Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

Court demographics and Judaists

Given how much controversy it generates, maybe we should just lock the section and throw away the key.

ThinkEnemies changed, among other things, Jews to Judaists. I reverted. He reverted back and said it was more "accurate" in his edit summary. No one else has seemed to take an interest in this usage. The word Jew is listed on OneLook (a meta dictionary site) as defined in 29 dictionaries. Judaist is listed in 11. A common definition of Judaist is one who believes in or practices Judaism. By contrast, a common definition of Jewish is relating to the Jews, their culture, or religion. In other words, one can being a Jew without believing or practing the religion. A Google search of Judaist obtains 34,400 results. A Google search of Jew obtains 36,100,000 results. Wikipedia itself uses the word Judaist 14 times. It uses the word Jew 39,591 times.

Ginsburg went to the East Middlewood Jewish Center. She attended a Jewish summer program. In the lead of the article, she is listed as the first Jewish justice. She is in the category American Jews. Breyer came from a middle-class Jewish family. He, too, is in the category American Jews. Kagan is the eighth Jewish justice. Same category.

Only on Wikipedia would this even be worth arguing about. Who uses the word Judaist to describe someone who is Jewish? Don't common usage and common sense count for anything? Naturally, I've left the edit alone for the time being because I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of edit warring, even though I'm not the one who changed the word.

Okay, I'm done. I'll wait for comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur, and have changed it back to Jews, as "Judaists" is a term likely to be unfamiliar and confusing to most readers. bd2412 T 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd now like to broaden the discussion to my "among other things" allusion above. Originally the opening of this section said: "Historically, the Court was primarily composed of white male Protestants." That was recently changed to: "Historically, the Court was primarily composed of male European American Protestants." At the same time, before recent changes, lower in the section, it said: "The Court currently consists of six males and three females; one African-American and eight Caucasians (one of whom is Latino); six Roman Catholics and three Jews." Now, it says: "The Court currently consists of six males and three females; one African American and eight Caucasian Americans (one of whom is Latino); six Roman Catholics and three Jews." (I've bolded the areas of change.) So, we have all these terms: white, European American, Caucasian, and now Caucasian American (which, according to Wikipedia itself, is an interchangeable term for White American). The different terms make me dizzy. I'd like some consistency (and simplicity) in this - I'm not sure how much I care about which term is chosen.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It was fine the way it was before. bd2412 T 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I also concur with keeping "jew" as opposed to "Judaist", and was planning to start a discussion (I saw the change as I was leaving the office). In fact, I was going to point out that at least Ginsburg and Kagan have refered to themselves as "jews" or "jewish" (e.g., for the latter there is the now-famous response to Sen. Graham about what she was going at Christmas). It would likewise be more accourate to refer to the Catholic justices as "members of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" (far more accurate than even the current "Roman Catholics"), but we go with the better-known, common, term. As for "Caucasian Americans", "European Americans", etc.; I would support going back to previous use, and certainly a single use. There is a slight problem with "European Americans", I think, because it is not such a common term; for that reason I would prefer "white Americans" throughout. Magidin (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Jews" is fine, it just looked out of place after "Roman Catholics," IMO. I first changed "European Americans" to "Caucasians" to avoid redundancy and because of the Puerto Rican heritage of Sotomayor (and yes, I know about the Spaniards and don't want to get into a historical debate), I then added "Americans" because I thought Caucasians alone might be too broad. I was close to changing it again to White Americans, so I'd agree with Magidin on that. I was also on the ropes about "European Americans" and if something like, "of European descent" wouldn't be better. †TE†Talk 03:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

All of this is covered in detail at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, which parses out the Caucasian justices by their predominant European ancestry. Regarding the "European Americans" edit, this is not the first time this issue has been raised with the editor who initially made that change. bd2412 T 04:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And I don't think it's necessary to include the detail in the demographics article - the section here is supposed to be a summary. I think it would be fine to just go back to the demographics section in the court article as it was before, referring in the first sentence to "white male Protestants" and in the subsequent paragraph to "eight Caucasians". As for the Catholic terminology, I don't have a problem with the Roman Catholics as a term, but two other possibilities are just Catholics, or Roman Catholics in the first paragraph, and just Catholics in the later paragraph. Or we could leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: My mention of "catholics" was just to provide comparison with the term "Judaist", which was described by the editor who placed it as "more accurate". "Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" would likewise be more accurate than saying just "catholic" or "roman catholic", but we don't go for the "more accurate" term, we go with the usual one (which I think is a good thing). I'm not advocating changing "catholic" or "roman catholic". Magidin (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

