![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removing bulk of nomination controversy from lead
While Justice Barrett's nomination was bitterly contested, it was for political reasons and had little to do with her as a jurist—and now that she's sitting on the court, I question whether such a large section of the lead should be devoted to her nomination and confirmation. Of course the nomination all worthy of inclusion in the article, where it has a large section, but the number of days between her and Garland's nominations and the elections, as well as the bit about "Ginsburg's own wish for her replacement not to be chosen 'until a new president is installed'" (which is neither properly cited nor in the body of the article), seem unnecessarily wordy. I think cutting her nomination down to a sentence or two would be preferable in the lead—but I'd like to get consensus first, and to that end, I'd propose something along the lines of:
- On September 26, 2020, Trump nominated Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States. Senate Democrats unanimously opposed the nomination, comparing the situation to Republican Senators refusing to hold hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016. On October 30, she was confirmed by a 52-48 vote.
PS: to say Barrett's "nomination was controversial" is both too passive and POV. The opposite political party's opposition to a president's nomination is better described as what it is—political opposition—than "controversy". It's worth noting that Wikipedia doesn't describe Garland's nomination as "controversial".
Thoughts? Thanks! ElleTheBelle 19:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- From the lead on Garland's page: "However, the Republican Senate majority refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination. The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was highly controversial." - I would also argue that it went beyond generic political opposition, given that it was largely similar to and compared with Garland's SC nomination. In addition, Collins (R-ME) voted "No" to Barrett's nomination, so it wasn't solely along party lines. Cantgetusername (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ekpyros, I am of the opinion that for article splits, content which could fit in (or already is in) the split-off article should be removed first in order to bring down the article's size. The article is currently at 41 kB (6628 words) "readable prose size" and there is already a separate nomination article. As a result I support your idea of trimming some of the nomination content, both in the lead and in the article proper. Because 41kB is only a hair over the suggested size, size isn't a very pressing reason, but if you feel like doing the work I will support your efforts to remove nomination related content.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022
"It confirmed her by a vote of 55–43 on October 31, with three Democrats—Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin—voting for her.[32]"
This is incorrect. The vote was 52 - 48 to confirm with no Democrats in support and one Republican, Susan Collins, voting against confirmation. 67.3.21.43 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done: This is for the Circuit Court, not the Supreme Court. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2022
Under "Judicial philosophy, academic writings, speeches, and political views," subsection "Affordable Care Act," add: [, calling it an "assault" to religious liberty] (I have enclosed what is to be added in brackets) just after "… institutions pay for it" in the first paragraph. It is impossible to tell from the current text whether she thinks the religious institutions should have to pay for it themselves, or neither they nor the insurance companies should. (According to the source, it is the latter.) This change would help inform about her understanding of religious liberty issues. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposed Change to Hometown
After "Amy Vivian Coney was born in 1972 in New Orleans, Louisiana" add "but grew up in Metairie"
72.204.159.99 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's already mentioned at the end of that paragraph: "Her family is devoutly Catholic, and her father is an ordained deacon at St. Catherine of Siena Parish in Metairie, Louisiana, where she grew up." Ptrnext (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Adding Category Abortion
given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.
-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Undone. Please see Talk:Ketanji_Brown_Jackson#Adding_Category_Abortion for centralized discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
RfC about referring to ACB as a center-right justice in the lede.
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the following be kept in the lede "Barrett is generally considered part of a conservative bloc but tends to be one of the more moderate justices of that group?" GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes - It is asinine that we can call John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh moderate, but not Amy Coney Barrett. It's well established among our sources and just a cursory glance at the last term that Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barett have a notable moderate streak that is not shared with the remaining conservatives. After the new term, I added the Kavanaugh swing vote to his page and there was no controversy, I also edited Robert's page to emphasize his moderate nature, and again no controversy yet with ACB there appears to be an edit war occurring. To be clear, the arguments against my side have been an erroneous invocation WP:DATED as if new material introduced has somehow made ACB less moderate than she was a year ago when she sides with Brett and Roberts (who we have labeled as moderates) far more than she does with the three other conservatives who are not moderate. She sided with Gorsuch on that one native American case and sided with the liberals on a death penalty case that no other conservative joined. Claiming that calling her moderate is barred by WP:DATED is wrong and I re-affirm my argument that a source being a year old does not render that source wrong for Wikipedia. If that's the case, we would have to completely remove or delete ample sections of at least a super-majority of Wikipedia pages since many rely lightly or heavily on sources that are a year old.
- As I said, the sources are already heavy on my side. They all agree with what I say (that ACB, Roberts, and Brett create a center-right majority that checks the far right of the court), all I request is a consensus so I can add that section one more time. Words game claiming that suggestion doesn't align with tend is not good enough to stop this much-needed edit. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Premature RfC - This needs to be discussed in a standard talk page before it's listed as an RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, per GreenFrogsGoRibbit's arguments above (now replying as a standard discussion in this talk page).— Guarapiranga ☎ 22:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)