Talk:William Rehnquist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee William Rehnquist was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
October 25, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
September 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States courts and judges (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lutheranism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon William Rehnquist is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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.
 
WikiProject Wisconsin (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
 
WikiProject United States / Arizona (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Image[edit]

The main image of Rehnquist seems way too big. Could we make it a bit smaller perhaps? It reminds me of idol worship or something- quite vulgar really, how big it is.

LOL, I think someone took care of this. I don't see anything that resembles idol worship Gautam Discuss 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rehnquist and states' rights[edit]

Rehnquist certainly did mention congruence and proportionality when referring to Boerne, and dissenting Justices did refer to Katzenbach v. Morgan. They also mentioned the post Civil War origin of the Fourteenth Amendment as evidence that states' rights was not the object of that particular amendment.Jimmuldrow 17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, as you know we have both been editing the Wikipedia page on William Rehnquist. You recently made some edits here. I enjoy working with other editors to improve an article, but I hope you’ll reconsider these edits. They make the Wikipedia article into more of an opinion piece. You’re deleting useful links, and making arguments that were not even made by the dissenters or the majority in these cases. I hope you’ll reconsider.
Regarding “congruence and proportionality”, you haven’t cited a case referring to Boerne in those terms.
Regarding Boerne, I’d a appreciate if you would let us know which opinion other than Kennedy’s majority opinion mentioned Katzenbach. I believe you are mistaken that any of those other opinions mention Katzenbach. Nor did any of the opinions in that case mention “ratchets” or “proporionality” or “congruence” as you imply.
When I actually quote the actual holding of Boerne (congressional “conclusions are entitled to much deference….[but] Congress' discretion is not unlimited”), you delete it, along with the wikipedia link to section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Regarding Romer, Kimel, and Garrett, you have deleted multiple Wikepedia links that I inserted: sovereign immunity, Equal Protection Clause, rational basis review, strict scrutiny, and 'Romer v. Evans. More importantly, you insist on making arguments; the least you should do is quote from the opinions you agree with, instead of supplementing those opinions with your own. For example, regarding Romer, I quoted the dissent that Rehnquist joined, which contended that Coloradans were entitled to “preserve traditional sexual mores” even if that meant discriminating against gay residents. You deleted the fact that Rehnquist joined any dissent, and instead you simply accused Rehnquist of thinking “that majority rights were more important than equal protection of the laws for gay residents.” No justice accused Rehnquist of believing that the Colorado law violated equal protection; Rehnquist never said so himself.
And, no justice in those three cases disagreed with the level of scrutiny that was applied. Yet, you go on at great length about it, as though it were a central point of dispute.
You also erased the statement of the holding in Sandoval: that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act applies only to intentional discrimination, so there is no private right of action to enforce certain regulations promulgated under Title VI. You also erased the statement that Sandoval was a statutory rather than constitutional case. These are the most basic features of the case, and deleting them obscures what the case was about.

Sorry if I erased too much. Next time you don't know, say you don't know. Boerne was referred to as a precedent for a number of other cases. It wasn't just one case. The "ratchet" remark is not from Katzenbach itself, but was used by legal beagles to describe the gist of it both in Wikipedia and elsewhere. It was mentioned in the Garrett dissent, although two different precedents were mentioned that both have the name Katzenbach, so you have to read carefully. Also, "congruence" and "proportionality" were used by Court justices, including Rehnquist, when referring to the Boerne precedent. For Sandoval, that's a matter of interpretation, as the facts of Cannon were ignored because of a dispute over whether a footnote mentioning the facts of the case was part of the holding of the case. Also, to say the justices all agreed with five to four decisions is not quite right. There were important differences in interpretation. Which is why they were five to four decisions.Jimmuldrow 17:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I probably deleted more than I should have out of frustration, since you deleted a lot of facts because you didn't know, and assumed too much.Jimmuldrow 17:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Boerne, "There must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end." OK now? Jimmuldrow 17:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Jim, please pretend I'm an idiot, and write the article accordingly, with cites to all the stuff that you wish I knew about. Just citing "a number of other cases" or "legal beagles" is not adequate; if you think those cases are important enough to allude to, then at least give an example, with a link and a cite. Also, if you erased too much, I'd realy appreciate it if you'd restore what you don't think you should have erased. Regarding "congruence" and "proportionality", none of the dissenters argued against those standards, right? But you make it sound like Rehnquist was on a mission to minitiarize the Equal Protection Clause. Isn't it okay to mention that this point wasn't disputed?Ferrylodge 18:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, there were major differences in interpretation. I'm sorry I wiped out too much of your stuff. Sorry again, I didn't mean to insult or offend. Jimmuldrow 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Here's what Rehnquist said about sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment in his Garrett decision:

The Eleventh Amendment provides:

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."


Although by its terms the Amendment applies only to suits against a State by citizens of another State, our cases have extended the Amendment's applicability to suits by citizens against their own States. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 72-73 (2000); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 669-670 (1999); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54 (1996); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 15 (1890). Jimmuldrow 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Breyer and Stevens on state action in their Morrison dissent[edit]

Given my conclusion on the Commerce Clause question, I need not consider Congress’ authority under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, I doubt the Court’s reasoning rejecting that source of authority. The Court points out that in United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883), and the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), the Court held that §5 does not authorize Congress to use the Fourteenth Amendment as a source of power to remedy the conduct of private persons. Ante, at 21—23. That is certainly so. The Federal Government’s argument, however, is that Congress used §5 to remedy the actions of state actors, namely, those States which, through discriminatory design or the discriminatory conduct of their officials, failed to provide adequate (or any) state remedies for women injured by gender-motivated violence–a failure that the States, and Congress, documented in depth. See ante, at 3—4, n. 7, 27—28 (Souter, J., dissenting) (collecting sources).