An editor has beefed up the Jurisdiction section of the article. Other than minor stuff, what has been added is reasonably accurate, although it doesn't even touch criminal cases. However, I didn't like the section before, and I like it even less now. In my view, the only things the section should address are the original and appellate jurisdiction of the S. Ct. It's not necessary to address the jurisdiction of the district courts, which is covered in United States district court#Jurisdiction. Yet, immediately after saying something about "appellate jurisdiction" (without more), it launches into the original jurisdiction of the district courts. Then, even more jarring, after spelling out the bases for federal jurisdiction, it then says "Exercise of this power ..." Which power is that? Then, finally, at the end, in one of the more relevant paragraphs, it talks about original jurisdiction of the S. Ct. itself. I think the section should be revamped, but I'd like to hear from others first.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm much like you on this; I don't much care for the addition, which gives the appearance of being more precise while actually being extremely vague ("raises a federal question"; "for example" to introduce the list, etc). It should discuss original jursdiction first and foremost, then appellate briefly (and mention that most of it is discretionary, addressing the common misconception that everyone has the right to have their case heard at the Supreme Court). Magidin (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page

Recently, User:The Universe Is Cool and I have disagreed on the use of the term "European American" on this page and at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States to describe Justices previously identified in the article as "White" or "Caucasian". I believe the phrases "European American" and "White American" are unusual as demographic descriptors, and that the more common terms, "White" or "Caucasian", should be used. I also believe that because "European American" is an unusual way to describe white people of European descent, it will tend to mislead readers into thinking that Justices described in that way were actually born in Europe, or have some other unusual connection with continental Europe beyond that of typical white people born in the United States. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that there have been a handful of actual European-born Justices. I have reviewed the sources referenced in this article and in the far more extensive demographics article, and have searched for other sources, but have not found a single source referring to the Justices as "European American" or "White American". I would therefore like to gauge whether there is consensus to stick with the use of "White" or "Caucasian" to describe these Justices in this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Universe's changes and all other changes to the section since, I thought, we reached consensus earlier to change it back to the way it was before. I should have changed it then but failed to. Hopefully, even if someone disagrees that we've actually reached a consensus, they will have the decency not to change it without first weighing in here, something that Universe did not do. I also agree with what BD2412 says above. Just so, it's clear, I'm in favor of leaving the language as it was before and as it is now.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I thought we had too, but I wanted to generate a clear consensus, for both articles. Did you also change the Demographics article back? bd2412 T 01:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, but now I have. I also made some other changes, including screwing up my edit summaries (sigh).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Again, thanks. bd2412 T 01:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I personaly dont think its necessary to use the terms European American or White American. If anything it should be Caucasian but as a white guy I have never been offended by being called white nor have I met anyone else who has either. Plus it just makes the article more difficult to read and adds distraction to the reader. Just my 2 cents--Kumioko (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had a concensus as well. I would like to point out that it is not a just a matter of whether someone is or is not offended by the term, but also of common usage; we are not writing a textbook on demography. "White" and "Caucasian" are not only the common term, it is used in such places as Census forms, affirmative action forms, etc. I see no problem with using those terms, and I think "European American" and "White American" are likely to be more confusing than enlightening. "European American" and "White American" are, at best, still very rare terms, and I would support keeping the old phrasing, as I indicated before. Magidin (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Magidin about the issue of what's offensive vs. common usage.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What is so wrong with the term "European American"? We can say "African American", but God forbid we say "European American"? It doesn't take a physicist to figure out what/who a European American is. It even states that the judges have European ancestry, so what the hell is wrong with using the term? You people are full of crap.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

• Universe: it's bad enough for you to be uncivil here on a Talk page, but don't do it in edit summaries. I've posted a warning to that effect on your Talk page. You don't advance your point of view by this kind of behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that the term European American, for whatever reason simply hasn't been adopted by mainstream as the African American term has. Additionally, the term white hasn't been termed offensive as the term black sometimes is taken offensively. --Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Come back in 50 years when you've managed to convince the rest of the world to adopt your language preferences. Billyboy01 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If you can convince the U.S. Census to start using "European American" instead of "White", then you might have a case. However, our function as an encyclopedia is to report things in terms as they are used, not to push new and unfamiliar terms likely to be mistaken as indications of place of birth, rather than ancestry. bd2412 T 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you (The Universe is Cool) cannot keep it civil, then perhaps this is not the place for you. The purpose of the page is to inform, not to confuse. The problem is, quite simply, that "African American" is a term in common use, whereas "European American" is not. It's not about what you need to "figure something out" or what you may not need. Magidin (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree per Kumioko, bd2412, and WP:COMMONNAME. The term White American should be kept, if The Universe Is Cool still disagrees I suggest he take his argument to Talk:White American and try to have the name changed there, though I'm sure this has come up there plenty of times before. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, to be clear, there is no need to use "White American" either. Just saying that someone is "white" conveys precisely the information the section intends to communicate. In the context of United States Supreme Court justices, the "American" part is redundant. bd2412 T 13:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Very true.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A National Geographic genome mapping project has established that all of us--every last human being--originated in Africa. Genetic proof that even Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Alito are African-American. Let us look forward to the day when nobody feels the need to think about the wording of ethnic classifications. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but that is a different topic. bd2412 T 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In your point of view, how are terms like "African American" or "Asian American" instantly recognizable to people but "European American" isn't? When someone says "African American", people instantly know it's an American of African descent. Someone doesn't think of a person born in Africa when he/she sees or hears the term "African American". How is it any different for the term "European American"? It should not matter whether the term is in common use or not.

