Goodone121 (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
|||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
:1. The table of justices lists appointing president. Anyone who doesn't know Obama and Biden are democrats and the Bushes and Trump were republicans? 2. You insist on talking about justice's "parties" or the justice's party affiliation; responsible commentators talk about the party of the appointing president, not the party of the Justice. 3. I guess the mental math is hard because counting to six cannot be done with the fingers of one hand? The article already says more than once that there are six conservative justices, all appointed by republicans, and three liberal justices that were all pointed by democrats. 4 and 5: reliable sources and explicit quotations, please, otherwise it's [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]]. In any case, those are not arguments for tables with more and more information that is already present in the text. The table doesn't include their Segal-Cover score, their Martin-Quinn score, or their Judicial Common score, something that would actually be better than just a "high correlation"; and they shouldn't be in the table, because it just clutters tables that are meant to provide only limited information. The information you talk about is already present in the article, multiple times. I do not find your points persuasive enough to change the current consensus and add columns to sundry tables listing an additional '''R''' or '''D''', especially when you insist on describing it as the party of the Justice or the Justice's party affiliation. [[User:Magidin|Magidin]] ([[User talk:Magidin|talk]]) 20:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC) |
:1. The table of justices lists appointing president. Anyone who doesn't know Obama and Biden are democrats and the Bushes and Trump were republicans? 2. You insist on talking about justice's "parties" or the justice's party affiliation; responsible commentators talk about the party of the appointing president, not the party of the Justice. 3. I guess the mental math is hard because counting to six cannot be done with the fingers of one hand? The article already says more than once that there are six conservative justices, all appointed by republicans, and three liberal justices that were all pointed by democrats. 4 and 5: reliable sources and explicit quotations, please, otherwise it's [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]]. In any case, those are not arguments for tables with more and more information that is already present in the text. The table doesn't include their Segal-Cover score, their Martin-Quinn score, or their Judicial Common score, something that would actually be better than just a "high correlation"; and they shouldn't be in the table, because it just clutters tables that are meant to provide only limited information. The information you talk about is already present in the article, multiple times. I do not find your points persuasive enough to change the current consensus and add columns to sundry tables listing an additional '''R''' or '''D''', especially when you insist on describing it as the party of the Justice or the Justice's party affiliation. [[User:Magidin|Magidin]] ([[User talk:Magidin|talk]]) 20:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
::I agree that it's best to keep these tables as simple as possible and did some work to help clean them up and simplify them, including adding shading so we don't need a new column for political party. As far as your arguments in favor of distancing justices from political parties, I admit I am still having a hard time seeing how your views would make up a consensus in 2023. Please see the new critique section I added ([[Supreme Court of the United States#Increasingly partisan|Critiques->Increasingly partisan]]) that, as promised, starts to document and source the case that the institution has become more partisan. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC) |
::I agree that it's best to keep these tables as simple as possible and did some work to help clean them up and simplify them, including adding shading so we don't need a new column for political party. As far as your arguments in favor of distancing justices from political parties, I admit I am still having a hard time seeing how your views would make up a consensus in 2023. Please see the new critique section I added ([[Supreme Court of the United States#Increasingly partisan|Critiques->Increasingly partisan]]) that, as promised, starts to document and source the case that the institution has become more partisan. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not a place for opeds. This article focuses on the institution as a whole, and the critcism section is not about surfacing current ongoing specific controversies. It is about reporting actual criticisms that have been made in a notable and verifiable way. I have a hard time seeing why the fact that you are suddenly fired up somehow negates consensus that has built over several years in these pages. You don't get to simply declare the consensus no longer exists because you have a failure of imagination or because you disagree: the consensus has been here, and if you want to change in after you have been reverted (as you were) then you have to make a case for it and convince others, not simply complain that you have a hard time agreeing and apparently believing that this will do. I am not arguing in favor of "distancing justices from political parties", I am pointing out that in the reliable, responsible, notable, commentary about the court that exists (you know, the thing we are supposed to be reflecting in this page), justices are not identified with a party, they are at most identified as having been appointed by presidents of a particular party. This is not "my" argument, though it is clear that you are reflecting your argument. As such, it would be both [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] and [[WP:OR|original research]], and as such inappropriate anyway. [[User:Magidin|Magidin]] ([[User talk:Magidin|talk]]) 15:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Repeated POV additions by Superb Owl == |
== Repeated POV additions by Superb Owl == |
Revision as of 15:29, 8 February 2023
Supreme Court of the United States is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 10, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022
Can you please revert the class photo back to what it was before? revision will tell you why. Thank You! 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:11B0 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I expect the new official photo will come out in the next few days (the New York Time already had an article about it). May as well wait for that one? Magidin (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:11B0 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Seems concern from IP editor has been addressed, so gonna close this puppy out. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Update SC justice portraits?
