Jump to content

Talk:John Paul Stevens: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
fix archiving
Line 115: Line 115:


Does anyone know if he is registered with a political party?[[User:Racingstripes|Racingstripes]] ([[User talk:Racingstripes|talk]]) 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if he is registered with a political party?[[User:Racingstripes|Racingstripes]] ([[User talk:Racingstripes|talk]]) 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

== his health benefits terminated? ==

Anybody have any idea why his "health benefits" would have been terminated? Is he wealthy or does his wife have money, or is it an interesting story about separation of powers? :) It's in this story [http://www.loweringthebar.net/2005/10/new_chief_justi.html]

Revision as of 17:14, 19 January 2010

I think that is pretty obvious given his title. I took the libral nature of deleting it. If you all feel it necessary to put it back, go right ahead.

Stevens and affirmative action

I made two slight edits to the discussion of Stevens's views on affirmative action. First, I don't know whether it is correct that Stevens was once the Court's "most" impassioned critic of affirmative action. Rehnquist and Stewart were pretty impassioned as well. I altered the discussion to state that he was "an" impassioned critic. Second, the discussion stated that Stevens compared the minority set aside in Fullilove to Nazi race laws, which is a little misleading. His reference to Nazi race laws appears in a footnote to his dissent in Fullilove, and it isn't a comparison in the sense of claiming that the set aside program was the same as Nazi race laws.

Oldest ever?

Is he the oldest serving Justice ever? Dogru144 09:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, he's served to an older age than Justices Brennan or Marshall. Dogru144 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I believe that was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who retired from the Court at age 90. Stevens is not quite that old. Yet. --Pjb dinky 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Pjb_dinky[reply]

Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?

I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPA

The source given doesn't mention that he had the highest GPA in the history of the law school. Foundmine (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does, on page 3: "Returning from the war in 1945, Stevens thought of becoming a high-school English teacher, like his mother, but instead was persuaded by his brother to enroll at Northwestern University Law School on the G.I. Bill. Two years later, he graduated first in his class, with the highest grade-point average in the history of the school." Crazyale (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Legalization?

Why was Justice Stevens added to the "Americans Favoring Drug Legalization" Category? I'm going to delete this if whoever added this cannot provide a source.Crazyale (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In one fairly recent opinion that was about marijuana he did express the opinion that the prohibition of marijuana was analogous to the prohibition of alcohol in his youth, and that it too should be repealed. I don't remember the name but should be easy to look up. I don't think he has said anything that would indicate a wish to legalize all drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case was Morse v Frederick 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following was edited out. It was unsourced, and one of the editors deemed it trival.

(There is a high school in Edison, New Jersey also named J.P. Stevens, but it is named for John P. Stevens of textile mill fame.)

I agree with that decision. Any contrary opinion? And a reason? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Administration of oath of office as Vice President to Joe Biden

The assertion that Stevens administered the oath of office to Vice President Joe Biden has no citation, and is controversial in that it suggests (especially if no citation is given) that Biden repeated the oath word-for-word correctly (which wasn't the case). Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately according to the notes at the top of this page, but I added a citation needed prompt instead, as it isn't controversial that the swearing-in ceremony occurred. I don't know of a transcript for the event or published report that confirms the entire oath was repeated accurately. 77.103.171.131 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation that Stevens gave the oath to Biden. There is no controversy here except in 77.103.171.131's imagination. See Talk:Joe Biden#Swearing in of Joe Biden for a centralized discussion of this trivial matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly sufficient. It may seem trivial to you, but Obama retook his oath anyway, and that is noted on Wikipedia. The article cited doesn't state what wording Biden used, and its flowery language and lack of any specific detail give the impression it was written in advance of the event. 77.103.171.131 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this mattered, it wouldn't matter for this article, because Stevens read the oath correctly (unlike Roberts, who messed up on the presidential oath). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution sets forth no oath for the Vice President. Thus, Stevens and Biden could have recited a medley of showtunes and called it the oath and Biden would be in just as good a standing. bd2412 T 04:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/John Paul Stevens 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) 21:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Days remaining until... (to be added)

I intend to add the following to section 1.3, 1970 to present day. Anybody care to comment and/or re-format it in an approved manner?

In light of Justice Stevens having only hired one law clerk, speculation as to when he may retire is increasing. The following may contribute to that conversation...
Justice John Paul Stevens' time in office will surpass that of...
...Hugo Black in −5,296 days
...John Marshall in −5,173 days
...Stephen Johnson Field in −5,129 days
...William O. Douglas in −4,385 days

In term of his age, Justice John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920 - present) [38044 days old] will pass by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (b.March 8, 1841 – d.March 6, 1935) [34330 days old at death or 33181 days old at retirement] in age in just under two years, or around −4,863 days.

LP-mn (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is speculation, synthesis, and original research. You can cite reliable sources that speculate that Stevens's recent limited hiring suggests plans to require, but what you are proposing is simply not acceptable content. Wikipedia is not supposed to create OR that "may contribute to" a conversation. Magidin (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll leave it here.LP-mn (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political Party?

Does anyone know if he is registered with a political party?Racingstripes (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

his health benefits terminated?

Anybody have any idea why his "health benefits" would have been terminated? Is he wealthy or does his wife have money, or is it an interesting story about separation of powers? :) It's in this story [1]