Neither Harris nor the Civil Rights Cases considered this kind of claim. Jimmuldrow 04:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to expand the quote from the dissent then fine, although I don't see that it adds much. However, I must object to the following paragraph that you want to insert after the quote from the Morrison dissent:
"Neither Harris nor the Civil Rights Cases considered this kind of claim. Rehnquist's majority opinion for Morrison mentioned precedents for limiting the scope of the Equal Protection Clause in addition to a limited interpretation of the commerce clause. It mentioned United States v. Cruikshank (1876) as a precedent for applying the state action doctrine to law enforcement (or lack of it) by states. Cruikshank arose out of the Colfax Massacre, and held that the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to state actions, not private acts of violence. United States v. Harris (1883), which Rehnquist listed as one of the controlling precedents for Morrison, held that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to an 1883 prison lynching since the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to states, not to individual criminal matters. The Civil Rights Cases (1883), which Rehnquist listed as another controlling precedent for Morrison, allowed segregation by striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a statute that prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations. Rehnquist said that the Civil Rights Cases precedent meant that state laws didn't need to be applied equally, as 'There were state laws on the books bespeaking equality of treatment, but in the administration of these laws there was discrimination against newly freed slaves.'"
Please put it in the article on the EP Clause or the article about Morrison. I may object to it there too, but at least you'd have better luck. This is a bio, and there is no need to go into such excruciating detail about tons of different cases. Moreover, you've just quoted Stevens and Breyer saying that neither Harris nor the Civil Rights cases is on point, and yet you insist on adding a paragraph detailing the history of those cases. It's just not a useful addition to the article, either from a pro-Rehnquist point of view, or an anti-Rehnquist point of view.Ferrylodge 05:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandoval[edit]

The description of the Sandoval case needs work. First of all, the description needs to be shortened. This case was about statutory construction. Few would name it as one of the most significant of the Rehnquist Court.

This bio now says “'Cannon' mentioned the Equal Protection Clause in footnotes.” But Cannon had virtually nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause. I really don’t think it’s appropriate to try to bring in the Equal Protection Clause into a description of Sandoval or Cannon, which involved statutory construction rather than constitutional construction. Yes, Sandoval cited Cannon, and Cannon did mention the EP Clause very briefly in FN 8 of Powell’s dissent (as part of the title of a cited law review article), but that was very tangential, and totally separate from the discussion of disparate impact facts in Stevens' FN 2. The footnotes mentioned a lot of things in Cannon, but that doesn’t mean we have to describe every one of them in this Rehnquist biographical article.

Also, in the description of Sandoval, I had said that “The 'Sandoval' majority (including the Chief Justice) also said that §602 expressly provides different enforcement measures than §601, although the dissenters did not view that as dispositive.” This was deleted. But is it not true that §602 expressly provides different enforcement measures than §601? And, the Sandoval Court did NOT say that these were completely separate sections; on the contrary, the Court said that 602 authorizes agencies to enforce 601, right? And, why can’t we have a plain English description of the case in the first sentence (i.e. it was about driver license exams), instead of legal gobbledygook in the first sentence?

I've edited the description of Sandoval, and I hope this will be acceptable.Ferrylodge 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Dispositive" is plain English? Also, exluding the disparate impact facts of Cannon reversed the meaning of it with relation to Sandoval, so I don't see why you'd say something else about the case but not that. Also, you missed the part of the back-and-forthing over sections 601 and 602 that the outcome of the case depends on. The case was confusing, so read again slowly. Also, you're the one that put in mention of the Equal Protection Clause. I'll remove that part of it.Jimmuldrow 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Jim, regarding the footnote, you wrote "The Court divided five to four over whether the disparate impact facts regarding 'Cannon' mentioned in a footnote were part of the holding of the case, with the majority voting to exclude the footnote."
But that sentence of yours is ambiguous about whether the footnote was in Cannon or in Sandoval. I think it's more accurate, and more concise, to say: "The Court voted 5-4 that various facts (regarding disparate impacts) mentioned in a footnote of 'Cannon' were not part of the holding of 'Cannon'."
Also, you wrote this long passage about Sandoval:
"Another dispute was over whether §602 of Title VI needed to repeat the rights creating language (race, color, or national origin) in §601 of the same title in order to allow a private cause of action to sue for policies that have a disparate impact on minorities. The Court majority said that these were completely separate sections. The dissenters said that they were closely related sections of the same title, Title VI."
Can't we just say: "The majority viewed it as significant that §602 of Title VI did not repeat the rights-creating language (race, color, or national origin) in §601"? This is much more concise. Going into such excruciating detail about Sandoval in this bio just seems unnecessary to me. Sandoval is not even regarded as a major case of the Rehnquist Court. I've tried to be obliging about various cases that you've wanted to discuss in this bio, and the bio can discuss Sandoval too, but I really would like to abbreviate it as described above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talkcontribs) 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Nixon[edit]