The images used for the Supreme Court justices are like massively outdated. Sotomayor and Kagan's portraits are over 10 years old. Thomas and Alito's are over 15 years old. Robert's photo is over 17 years old. Most of them look much physically different now than then. Isn't it therefore the right time to update their portraits? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- The portratis for all except for Gorsuch appear to be the ones on the Supreme Court's website [1], so I would argue for keeping them as is. That said, I think we should switch Gorsuch's portrait for the one on that page, so that all of them are of the same provenance. Magidin (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Addition to Criticisms section: Democratic backsliding
Democratic backsliding
Thomas Keck argues that the Supreme Court has rarely provided an effective check against democratic abuses, especially at 5 major points of constitutional crisis throughout US History, and finds signs that the Roberts Court seems to play an even more damaging role than most of its predecessors in undermining American democracy. He contends that the situation has come so close to a permanent minority rule, that the outcome of the Moore v. Harper ruling in 2023, would confirm the need for court packing to try and save American democracy.[1] Aziz A. Huq argues that by blocking progress of democratizing institutions, increasing the disparity in wealth and power, and empowering an authoritarian white nationalist movement, that the Supreme Court has already created a "permanent minority" that is incapable of democratic defeat.[2]
- ^ Keck, Thomas M. (2022-12-09). "The U.S. Supreme Court and Democratic Backsliding". Rochester, NY.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ Huq, Aziz Z. (January 2022). "The Supreme Court and the Dynamics of Democratic Backsliding". The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 699 (1): 50–65. doi:10.1177/00027162211061124. ISSN 0002-7162.
Recent "number of circuits" criticism
SuperbOwl added a criticism about how republican-appointed justices oversee more circuits than democratically appointed justices. Setting aside that the Chief Justice covers three Circuits (the CJ is traditionally assigned both the DC and Federal Circuits, plus one additional one), the only Associate Justice covering more than one Circuit is Alito, who covers the Third and Fifth. But those two put together account for fewer population than the Ninth, for instance (per the numbers in United States courts of appeals): the Third Circuit includes a population of 23,368,788 and the Fifth of 36,764,541, for a total of 60,133,329. The Ninth Circuit, which is assigned to Kagan, has 67,050,034. So, does the fact that Alito is assigned to two circuits while Kagan is assigned to "only" one mean that Alito oversees more than Kagan? I wouldn't say so.
In the process, a column designating "Party" for the Justices was added to the Circuit assignment table to "more clearly show" that republican-appointed Justices currently oversee 10 out of 13 Circuits. I believe that it has long been the consensus that we do not attach party affiliation to the Justices (as opposed to attaching it to the President who nominated them). But I would say that even a "Nominated by" column in that particular table is inappropriate. Magidin (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Magidin's edits as to both of these additions. With respect, Superb Owl seems to be intent on pushing a particular POV into this article. Regardless of whether it is a POV that some of us might agree with, it's simply not appropriate to tweak the article to "highlight" a particular political viewpoint. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Here's the case for why I think we should list partisan affiliation (note: started a new section on this below): it is, by far, the most significant factor in how a justice votes. While most editors have memorized who was appointed by whom, it's a pain to do the mental math and many many users will not know and forcing them to look up who represents what party makes the page more inaccessible than it otherwise could be. Also, as for the specific table, Kavanaugh also has 2 appointments in addition to Alito. Even if Roberts' 3 appointments is 'tradition' then what's the harm in simply making the balance of power plain? We can always add a population column showing how Democrats' circuits might represent more people than it seems...Superb Owl (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- First: party affiliation of the appointing president is not the same thing as "party affiliation" of the Justice. That's why responsible commentators talk about "republican appointed Justices" or "Justices appointed by Republican presidents", and similarly with Democratic presidents, and not about "Republican Justices" and "Democratic Justices", in the context of the Supreme Court. Second: "Look up who represents what party"; Justices don't represent parties. Third: Fine, I missed Kavanaugh; you still have an issue with your notion of "balance of power": the Ninth Circuit is immense; Kagan oversees a circuit far larger than both Alito's and than both Kavanaugh's. So, is there an "imbalance" there, or a matter of workload of the respective circuits? And exactly how does the Circuit assignment correspond to a "balance of power" issue? Mostly this has to do with emergency petitions, and the consequential ones are routinely refered to the whole Court for disposition. In addition, petitioners may re-file with a different justice if they don't like a decision issued in camera by their corresponding Circuit Justice. This is really mostly an administrative issue, not one of jurisprudential consequence. By my rought estimate, Justices appointed by Democrats cover circuits that include about 27% of the population; while that is short of the one third corresponding their proportion of the Court, you might want to consider that many of the assignments are given to the Circuits where the Justices sat: Sotomayor, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, and Gorsuch all oversee the Circuit where they served, so