coolcaesar 04:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cases

Is there a list of cases somewhere? I'm trying to find a place to link Uniao do Vegetal from, as they are currently before the court, but have precious few links to them. Sam Spade 23:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases#Cases_awaiting_decision, thanks ;) Sam Spade 23:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

• It should be noted that the above comment was by a know sockpuppet of a baned vandal, the vandal was baed from making extreme POV edits, see Captain Liberty (talk · contribs) and Cap. Freedom (talk · contribs) for refrence of some this users previous activity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If this user keeps vandalizing the page, it may be time to get an admin to protect the page for a few weeks. It looks like even Jimbo has tried and failed to coax this bozo into compliance with the NPOV policy! --Coolcaesar 23:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to go so far as protecting the page. The same JoeM bozo keeps on vandalizing Roe v. Wade under various sockpuppets. We just ban them all on sight. Pretty easy to spot his crap because he's not all that bright. Postdlf 02:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moral Clarity (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned JoeM (talk · contribs). Comments removed for thuis reason. they should have been removed immediately, --SqueakBox 17:06, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

American grammar

Hello:

Just to point out for future reference: This is a page about an important United States institution; therefore, we should keep it in American English. And in American English, commas and periods always go inside quotation marks. Many Commonwealth English speakers keep editing American-related articles to their system of punctuation!

--Coolcaesar 23:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks – Mateo SA | talk July 3, 2005 18:05 (UTC)

-The reason for putting commas and full stops inside quotation marks when they don't belong to the latter is already largely obsolete when typesetting goes electronic.

--While the response above may be true, the original statement stands that it is American tradition to punctuate within quotation marks. Until this changes, articles referring to topics of American import should maintain this construction.

United States v. Peters: in or out

Text as of 18:03 8 Jun [1],

Foremost among these cases was Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). On February 20, 1809 a decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. Peters stated that the power of the federal government was greater than any individual state.

The Peters citation was added by SmartyRG on April 1 [2]

User 69.141.171.99 edited thusly:

some idiot put "United States vs. Peters" so I took it out

And so it was removed. However, the case of 2/20/1809 that stated that "the power of the Federal Government was greater than any individual state" was indeed United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115 (1809). [3] [4] Since the information is factually correct, I see no basis for the excise of Peters from the text, and duly replace it.Simon Dodd 14:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Justice List Changing Soon

Justice list should be updated. --Christopherlame 1 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

Eligibility

Who is eligible to become a justice on the Supreme Court? Does one need to be/have been an attorney or judge previously? Or could anyone be nominated and appointed?

...One does not have to be a Judge in order to be nominated to the SC, for example Earl Warren was governor of Calf. before being put on the court by Ike (he was a lawyer though), and since one must be a member of the bar to speak in front of the court, it is not clear to me if one would have to be in order to be a member of it...the Constitution makes no reference either way

The only limitation I can find on who may become a United States judge is the prohibition on nepotism codified in 28 U.S.C. § 458. Otherwise, there are no age, citizenship, or merit-based barriers to office. --Saucy Intruder 3 July 2005 05:50 (UTC)

Resign or retire?

The list of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States conflicts with many justices' pages.

Retire on the list, but resign on their own pages:

• Charles Evans Hughes
• Samuel Nelson
• Oliver Ellsworth

Resign on the list, but retire on their own pages:

• Owen Josephus Roberts
• William Henry Moody

Failed to say anything on their own pages:

• William R. Day
• Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
• Joseph McKenna
• George Shiras, Jr.
• Henry Billings Brown
• Stephen Johnson Field
• Alfred Moore
• John Rutledge (unclear)
• Thomas Johnson (governor) (about John Rutledge's "resign")

These problems must be fixed. -- Toytoy

• Just a curious reader, but I'll try and answer your Resign/Retire question, forgive my mistakes.

