Talk:John Roberts

Swearing in

At risk of reigniting an old controversy, I have edited the section on the President's inauguration. The version we've had hitherto cobbled together a compromise account from various sources in the heat of the immediate aftermath, but the dust has now settled, and, as chance would have it, we have a source that is ideal for cleaning up the section. Jeffrey Toobin's account in the New Yorker covers much of the same ground as ours, and concisely provides both background and an analysis of what happened. Better yet, since Toobin is a liberal writing in a liberal publication, his distribution of blame between Roberts and Obama (viz. both goofed, but the President-elect dropped the first spanner into the works) is reliable as an admission against interest. Toobin also writes, as we did not at the time, with the benefit of emotional and temporal distance, at several months' remove from the inauguration. I have accordingly substituted a quote from that article, although have preserved our preexisting citations under see also signals in the footnotes. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I suggest (but am not WP:BOLD enough to do so without raising it here first) that we delete the passage "[a]t the conclusion of the oath, Roberts phrased the traditional postscript in the second person (contra recent custom, which has used the first person^{[citation needed]}), asking Obama, "So help you God?" The president answered with the traditional "So help me God." Well, how else could Obama respond? He could not have simply repeated the Chief's prompt. Nor, is the grammatical person in which the Chief phrased the prompt--regardless of whether or not it is true that recent inaugurations by other Chief Justices of other Presidents have been phrased in the first person--particularly interesting, relevant, or illuminating. This is a non-notable part of a barely-notable event, and I think it ought to be excised.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Since no one has objected, I've made this change.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Characterization of Jeffrey Toobin

There is little serious dispute that Toobin is a liberal author (we could doubtless find oodles of reliable sources if needed to demonstrate the point, although such a discussion would be neither necessary nor inappropriate in the article). Not that there's anything wrong with that, as they say, but our readers are well-served by knowing the biases of authors whose statements are quoted or relied upon. That Toobin is a liberal does not make his assesment wrong, but it does color his perspective, just as my being a conservative colors my perspective, and so long as readers are made aware of that bias, they can evaluate the statements adding or substracting appropriate weight.

user:Texaslegal has now twice removed this accurate and useful information, and, given his/her edit summary, I seriously doubt that their concern is WP:RS. I reverted once, but don't want to get into an edit war without a temperature-taking. (Unfortunately WP:EW trumps immediatism.) What is the sense of the community about whether this characterization ought to remain, both in regard to Toobin and other sources where they can easily be characterized? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

N.b. I have invited user:Texaslegal to particiapte in the discussion. [1] - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that WP policy recognizes precisely this principle in another context: WP:COI notes that "[e]ditors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia." It's just the same with journalists. It isn't that one can't produce accurate, balanced writing while having biases and conflicts of interest, otherwise no one could produce accurate writing, period. But a writer's interests and predospositions ought to be on the table so that we are aware of them and evaluate their points accordingly. And that goes for sources as much as for editors (if it didn't, WP:NPOV could be defeated simply by careful source selection).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems logigal to me to state Toobin's political position, as it provides insight into the rationale behind his statement. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing on Toobin's article that suggests that he is liberal. People who want to characterize Toobin as a liberal need to make their case somewhere, on Toobin's article if not this one. Right now the Roberts article is clearly using a conservative double-standard by describing the former editor of the Harvard Law Review as merely an ideological "liberal commentator" while characterizing Bush-43 appointed Diane Sykes, a member of the Federalist Society, as simply a "Seventh Circuit Judge". Greg Comlish (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg, you are the one who deleted the supporting reference for Toobin being a liberal, claiming that it "has nothing to do with [Chief] Justice Roberts"! dif This was flagged on the talk page, where it remains only a few sections above where I now write (Talk:John G. Roberts#Damned if you do, damned if you don't. So let's be clear about your part in this: on June 9, you remove the citation supporting the description of Toobin as a liberal, and a month later you're back to complain that the description has no supporting citation! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Date

The date for one of the early legal career is probably incorrect (below): Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 January 21, 1372 March 31, 1998 Petitioner

