Jump to content

Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.113.81.179 (talk) at 08:16, 7 July 2006 (Added WP_SCOTUS banner). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:V0.5 Template:FAOL

WikiProject iconU.S. Supreme Court cases Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

For clarity, older discussions from this talk page are archived.

Ability to overturn laws

This article states that the court cannot over turn laws- only delcare them unconstitutional. This is wrong. The Supreme Court has the full legal authority to overturn and erase laws that are not allowed under the US Constitution. This was demonstrated in many cases, one of the most recent and controversial is Roe V. Wade. If they were just an "advice" court to "advise" the congress that a law is unconstituional and didn't have the EXACT POWER to overturn a law this would defeat the purpose. The US Constitution says:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.........."

THE JUDICIAL POWER meaning the ability to overturn laws that arise and conflict with the US Constitution. This part of the article needs to be modified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.233.63 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 December 2005.

No, that's totally wrong. You clearly have no legal training. This is the kind of issue covered in first-year civil procedure in law school.
The Court lacks the ability to directly modify statutes under the principle of separation of powers. Statutes declared unconstitutional are still part of the legal codes unless and until the legislature passes a bill that deletes them.
Of course, a lawyer looking at an annotated version of the code would see a warning that the statute was declared unconstitutional by the Court in a particular case. Thus, it cannot be relied on as good law because the Court itself and all lower courts, under the rule of stare decisis, would not rely on that statute as the basis for a decision in any subsequent case. --Coolcaesar 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For purposes of illustration: in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), the Court struck down a federal law prohibiting the burning of Old Glory. That statute is still codified at 18 U.S.C. §700, because Congress has never seen fit to repeal it. Likewise, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court held that a number of state laws prohibiting (or at least, heavily regulating) abortion were unconstitutional. Henceforth, those laws were unenforcable, and thus inactive, but some states did not repeal those laws, which means that if courts fix Roe - as sooner or later they must - those laws will become enforcable again. --Simon Dodd 20:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the laws would automatically become enforcable again? The usual relief sought is an injunction against enforcement of the law. That would presumably remain in effect until a court reexamined the issue. Amcfreely 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll concede that with respect to laws that were actually litigated and declared unconstitutional, it's possible that there would be an injunction entered on remand (or as part of the settlement) which would keep the law from being enforced until one party sues to overturn the injunction. But with many state laws, only one of them (that is, the law in one state) is declared unconstitutional and then everyone assumes that all the similar laws in other states are unconstitutional based on that one precedent. Thus, there may be no injunctions directly barring enforcement of the laws that were not directly litigated, because few sane government attorneys would litigate what would have then become a frivolous case (unless they have a straight-faced argument that their state's particular law is sufficiently distinguishable). --Coolcaesar 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to hive off some sections?

This article is now pretty long; might it be worth moving certain sections into their own articles in order to shorten the main article? The page is currently 61k; Wikipedia:Article size recommends splitting up articles half that size. For example, the sections on the history and quarters of the court are interesting and directly relevant, but I think they could be moved into separate articles - History of the Supreme Court of the United States and Supreme Court building, perhaps - and linked from the main article, which would make the main article more concise without sacrificing any information. --Simon Dodd 15:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion (but the latter article should be United States Supreme Court building, as most every nation has a structure to house their highest tribunal). --BD2412 T 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there already is such an article - the material in the Supreme Court Quarters section should be merged there. --BD2412 T 17:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - since this would be a pretty major change, what is the protocol for it? Should I just go ahead, create the new articles and move the content, and people can revert this article if they don't approve, or is there a threshold of user comments pre-agreed as sufficient to split the article? Simon Dodd 17:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article having grown well beyond recommended bounds, I'd say be bold in splitting it along logical fracture lines. --BD2412 T 18:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Simon Dodd 18:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A whole bunch of structural changes, and a few substantive changes - thoughts? --Simon Dodd 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still 44k - the whole section on procedure can be broken out as well. --BD2412 T 19:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That dropped it another 34k, although I will probably need to add some notes rather than just linking, per the notes of the building. Does United States Supreme Court process sound right, and is there anything else that can go the same way?
Also, can I suggest we create a category or something of that nature, whatever seems most appropraite, to tie all these now-diversified aticles together? --Simon Dodd 19:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I've created a category which ties together these articles. One thing I'd suggest is that the category could be broadened - perhaps to include important doctrines, for example - but my concern would be the risk of it becoming excessively broad, and thus excessively long. Still, as it stands now, there is an at-a-glance means of navigating between those several articles which were spun off from this article last month. --Simon Dodd 15:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Justice O'Connor's Age

I changed the age of Justice O'Connor from "dead" to "75" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.166.29 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 December 2005.

Thank you. -- Centrx 21:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the "home state" of Justices

For reference, in re YHoshua's edit and RussBlau's revert. YHoshua is correct that Roberts' home state is Indiana, but the state listed on a Justice's commission is the state in which they are resident when appointed to the Court. Thus, the commission of the late Chief Justice - raised in Wisconsin - as an Associate Justice listed him as being Rehnquist of Arizona, while his commission as Chief Justice listed him as being Rehnquist of Virginia, wherein he had resided since his original appointment. Roberts was raised in Indiana, but resident in Maryland, and hence, is shown as Roberts of Maryland on his commission. --Simon Dodd 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Male and Female Pronouns