When a Justice resigns, it possibly means the Justice is leaving the bench immediately, not waiting for nomimation or confirmation of successor. Whereas when a Justice retires, it may mean the Justice who has notified the President, his/her wish to leave the Supreme Court, agrees to stay in office until his or her successor is ready to assume office. Again ,I'm not sure if this answer your question. P.S. I don't represent Wiki, I hope my responding to your question, isn't seen as arrogant on my part.

"judicial activism", "judicial restraint", "loose constructionism", "strict constructionism"

Although these terms often have negative political connotations, purely in terms of constitutional law they have no inherent bias/POV attached to them. I oppose removing references to them. This article is not supposed to be written from a political slant, so these terms should be used. Anyway, there are already articles judicial activism, judicial restraint, loose constructionism, strict constructionism. Deus Ex 6 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Those terms are used selectively to support or attack decisions that fit with or clash with one's own political views. They may have a narrowly defined legal meaning, but in practice they are used politically. Take, for example, the claim that Brown v. Board of Education is activist, and, by implication, that Plessy v. Ferguson is an example of judicial restraint. One can easily argue that Plessy was the case in which the court overreached, inventing the concept of "separate but equal" to support the racial views of the court. Much of what the court wrote in Plessy flew in the face of reason, and against the clear intent of the writers of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments; i.e., the court ruled that "equal protection" did not really mean "equal protection". Mateo SA | talk July 7, 2005 00:18 (UTC)

Plessy v. Ferguson maintained the status quo, and didn't challenge the ability of Southern states to use de-jure discrimination. Therefore, it wasn't an activist decision. Brown v. Board of Education outlawed de-jure discrimination in public education, which forced states to change. Maintaining the status quo is obviously judicial restraint, and overturning a precedent is judicial activism. Look at other examples-Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright-effectively creating new rights for criminals, overturning the status quo. Activism and loose constructionism aren't the same thing, and neither is restraint and strict constructionalism, e.g. strict constructionism can be "liberal" and "activist", e.g. Reno v. ACLU, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. I didn't say Brown v. Board of Education was loose constructionism and Plessy v. Ferguson was strict constructionism in the last edit, I said it was B v. B as active and P v. F was restrained.

If you think these terms will be interpreted politically by readers, then you or I can start a section in this article explaining the actual meanings of the terms. From a google search, I found this article, which tries to explain what "judicial activism" means. I'm sure there are other quality resources available. Deus Ex 7 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that "maintaining the status quo is obviously judicial restraint, and overturning a precedent is judicial activism". To my mind, judicial activism is the process of substituting one's own preferences - or stare decisis - for the actual constitutional text; the mere act of overturning a statue is inherently neutral. Thus, Brown was not an activist judgement, because it simply repudiated a string of activist (or, more charitably, merely mistaken) rulings which were at variance with the 13th and 14th amendments [5], while Raich was an activist judgement, even though it sustained a sizable corpus of precedents, because it departed from the Constitution in pursuit of a desirable goal. Contra Mateo SA, though, I agree with your original point. In my view, these terms have a reasonable place in this article, insofar as they do directly relate to the Court's operation. If there is controversy and discussion of their meaning and disputes over their usage, then the articles for these terms can be (and should be trusted to) include such discussion. If such discussion is not present on those pages, edit them. ;) Simon Dodd 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Well, I think this definition, from The Harper Collins Dictionary of American Government And Politics is the most accurate: " the making of new public policies through the decisions of judges." Brown v. Board did create a new public policy-ending segregation in public education, although of course in was much closer to the actual meaning of the 14th amendment than the precendent set by previous decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson. A restrained decision would be not challenge the status quo and precedent and not infringe on the power of (Southern) states. Brown v. Board was both activist-it created a desegregation policy, and strict constructionist-it interpreted the 14th amendent closer to the text of the 14th amendment than Plessy v. Ferguson. The judgements on segregation before B v. B weren't activist, because they didn't create new policy-they allowed Southern states to continue racial segregation and discrimination as they had always done. Activism doesn't necessarily means "substituting one's own preferences for the actual constitutional text". For cases like Gonzales v. Raich which you mentioned as activist, there are cases which are just as activist, but have a strict constructionist basis-like United States v. Lopez- which was the first modern case to limit the Commerce Clause and United States v. Morrison. Deus Ex 7 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Read this summary of the Brown v. Board case on a federal government website-it clearly describes the decision as activist. It says "Proponents of judicial activism believed the Supreme Court had appropriately used its position to adapt the basis of the Constitution to address new problems in new times." and "Supporters of judicial restraint believed the Court had overstepped its constitutional powers by essentially writing new law." Deus Ex 7 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