Does anyone have it? --- Barath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.215.63 (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stare Decisis Section

I am going to change the title of this section to "Reviewing Acts of Congress." The text under the Stare Decisis does not talk about the doctrine usually associated with this term which is deference to previous holdings of the court. There is a squib about Brown v. Board that is appropriate for a Stare Decisis discussion which I will keep under the original heading. Onefinalstep (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Surname

How is Roberts a czech last name? It surely seems Anglican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.101.149 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Toobin

As far as I'm concerned, it has been established that noting his political leanings when using his criticism is appropriate here. Texaslegal has returned to remove it. It would be foolish to dispute Toobin's political persuasion, but can we decide again if noting it is appropriate. ÷seresin 06:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Weasel word in lead.

The first paragraph states: "He is usually considered to be a judicial conservative." I had reworded this significantly at one point but it has ended back up at this. "Is considered" is a weasel term. Is considered by who? Obviously it is true.. but lets be more precise. Either he is or is not. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's more wrong with this than weasel wording. What is a "judicial conservative?" If the perceived voting alignment needs to be mentioned at all, it should be in a factual sentence that no one will disagree with. I'd suggest something like "Roberts is most often a member of the conservative voting bloc on the court."--Paul (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. It had been more detailed before, labeling him as a constructionist, etc. I cannot find the precise edit that changed it back to this - just noticed the change while checking for vandalism earlier today. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Animal cruelty

I added this entry. However another user changed it slightly to almost no notable difference. He obviously wants to claim to have added this section for himself. --Geniusbrainus (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check out the instructions on the edit page just below the submit button. The part that says

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

Bbb23's version is more grammatical, better written overall, and in the appropriate section for the decision. Your "argument" for not changing your "masterpiece", OTOH, seems to consist merely of "Waaahh! He's taking my credit away." Please! Fat&Happy (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That all is certainly not the case. --Geniusbrainus (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another user copyedited it for style, and correctly formatted the reference - Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and nobody claims or is credited with ownership of individual sections. If you can perceive "almost no notable difference" in the edit, then you should have no objection to it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, that´s exactly the reason that I do object. --Geniusbrainus (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It fixes a typo, correctly formats a reference and generally tidies up your submission - if you personally can see no qualitative difference between the two versions, it would make sense to defer to those editors who can see the difference. If you're simply uncomfortable with the idea that other editors might improve your work or point out your spelling mistakes, you should not submit your writing to Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I put back my description of the case. Somehow, in all the reversions, it got lost. We have to reference the case name (and WP article). I also tracked the language of that article, figuring consistency is a good thing. I also prefer the wording about overbreadth because it tracks the LA Times source, whereas the descriptiion Geniusbrainus was using did not. I removed the vague tag but wasn't sure if Fat&Happy thinks it's still vague. If so, put the tag back in and I'll try to improve it. I think the first sentence is clear enough in light of the second sentence, but I'm happy to try to make it clearer. Finally, my biggest concern is how I sourced the LA Times. I know it's their blog, but it is apparently from the Tribune Wire Service, so that's why I wrote the reference that way. Others can feel free to improve the reference if they think it's substandard.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Country Name

I changed the birthplace of John Roberts Great-Grandparents to Slovakia because Czecho-Slovakia did not exist at the time. The linked information cites 1886 as the date John Roberts Grand-Parent, Jacob Podrasky, immigrated. This is a common mistake but, by using Czecho-Slovakia one cannot be sure the family emigrated from Slovakia. They may be Moravian, Bohemian or even Polish. I mailed the author of the citation as well. 24.5.109.189 (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)gthistle

When your edit showed up on my watchlist without a summary just as I was about to shut down the laptop and go to sleep last night, I reflexively reverted. This morning, I modified the phrasing a bit, since as you point out above there is no indication as to which of the component parts of "Czechoslovakia" his ancestors were from, so we can't just assume Slovakia. I also question the entire sentence, based in part on discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, and wonder whether we might be better living without this non-critical claim if a more reliable source can't be found. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Glover

Is it pronounced like "clover" or like "lover" or like something else entirely? 68.35.40.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC).