Talk:George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


For an April 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States


Glad to see it survive, that was by the skin of the teeth. Sjakkalle 13:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article name change[edit]

This is ridiculous. There is only one administration that can make nominations to the Supreme Court, why does it need to be spelt out in the article name? It also means a new article will have to be created if and when the administration changes. Still, better than having the article deleted I suppose. --Etimbo | Talk 14:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Because the article is really not about who might be appointed to the Court, but about who the media/pundits believe that Bush is likely to pick. -- 8^D BD2412gab 21:14, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • A new president would likely have a widely different set of potential nominees, especially if it were a Democratic president. - Jord 21:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should be kept and later merged[edit]

I think this article is very informative and useful. However, I do agree with the arguments in the vote for its deletion that it will be largely irrelavent once a nominee is appointed. I think this page should be kept until a nominee is appointed, and then the information should be summarized and added to the page describing the new justice (once appointed).

  • It would just have to be recreated when another Justice nears retirement - but in the eyes of the press, Justices are perpetually nearing retirement, so it would perpetually have to be recreated. -- BD2412 talk July 2, 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Wikinews[edit]

This page makes more sense on Wikinews. That said, having it around here for a couple more months won't hurt things. anthony 2 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

Edward Prado[edit]

There is some talk of Judge Edward Prado as a potential nominee. I don't know much about him at all. SOme folks have up a website. http://www.draftprado.org/

My two cents - and why are we putting each person's views in their own section?[edit]

I think this is a useful page to have when people want to look up who current nominees are. Perhaps it could be generalized and expanded to Current United States Judicial Nominees or such, and cover all pending nominations at the federal level - SCOTUS, Circuit, Appellate, etc.

Less ambitiously, I feel this page should be called "nominees", not "candidates". The latter word sounds like people running for office to me. Roberts and anyone else covered here are nominees.

Tualha (Talk) 21:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

    • I think the reason they use the words candidate is because only one person will be the nominee. But there are many candidates for the nomination. Just like when people are interviewed for a job, they are considered "candidates" for whatever position is open (in this case, a seat on the Supreme Court) - Ryanpickett2005

references[edit]

the references need to be fixed up to wilipedia style

is that new competition? www.wilipedia.com? Anyway, let's see some grrls up on the supreme court.

Plurality Catholic Supreme Court[edit]

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.

Too Much Concentration on Nominees' Religion[edit]

Since there is already a paragraph in this article concerning Catholics on the Supreme Court, the above entry seems overly redundant. Except as an interesting piece of trivia, I do not think that it matters objectively how many Catholics there are on the Supreme Court.

BoBo 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This is an article about potential nominees. If someone wants to research the religion of each candidate and list it by their name, it may have some merit (I added the birth years to each candidate several months ago, since it seemed relevant). General trivia about the supreme court might belong in the SCOTUS article, but not in this article. NoSeptember 01:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul Clement[edit]

While relatively young, Paul Clement has already been confirmed by the Senate last June as Solicitor General. He was sponsored by Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russ Feingold for the Solicitor position. Clement has argued several dozen cases before the High Court, was Supreme Court Editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerked for Justice Scalia. He also has an economics degree from Cambridge University in England which means that his selection would bring a Justice with economic expertise to the court. This guy is John Roberts, only younger and, perhaps smarter (if that is possible). The court also needs a Midwesterner and his selection would sew up the state of Wisconsin for any Republican running for President in 2008. Bush needs to choose the single most qualified person, he cannot at this point fall prey to considertions of ethnic background, religion or gender as qualifications for office. Clement is the most qualified, period. And the Senate would look foolish rejecting him after confirming him just six months ago.

He has also served as an adjunct Constitutional Law Professor at Georgetown Law School the last several years. He could lecture the Senators and educate them at the hearings, too. Clement was the counsel to the Sente Subcommittee on Constitutionalism, Federalism and Property Rights in the 1990s. Clement has the broadest, most finely honed legal mind in America and the broadest exposure to most of the issues the court would face. I don't really see how any of the sitting Appeals Judges competes with him.

How about this old strategy...[edit]

I recall having read once that Presidents facing troubles with their Supreme Court nominees have sometimes opted to nominate a sitting U.S. Senator for the job, on the theory that the collegiality of the Senate makes it highly unlikely that Senators will reject one of their own. This notably happened in 1894, when Grover Cleveland overcame a string of rejections by nominating sitting senator Edward Douglass White. In any event, a pick from the Senate would not surprise me.  BD2412 talk 02:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been done in the past...:

... Also Bill Clinton offered the vacant seat in 1994 to George Mitchell who however refused...

And not forgetting the fact that Governors and especially Secretaries have been nominated and confirmed before as well: Earl Warren, Arthur Goldberg, Tom Clark, Fred Vinson, Robert Jackson, Frank Murphy, Harlan Fiske Stone, James McReynolds, William Moody, Joseph McKenna... -- fdewaele 30 October 2005 12:55 CET

First image[edit]

It's too big. The article would look better with a smaller image and, further, some of the text (of the article) on the left of the image. Daniel Quinlan 03:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get back sooner. I don't mind the slight change in size of the image. I just aesthetically don't like small pictures that leave a lot of empty space. I prefer trying to minimize empty space. I don't mind reducing the size of the Roberts swearing-in photo if and when an Alito swearing in photo is available to place underneath it as a companion piece. BoBo 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)