shuffling some circuits around to try to make thee overall share of the population be closer to one third would scramble that particular administrative advantage of having a Justice oversee a circuit that they are personally familiar with. Fourth: that paragraph was not referenced; can you point to reliable source arguing or saying this, or this your synthesis and your desire to include this observation because you happen to find it relevant? If the former, we can discuss how to properly add it here in talk once your give is the source and quote. Fifth: the table of justices already includes who appointed them, and the article already mentions at least twice that there are six republican-appointed Justices who are also the conservative wing, and three democratic-appointed justices who comprise the liberal wing (under Judicial Leanings, anbd under Power excessess in the Criticism section). Sixth: You want to clutter the table of Circuit assignments with more and more irrelevant information? Sorry, no; not only is the "number of Circuits assigned" issue right now not properly sourced, but the impact is really not anywhere near as consequential as you apparently want to make it seem. Magidin (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- how about this shading as a way to keep it simple? (pending the discussion below on linking justices with parties of the president that nominated them)
- First: party affiliation of the appointing president is not the same thing as "party affiliation" of the Justice. That's why responsible commentators talk about "republican appointed Justices" or "Justices appointed by Republican presidents", and similarly with Democratic presidents, and not about "Republican Justices" and "Democratic Justices", in the context of the Supreme Court. Second: "Look up who represents what party"; Justices don't represent parties. Third: Fine, I missed Kavanaugh; you still have an issue with your notion of "balance of power": the Ninth Circuit is immense; Kagan oversees a circuit far larger than both Alito's and than both Kavanaugh's. So, is there an "imbalance" there, or a matter of workload of the respective circuits? And exactly how does the Circuit assignment correspond to a "balance of power" issue? Mostly this has to do with emergency petitions, and the consequential ones are routinely refered to the whole Court for disposition. In addition, petitioners may re-file with a different justice if they don't like a decision issued in camera by their corresponding Circuit Justice. This is really mostly an administrative issue, not one of jurisprudential consequence. By my rought estimate, Justices appointed by Democrats cover circuits that include about 27% of the population; while that is short of the one third corresponding their proportion of the Court, you might want to consider that many of the assignments are given to the Circuits where the Justices sat: Sotomayor, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, and Gorsuch all oversee the Circuit where they served, so shuffling some circuits around to try to make thee overall share of the population be closer to one third would scramble that particular administrative advantage of having a Justice oversee a circuit that they are personally familiar with. Fourth: that paragraph was not referenced; can you point to reliable source arguing or saying this, or this your synthesis and your desire to include this observation because you happen to find it relevant? If the former, we can discuss how to properly add it here in talk once your give is the source and quote. Fifth: the table of justices already includes who appointed them, and the article already mentions at least twice that there are six republican-appointed Justices who are also the conservative wing, and three democratic-appointed justices who comprise the liberal wing (under Judicial Leanings, anbd under Power excessess in the Criticism section). Sixth: You want to clutter the table of Circuit assignments with more and more irrelevant information? Sorry, no; not only is the "number of Circuits assigned" issue right now not properly sourced, but the impact is really not anywhere near as consequential as you apparently want to make it seem. Magidin (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Here's the case for why I think we should list partisan affiliation (note: started a new section on this below): it is, by far, the most significant factor in how a justice votes. While most editors have memorized who was appointed by whom, it's a pain to do the mental math and many many users will not know and forcing them to look up who represents what party makes the page more inaccessible than it otherwise could be. Also, as for the specific table, Kavanaugh also has 2 appointments in addition to Alito. Even if Roberts' 3 appointments is 'tradition' then what's the harm in simply making the balance of power plain? We can always add a population column showing how Democrats' circuits might represent more people than it seems...Superb Owl (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Circuit | Justice |
---|---|
District of Columbia Circuit | Chief Justice Roberts |
First Circuit | Justice Jackson |
Second Circuit | Justice Sotomayor |
Third Circuit | Justice Alito |
Fourth Circuit | Chief Justice Roberts |
Fifth Circuit | Justice Alito |
Sixth Circuit | Justice Kavanaugh |
Seventh Circuit | Justice Barrett |
Eighth Circuit | Justice Kavanaugh |
Ninth Circuit | Justice Kagan |
Tenth Circuit | Justice Gorsuch |
Eleventh Circuit | Justice Thomas |
Federal Circuit | Chief Justice Roberts |
Superb Owl (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Party affiliation