Again, I stand in complete opposition to that viewpoint. This may be a function of my being an originalist, but I stand by my previous definition. Another definition might be, "the incorrect use of judicial power to further policy goals". Thus, for example, neither Lopez nor Morrison were judicial activism, because they were a proper excercise of judicial power, striking down an ultra vires act of Congress. It cannot possibly be an activist judgement to faithfully carry out the duties assigned to the Court. It may be active, as opposed to passive, but it cannot be activist, as opposed to doing what they're supposed to do. Simon Dodd 7 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

But do you still think that Brown v. Board is a restrained judgement and Plessy v. Ferguson is activist? Please don't take this as an insult, but I don't think either of us is properly qualified to question the information on Brown v. Board on the summary on the federal government website, which clearly defines the decision as "judicial activism". The summary is written by the The National Archives and Records Administration, which I would imagine has writers with formal qualifications in their respective subjects. You are entitled to whatever opinion you want on US v. Lopez or US v. Morrison, and I haven't mentioned these cases in the Supreme Court of the United States article. But unless you are a legal scholar, then I suggest that this article follows the established opinion which is reflected in the National Archives article on Brown v. Board, namely that it is an activist decision. And this article also states that "The Warren Court stayed this course for the next 15 years, deciding cases that significantly affected not only race relations, but also the administration of criminal justice, the operation of the political process, and the separation of church and state.", i.e. it was and continued to be an activist court. Deus Ex 7 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) (Scalia, J., Dissenting) at 95-96 n1: "The customary invocation of Brown v. Board of Education as demonstrating the dangerous consequences of [originalism] is unsupportable. I argue for the role of tradition in giving content only to ambiguous constitutional text; no tradition can supersede the Constitution. ...[T]he Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of 'equal protection of the laws', combined with the Thirteenth Amendment's abolition of the institution of black slavery, leaves no room for doubt that laws treating people differently because of their race are invalid. Moreover, even if one does not regard the Fourteenth Amendment as crystal clear on this point, a tradition of unchallenged validity did not exist with respect to the practice in Brown." (citations ommitted). I don't deny for an instant that the Warren Court was an historically activist court, and that many of its judgements were fatally at odds with the Constitution, and therefore unsustainable, but that doesn't mean that it never got anything right, and Brown - for the right reasons or not - it got right. Brown is certainly an activist judgement if you conflate activity as activism - but I reject that view, and say that striking down a statue as being at variance with the constitution is a neutral tool that is necessarily granted to the Federal judiciary in Article III. Striking down laws that are made at variance to the Constitution is one of the precise purposes for which the Court exists, and therefore it is the purpose in the service of which the tool is used which characterizes a judgement as activist or not. Simon Dodd 7 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

OK, how about a compromise that says that Brown v. Board was seen as activist at the time-which is what the National Archives summary says-"Supporters of judicial restraint believed the Court had overstepped its constitutional powers by essentially writing new law." "Proponents of judicial activism believed the Supreme Court had appropriately used its position to adapt the basis of the Constitution to address new problems in new times.", but this interpretation has been questioned subsequently by strict constructionists and originalists. And cite the argument of Scalia- "in the 19th century, the principle of "separate-but-equal" had been vigorously opposed on constitutional grounds, litigated up to this Court, and upheld only over the dissent of one of our historically most respected Justices". This would recognise that interpretations of "judicial activism" have changed over time. I hope you will find this acceptable. However, your argument has a flaw, in that you say " striking down a statue as being at variance with the constitution is a neutral tool that is necessarily granted to the Federal judiciary in Article III". The power of judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution-it was established unilaterally by Marshall's court- Marbury v. Madison, Fletcher v. Peck. However, I am still in favour of the compromise version. Deus Ex 7 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Are you going to make the changes or should I?

