Talk:Marbury v. Madison

Single Most Important Decision

"Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law."
I believe that this is an opinion and it is being stated as a fact. There are a lot of Supreme Court decisions that you could say are the single most important. I think that this would be a better statement:
"Decided in 1803, Marbury is considered by many to be one of the most important decisions in American constitutional law."
This statement is stated as an opinion, so I think it would fit better. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The cited source (a major treatise in the field) literally says this statement verbatim. Changing it to "many" would be wrong and contrary to the source.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: That doesn't mean that it isn't an opinion. For example, a writer for Vox could make a statement like "Donald Trump is the worst president in American history and he needs to be removed from office right now." While this statement is in the source, it is still an opinion and shouldn't be written as a fact on a Wikipedia article. I believe that the same should apply here. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@GamerKiller2347: If the statement on Vox was deemed sufficiently reliable and represented the consensus of academic scholarship on the subject, it would most certainly be appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Articles are replete with those kinds of statements where universal or general acclaim is described that way—"(so-and-so) was the most important poet of the (whatever) period", and the like. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a bar against statements of opinion on Wikipedia. Rather, the core content criteria are: WP:Verifiability, WP: No Original Research, and WP:NPOV. None of those mention qualitative fact versus opinion. If you believe there ought to be such a policy, start a discussion on one of those policies' talk pages.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: I can agree with you there. I will now end this discussion. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@GamerKiller2347: Your attention to the article is very much appreciated. I see you're new here, but I hope you'll stick around. Wikipedia can never have enough editors who are intelligent and thoughtful and interested.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it conforms with guidelines, it's still unnecessary and detracts from the quality of the lede. It's certainly an eminently defensible and quite probably true claim, and it deserves to be in the lede, but stating it as fact and not the opinion of experts is neither necessary nor appropriate. "Widely considered to be the most important decision" conveys the same meaning without reading as opinionated. Where stating an opinion as fact is unnecessary, it should be avoided. Not because it violated WP:WHATEVER but because it doesn't fit the purpose of an encyclopedic article. The article would simply be better if it were reworded. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Chemerinsky is boss but I'm with Gamekiller here. It's still his opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasetort (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispute re scope of judicial review in LEDE

Before you delete my contribution again I would appreciate an explanation of what you believe it means that judicial review means "American courts have the power to strike down...some government actions". It is not explained by the article or I was unable to find if it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasetort (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Peasetort: @White whirlwind: This disagreement has to do with the series of reverts found here. I suggest each of you cite WP:RS--and even better, provide quotes--that support your claim. White whirlwind has already provided some with edit summary:

the notion that judicial review only covers congressional legislation is patently false; see e.g. Tribe (2000) at 179, which is cited in the article.[1]

and addition of WP:RS to the WP:LEDE:

References

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to locate my copy of Tribe to know he didn't say anything about "laws, statutes and government actions". Tribe and Chemerinsky won't diverge on this. I will eat my hat if you can demonstrate otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasetort (talk • contribs) 11:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How long should I wait for an explanation of why the article says the Supreme Court can strike down "some government actions that violate the US constitution?" Does that mean that the Supreme Court can't strike down some government actions that violate the constitution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasetort (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To Peasetort: First, please sign your talk page posts, that's a required practice here on Wikipedia and is done by adding four tildes to the end of your final sentence. Having the bot do it looks weird. Second, Chemerinsky (2019), which is probably the preeminent single-volume treatise in this field today, says the following at page 47: "Marbury established the power of the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of federal executive actions and of federal statutes." I don't have an electronic version of Tribe to quote from but I added that citation when I had the physical copy. I'm not sure why you find the inclusion of executive actions to be problematic — Marshall's mandamus discussions touch on it repeatedly and that aspect should have been covered in any law school Con Law course, including yours. The "some" in "some government actions" obviously refers to the ministerial–discretional duty distinction Marshall discusses at length in the opinion. That is briefly discussed in the "Legacy" section.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't find the inclusion of executive actions to be problematic. What I find most problematic is the inclusion of "some government actions". Most people, including Chemerinsky (who you quote above), don't feel that it is worth mentioning that the court can't review the constitutionality of vetos. It may be problematic to highlight a never-mentioned by anyone (ever) part of the case, but I don't care very much about that. I can't speak for anyone else about this. It is more a problem why you would revert the addition of "federal" even though you know it's from the above Chemerinsky quote. Baffling. Peasetort (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peasetort: Thanks for signing your post this time. It's common for people to join Wikipedia all fired up and with an axe to grind, and it takes time to learn the ropes. Now, what is "baffling" is your challenge keeps changing—first it was that judicial review only covers congressional legislation, then it was "Chemerinsky won't diverge from Tribe [and support a proposition for "government action", which he does, though I'll refrain from enforcing your hat-eating commitment], and now it's that the word "some" is too confusing to lay readers because somehow they'll be informed enough to know that vetoes and nominations aren't reviewable (Twitter feeds from the Kavanaugh hearing timeline should be enough to correct that misconception) but yet will be dreadfully confused over whether judicial review was different prior to Hunter's Lessee. I also don't understand how "You can't speak for anyone else about this" but yet in your prior edit summary you said "half the readers of this article vowed never to use Wikipedia again after reading this sentence". You describe yourself as a "retired legal professional", so I'm sure you are (or were at one time) capable of being focused and coherent, so let's just be nice and do that here, shall we?

