User talk:Foofighter20x

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]

Thanks for your further effort. The Time piece is a very old article, but it does demonstrate the application of those cases in the manner described in the WP article, so it's good enough in my view to warrant removing the cite tag. In the long run, it would be great to see a modern textbook on US Constitutional Law (for example) cited here, but that's enough for now. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Did that on the fly without my ConLaw book at hand. Have replaced the cite I added with a cite I'm more than sure you'll find sufficient. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Openjurist spam[edit]

Since we had that discussion regarding Justia, what do you think about that one? Should we delete those Openjurist.org links? (Please leave a comment on the WP:SPAM project page.) --bender235 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Best practice here in my opinion is to just revert the edits and block the offending accounts. No need to seek a ban on open jurist, however. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternate successions of the English crown[edit]

Hello. We have not met before, but I thought that you would be interested in a discussion regarding the article Alternate successions of the English crown. An editor has expressed interest in restructuring the article. Since you appear to have played a very major part in the creation/structuring of that article, I would be very interested to hear your input/suggestions. Thank you. Frederick T (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship Clause[edit]

Hi. I've reverted this good faith edit which you recently made. See the "[state] residence" section of Talk:Citizenship_Clause for an explanation. I'm not a lawyer, and I invite correction if that is appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Saenz v. Roe was a case not so much about national citizenship, but about state welfare benefits and who was eligible for them. California's generous welfare benefits apparently were attracting lots of people, and it was starting to get expensive for the state. In order to mitigate the costs, California imposed a stricter residency requirement on those moving to the state. The issue in the case was over whether the state could establish different tiers within its own citizenry. The Court said no, as Amd. XIV says once residency in a state is established, that person is a citizen of that state (which reflects the text of the Amd.). This all assumes, of course, that the person establishing residency is already a U.S. citizen.
That's why I added the "[state]" editor's note, since the sentence as quoted is essentially taken out of it's context, and as such, doesn't accurately reflect what the Court is saying. Hope that helps. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

United States President State Secrets Privilege[edit]