Regarding judicial review, and the power to strike down legislation, I don't agree that those powers are not in the Constitution. Certainly, they are not specifically stated, but there are some implied powers in the text, in the sense that the text imposes duties and requirements on bodies which are only possible through the excercise of a power not explicitly granted. Thus, for example, Article I nowhere states that Congress can run a decennial census - but in order to meet the requirements of Art. I, §2, Cl. 3, Congress must hold a census. Likewise, the court is granted certain duties in Article III, and even if one assumes that judicial review is not inherently part of "the judicial power", those powers and duties granted cannot be excercised absent the power to strike down laws.

I should stress that I am not surrendering to The Living Constitution; there is a vast difference, in my view, between obviously and necessarily implied powers, and the atextual "penumbras" of Justice Douglas (Griswold, Roe, etc.). Simon Dodd 7 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

I've added a section on judicial philosophy, and restored the previous reference in the history section to "activism", "loose constructionism" etc to reflect this. I've changed the part on Brown v. Board to reflect the dispute between whether it should be seen as "activist" or not. Hopefully, with the judicial philosophy section, and some other changes in the history section, like stressing some of the loose constructionist and activist decision of the Rehnquist court has made as well as restrained strict constructionist decisions, the use of the such terminology can stay. Deus Ex 8 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

O'Connor?

Since O'Connor is definitely leaving, should she be removed now, left on the page until her offical resignation, or until a new Justice takes her place?

She should be left. Her resignation isn't effective until a new justice is nominated and confirmed. --patton1138 12:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

She should be left, the paragraph below implies she is still a Supreme Court Justice. Yet, she isn't there? 00:32, 20 July 2005 (CST)

Reoriented table

The extreme length of the last column in the Current Justices table makes it look very strange. How 'bout this version instead? - dcljr (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC) [changed link to old version in page history since I've changed the table in the article since posting this comment - dcljr (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)]

Title	Chief Justice	Associate Justice	Associate Justice	Associate Justice	Associate Justice	Associate Justice	Associate Justice	Associate Justice	Associate Justice
Name	William Hubbs Rehnquist	John Paul Stevens	Sandra Day O'Connor	Antonin Scalia	Anthony McLeod Kennedy	David Hackett Souter	Clarence Thomas	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	Stephen Gerald Breyer
Born	October 1, 1924	April 19, 1920	March 26, 1930	March 11, 1936	July 23, 1936	September 17, 1939	June 23, 1948	March 15, 1933	August 15, 1938
State	VA	IL	AZ	VA	CA	NH	GA	NY	MA
Appointed By	Reagan	Ford	Reagan	Reagan	Reagan	G.H.W. Bush	G.H.W. Bush	Clinton	Clinton
Confirmation Date	September 17, 1986	December 17, 1975	September 21, 1981	September 17, 1986	February 3, 1988	October 2, 1990	October 15, 1991	August 10, 1993	July 29, 1994
Confirmation Vote	65-33	98-0	99-0	98-0	97-0	90-9	52-48	97-3	87-9
Beginning of Active Service	September 26, 1986	December 19, 1975	September 25, 1981	September 26, 1986	February 18, 1988	October 9, 1990	October 23, 1991	August 10, 1993	August 3, 1994
Prior Positions	Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1972-1986; United States Assistant Attorney General, 1969-1971	Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1970-1975; Private practice, 1948-1970	Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, 1979-1981; Judge, Superior Court of Arizona, 1975-1979, Arizona state senator, 1969-1975 (Majority leader, 1973-1974)	Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1982-1986; Professor of Law, University of Chicago, 1977-1982	Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1975-1988; Private practice, 1963-1975	Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1990-1990; Justice, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1983-1990	Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1990-1991; Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1982-1990	Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1980-1993; General Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union, 1973-1980	Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1980-1994 (Chief Judge, 1990-1994); Professor, Harvard Law School, 1967-1980