The first paragraph on Rehnquist as an associate justice now says that, "Former President Nixon had the FBI run criminal background checks on Senate witnesses who opposed Rehnquist’s nomination to the Supreme Court." The footnote does not include a link, but the correct link is http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/03/nixon.foreign.service.ap/

As can be seen from this article, Rehnquist is barely mentioned. The fact that Nixon may have asked the FBI to do background checks on some witnesses is not big news. Nixon was paranoid and asked the FBI to do background checks on lots of people. If the FBI intimidated witnesses, that would be big news and relevant, but merely doing a backgrounder is not. It's well known that the FBI does extensive background checks of judicial nominees. That's not big news either. What would be big news is if a criminal background check uncovered a criminal record.Ferrylodge 15:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article now says, "When Rehnquist was nominated for Chief Justice, the Reagan administration, like the Nixon administration, used the FBI to discredit witnesses who opposed Rehnquist’s nomination." This accusation is apparently based on a recent CNN story, which says:
"The file also indicates the two administrations enlisted the FBI's help in blunting criticism of him during confirmation hearings."
The article says nothing about "discrediting" any witnesses. Maybe some evidence of that will come out, but as of now the article merely says that the FBI was used to learn about witnesses and what they might say. As Alexander Charnes says in the article, "it's the same old story". And the article is completely vague about what it means by "blunting" witnesses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talkcontribs) 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

You missed a spot. The following is from the article in question:

Alexander Charns, a Durham, North Carolina, lawyer who received the file and has extensively researched the FBI's relationship with the court, said the new disclosures show the Nixon and Reagan administrations went to some lengths to discredit Rehnquist opponents. Jimmuldrow 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rehnquist suffered painkiller withdrawal, hallucinations, paranoia[edit]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/04/rehnquist.files.ap/index.html?rss

This should proooooobably be included.

--Moeburn 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Moeburn. Here are the FBI files on his drug use/dependency:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/rehnquist/section1.pdf http://wid.ap.org/documents/rehnquist/section3.pdf http://wid.ap.org/documents/rehnquist/section4.pdf http://wid.ap.org/documents/rehnquist/section5.pdf http://wid.ap.org/documents/rehnquist/section6.pdf http://wid.ap.org/documents/rehnquist/section7.pdf

(According to this San Francisco Chronicle article http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/04/national/w134403S51.DTL&type=politics, section 2 "disappeared.") Potashnik 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


How many years of excessive prescription drug use coincided with what court cases? Finding out that the chief justice was high on dope while on the bench is too much. Who, if anyone, was covering for him - lots of people around him ( with all their experience with drug prosecution ) must have known or suspected that the guy was incapacitated for years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

tagged as currentevent202.76.188.214 13:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New Category - WikiProject Lutheranism[edit]

While it seems more than appropriate to categorize Rehnquist as a "Notable Lutheran," it seems a bit much, based on what we see in this article, so far, to term him any more than another Chief Justice. Hardly material here to portray him as an especially noteworthy religious person. I've heard him speak. He was impressive, but I don't remember him "giving testimony" to his faith or anything. Anyway, how could he and not trigger calls for him impeachment based on religious bias? Student7 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justices can't be impeached-- once appointed, they're in for life.--Gloriamarie (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Clerking[edit]

I find the description of Renquist's term of clerking confusing with later dates thrown in when he was obliged to defend what he had written. Might I suggest for stylistic reasons that the dates and other factors be relegated to footnotes? This would shorten that paragraph a little bit and "exile" the later, sometimes confusing dates (1986, etc.) to citations. I'd do it myself but I'm afraid of losing the sense of the arguments. Student7 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and give it a try. Don't worry too much that you won't do it properly. Other editors are ready, willing, and able to criticize.  :-) Ferrylodge 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I've really altered this. Since Plessy seems to bother everyone, why not move it out to a separate paragraph as "controversy." My difference with the paragraph is style. We were trying to relate/sketch his background and all of the sudden, we're up to our necks in Plessy!
Another reason why I demoted the Dershowitz statement which someone may want to revive in another section. And the "smearing Jackson's good name" statement. Also, I noted that Renquist defense of himself got kind of lost in punctuation. He starts to say that his "Plessy" statement was taken out of context. Someone properly tried to italize "Plessy" and forgot to enclose the Renquist subquote in, well, subquotes. I don't even know how to do this, so I just removed the italized word Plessy.
Cleaning this up (without reversion!) ought to keep everyone busy for a few days!  :) Student7 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Plessy controversy: This is covered very well, I think, BUT it still seems to detract, style-wise from the flow of Renquist's life because of the flash-ahead dates. Since it arose at both hearing before Congress, it can't very well be put in perfect chronological sequence.
What does fail to emerge here is that Brown was a shock to most Americans. Stare decisis, Plessy, was overturned for essentially social reasons. Brown seems reasonable in retrospect, but it didn't seem so to most people at the time. Nor do the latter confirmation hearings seem to bring that fact out. At least not in these quotes. Student7 11:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's a simple away to avoid the flash-ahead dates. Regarding the reasons why Plessy was overturned by Brown, I think it's best to include details about that at the respective articles for those cases, or in the articles about the justices who actually voted in Brown (Rehnquist was merely a clerk). There have recently been some big changes in this regard at the article on Robert H. Jackson, and you may want to review those big changes.Ferrylodge 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dershowitz comment (moved to bottom of page)[edit]

Revision as of 23:07, 4 February 2006 (edit) (undo) 69.109.194.141 (Talk)

Why should Dershowitz's unfounded and inflammatory accusations of anti-semitism be included in Rehnquist's bio?

