Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

Do ideological beliefs bias certain rulings?

The lede states that "Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, the highest profile cases often expose ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or political categories". I think that's a pretty big claim to be making without a source to support it. In fact it is two claims; one being that the justices allow personal beliefs to influence their interpretation of the Constitution, the second being that this personal bias often creeps in on the highest profile cases. It also assumes that every member of a particular political or ideological persuasion - whether they're Supreme Court Jurists, or some Joe Blow in the street - feels the same way about any and all given scenarios. Now ... this claim might actually be true - at least in some situations - but that doesn't mean it doesn't require a reference. I think the justices themselves would deny that they allow any bias, or personal belief, to colour their interpretations and rulings. The bottom line being that I think a claim like this needs to have at least a couple of sources provided, or it needs to be changed. Thoughts? FillsHerTease (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the important points made in the body of an article. Generally, citations to a statement in the lead aren't needed if the material is already referenced in the body. The statement you object to is well covered and sourced in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Reagan's Justices

There's a section (Tenure) referring to three Presidents who have had Justices serving over 100 combined years. However, the source for this is seven years old and doesn't factor in Reagan who passed 100 about two years ago. This section of the article is outdated as a result and should be updated with a newer source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.147.22.94 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your claim is false. According to the list linked in the given source, Reagan's justices had only served 70.4 years combined in 2010; adding six more years for Scalia and 7 years for Kennedy only gives about 83 years total as of 2017. Kennedy would need to serve until 2034 (!) for Reagan to surpass the 100 years mark. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Chart: Membership (Current justices)

The chart under "Membership (Current justices)" has the age of each justice listed twice (in two separate columns). It is listed in the column entitled "Date of birth (Age)"; it is then listed again in the column entitled "Current age". Is there any reason for this? Should it remain as is? Or should we remove one of the "age" notations, to avoid duplicity? Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Joseph A. Spadaro. I've had it in my mind to "be bold" and change the formatting of that chart to match that on the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States page; but I'll now ask for a green light to do so. What do others think about this? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Thanks. But, I do not follow what you are saying. I quickly looked at the chart contained in the article entitled List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. I don't see any ages listed there, whatsoever. Are you proposing that we eliminate the mention of "age" in this article, also (on the particular chart in question)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the parenthetical "age" in the second column, leaving it after the "age at appointment". Magidin (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Thanks, also, for adding the tenure calculations on the retired justices. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Court Records

These are probably Encyclopedia worthy. But it is trivia. There are probably more worthy records to include. if we think this is a worthy addition.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Most Amicus briefs — Obergefell v. Hodges with 147.
• Most Attorneys — South Carolina v. Katzenbach with 13.
• Longest Oral Arguments (Appellate Case)— Brown v. Board of Education II at 13.25 hours over four days.
• Longest Oral Arguments (Original Jurisdiction Case)— Arizona v. California (1963) at 16 hours.
• Longest Opinion —Furman v. Georgia at 230 pages.

References

I'd argue against their inclusion. They are, as you say, trivia. Magidin (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Besides being trivia, I doubt that the longest oral argument "records" are correct. Back in the Marshall and Taney days, they used to argue cases for days. "Gibbons v. Ogden, an 1824 case interpreting Congress' powers under the commerce clause, had oral arguments that lasted 20 hours over five days. Similarly, the 1819 case upholding the creation of a national bank, McCulloch v. Maryland, saw six lawyers conduct arguments over nine days." Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/11/15/142363047/obamacare-will-rank-among-the-longest-supreme-court-arguments-ever --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hispanic is not a race

The US Census does not classify Hispanic (or Latina/Latino) as a race. The authority of the Census comes from its methodology, its fairness, and its accuracy, not from the department that it happens to belong to at present. As a government institution, it is beholden to the public. In contrast, NGOs and other private organizations that publish statistics (e.g., Pew Charitable Trusts) can follow their own agendas and nobody can change that except their own boards of directors.

If you accept the authority of the US Census, you can easily confirm that Hispanics comprise the largest minority language group in the US, bigger than all other non-English languages combined. Language is closely tied to culture and it is accurate to say that this is a large cultural/ethnic group that deserves prominence (and more respect than it currently gets).

But culture isn’t race. And size or prominence doesn’t create a racial category either. There are millions of Americans who have Slavic or Middle Eastern ancestry and still embrace those cultures and languages. They are classified as white regardless of how large and distinct their cultures are.Martindo (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The classification in the US Census of Hispanic follows not ethnographic concerns, but federal law passed by Congress; to state that it is, by virtue of being the Census, ipso facto "fair and accurate" seems at least a stretch. It is also strange to then take "Hispanic" and describe it as a language group. What is the reference for "hispanic" to be a language group, exactly? I am not familiar with such a classification (though I'm not a linguist). As far as government institutions, in my own personal experience I've seen both federal forms that specify that "hispanic" is not to be considered a race, as well as state forms in which "hispanic" is explicitly listed as a race. I'm happy to discuss and reach consensus, but this is hardly the closed-and-shut case you seem to think it is. Magidin (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hispanic is defined by most dictionaries as "related to Spanish-speaking countries". I find it hard to understand why the issue of language needs further discussion in this respect. The simple fact is that there is no objective authority for determining the issue of race (which the US is obsessed about more than most other countries). The US Census is a government authority that takes input from many sources and is ultimately responsible to the public, not to a private board of directors or media echoing. Wikipedia aims to provide outside verifiable sources for content. Simply declaring Hispanic to be "non-white" is POV. I don't see how or why we can avoid using the US Census definition, unless we want to eliminate the demographics section (which I would favor, particularly because there is a separate entry for it that covers the issue in more depth). Martindo (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying there is an issue of language that needs to be discussed. What I am saying, however, is that the fact that you are using "hispanic" to refer to a "language group" certainly raises questions in my mind for the simple reason that I have never seen it used in such a manner. "Spanish" is not a language group: Spanish is a particular language, which belongs to the family of Romance languages. Given this apparent non-standard use of the term, I do think it is indicative that you may not be using the terms in a standard way and that, as such, your personal opinion of the proper way to use the term is suspect. Therefore, what I *am* asking for is citations to justify this beyond the fact that the Census uses this classification. And the reason I want something more than just "the Census does it" was explained above and was ducked by you: the reason the Census does this is because Congress passed a law requiring the Census to do things this way. This was not the result of the Census "taking input from many sources" and coming to a conclusion, or a result of the Census "being responsible to the public". This was the result of Congress passing a law requiring the Census to do things this particular way. Your continued reference to private boards and to "the public" as such seem to me to be little more than strawmen. So... citations, please. Magidin (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Also: stop making the changes in the main page. We need to try to come to consensus first. If that fails, then you can call for arbitrarion. But until then, stop making the changes unilaterally. Magidin (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Magidin, I think you missed the part where I wrote

Language is closely tied to culture and it is accurate to say that this is a large cultural/ethnic group that deserves prominence (and more respect than it currently gets).

Language is intertwined with culture but the Census only surveys language. Culture is a category other than race, and it is important to note it separately in the text. Consensus is not needed in advance of correcting POV, and simply declaring Hispanic to be non-white is POV, regardless of how many people agree with you.

Really the best way to resolve this is to find out how the Supreme Court itself categorizes race. After all, the Demographics section is about them. Perhaps someone can find a 21st century majority decision that explicitly and concisely refers to Hispanic as a non-white race. If you can post an easily accessible reference to this, I will yield totally. Martindo (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)