Nevermind. I just tried using a smaller font size and breaking the longer header labels and that made the original version much more palatable, IMO. Still, I'm keeping this version here for comparison in case someone wants to comment on it. - dcljr (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

As the one who made the original table, I actually like your reoriented version better. A comment in the featured article discussion stated that the bullet points were easier to read, but I disagree. I wonder if I'm in the minority, though. BTW, for some reason, I don't see the text as smaller using Firefox. --Saucy Intruder 05:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I also use Firefox (on Win95, if you can believe that, in 1280×1024 with font size 20) and the difference is visually subtle (when simply comparing raw text size), but significant for the layout of the table. Have you tried a side-by-side comparison with and without style="font-size:small"? - dcljr (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the original, in the smaller font size. It has good legibility and the content is better suited to that format. - nick 00:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Roberts's state

In the "Current Justices" table, I changed the state of John Roberts from New York, where he was born to Maryland, where he lives and serves as a judge on the D.C. Circuit. Support for this change comes from Justice O'Connor's entry; she is listed under Arizona, where she was a judge, not under Texas, where she was born. --zenohockey 02:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Roberts belongs in the table at all until he's confirmed—the list is labeled "current justices" at the top—but I'll wait to see what others think before removing his entry. Anyone else agree? We can still have the information about his nomination below the table, but I think the table should only contain what it says it contains, current justices of the Supreme Court. —Cleared as filed. 02:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed Muhgcee 04:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Roberts under "Current Justices"?

Should this guy be on here yet? There hasn't even been a vote let alone any talks in the Senate. And I think it is pretty ballsy to say he will begin serving - since he might not even get voted in. Anyway- Roberts is a current event and this page should be about the USSC

When to replace O'Connor

Since O'Connor is no longer on the court, is it appropriate to keep her on the chart? I think a tag saying she is vacant, such as

"Note: this seat is currently vacant, formerly occupied by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This seat will remain vacant until a candidate is confirmed by the Senate."

or words to that effect until the nomination has been confirmed. Depending on how long the confirmation process takes, we may have an empty spot on the court for a while, and it is not representative of the court to have O'Connor still there.--Offkilter 23:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Quote from O'Connor article: "O'Connor said she expects to leave the high court before the start of the next term in October 2005. Her retirement from active service will take effect upon the confirmation of her successor." She is not off the bench yet. NoSeptember 23:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, here's a link to her retirement letter:http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-070105letter_wr,1,1144116.story?coll=la-headlines-politics, which states that it will be effective upon the "nomination and confirmation" of her successor. Ddye 00:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Order of sections

Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind having the history section at the top? From my viewpoint, the reader needs to know what the court can do before they know what it did, and the history section is so long that many readers won't get past it. Is there a reason for having it early that I'm missing? Dave (talk) 19:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

What happens upon conflict of interests?

As the U.S. Supreme Court is composed of a fixed nine-membered fixed bench participating in all trials, conflict of interests is possible. Has this ever been known to have happened and what has been done to prevent fairness of trial from being questioned?

Justices frequently do recuse themselves. I may be getting myself mixed up, but, for example, in the recent Pledge case, Scalia recused himself since he had commented on it while it was still pending. And in the VMI Virginia v. United States, Thomas recused himself since his son (?) attended there. So, it certainly does happen. --patton1138 07:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, to clear up some confusion, the U.S. Supreme Court handles only appeals, not trials. In the American system of justice, trials are handled by the court of original jurisdiction. Appellate courts usually hear only appeals claiming that the trial judge made an erroneous legal finding, and defer to the trial court's finding of fact (whether made by judge or jury). In the rare case where the appellate court has to reverse because the trial judge or jury made a factual finding that clearly had no logical connection to the evidence, then the appellate court will remand to the trial court for a new trial. American appellate courts usually cannot correct the error themselves by taking new evidence into the record.