I'm done. I don't give a crap anymore. Keep it the way you want. I'm wasting my time. I might just stop editing articles on this website altogether.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

Both "African American" and "Asian American" are terms in very common use to describe certain sectors of the citizenry of the United States. Without that common use and the years during which it has been in common use, the terms would be confusing (as "African-American" was to many when first introduced); the reason it is not is that it is a common term in common use. The term "European American" is not a term in common use. That is the simple, observable, difference, and not a question of "point of view". If your point is that the term should be in common use, or should be "instantly recognizable", then more power to you, but it is not. Wikipedia language reflects common usages as they are, not as they should be. Now, whether the term is understandable or not is, indeed, not a question of whether it is in common use or not (thought I would express my opinion that in the absence of common-use terms like "African american" and "Asian american", the term "European american" would be prima facie confusing). But the point is not whether the term is or is not understood: the question is whether the term is the the common term or not. "European american" is not the common term. Common sense is to use the the term in common use. On top of that, "African american" and "Asian american" refer exclusively to individuals who are U.S. citizens born in the U.S. (even naturalized citizens are not generally refered by those terms), and not encompasing demographic terms (that is why the U.S. Census form says "African american or black"). When refering to individuals, some of which were not born in the U.S. (and one of which in fact was a naturalized citizen, namely Frankfurter) it would be imprecise/misleading at best and incorrect at worst to describe them using the restrictive term, even if the term was in common use. Magidin (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A black lady professor has a book out: The History of White People. She teaches White studies at Princeton. It's an interesting book - the term Caucasian has a sex slave background. The way it seems to go: as you is white, you is alright. Since, by courtesy, all of the justices are alright, they might all be considered white. 12.69.99.122 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Slightly late reply, but I personally would prefer to use European American or White American to Caucasian. Strictly speaking, the latter should only refer to people from the Caucasus, rather than being used as a general euphemism for 'white people'. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Audio and Video

In the middle of the 'Secret proceedings' criticism subsection is:

A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted in 2010 found that 61% of American voters agreed that televising Court hearings would "be good for democracy," and 50% of voters stated they would watch Court proceedings if they were televised.

I think it's notable that supreme court oral argument audio recordings are made and put on the web. (Less notably, transcripts have always been available to some extent.) I'm torn as to where and how to mention the audio - in the Links section - not my first choice. Here in the criticism section? The poll was performed around Jan 30, 2010, and by that time audio recording of oral arguments has been taking place since 1969. I propose adding something like this to the quoted sentence:

audio recordings of oral argument have been promptly posted to the web since 2010. Recordings, which have been made since 1969 are now also on the web.

Would a regular editor of this article make an edit along these lines?--Elvey (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add it in the corresponding criticism section; I would also add it to the article about the Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Note, however, that the audio recordings date back to well before 1969. They were started by Earl Warren. According to the Oyez Project website, the recordings began in October 1955. Peter Irons's book includes recordings from well before 1969. I thought we had a link to the Oyez Project in the Links sections, but I see this is not the case. I'll add it. Magidin (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a short blurb in both (with citation for the Procedures page). Feel free to edit or move it around. Magidin (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't discuss Cert? At all? Really?

I find myself surprised that the article doesn't seem to cover at all the fact that unique among US appellate courts, SCOTUS has the power to decline cases; that seems like something we ought to cover, no? Is there some hysterical raisin why we don't? Y'know, before I add it in?
--Baylink (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It is implied in Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States (under jurisdiction) but you are right that it does not appear to be explicitly stated. Sure, add a line or two in both places. Magidin (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never met an hysterical raisin. What does it look like? Sorry, couldn't resist. On a more serious note, there is a foundational reason why the S. Ct. has discretionary review, which is normal in state jurisdictions as well (although I've never done a state-by-state study of the issue). Generally, the highest court in a jurisdiction with intermediate appellate review can decline to review an appeal. The principle is that generally a litigant has only one appeal as a matter of right.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that we should discuss cert Thehotshotpilot (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Taft serving as a justice and as President

This should be at least mentioned in the main article. This is an interesting tidbit of history that should be included Thehotshotpilot (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in the Chief Justice page (though perhaps not very prominently). There are lots of interesting tidbits: e.g., only Hughes resigned from the Court and was later reappointed (and he ran for president, too; why not mention that?); which interesting ones should be included, and which not? The one on Taft makes perfect sense in the Chief Justice page, but not so much here, in my opinion. Magidin (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

God save the United States and this Honorable Court

I am astonished to see that the traditional chant that is recited at the arrival of the Supreme Court Justices is not included in this article. Here it is from the Supreme Court web site:

When the Court is in session, the 10 a.m. entrance of the Justices into the Courtroom is announced by the Marshal. Those present, at the sound of the gavel, arise and remain standing until the robed Justices are seated following the traditional chant: "The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"

This needs to be added to the article. -ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)