I left your recent edit in, but the paragraph really needs to be expanded. Although the first sentence in and of itself is accurate, you didn't touch the rest of the paragraph, which only talks about executive privilege. As it stands, the paragraph is confusing. In my view, you should either add more or take out what you put in until you're ready to add more.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How's that fix work? Did it do the job? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. I reworded it a little, tightening it, using the word privilege instead of doctrine more, changing one use of the word "even" that seemed too aggressively a point of view, adding citation needed templates for a couple of your new sentences that I felt needed sources, and finally changing the date format (we shouldn't be using English date format for the US president (smile)). Despite the above list of things I changed, I think it's a nice - and topical - addition. Adding a cite for the dismissal of lawsuits will, of course, show how relevant it is currently.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if the Salon piece is sufficiently reliable, I think the more neutral sources are better. However, I don't have a problem with listing all three, particularly given your self-effacement in putting "yours" last. :-) More substantively, I must confess I didn't read the Salon piece completely because the typeface was so tiny (I hate that) - maybe it has additional information the other two sources don't have. That would, of course, be a good reason for keeping it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The meat and potatoes of the Salon piece was the following paragraph:
What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out -- was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security. That is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication, sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama).
That's the paragraph that I thought would best sum up the privilege and its controversial use for the reader. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Your move of the source to the other sentence is just right.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on your addition of the word "expansively". The cited sources just talk about one lawsuit being dismissed at the 12(b)(6) stage. In one sentence, you now have increased use and expansively. I think you need more than one case to support that. I don't know if the Salon piece cites any other other cases. If it does - or if there are other cases to cite - then you either need to cite Salon in both places or cite something else. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your first cite from the NYT appears to warrant the use of the adverb:
It has been more than 50 years since the Supreme Court issued a major ruling on the state-secrets privilege, a judicially created doctrine that the government has increasingly used to win dismissals of lawsuits related to national security, shielding its actions from judicial review.
Your 2d cite:
A U.S. District Court judge first dismissed the lawsuit. That decision was overturned by a unanimous panel of three appellate judges, who said the privilege could be applied only to selective pieces of evidence and not the entire case.
I could be misunderstanding it, however... Thoughts? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the sentence you quote from the first cite plus the sentence right after it about a 4th circuit case is probably good enough for "increased use", but I would feel more comfortable if someone checked the other case to make sure it was tossed on a motion to dismiss. Citing the case itself might also be nice. There's actually a Wikipdia article on the 9th circuit case, which would probably be good to mention.
The second cite adds nothing as it just tells the history of the same 9th circuit case.
As an aside, you don't need to keep telling me on my Talk page that you've replied. I'm watching your Talk page while we have this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I still think "expansively" is overkill. I also think the sentence before it about rarely used and only to challenge certain evidence is not well supported (there's no source right after the sentence). Finally, someone will probably object to the fact that you put in criticism of the privilege without any sources that approve of its use. I read the Greenwald blog more carefully (I forced the text to be bigger), and even assuming what it says is factually accurate, it frankly reads like a rant.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope you're not offended by my undoing of your last change, but it was a bit much. Also, I'm going to be signing off shortly for the evening, so you won't hear from me again until tomorrow at the earliest. Have fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, bro. Not offended at all. Got you plenty of cites now for what I was saying, though... :) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I reworded the infamous sentence about its recent use. I thought your addition of the article was welcome. I'll try to give you a lesson in legal procedure - maybe that will help. A privilege is normally asserted to prevent disclosure of information. Thus, whether in discovery, at summary judgment, or at trial, if you assert a privilege as to certain information, the goal is to prevent disclosure or use of the information. This is how the state secrets privilege was used initially. So, if I were a plaintiff and wanted to prove my case, the government might assert that certain information was privileged and could not be disclosed/used. More recently, though, the government has said that it's impossible for the plaintiff to prove his case because everything he needs to do so is privileged. Therefore, the case should be thrown out before he even gets a chance. Thus, in the recent 9th circuit case, the government moved to dismiss the case because the allegations, even accepting them as true, could be proved only by access to privileged information. The 9th circuit announced some new nomenclature: the Totten bar (based on the 1876 case) and the Reynolds privilege. According to the court, the Totten bar "completely bars adjudication of claims premised on state secrets," whereas the Reynolds privilege "excludes privileged evidence from the case and may result in dismissal of the claims." Interestingly, the court applied the Reynolds privilege, not the Totten bar. Although acknowledging that dismissing the suit at the pleading stage was a "drastic result," it did it anyway. In a footnote, it said that the dismissal was not under Rule 12(b)(6) (a rule that permits dismissal ONLY on the face of the complaint) because " Reynolds necessarily entails consideration of materials outside the pleadings." However, they did not clarify under what rule they were dismissing the case. Sometimes, federal courts will call such a dismissal an unenumerated dismissal under Rule 12(b) (because no numeric subdivision of the rule applies).

A case may also be dismissed on summary judgment. This usually occurs after discovery has taken place; howevere, in some instances, it can take place at an earlier stage. Regardless, it is not the same as a summary dismissal, which did not happen in the 9th circuit case, nor in the other cases (AFAIK). Summary dismissal is usually a dismissal without any development of the record, procedural or factual, and without argument, or with very little argument. That didn't happen here. Also, although use of the word "entirely" may be useful in distinguishing the dismissal of a suit from the dismissal of a claim, or in distinguishing dismissal of a suit from the barring of certain evidence, it is generally unnecessary and redundant, particularly in this context where we clearly say dismissal of the suit. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

All well and good. I already knew a good portion of what you've written here (I used to work at my county courthouse; I've been neck deep in the procedure and have watched what the court does). For the purposes of the article, however, I try not to stray too far from what the articles I cite say. While I'm not inclined at the moment to revise the last changes you made, I do think the sentence, as before your last edit, adequately reflected what was in the academic cite, viz.:
"Furthermore, and of greater significance, the Bush Administration’s recent assertion of the privilege differs from past practice in that it is seeking blanket dismissal of every case challenging the constitutionality of specific, ongoing government programs. The data show that the Bush Administration sought dismissal in 92% more cases per year than in the previous decade. By comparison, the government responded to lawsuits brought in the 1970s and 1980s challenging its warrantless surveillance programs by seeking to limit discovery, and only rarely filed motions to dismiss the entire litigation. The current practice represents a marked change not only in the number of assertions of the privilege, but also in the degree to which it is aimed at restricting access to the courts."
Compare that to what was said "Since, it has seen increased and expanded use," [based on the cites, this is true], "including being asserted to have some lawsuits against the government summarily dismissed in their entirety." [They used the word dismissal, not me. ;)] It may be that you are thinking I am misunderstanding the use of dismissal. However, I'm only trying to reflect what I find in my cites for the lay person without leaving too much of my own footprint in what is said in the article. Hope that sheds better light on how I'm approaching the editorial task... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I could have left your phrase alone except for the use of the word "summarily". That was not accurate and not supported by the sources. In addition, although the use of the word "entirely" was not inaccurate, without the juxtaposition of dismissing claims or limiting the use of evidence, it lacked any context and was unnecessary. I agree that our own legal knowledge should not be added to the article, but that doesn't mean our phrasing can't be nuanced to reflect legal reality as long as it's still supported by the published sources we cite.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Frequency of revisions of unbound US reports[edit]