--moved by Purkowitz 05:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


How are they unfounded? you present no evidence to the contrary to dispute what Dershowitz says. please be more clear on how Dershowitz is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughingman543 (talkcontribs) 03:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

1) The article is not well cited. I placed appropriate tags. Some of the refs are simple weblinks (partially dead), but should have more detailed information.

2) Case citations are not consistent. Some of them are provided with direct links to findlaw, while others are not.

3) The lead should be expanded to 3-4 paragraphs.

4) Trivia section should be removed.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik 06:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since 3 of 4 of my concerns have not been addressed I will delist this article. Ruslik 07:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Associate Justice Photo[edit]

Does anyone else find the photo for Rehny under Associate Justice to be disconcerting? He looks like an axe muderer...perhaps we could find a better one? Gautam Discuss 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Clinton impeachment[edit]

It puzzeled me that the article about the Chief Justice skips his role in the Clinton impeachment trial in senate 1999.

Is there a reason for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.119.54 (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a section on that? From what I remember from reading Jeffrey Toobin's book, _The Nine_, Rehnquist didn't do much.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Citation Needed"[edit]

I'm going to find citations for the current "citation needed" instances, because my knowledge as a law student tells me they're correct, but please don't post any future uncited claims, because someone will probably remove them. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to remove tags like that? It seems like you are excercising ownership of the site. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Analysis of Tenure as Chief Justice[edit]

It might be worth looking at this section. It seems to favor a conservative viewpoint - I can imagine the words "furthering the liberal agenda" coming from Bill O'Reilly much more easily than Keith Olbermann. --CTho (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Heh. A conservative accused me of making edits that were too liberal. You accuse me of being too conservative. I guess that's proof I'm a moderate. You're right that the source was conservative, which is why I mentioned the name of the source. I welcome your edits, but nuking the section is improper. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. --CTho (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

CTho was complaining that the section was from a conservative viewpoint. You're complaining she's too liberal. Sounds just right to me. I'm the only one who actually read her book, and it's unabashedly conservative.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Actually, I tagged several instance where I thought there was a POV problem in the article. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

There's no POV issue when a statement is clearly attributed. You can't just POV-tag everything you disagree with or that damages someone you like. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Issues in Article[edit]

I tagged some bits in the article I thought represented a POV. They have been deleted by editor RafaelRGarcia, but they are noted in the edit history if anyone wants to have a look. 19:44-19:54 Sept. 17 You can also find by using the citations on the main article page. The section cited by 77-81 has a lot of POV statements that are not attributed in the article. (Wallamoose (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Rehnquist/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I delisted this article almost a year ago. However, two of my concerns have not been adressed yet:

1) The lead does not satisfies WP:LEAD. It is too short (please expand to 4 paragraphs) and fails to summarize the article. It should include a better summary of judical phylosophy of Rehnquist, not only his position on federalism.
2) Every case mentioned should have a citation. Since some cases are cited using {{ussc}} template, please, use it.

After reading the article again I have additional suggestions:

3) Some statements need citations. I put {{cn}} tags.
4) The sections about Placidyl Addiction and Personal health should be merged.
5) Section about Analysis of Tenure as Chief Justice should be removed—it is basically a POV albeit well cited and it adds nothing to the article. There are other POV statements in the article. While I removed several of them, some remain. For example: the supposed three principles of his jurisprudence outlined in Associate Justice section. I doubt that Rehnquist himself ever formulated them in such a form. This is an opinion of a commentator.

I will place the article on hold. Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who seriously studies Rehnquist would agree that the three principles of jurisprudence as outlined were a good guide for what Rehnquist's votes were like. Why does Rehnquist have to have formulated them that way himself? He did outline a view of jurisprudence early on in his judicial career, but went on to violate it many times. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Seven days have passed and I do not see any progress. So the article is failed. I hope somebody will do it in the future. Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

stare decis[edit]

I edited this section to correct bad information. I know it's too long and includes a quote from below it, but editors are simply reverting the corrections without this information.

Rehnquist had a "very narrow" view of the Fourteenth Amendment—that it was meant only as a solution to the problems of race, gender or on national origin, although one author says he only included slavery and says Rehnquist thought it should not be applied to other groups, such as women. Bob Woodward & Scott Armstrong, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. 1979 Simon and Schuster. Pages 221, 411. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977) However this author is contradicted by Rehnquist's opinion in Trimble v. Gordon where Rehnquist writes, "Except in the area of the law in which the Framers obviously meant it to apply — classifications based on race or on national origin," and Rehnquist's decision forcing VMI to accept women. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977)

I hope this helps fix the problem. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Unfortunately Rafael Garcia keeps reverting the edits without fixing the problems. Hopefully someone else can help or illuminate him on the error of his ways. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
You speak nonsense. The reference to Trimble is still there, and you didn't cite the VMI case, or quote from it, or really use it properly, so I removed it.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to argue that Rehnquist sees the 14th Amendment as dealing only with Slavery when he has decisions going back to 1977 citing it to address issues of race, national origin, and gender. Almost as ridiculous as trying to carry on an intelligent discussion with someone who posseses no apparent faculty to reason. (Wallamoose (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Rehnquist's view of the amendment is very limited, and so is your knowledge. He paid lip service to the amendment being for race or national origin, but he didn't actually vote in a way that demonstrated he thought the amendment had a decent range. You cite Trimble v. Gordon without even realizing that in that opinion, Rehnquist struck down an equal protection challenge, rather than upholding it, and then basically went on to piss on rationality review. Don't bother adding to the article if you're not going to bring in decent cited arguments from authorities. That category of people does not include you. I will expand on this article next week. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice you had to make changes to this section because once again, despite your bogus arguments, you were proved wrong. Why do you fight so much instead of just fixing areas that need work? (Wallamoose (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