I think the language is fine as it is. Do you agree, David Tornheim?  White Whirlwind  咨  05:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this made me laugh out loud. You think that because I changed the lede to reflect words Chemerinsky felt were important enough to include, and exclude words that only you believed were important enough to include, I have "an axe to grind." You think you can change entirely standard definitions by getting your friends to agree with you and half the readers (at least) won't notice? Who do think reads Marbury v. Madison? The most despicable part is your response muddying the waters and insulting me. You won't be hearing from me again. Goodbye. Peasetort (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peasetort: First, Chemerinsky was cited for the proposition that more than just legislation was covered, since you erroneously suggested in this edit that it was only "congressional legislation." Remember, Chemerinsky was defining Marbury's holding, not summarizing the scope of judicial review. But you started arguing about only having "federal", which goes to the separate issue of a proper summary of the term "judicial review"—whether it needed to constrain itself to the pre-1816, pre-Hunter's Lessee law. For the purposes of this article, that is more a matter of editorial wording than substance and doesn't truly touch on the sources we were discussing here. Try to keep things straight and cogent.

Moreover, me asking David Tornheim has nothing to do with getting "friends" to agree with me—I've rarely interacted with him, though I'm sure he's a perfectly nice editor—it's because WP:CONSENSUS is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and when there's a dispute we must get multiple editors involved to try and arrive at a consensus. If that doesn't work for you, you may want to find another hobby to pursue other than Wikipedia editing.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The line as it is currently written should be improved. I asked you: "Does that mean that the Supreme Court can't strike down some government actions that violate the constitution?" Your answer was: "The "some" in "some government actions" obviously refers to the ministerial–discretional duty distinction Marshall discusses at length in the opinion." With those facts laid out, you need to read the case again. This distinction is based on separation of powers. What the case says is: "in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable". That is not the same as saying the Supreme Court can only strike down "some government actions that violate the constitution". It's up to you whether you want to accept my input or not, there are millions of other articles.Peasetort (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Again, I think you're mixing up the issues here: the "some government actions" language is intended as a summary of the doctrine of judicial review—not the holding of Marbury—and is meant as a "gloss" for non-expert readers. I thought I described that in my last comment, where I discussed how Chemerinsky was cited to counter the proposition that it would be better to limit the gloss to "congressional legislation", which the doctrine was never limited to at any point in history, whether it be pre-Hunter's Lessee or some other time.

The reason for my gloss may not have been clear earlier, so let me explain it here—WP:LINKING (part of the Manual of Style) says: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." A lot of editors fail to do this, but it's an excellent practice to adopt and greatly improves articles. In my opinion, it's a best practice to include such explanations for specialized linked terms as long as it only takes a clause or so.

The general practice here is to let the status quo ante stand in the case of no consensus for a change, so I'll leave it as is for now.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

My edit changing it to congressional legislation was wrong, but it was based on the article. I haven't read Marbury in many years and so I used this article to make the change. I've since noticed a few things:

1) the section Marbury_v._Madison#Judicial_review_and_striking_down_the_law doesn't discuss executive actions

2) theSupremacy Clause has been left out of the article

3) the earlier discussion about opinions of the cases prominence you can see here there is a wider range of opinions than what is represented in the article from "perhaps the most prominent" to "a suitable candidate for ... the dustbin of history".

That's all from me. Peasetort (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• Rather than take a position and agree or disagree with one of you, I put up this request for more eyes on the discussion. Although I have a paralegal degree and know how to perform legal research, I have a sense both of you know more about the specifics and significance of this case and have studied it far more thoroughly than I have. I have a cursory understanding of it.

I will say this, and I hope you both agree: My feeling is that this case is far more significant than just the single issue what was decided or the scope of jurisdiction relating to federal actions. It is my understanding that this case set the groundwork for judicial review of state decisions by state courts too (and possibly by federal courts). If I remember correctly, at the time it was decided, those who were involved may not have realized just how monumental that precedent would become in balancing the power of the three branches of government: Their focus was on undoing a particular power play, and Marshall invented this new principle to justify the judicial intervention. The gamble worked, and by it's success, it gave significant new powers to the Court not specified in the Constitution. It's been a while since I studied the case. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

Under "Legacy" add that "Marbury v. Madison not only defined judicial review but also established the Judicial Branch as a separate and independent branch of government with the Supreme Court as its head." Ivanjramirez (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a source that states that it established the Judicial branch as a separate and independent branch of government. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)