Reasons allowing party affiliation to appear alongside the justices in some form likely improves this article: 1. Many Americans don't know or can't remember which party selected which justice. This change would make the article more accessible in the U.S. 2. Most global readers would not know the party of each justice, making the article more accessible to a global audience. 3. For those who can remember which party nominated which justice, having the affiliation visible makes it easier to see the balance of power without having to do mental math. 4. Party affiliation of the president who nominated the justice is by far the most highly correlated variable with how that justice votes. 5. Polarization has only increased over time, especially with Federalist Society approved lists of justices, ensuring stricter partisans are nominated and confirmed on the court, making party alignment increasingly relevant. Superb Owl (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- 1. The table of justices lists appointing president. Anyone who doesn't know Obama and Biden are democrats and the Bushes and Trump were republicans? 2. You insist on talking about justice's "parties" or the justice's party affiliation; responsible commentators talk about the party of the appointing president, not the party of the Justice. 3. I guess the mental math is hard because counting to six cannot be done with the fingers of one hand? The article already says more than once that there are six conservative justices, all appointed by republicans, and three liberal justices that were all pointed by democrats. 4 and 5: reliable sources and explicit quotations, please, otherwise it's synthesis. In any case, those are not arguments for tables with more and more information that is already present in the text. The table doesn't include their Segal-Cover score, their Martin-Quinn score, or their Judicial Common score, something that would actually be better than just a "high correlation"; and they shouldn't be in the table, because it just clutters tables that are meant to provide only limited information. The information you talk about is already present in the article, multiple times. I do not find your points persuasive enough to change the current consensus and add columns to sundry tables listing an additional R or D, especially when you insist on describing it as the party of the Justice or the Justice's party affiliation. Magidin (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it's best to keep these tables as simple as possible and did some work to help clean them up and simplify them, including adding shading so we don't need a new column for political party. As far as your arguments in favor of distancing justices from political parties, I admit I am still having a hard time seeing how your views would make up a consensus in 2023. Please see the new critique section I added (Critiques->Increasingly partisan) that, as promised, starts to document and source the case that the institution has become more partisan. Superb Owl (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not a place for opeds. This article focuses on the institution as a whole, and the critcism section is not about surfacing current ongoing specific controversies. It is about reporting actual criticisms that have been made in a notable and verifiable way. I have a hard time seeing why the fact that you are suddenly fired up somehow negates consensus that has built over several years in these pages. You don't get to simply declare the consensus no longer exists because you have a failure of imagination or because you disagree: the consensus has been here, and if you want to change in after you have been reverted (as you were) then you have to make a case for it and convince others, not simply complain that you have a hard time agreeing and apparently believing that this will do. I am not arguing in favor of "distancing justices from political parties", I am pointing out that in the reliable, responsible, notable, commentary about the court that exists (you know, the thing we are supposed to be reflecting in this page), justices are not identified with a party, they are at most identified as having been appointed by presidents of a particular party. This is not "my" argument, though it is clear that you are reflecting your argument. As such, it would be both synthesis and original research, and as such inappropriate anyway. Magidin (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it's best to keep these tables as simple as possible and did some work to help clean them up and simplify them, including adding shading so we don't need a new column for political party. As far as your arguments in favor of distancing justices from political parties, I admit I am still having a hard time seeing how your views would make up a consensus in 2023. Please see the new critique section I added (Critiques->Increasingly partisan) that, as promised, starts to document and source the case that the institution has become more partisan. Superb Owl (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Repeated POV additions by Superb Owl
I noticed User:Superb Owl has repeatedly added POV content to the Critcism and controversies section (reporting the criticisms as fact). Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Goodone21, I would appreciate any pointers you might have on how to word these sections Superb Owl (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- You could, for example, identify who exactly has said criticisms. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- You were right to add the template based on my first draft of that paragraph and I updated the 'Partisan institution' section for more neutral language and attributed more claims to sources in the text if you want to review that again and see if it's good to go now. Also feel free to simply edit for more neutral language instead of creating a talk page topic on something that sounds like a quick copyediting fix Superb Owl (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- You were right to add the template based on my first draft of that paragraph and I updated the 'Partisan institution' section for more neutral language and attributed more claims to sources in the text if you want to review that again and see if it's good to go now. Also feel free to simply edit for more neutral language instead of creating a talk page topic on something that sounds like a quick copyediting fix Superb Owl (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- You could, for example, identify who exactly has said criticisms. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)