You didn't prove anyone wrong. My original statement stands unchanged. I did write that he adjusted what he said his view was a little later, but the fact remains that Rehnquist, and conservatives in general, are very restricting in terms of 14-5 claims. Your lack of legal education shows. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I proved you wrong, but I'm happy that you had to change your misleading and inaccurate information. Now if we could just get you to note:
"Rehnquist would agree to strike down the male-only admissions policy of the Virginia Military Institute, as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.[66] Rehnquist remained skeptical about the Court's Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence; some of his opinions most favorable to equality resulted from statutory rather than constitutional interpretation. For example, in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Rehnquist established a hostile-environment sexual harassment cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including protection against psychological aspects of harassment in the workplace."
So unless you are brain damaged you can't argue he didn't apply the 14th amendment to women. Are you brain damaged?(Wallamoose (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

That has nothing to do with his period as Associate Justice. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded on the VMI case section. Rehnquist wasn't subscribing to the majority opinion; he wrote a concurrence saying separate but equal facilities are okay, but that in this case the facilities weren't equal. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So what I'm saying is, you're wrong. Rehnquist had a very narrow view of the 14th Amendment. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is worthless. It simply restates and requotes what is said and quoted directly above it. As usual you demonstrate your inability to read or reason.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

POV and malicious editing[edit]

I've tried to address some POV issues, but RafaelGarcia keeps reverting. The statement: "However, some of Rehnquist's victories in this federalist goal of scaling back congressional power over the states had little practical impact." is POV even sourced to Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court.2007. Penguin Books. Page 29. Opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. I guess he's just a law student so he has a lot to learn. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm a law student. But are you a lawyer or professor? If you are not, you don't possess more knowledge on the subject than I do. Even most lawyers have less knowledge on the subject than I do, because most lawyers ignore constitutional law. Greenburg's statement is completely true, because federalism issues don't come up that often. It should stay. You are free to provide contrasting viewpoints, but they must be cited.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I find it difficult to believe you are a High School graduate. You argue and revert endlessly, wasting the time and effort of many reasonable Wikipedians. Instead of addressing the legitimate points made by others, you endlessly argue and add worthless gossip and opinion to Enclopedic articles. If I were your professor you would receive an F and I would recommend remedial GED classes.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

One Moose does not a "many" make. Your edits are often downright factually untrue, and betray a deep lack of knowledge about constitutional issues. I suggest you return to other topics more easily edited by a layman. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of Tenure as Chief Justice[edit]

The whole "Analysis of Tenure as Chief Justice" is one big opinion and gossip piece and is sourced to one author. It's been tagged several times by many editors. Why don't you fix it? (Wallamoose (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

"Many" does not mean what you think it means. Your complaints are selective and biased. For example, I don't hear you crying about the many conservative opinions cited on the Anthony Kennedy page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added another citation from another author. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Several authors have tried to fix this section (if you don't like the word many), but because of your emotional problems and delusional mental state all of their efforts have been obstructed. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Under the subsection "Religion Clauses," it says, "Rehnquist wrote in a 1985 opinion that he believed the separation of church and state clause provided for in the Constitution;" there is no "separation of church and state clause" in the United States Constitution. This may be referring to the First Amendment; which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [1] The concept of "separation of church and state" is exactly that--a concept, not an explicit provision in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.54.179 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Garcia[edit]

What "facts" do you think the edit "removed"? Here's my version of that second paragraph:

  • Nevertheless, tensions were stoked somewhat by Rehnquist's perceived willingness to overreach with citations that too broadly, too narrowly, or sometimes even twisted the meanings of precedents.[42] Critics charged that Rehnquist's opinions glossed over inconsistencies of logic or fact to arrive at a conservative result,[29] or distinguished cases that others were more fairly seen as similar.[43][44] According to the account given in "The Brethren," Rehnquist's misuse of precedents in at least one case "shocked" Justice John Paul Stevens.[45]

And here's yours:

  • Since his first years on the Supreme Court, Rehnquist received criticism from both liberal and conservative colleagues for his willingness to twist the meanings of precedents and legislative history in his judicial opinions.[42] Critics charged that Rehnquist's opinions glossed over inconsistencies of logic or fact to arrive at a conservative result,[29] or distinguished cases that others thought were more fairly seen as similar.[43][44] According to the account given in "The Brethren," Rehnquist's misuse of precedents in at least one case "shocked" Justice John Paul Stevens; he also at times embarrassed his own clerks.[45]

Apart from mine being more concise, what do you think the difference is? I continue, by the way, to be shocked by your attitude. Your comments to Wallamoose further up the talk page are grossly unconstructive. You would really benefit from an attitude check, particularly in light of the frequent infirmities of your contributions.Simon Dodd (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You removed several facts with your December 30th edit that I undid. I think you can look at the diffs yourself. I'm glad I caught the edit. You continue to misuse edit summaries. Undoing my edit was not a "minor" edit, nor were you accurate in describing your edit from late last month. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Nonresponsive. The question was, which facts specifically are you complaining I left out? You're right that I can look at the diffs myself, and to me, the only difference is that your version is a little less well drafted and slightly more POV (hence, the minor edit tag).Simon Dodd (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There was little need for your edit, and the phrase "tensions were stoked somewhat" is your own editorializing. Rehnquist did embarrass his clerks with his twisting of precedents; that's an important fact. And he did have the habit of doing that from the beginning of his tenure. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with all that, but for sake of building consensus, we'll try again. I take it that your objection is to not mentioning Woodward's claim about a clerk being embarrassed. I don't see how that's material to Rehnquist's relations with other Justices, but I've written a new version and included that claim in a footnote. Does this meet with your approval? Simon Dodd (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the clerks are an important part of Court relations. Your edit also characterizes Potter Stewart as generally approving of Rehnquist, when they disagreed plenty of the time. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that you finally admit that you understand that a direct quote can still be misleading, something you've hitherto denied, although I disagree that the quotes are misleading. I also disagree that the clerks are notable enough to merit inclusion; a footnote would have been a good compromise between inclusion (as you prefer) and exclusion (as I think is appropriate), and your reply doesn't explain why that's not acceptable. And more generally, if those are the only problems, why did you revert instead of editing? See Wikipedia:REVERT#Don.27ts. From where I'm sitting, it appears that you've adopted the same attitude of WP:Ownership as you have at Clarence Thomas. Would you please try to be a little more more constructive with your editing?Simon Dodd (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
After your recent conduct with this and other articles, I'm afraid it's very difficult to assume good faith, but I am giving it another try here: the purported nub of your objection to my edit last night seems to be that the information about the clerk was relegated to a footnote. I don't believe it belongs in the article, but that's an argument we can have later; for now, I have made an edit that uses my version from last night as a baseline, but moves the story about the clerk into the main text. Does this satisfy you, assuming that the clerk mention will stay in place? Simon Dodd (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, please stop going around to all the articles I've worked on to counteract my work. If I had more free time, I'd do the same to you, and you wouldn't like it. Second, I am being quite reasonable with you, and I don't deal with you in an insulting manner like you do. Third, I'm not exhibiting ownership whatsoever. I reverted you because you seem to like deleting facts and adding your own editorializing, which I do not do; I stick very close to what a source says. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Rafael, that may be your perspective, but it sure doesn't look that way to me. And it doesn't look that way to other editors, so far as I can tell. Maybe you haven't realized this, but you have been dealing with myself and several other editors in a persistently high-handed, intransigent, and unconstructive manner. There was, just to pick an immediate example, no reason whatsoever to revert my edit from yesterday evening: given the concerns you had, editing it was the appropriate response, and involved little more effort, as my edit this afternoon demonstrated.
What's more, to be quite frank, your work doesn't match your self-image. It often shows scant regard for precise, careful writing, often lacks contextual accuracy (your careless mischaracterization of Colegrove and Justice Thomas' Edmond opinion, for example), and not only is it often highly POV, you've developed a persistent habit of wikilawyering other editors to prevent the correction or balancing of POV (the Thomas article perfectly demonstrates this point). None of that is necessarily an impediment to making useful contributions here - but it does suggest you should be a little more open to accepting other editors' work. (I'm not "counteract[ing]" you, either. I've corrected, tidied, and improved, but to charge me with mindlessly fiddling with your contributions is both silly and uncivil.)
Other editors - me included - have tried to be as patient with you as we can, trying to find ways to work around your obstinate attitude, but you have been a persistent pain in the neck. when you seem to keep running into the same problems working in a collegial manner with other editors, maybe you should consider the lowest common denominator. So I seem a little short with you - and mistrustful of your contributions - it's with good reason. Please take this as a friendly warning from one editor to another to think twice about your conduct, to adopt a better attitude, and to be more open to playing well with others toward what is supposed to be our shared purpose here.Simon Dodd (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Your constant personal attacks have been very insulting, and I won't stoop to your level. Just because you and another editor, both of you sharing views with the extreme right, disagree with me does not mean I'm being "intransigent." I took my characterization of Colegrove from a book by a NYT reporter; I cited every line and did not use the original case. I did not "mischaracterize" the case, though I would say the reporter's account did simplify the facts. Stop being so partisan, and stop insulting people. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dodd[edit]

Fix your citations. I don't think you're supposed to use Ibid and such. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right - I will check and fix any that use it now.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerks and the Brethren[edit]

Discussions and editing seem to have sharpened the point of contention in the Relations on the Court subsection to a question of whether the article should reference The Bretheren's report that one of Rehnquist's clerks "was so embarrassed by Rehnquist's refusal to modify [his opinion for the court in Jefferson v. Hackney] that he sent a personal note of apology for his role in the case to the other chambers." Even assuming that the story is true (more about this anon), I don't think it belongs in the article (although it might belong in Jefferson v. Hackney when that article is written). As I see it, a law clerk's opinion of the opinion - Rehnquist's clerk's or anyone else's - is entirely irrelevant to Rehnquist's "Relations on the Court" (contra the suggestion above that "the clerks are an important part of Court relations"). For that reason, I think this should be removed from the section, and since it won't fit anywhere else in this article, should be removed entirely.