Regarding the information in this comment, do you know the frequency with which they revise the US Reports that have not yet been officially bound (those beyond 544)? I would hate to do updates like this and then learn that all the page numbers have been changed.--Chaser (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you've been able to get a page number for the case cite, then that itself is proof that the volume has been officially finalized and bound. Once bound they are as good as set in stone; they don't even go back to fix typos. Problem is: with both Justia and FindLaw, I don't think either site goes back to change their links even after the volume is set. I could be wrong though. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark[edit]

Hi. I note that there is a recommended set of section headings at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Article outline — different from what either you or I had wanted to use. I propose to revise this article (and some other Supreme Court articles I'm working on) to conform to what the wikiproject page suggests. Any thoughts? Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Heading changes to Birthright citizenship[edit]

Please revert your heading changes to Birthright citizenship in the United States and discuss at Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States#Heading changes by Foofighter20x. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution[edit]

Hi. There may not really be a big need to go to great lengths to respond to or refute Sempi, since he vanished in mid-May and hasn't returned. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I think your comment here: [1] got posted to the wrong topic. It seems out of place. Britcom 07:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's in the right spot. I was making a technical counterpoint in response to your statement of "and the U.S. federal courts are charged with interpreting the document..." -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Quite right. Britcom 08:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Second attempt[edit]

Diving in again. Let's try this getting this promoted this time around. We just need a few more references and prose polishing. Eusebeus (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't have quite the free time I used to anymore these days. :\ -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

CJOTUS[edit]

You are right, there have been 22 nominations -- but Jay was nominated twice, so 21 individuals, of whom 17 were confirmed and another 17 actually served. Richard75 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year Foofighter20x![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Foofighter20x:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


What I like and don't like[edit]

Foofighter, I'm sure you're a swell person and all. Precisely for this reason, I'm curious why you would remove a tag I added and suggest that my only reason for adding it was that I don't "like" the source. I'm particularly curious since I just got done saying, at least a few days ago when I last looked at this article, that I have no problem with the source, which in fact I do not have available to me, and then went on to explain the nothing-to-do-with-that reason that I did add the tag. To be perfectly honest, not only do I find this insulting, but I'm forced to wonder whether you intended it to be!

The problem is the statement in the article is unclear, regardless of what is said in the source. This can happen even with the best of sources. I could go write a sentence right now about the best source in the world and I could make sure that the sentence doesn't make shit for sense. My understanding is that these circumstances should set off a three step process: 1.) a conscientious soul like myself ought to add a tag to the material to highlight that it may benefit from attention. I believe this is what the "dubious" tag is for. 2.) If they can, some other conscientious soul should simply explain how I've misunderstood the passage. 3.) If they can't, then perhaps somebody can pull up the source and clarify what the author was trying to say. Now, my problem is that you're not letting me add the tag, and it doesn't seem like you have a great reason, and I'm not sure who gave you that authority anyway. This means I could ask a question on the talk page, but we both know that questions like that on obscure articles more often than not go nowhere. At least, that's my impression.