The reason for this harsh rule is to force all parties in a case to direct their energies to thoroughly litigating the facts at trial, so that cases will be efficiently disposed of; there are always too many cases and not enough judges. --Coolcaesar 16:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Minor note - there are some cases in which the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction and does hear a trial. -- Jonel | Speak 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I had forgotten about those weird cases, such as where states sue each other. --Coolcaesar 01:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I would suggest the following reform: Appoint more justices and rotate them for different cases. This way out of, say, 16 justices, only 9 try a given case. This enables recusal in the event of conflict of interests without resorting to an external agent.

Actually, they don't resort to an external agent. If you look at the many cases in which one or more justices recused themselves, the remaining justices simply hear the case and vote. There have been cases where as few as six justices voted because three had to recuse themselves.

There is actually a good reason for not having cases heard by only a subset of a larger pool of justices---in the scenario you suggest, there is a very high risk of different panels of justices creating conflicting precedents, which results in total chaos in lower courts. That is already often the case in the giant U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. --Coolcaesar 16:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What happens in a tie?

Since it's possible and has occured in the past a mention of what happens in the event of a tie would be nice. Kent Wang 07:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the outcome or disposition in the event of a tie is that the lower court's decision stands (as if the Court had never granted cert). But I'm not 100% sure and I don't have a cite for that. Maybe it's in the Supreme Court Rules. Anyone know about the intricacies Court procedure? --Coolcaesar 07:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a tie upholds the lower court decision, but such decisions are often not given much credit as settled law, and the issue often comes up for review again. NoSeptember 13:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Important cases and likely to be close cases have been postponed in the past to allow for a new justice to be seated. Does anyone have any insight about the current docket of cases? And some discussion of some past cases where this has happened might be interesting for the article as well. NoSeptember 13:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Was this the original intention, as the first court had six members? Kent Wang 15:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt too much focus was on the possibility of ties. Early justices rode circuit, so having one justice per circuit was likely more important. Also, many early court decisions were worked out to a consensus unanimous decision. NoSeptember 15:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Current Event?

There is little on this page to justify it being labeled a current event. While Roberts most certainly is, this page is much more historical. --cpu111 3:29, 20 September

I agree, although we will see a bit of activity in the article when Roberts is confirmed and when the next nominee is announced. I removed tag. NoSeptember 10:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Blog Addition

I submitted as an addition to the article a few days ago, this blog: SCOUTUSblog. Which someone reverted as being not notable. I am resubmitting it here for consideration. I believe it is a fairly well known blog, and a relatively unbiased source of news as far as blogs go. It reports and details legal perspectives regarding recent Supreme Court activities. I have found that it rarely offers opinions either liberal or conservative although it links to both without endorsement. I am not in any way associated with the blog or the firm it is sponsored by, this is not advertising. If you folks want to review it and discuss it, I personally think it is an excellent source for keeping up to date on SCOTUS related news.

Phil 16:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't think that blogs should ever be used as an encyclopedic reference, unless for some reason it's the only possible source on a topic, which certainly isn't the case with the Supreme Court. Blogs have no requirement for a NPOV. I'd be happy to hear other people's opinions on the subject, but I don't think Wikipedia should link to blogs as a general rule with few exceptions. —Cleared as filed. 21:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that blogs are either superior or inferior to any number of other news sources commonly used as references for information in Wikipedia articles. CNN or FOX News has no requirement for NPOV, is just as true a statement as asserting this about blogs, yet they are generally accepted as sources for information as long as the opinions are strained out. I was submitting the link, not with the intention that information from it be used in Wikipedia, but rather because I believe it is one of a handful of actually qualified and informed updates on current events in the Court--a useful Related Link for anyone researching this topic. Although I disagree with your opinion on this, I understand it, which is why I won't include this again unless there are other opinions offered in favor. Phil 08:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Plurality Catholic Supreme Court

