Talk:List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: Difference between revisions
m →Ordering of associate justices: typoed the date on Rehnquist |
→Stephen Breyer retirement: new section |
||
Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
Hope this clears up any and all future confusion. -- [[User:Foofighter20x|Foofighter20x]] ([[User talk:Foofighter20x|talk]]) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
Hope this clears up any and all future confusion. -- [[User:Foofighter20x|Foofighter20x]] ([[User talk:Foofighter20x|talk]]) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Stephen Breyer retirement == |
|||
Is it possible to add in the list that Breyer is soon retiring? As he will do so independenly of current matters in motion. |
|||
[[User:Asabiyya|Asabiyya]] ([[User talk:Asabiyya|talk]]) 18:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:49, 29 March 2022
![]() | List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured list |
![]() | List of United States Chief Justices by age was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 January 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
|
|
Correcting the count
Charles Evans Hughes should be listed as 62nd Supreme court justice as he is now and as the 74th Supreme court justice because he served at 2 different points in time and was appointed by 2 different presidents AmYisroelChai (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- The count is correct. Hughes was the 62nd justice, first from 10/10/1910 to 6/10/1916, and again from 2/24/1930 to 6/30/1941. The commonly used numbering pattern is SCOTUS justices are numbered only once, this includes those who served first as associate justice and then, after a period of years off the Court, as chief justice, as well as those elevated from associate justice to chief justice while serving on the Supreme Court. Drdpw (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
More clarification of multi-term justices
A reader noted the two entries for John Rutledge and initially thought it was an error. They now understand that the two entries refer to two separate terms (which also applies to some other justices). Would it help reduce confusion if the name in the left column was followed by a parenthetical e.g. (first-term), (second term)?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hidden anticipatory edits
I do not think it is either wise or appropriate to added commented-out materials to articles in advance of plausible future events, as @MinnesotanUser did in this revision (Add HIDDEN language in anticipation of Kav's possible confirmation, plus a fairly stern warning explaining things.). I'd say such things belong in a sandbox page, either in userspace or perhaps (?) mainspace. Is there any concensus on this point? I would be inclined to revert the entry. Thoughts? Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Greetings Jhawkinson,
- If I remember correctly, Wikipedia policy and manuals of style allow for such usages, and they seemed to me to be appropriate in this case. I will endeavor to point to the guideline immediately.MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- @MinnesotanUser: I imagine you're refering to WP:HIDDEN: "Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future (such as when a known event will occur). Larger amounts of information should be prepared on a subpage of the article's talk page or in user space.". I don't disagree that it's permitted by the MOS, but I don't think it is a good idea, given the current degree of controversy. Also, looking at the content of your suggested edit, you write:
Do not un-hide this row just because kavanaugh has been confirmed by the senate (if that happens). By law, a person is not a supreme court justice until they take their oaths of office.
- That doesn't seem right. Sure, Kavanaugh wouldn't be a justice, technically, but it would still be appropriate to have something on the page and to explain the interim situation. Further, your edit only covers one of the two places where he would appear (both "Current justices of the Supreme Court" and "All justices of the Supreme Court"). jhawkinson (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes and bingo, that's exactly the guideline I had in mind, you beat me to it! With regard to your latter points, my "stern warning" is intended to dissuade editors from making factual errors, precisely because what is at issue is a controversial current event where it is likely for disruptive edits to be made which might harm the encyclopedia. That's all. This is actually part of the value of hidden comments in Wikipedia articles. You are correct that the article could be reworked in the very-short-term on such-and-such circumstances, but these terms are likely to be so short for this particular article (a mere list article, someone either is or isn't a justice) as to be irrelevant here, in my view. To your final point, I (had) also intend(ed) to make a parallel edit at Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in the immediate future, and I may proceed.
- I also want to keep perspective. We've been debating a short-term hidden edit intended as a future help, and which we've spent some time thinking and arguing and writing about. In other words, the thing under discussion is also a figment which will only last a matter of hours. None of this is worth sweating. We here are nowhere near the controversial character of the nomination and its salacious details. The only thing that actually matters on this article is: is he a Justice, or not? That was the motivation for my edit.MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Per the above discussion and as I said I might do, I've made a very similar edit at Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.MinnesotanUser (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism
I have semi-protected the page with an expiration time of one month due to repeat vandalism from multiple IPs. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Appointment v Nomination
In re: Revision as of 13:16, October 4, 2018 Drdpw (Reverted good faith edits by Mink Butler Davenport) : "appointed by" is correct. (TW)) Tag: Undo
Appointment v Nomination – As exemplified by United States Military Academy (West Point), the U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Naval Academy, a nomination is required to obtain admittance, but in no way guarantees acceptance (admittance). Annually, over 4000 candidates are nominated to the academies, but only about 1500 are accepted/admitted/appointed/chosen. In NO WAY does a nomination guarantee an appointment.
Very nearly 1,200 Executive level jobs in the United States government may be filled only by individuals whom are appointed by the President, then approved by a simple majority vote of the Senate.
Similarly, Federal Judicial nominees are exactly that – nominees. They must undergo scrutinizing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, pass the Committee’s approving vote, before being brought to a vote before the full U.S. Senate. Those are TWO stages where approval is required: After initial nomination, the nominee goes before the 1.) Senate Judiciary Committee, and then, if approved, the nominee goes to the 2.) full Senate for a vote. Those are BOTH required before CONFIRMATION occurs.
The principle difference with Appointment, is fairly straightforward – one is named to (placed in) the position. No confirmation required.
The “advice and consent” clause of the Constitution gives the Congress (in the Senate), the final say-so in the matter, to either accept, or reject, the nominee in two stages – the Committee first, and the full Senate second/last.
While the term “appointment” may be sometimes used when referring to Supreme Court candidates, it is more properly, and accurately, a nomination, which initiates a process.
See: [uscourts.gov]
See also: I. The Safeguards of the Appointments Clause The Appointments Clause provides: [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
-and-
“The word "appoint" was adopted and over the course of the Convention changed into phrasing that suggests something of an obligation on Congress to establish inferior federal courts.” In: Article III, Judicial Department [gpo.gov]
See also: “It is true that an individual not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause cannot technically be an officer of the United States: “Unless a person in the service of the Government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of Departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.” United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 307 (1888)” In: Officers of the United States Within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause [justice.gov]
See also: “As part of the process of making an appointment to an advice and consent position, the President submits a nomination to the Senate. Most nominations are referred to the appropriate Senate committee or committees on the day they are received. Such referrals are guided by Senate Rule XXV, which establishes the subject matter under the purview of each committee and directs that “all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating primarily to [those] subjects” be referred to that committee.” In: Presidential Appointee Positions Requiring Senate Confirmation and Committees Handling Nominations, by Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process; Michael Greene, Senior Research Librarian; May 3, 2017, Congressional Research Service [fas.org]
-and-
See also: List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States
– M.B.D. (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- In theory, a President could make a recess appointment of a Justice to the Court, and then never actually nominate that Justice for confirmation by the Senate (meaning that the appointment would at some point expire and the seat would again be deemed vacant). My understanding is that official acts of the Justice during that time would still count, even if their name was never even submitted to the Senate. bd2412 T 19:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Proposed merge of List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office into List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
The main list did not originally have a "Tenure length" column so the "by time in office" list was made. Now it does have a sortable column for time in office, so there is no purpose for the duplicate list. Reywas92Talk 03:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not the worst idea, but I hesitate to merge a Featured List into a non-featured list. Maybe get this page up to FL status first, then merge? That way we don't lose a featured list in the process. I'd be glad to help with the nomination here. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, it passed FL more than ten years ago now and would probably fail today; it's simply not necessary. This list could likely pass with little change though since it's quite well sourced. I would be happy to help with a simultaneous FLC and FLRC too. Reywas92Talk 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- No. I do not want it to be merged, because I liked how it is. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C401:9850:99F3:63D1:F9C:4846 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Mind explaining why...? Are you not aware that tables are sortable? Reywas92Talk 07:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, fine! I like having a separate page for Justices by time in office, because if you put it on the List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States page, it would make the page too long. Thank You!
- Mind explaining why...? Are you not aware that tables are sortable? Reywas92Talk 07:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support proposal to merge, on the basis of the OP explanation -Rye 212 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would tend to oppose a merge, because incoming links are sometimes made to the "time in office" article by editors specifically highlighting the time that a justice spent in office. See, for example, the link in the lede of Stephen Johnson Field. Since that list is ordered by time, a reader arriving at it does not need to do anything to see the justices listed in that order. I would be okay with the merge if there were some way that an incoming link could be made to pre-sort the table on this page by time in office for those clicking that link. BD2412 T 14:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Since this has now sat idle for over five weeks, I'm calling it failed and removing the templates. BD2412 T 00:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Table needs to be corrected
The table lists the tenure length of Samuel Chase as 15 years an 135 days. In fact, it should be 15 years an 136 days. This can be verified using the following formula in Google Sheets
=DATEDIF(StartDate, EndDate, "Y")&" years "&DATEDIF(StartDate, EndDate, "YD")&"days"
Google Sheets already accounts for the fact that there was no leap day in 1800.
I have also independently verified the math on this by doing annual day count for each year (or part thereof) as as follows:
Anniversary | Number of Days |
---|---|
4 Feb 1796 | N/A |
4 Feb 1797 | 366 |
4 Feb 1798 | 365 |
4 Feb 1799 | 365 |
4 Feb 1800 | 365 |
4 Feb 1801 | 365 |
4 Feb 1802 | 365 |
4 Feb 1803 | 365 |
4 Feb 1804 | 365 |
4 Feb 1805 | 366 |
4 Feb 1806 | 365 |
4 Feb 1807 | 365 |
4 Feb 1808 | 365 |
4 Feb 1809 | 366 |
4 Feb 1810 | 365 |
4 Feb 1811 | 365 |
19 Jun 1811 | 135 |
This adds up to a total of 5613 days, which is consistent with the number of days listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices_by_time_in_office — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardinalSlug (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Party Affiliation of Judges
Why do none of the judges have their party listed? This is very important information and I feel it should be included, especially with current judges. Daleylife (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Introducing a new timeline of justices
The existing timeline is, frankly, confusing and unusable. (Its many faults have been observed beyond Wikipedia.)
So I am introducing a new version that I believe it is far more legible:
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/exxwbmb92b5k7uf0xwx8jo658dbfjos.png)
LegoK9 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- The SAS critique of the current graphical timeline makes some valid points. That said, I have several problems with your proposed table. You're trying to show too many different things in the same graph and compressing a lot of information into a smaller space. Overall, it's visually unappealing. The political party colors in the table are distracting and make the name hyperlinks difficult to read. The table provides information that is of secondary/tangential importance (at least in this article it is), we should not be assign political party affiliation to the justices and we do not need to know when the various judiciary acts were implemented. Additionally, in an effort to put all the presidents' names into one row you have created a confusing soup of initials. My question to you is, why didn't you simply create a table similar to the SAS custom timeline graph presented in the linked blog post? It's simple, practical, and legible. Your proposed new version is not. Drdpw (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- 1. While I prefer the 1000px width to avoid a scroll bar, it can be expanded up to 1600px if that makes it more legible.
- 2. The colors can be adjusted or the names can be shifted to above the bars if that helps legibility.
- 3. Why not include political parties? Most historical justices were politicians that had a known party affiliation. (I learned that John McLean was known as the "The Politician on the Supreme Court" for being associated with so many parties.) Modern justices are objectively known to lean to the liberal or conservative wings of the court. The political makeup of the court is always being discussed in the media. I added a footnote to the template if that makes things clear.
- 4. The judiciary acts were included to show the addition and removal of seats. (I designed this chart to be used on this page and on List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat.)
- 5. The presidents’ initials have hyperlinks. The current chart has the presidents’ names overlapping over a mess of vertical lines. Is that any better? Otherwise, we can exclude the presidents altogether. LegoK9 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
"Court Justice" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Court Justice and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Court Justice until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Ordering of associate justices
This question exists in the archive, so I'm posting the response here so it's seen. The order of seniority of associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States goes back to § 1 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices are ranked in seniority by the date their judicial commissions bear; or if bearing the same date, by their age (read: dates of birth). This rule is still in effect to this day, codified at 28 U.S.C., § 4. So, even though James Wilson was the first to have his oath of office administered, he was still de jure junior to justices Rutledge and Cushing; and would have been junior to Robert Harrison, had Harrison accepted his commission to the court.
There appears to be some similar confusion as to justices Van Devanter and J. R. Lamar. Van Devanter's commission is dated Dec. 16, 1910, and Lamar's Dec. 17, the next day.
Similarly, between justices Powell and Rehnquist, Powell's commission is dated Dec. 9, 1971, and Rehnquist's Dec. 15, 1971.
Hope this clears up any and all future confusion. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Stephen Breyer retirement
Is it possible to add in the list that Breyer is soon retiring? As he will do so independenly of current matters in motion. Asabiyya (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia former featured lists
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Biography articles of living people
- List-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- List-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- List-Class United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- List-Class United States courts and judges articles
- Top-importance United States courts and judges articles
- List-Class biography articles
- List-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- List-Class List articles
- Low-importance List articles
- WikiProject Lists articles
- List-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report