Since the question is very specific, involves only two editors, and since we are unlikely to agree between ourselves (and since we have already "discuss[ed] the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process"), I have post this question at WP:Third opinion for some perspective.Simon Dodd (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Brethren is written based on interviews with Supreme Court justices, and as such its content is no small allegation. Woodward is a reliable source, and one of the most important journalists in the country today. The clerks work closely with the Supreme Court justices and, as the period in question predates email and such, interacted with the justices and with each other quite a bit. The line should stay. Woodward spends a good amount of time on Rehnquist and the problems with his opinions. It was a significant aspect of Rehnquist's tenure on the Court. Attempting to remove the sentence is mostly motivated by partisan goals. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


I have also corrected a mischaracterization that bears on a related point. As I mentioned in my edit summary, The Brethren's editorialization is relevant to the article, but should be clearly indicated for what it is. The sentence whence the quotes are lifted appears on page 268 of the 2005 ed., and reads, in full: "Slow even to correct an outright misstatement, Rehnquist still insisted on publishing an opinion that twisted the facts." Perhaps so (perhaps not - Bill Douglas wasn't known for sparing his colleagues when he thought they were wrong, and if he thought the opinion did what the book says, I have no doubt at all that he'd have said so in his dissent), but this is, quite plainly, a characterization - an opinion - of the authors. It is opinion - not a factual statement. That I happen to agree with it doesn't transform it into fact. Although WP:RELIABLE doesn't say this explicitly, it should be obvious that a source that is reliable for one purpose may not be reliable for another; this statement in The Brethren is a reliable source for Armstrong and Woodward's opinion of Rehnquist's opinion, and it may even be a reliable source for what Rehnquist's colleagues thought of it, but it isn't a reliable source for the factual statement that the opinion twisted the facts. That's why ¶1 of this section doesn't say "Justice Rehnquist was excellent and a team player, a part of the group in the center of the court"; it accurately characterizes the point for which the source is reliable, namely that The Brethren says that Justice Stewart thought so.Simon Dodd (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

The statement, "was so embarrassed by Rehnquist's refusal to modify the opinion that he sent a personal note of apology for his role in the case to the other chambers," can be attributed to a WP:RS, so the quality of the citation is not an issue. The idea that it is a merely an opinion about Rehnquist twisting the facts is also quite correct but, because of the quality of the source, that does not automatically disqualify it from being included in the text. What gives me pause is that the opinion is attributed to a law clerk and including it may be giving undue weight to it. If it was one of the other justices, or if similar opinions were attributed to several law clerks, it would be a different matter but what it amounts to now is something along the lines of "Douglas and Marshall accused Rehnquist of twisting the facts, and one law clerk felt the same way." The one law clerk is the undue part and thus I don't think the quote should be included. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look; I've updated the article to reflect the current consensus view. I remain somewhat skeptical of The Brethren - it's a terrific yarn, but unverifiable, even by Woodward's standards - but as long as a point supported by it is written carefully and precisely, I agree it is (ceteris paribus) an includable source. I just wanted to emphasize the care with which it should be approached. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage[edit]

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/William Hubbs Rehnquist was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Shapiro[edit]

While I'm not dismissing the man's importance to the legal field, why do large chunks of this article rest so heavily upon the opinion of one Harvard Professor? I'm not the biggest fan of Rehnquist's jurisprudence, but I'd think we'd need to balance out the POV in the referenced sections.

(Also, off topic, but any chance of working in the fact that, in the later years, Rehnquist began to take slightly more libertarian approach in "law & order" cases, even becoming more philosophically honest and consistent in his decisions than Scalia or Thomas?) HandsomeSam57 (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Overdue Emphasis on Placidyl?[edit]

Hello, I just finished reading this article. I think the emphasis on Justice Rehnquist's addiction to be way overempashized and unencylcopediac. Such a longwinded analysis would be appropriate in his biography, but not in an encyclopedia. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit! he was a fucking drug addict, get used to it. He was whacked out of his skull whilst being on the supreme court! It should be screamed from the mountains what a fucking sickening scandal!

Personal health section changes[edit]

This is the current/original version of the last paragraph of the section:

For several weeks prior to hospitalization, Rehnquist had slurred his words, but there were no indications he was otherwise impaired.[82][85] Law professor Michael Dorf has observed that "none of the Justices, law clerks or others who served with Rehnquist have so much as hinted that his Placidyl addiction affected his work, beyond its impact on his speech".[86]

This is the version an IP (128.253.211.40) keeps trying to make:

Contemporaneous news reports noted that Rehnquist's "'health problem' had been apparent to Supreme Court observers for three months before he was hospitalized."[85] "Lawyers and reporters had noticed . . . that while speaking from the bench Rehnquist's words were slurred, a possible symptom of drug dependency."[86] In addition, he "became tongue-tied while pronouncing long words, and sometimes had trouble finishing his thoughts."[85] However, law professor Michael C. Dorf has observed that "none of the Justices, law clerks or others who served with Rehnquist have so much as hinted that his Placidyl addiction affected his work, beyond its impact on his speech," while acknowledging that "it is also possible that Rehnquist's judgment really was impaired for some of the time that he was addicted to Placidyl."[87] The Senate Judiciary Committee asked Rehnquist no questions about his drug use during his confirmation hearing for Chief Justice.[85]