With Rehnquist's death, the Supreme Court's membership became for the first time plurality Catholic by religious affiliation, with three Catholics (Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) of eight justices (also plurality Protestant with three Protestants as well as majority-minority, with five members of minority religious groupings, e.g. non-protestant). The confirmation of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice would add a fourth Catholic Justice to the Supreme Court, confirming the primacy of the Catholic plurality, and an additional Catholic named to the court would for the first time create a Catholic majority Supreme Court.

I've removed this section, as I don't feel that it contributes anything; there are both three Catholics and three Protestants. Maybe it'll make sense when Roberts is confirmed, although I'm not sure that there's a point to it then either. Certainly there is a place for the religious affiliation of Supreme Court justices in Wikipedia, but I don't think that this paragraph is the answer. —Cleared as filed. 21:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Swearing in Roberts

Apparently there will be two events to swear in Roberts. One at the White House today (the constitutional oath), and another at the Supreme Court on Monday (the judicial oath). This is the way it has been happening for Supreme Court Justices for years, it is nothing new. My question is when exactly will he become a Justice? I think the likely answer is today at his constitutional oath, does anyone think otherwise? NoSeptember 12:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Both are required. He's officially a member of the court when he takes his constitutional oath (U.S. Const. Art. VI, § 3) and can begin performing his duties when he takes his judicial oath (28 U.S.C. § 453). His official start date is today, Sept. 29. --Saucy Intruder (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we really want to add back in the Title column? We deleted that a couple of months ago (perhaps it was in the "List of Justices" article I'm thinking of) and seems more than is necessary here. Also we aren't using middle names for all the justices, it seems ok to just list him as John Roberts imo. NoSeptember 16:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Chief Justice and Associate Justices are separate constitutional offices. Why would the distinction be deleted? --Saucy Intruder (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea of the chart is to convey information in a readable format. Adding an extra column makes it less readable since some columns of data are quite wordy. We can designate the Chief Justice in the name column without confusing anybody and keeping the chart readable, as it was before your recent change. The more columns, the less useful a chart, and we are listing "Associate Justice" 8 times for no good reason. NoSeptember 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thomas from Georgia? Scalia from Virginia?

Before joining the court Thomas worked in the Washington area for many years (Aide for a U.S. Senator, Dept. of Ed., EEOC, Court of Appeals DC Circuit). Thomas grew up in Georgia and is listed on the chart as being from Georgia. Why would he not be listed as being from Virginia instead of Georgia? I would note that before he worked in Washington, he worked in Missouri. So if we say that federal government work in DC does not change your state of origin, the case for Missouri as Thomas' state would still be stronger than Georgia.
Scalia was also on the DC Circuit - so the same question could be posed about him. He lived in Chicago before going to the DC court, so Illinois is a good candidate for his State of origin. Ginsburg came from New York when added to the DC court, and New York is listed as her State of origin. NoSeptember 14:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

These states come from the official list of Justices on the Court's website. I suspect the explanation is simple -- in the US, a person with more than one place of abode is a citizen of whatever State they declare to be their permanent residence. These probably are the states in which each of the Justices was registered to vote at the time of their appointment. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition edit for clarity

The definition reads as

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States of America, and is the head of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government, one of three separate and equal governmental bodies, along with the Legislative and the Executive branches.

How if it read thus

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States of America, and is the head of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government.

I think this would point a user not aware of the concept of separation of powers to a clearer explanation, and material which even an aware user may find useful. Also, without this, both kinds of users might simply remain unaware of this available material. Lastly, as it stands, its somewhat like a definition nested in a definition. The next sentence (not copied here) would, of course, remain.