Can you help me out here? Thanks for your time. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Google Books is a thing that exists. I was able to locate this result in less than 20 seconds. If you wonder why I come across as curt, its because this information is easy to find and extremely available to anyone looking for it. Further, nothing about the statement is unclear as, in the instance of someone not knowing what a pyrrhic victory is, the article links directly to another Wiki entry that explains the concept. Thus, even if after all that the reader still doesn't get the concept, the problem is with the explanation in the pyrrhic victory entry and not with the JPRB37 article. Finally, your use of the dubious tag here has not been appropriate. As you can see at the link provided in this response, the literal phrase is included in the source given. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Well you're just snippy! Personally, I think we should be a little slower to make assumptions about each other, such as that one or the other person must just be a moron. As far as google books, I have heard of those people, and the last time I searched, the relevant page would not pull up. I suspect there are many possible reasons for this, and one may be that I'm chopped liver. I'm not convinced it's the only possible reason. In any case, I think the article should be clear without the help of the original source. At this time, I'm able to follow the link. It says:
The historian George Tindall has written:
Roosevelt later claimed he had lost the battle but won the war. If so, it was a pyrrhic victory that divided the Democratic party and blighted his own prestige. For the first time Southern Congressmen in large numbers deserted the leader and the opposition found an issue on which it could openly take the field. Things were never again quite the same.
This is helpful for me, but it raises a couple of points. For one, Tindall does not appear to say it was a victory. Rather, he points out the political costs of the Roosevelt's actions. I don't have any reason to believe that Tindall thinks those actions produced a victory, pyrrhic or otherwise. Note I have not googled Tindall, called him on the phone, or searched my local library stacks for his works. Second, in any case, I think the passage provides material that would allow us to clarify the sentence in our article. In looking at this material, I stand by my initial point that the sentence allows various interpretations about what war Roosevelt lost as a result of the excessive costs of the alleged "Pyrrhic victory." Our sentence currently says this: "Roosevelt ultimately prevailed in establishing a majority on the court friendly to his New Deal legislation, though some scholars view Roosevelt's victory as pyrrhic." Tindall is clearer about the costs that he considers outweigh any possible victory. I think this can be better. I'll give it a little more thought. If you have a suggestion, I'll also be grateful. Also, if I've said anything insulting to you, I'd like to clarify that that has not been my intent. I think we get more done by cooperating. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You're incorrectly inferring insults where none were given. Again, my being curt is a result of what I perceive as a simple lack of willingness on your end to do even the most basic legwork necessary to answer the question for yourself. As I said, it only took me a literal 20 seconds to find where Leuchtenberg used the word 'pyrrhic' in his book, and that was without having the book in my possession or even looking at the cite to get an idea of its whereabouts within the book. I could be completely wrong here, but what that indicates to me is that you want some variety of fuller service from other editors, which really isn't their job. If that's not the case, then be more forthcoming about the specific manner in which you need help before you attempt to alter sourced sentences. Relatedly, none of the preceding speaks anything about your intelligence (even smart people can want others to do something for them, even though they are capable of doing it themselves).
As to what Tindall is saying: he's clearly being metaphorical. It's something a lot of people—and authors especially—tend to do... I'm also simply exasperated that you just said Tindall wrote it wasn't a victory... !! ?? !! I think you may have missed the exact part where he used the phrase "If so, it was a pyrrhic victory..." I'll grant Tindall is making a conditional claim—that is, conditional on whether Roosevelt is correct in stating "he had lost the battle but won the war." Yet even if Roosevelt was somehow wrong in his own perception, we have ZERO reason or evidence to argue that Roosevelt's perceived experience regarding this episode was incorrect or somehow improper. Thus we have to take Roosevelt's claim on its face. And thus, conditions at the moment are sufficient to accept Tindall's conditional claim.
Beyond all that: I'm happy to concede that my characterization of you 'not liking' the source was definitely inapt. I was shooting off a quick reason and getting back to other research/reading I'm doing for other projects. But that's no reason for where my less-than-gentle handling has come across as snappy, and it's clearly without excuse. So for that, I apologize. If the statement really twists your ear that much, I would recommend (if he's not busy and willing) working with Eusebeus. While I've been the principal author of much of this article, he's been invaluable in tightening up a lot of my prose (I can be unnecessarily verbose). He's masterfully good at it too... He can definitely find a way to better word the sentence such that it addresses your concerns yet stays true to the material cited.
Cheers, mate. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I use google books all the time, and sometimes it gives you what you want and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it seems to start you on a page other than the one with the word you searched, and the actual "hit" is inaccessible. Sometimes I get random yellow highlights that don't correspond with the search term at all. If you're on a mobile device, I believe it's more restricted in what it provides, or maybe that's just if you're not logged in. In any case, the assumption that what's easily available to one person on google books is easily available to everyone is rather leaky, in my view. Some of the other stuff is a bit condescending, but sometimes I do the same thing without meaning to, so I'll accept that. As a quick thing, I didn't make the negative statement that Tindall wrote it "wasn't" a victory. I said he didn't write that it "was" a victory. We seem to agree on that. I appreciate the apology. I'll avoid quibbling further on points that probably won't get us further down the road. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)