Three editors, myself and two others, have reverted the IP's changes. Just in case the IP wishes to try to reinstate his/her changes yet again, I'm posting this here for a record. None of the editors thinks the IP's changes are appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I agree with you. I noticed this over a year ago and have been watching. My opinion is that mention of his use of prescribed medication is innapropriate in general for an encyclopedia article -- where in-depth analysis of character is atypical. However, I find Bbb23's version to be vastly superior. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant's SPS edit[edit]

User:Anythingyouwant removed a quote about the Rehnquist court's federalism noting that it was sourced from a blog. I was going to object because WP:SPS generally excludes blogs as sources. The underlying rationale is that anyone can create a blog and "claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as … personal or group blogs, … are largely not acceptable as sources." In this case, however, the blogger being quoted is Orin Kerr, and SPS continues: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I prematurely reverted User:Anythingyouwant on that basis, but on double-checking SPS for the exact wording to quote here, I noted an applicable caveat I had forgotten: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." For that reason, I have reverted my revert and join User:Anythingyouwant's comments.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it took me a bit to follow what Simon was saying (I got hung up on the the second sentence), but having, I believe, figured it out and FWIW, I agree with Simon's agreement with Anythingyouwant's removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't much care about the specific content removed; it seems to be more a generalization on the legal opinions delivered by the entire court than personal commentary on the BLP subject himself. But everybody might want to take a couple of seconds away from the victory dances celebrating how we preserved Wikipedia purity, and read Wikipedia's referenced article on SCOTUSblog itself; and maybe explain in some detail why it is more of a self-published source than all the other non-newspaper-sponsored sites used all over the project. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we could change the policy to read: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer unless the self-published source is a really, really good one."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Or we could answer the question asked: "why [is it] more of a self-published source than all the other non-newspaper-sponsored sites used all over the project?" Fat&Happy (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Or we could address each use of a self-published source elsewhere to see whether the material should be removed pursuant to policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Which shifts the question by assuming facts not in evidence, so I'll simplify and clarify: What makes SCOTUSblog, a publication with recognized expertise and a separate editorial staff, a self-published source. And let's not bother going elsewhere; why should we leave material sourced to Justia in this article? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You originally asked why the blog was "more of a self-published source". I assumed that meant you conceded it was a self-published source. You now appear to be backpedaling and questioning whether it is a self-published source. Why don't you raise that issue on the reliable source noticeboard? Even so, I'm not sure what you mean when you say it has a "separate editorial staff". That's not how I understand the "about us" on the website, but that too is no doubt an issue of interpretation. As for Justia, I didn't check every reference, but I think we are citing it only for scanned legal decisions. If you want to question their accuracy, fine. Otherwise, I don't see a problem citing Justia for that purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood my original point; possibly it would have been clearer had I employed a construction using "as opposed to" rather then "more". I'll wait until there's an issue on content I actually care about before going to RSN. And of course this all begs the question of whether BLP rules even apply to this case, since no identifiable living person was being discussed. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the BLP part. I'm so used to looking at articles on live S. Ct. justices I'd forgotten that Rehnquist is dead. I also agree that you're better off waiting until it's something that you care about - "agree" in this instance means I would do the same thing. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Good grief! I am such an idiot. Of course he died; that's a silly goof on my part. I withdraw my withdrawal; without the inapplicable BLP proviso, Kerr is a perfectly acceptable source, via blog or anything else.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Why[edit]

The policy says, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Obviously, Rehnquist is not a living person, but Professor Kerr happily is, and I don't think Kerr is a third-party source about Kerr. So, the sentence that I just quoted is not why I removed the stuff.

The policy also says, "self-published media, such as ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources." And:

So, even if Kerr is an expert on Rehnquist and has written about Rehnquist in reliable sources, if the stuff was really worth reporting here it would likely have been published in a reliable source, perhaps by Kerr himself. I hope that explains.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

William Rehnquist and judicial review[edit]

This article by a Supreme Court Correspondent, Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times. Greenhouse, Linda (March, 2004). "“Because We Are Final” Judicial Review Two Hundred Years After Marbury" (PDF) 148 (1). Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. p. 38. Retrieved March 18, 2011.  Check date values in: |date= (help) is a good article on judicial review. And this was before some of the more recent and more colorful handiwork of the court. 7&6=thirteen () 21:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be skeptical of the value of anything written by Linda Greenhouse as a source for anything other than the opinions of Linda Greenhouse. A quick review of the article you cite confirms that suspicion—too much sleight of hand and shading. Useful as a catalog of resources, but that's about all.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The numbers are the numbers. That this court has done an abrupt right turn (on 11th Amendment, Commerce Clause in particular), is hardly disputable. In any event, you may not like the source -- which was actually twice published in peer reviewed journals -- but your predilection is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. WP:truth. 7&6=thirteen () 17:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to use the Greenhouse article for? That would help in evaluating whether it can be considered a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of writing about the implementation of Marbury and judicial review under the Rehnquist court, and comparing it to its predecessors and successors. That seems to be what the proffered article is about. I have not gotten so far as to work out verbiage. I assume, of course, that there may be an opposing viewpoint. For that we need other sources. If you have suggestions on how all that should be handled, I am more than happy to confer, and perhaps we could all arrive at a consensus. For now, it is a beautiful day in the neighborhood, and I'm off to the dog park. So you have lots of time to cogitate this further. We have time to get it right. 7&6=thirteen () 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is you write what you want to insert into the article and then post it here first for consideration. Of course, nothing compels you to do it that way, but it will probably avoid a lot of reversions, edit summary battles, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)