I'm not doing the edit immediately, as being a FA, it might already have been considered. Request discussion/response in a week or so, please; depending on which I'd like to go ahead. VivekM 20:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Having had another look, I'm shedding my timidness and going ahead alreagy. :-) VivekM 21:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. Also, I think your suggested text is better than what it replaces. --Coolcaesar 01:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

KUDOS to Wiki

I know I often use this talk page to complain about articles and NPOV issues, but I figured as a change of pace, I'd commend the wiki writers for this article. I especially enjoy splitting the history of the court by Chief Justice. An interesting yet common sense approach.

Good job.Ramsquire 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

O'Connor's retirement (not yet)

First the withdrawl of the Roberts nomination and now the Miers nomination is withdrawn. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor must be wandering if she'll ever retire, she may be on the SP Court until 2006. Mightberight/wrong 18:28, 27 October 2005

First Majority Catholic Supreme Court

If confirmed by the Senate, Alito would be the fifth Roman Catholic to serve on the current Supreme Court, creating the First Majority Catholic Supreme Court, joining two Jews and two Protestants. Together, Catholics (24% of the U.S. population) and Jews (2% of the population) would constitute 77% of the Supreme Court membership, leaving Protestants (whose denominations constitute a majority of the American population) with the smallest minority on the court in its history (First Minority Protestant Supreme Court). There is no religious test to be a Supreme Court justice in the U.S.

Presidential appointment box

{{POTS-appointment}}

Is the above nescessary? Is it vandalism? This is found beneath "Qualifications." Shoud it be removed, especially now, since Alito was nominated?

---Yetiwriter

68.156.93.130

Could an expert please view 68.156.93.130 contribs. They may be subtle vandalism. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

New picture

Can somebody find the official picture of the court, with Roberts included? The "photo day" took place this week, yet I haven't found the new pictures anywhere.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Head of the Judiciary?

Is the Supreme Court "the head" of the Judiciary? Sure, it is. But I think that grammatical conventions here require some other descriptions, simply because "the head" denotes to most people a single individual. And in that sense, the Judicial Branch does not have a single "head" the way the Executive Branch has. Not even the Chief Justice qualifies for this. He doesn't have a veto, he doesn't set the docket by himself, and, if he is on the losing end of a 4-5 vote, he is no different than any other member of the court on the losing end.

My only qualm is that I think that the caveat on the CJ is probably too long for the introductory paragraph. I may move it myself, but I'd like other opinions. Unschool 02:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed it before I realized you had posted something here on the talk page. But I think it's not only too long, it's just not even necessary here at all now that you've taken away the "head" statement. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and provides leadership for the Judicial Branch. No where in that statement is anything that requires explanation of the Chief Justice's role. I think that would belong in the Chief Justice article. —Cleared as filed. 02:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with your assessment; it reflects my own feelings as well. I was just somehow concerned that some people (including whoever had originally described the SCOTUS as being the "head" of the judiciary) would misunderstand. I'm definately good to go with this. Unschool 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that may have been me who used the term "head"---though I'm not sure. By head of the judiciary, I was referring to the Chief Justice's various administrative powers. For example, he controls the actual daily proceedings of the Court, he is head of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and he selects the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in consultation with the Judicial Conference. That would seem to make him the head of the judiciary, I think. --Coolcaesar 06:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Granted, it makes the CJ closer to "the head" than is anyone else. But in terms of actual power in controlling the branch, his power is titular (Look at my earlier revision.) I mean, the fact that he "controls" the daily procedings is not all that important. The President of the United States does not set his own schedule, yet he still obviously heads the Executive Branch. Anyway, as Cleared as filed pointed out, this is still moot here, as this is an article on the SCOTUS, not the CJOTUS. Unschool 10:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Revisions to procedure

I've made some minor revisions to the section on SCOTUS' quarters, and some more substantial revisions to the explanation of SCOTUS procedure, which I think was rather lacking before. Most of this is sourced directly from the late Chief Justice's book, which is of fairly indisputable authority, but I've tried to add additional resources that are available on the web. Please advise if any of this violates NPOV. -Simon Dodd 01:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)