WRT s/he issue on the page regarding the president, I can't find the rule but generally when it could be either, doesn't English use the masculine "he"? It is certainly more correct than the singular they and less awkward than the s/he. If anyone knows the rule or guideline, please link it. -Scm83x 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Assawyer. Would that all such trivial disputes be cleaned up so neatly! --Unschool 02:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, great job, Assawyer (talk · contribs). I really didn't want to get into that! --Scm83x 02:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. When in doubt, I reach for my "easy button"... --Assawyer 03:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to what is correct, most linguists now recognize that the singular 'they' is simply correct. In common grammar of ordinary speech, this seems to be the standard way to deal with the inclusive language problem. Some may hold to artificial grammatical standards that don't reflect the real grammar of the English language as spoken by millions of people, but the complaint that a singular 'they' is incorrect is simply wrong.--Parableman 17:32, 01 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme court decisions

I was poking around some of the copyright cases SCOTUS has handled, and I was suprised to see so few links to the relevant decisions; I was even more suprised to see that no matter where I look in SCOTUS decisions or articles on it or even over on Commons and WikiSource no repositories of decisions. I say I am suprised since the decisions are pretty darn important, accessible for free from the website (well, most of the decisions, anyway), and as government-produced works, presumably public domain. There must be something I've missed in my analysis which is why decisions are not available online elsewhere, but I can't think of it. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Formatting

When I was formatting the article, I saw the Suggested Readings section. That should be merged with the References section, but possibly in a more general ===General references=== section. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes

I noticed in the biography articles that there is a succession box for a justice's seat on the SCOTUS but none for their seat on the circuit courts on which most justices previously served on. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to add these? or would it clutter up the articles? NoSeptember talk 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to add these beginning with John Roberts. NoSeptember talk 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative liberal labels

These labels really disturb me. How can we label anyone conservative or liberal and still maintain NPOV? Jgardner 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, unless all of them have self-identified as one or the other (which I find unlikely), the line is way too fuzzy for us to be stating the distinctions as fact. Ddye 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would more advantageous to list their leaning in relation to their judicial cases rather than simply labeling them?Rockumsockum 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and added an NPOV disputed label.- 20:22, 24 January 2006(EST)

Simply saying someone is conservative or liberal is not necessarily a point of view; I can say "Justice John Smith renders judgments with a conservative philosophy," and by the definition of conservative and assuming I'm not lying to you, that can be an objectively true statement. The statement might make some people immediately think of him positively or negatively, but we can't stop the reader from making those judgments on his/her own; all we can do is blandly present the facts. It would certainly be helpful to show why John Smith is labeled conservative--to cite cases in which he has passed a "conservative" judgment as Rockumsockum suggested, or to show the distribution of conservative/liberal Senators who voted to confirm him or deny his confirmation, etc.--so I do think we should do that as well, but I don't think that saying "John Smith is conservative" is NPOV. Cheers. !mAtt™ 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, most (probably all) of the Justices' articles mention their conservative/liberal/moderate tendencies. -- Pakaran 06:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to remove these labels; they are inherently POV, as illustrated by how often different editors have changed them over the past few days. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to state how the Justices have been described in the media? That tends to be pretty consistent, and we could cite specific articles. -- Pakaran 13:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including a column for each justice's political stance is not necessary, the chart is too crowded as it is. We should take it out of the chart. Keep all references to the political leanings in the paragraph below that already covers this. The labels should be properly sourced to specific articles as Pakaran suggests, now it looks too much like WP:OR. NoSeptember talk 14:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the conservative/moderate/liberal column has been removed, I'm removing {{NPOV}} from the article. Cheers.  !mAtt™ 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't understand why this disturbs people or why it should be removed? Was the fiasco on display during Alito's hearing about his hair?

The political philosophies of the justices are extremely important and also generally well known. JohnFlaherty

Condemned to repeat History: the Nominee

Large section irrelevant to building a Wikipedia article removed per WP:NOT a soapbox. -- Jonel | Speak 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Jonel but here is the essence: will you allow the essence of the relevant question to the future? I would suggest that no intervention here on Wikipedia can arrest or deflect from the future. Do as you judge.

From end of large "irrelevant" classed WP:NOT

  • I would as necessary discuss the concept of Liberty in so far as this Court is concerned. I find it preceded by the logic of the Law above and the resulting question: How can the Nominee uphold the Law of the USA from ridicule, as he is charged to do ,if he cannot uphold from ridicule,the Law of his Faith?

Someone please tell me if Law, even as represented by this Court and no other, can submit itself to Contempt or ridicule? The wikipedia has some trouble with the nature of legality in regards to its history, which over-laps with the factor of the recent nomination to this Court.I happily return simply to conserve the un-deleted preceding post from the history. I made the long post aware of the dangers of in wikipedia raising current and past issues which are painful, even at the possibility of being personally condemned for doing so. I consider the attempt to explain the past ramifications of the underlying shift in balance with this the recent nomination, to be within Jimbo Wales explanation guidelines. Therefore I request that the material explanations deleted, be studied as such- consequent and surrounding explanation. GoodbyeEffK 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK, I wish you luck in your search for Truth, but an encyclopedia such as this isn't really the place for it. If you have some verifiable information to add to the article, by all means please do so. Original research, however, is not within the purview of Wikipedia. -- Jonel | Speak 21:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Justices Picture

Since Alito will probably join the court today, the picture we have of the justices that includes O'Connor will become obsolete. I created the following gallery for the spanish version of the article. Maybe we could include it in this article until we the new justices take a new photo with Justice Alito. What do you think?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If it were used, I would crop the Roberts and Alito pictures so thier heads looked the same size as the others. As for whether the gallery or current picture is better, I have no real preference. NoSeptember talk 14:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the Alito pic would lose too much resolution if cropped. -- Pakaran 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, would a 3x3 gallary be better, with less whitespace? -- Pakaran 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no preference, I just added here to see if it was useful in this version of the article. So far, so good in the spanish version.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Alito definitely looks the most friendly. -- Centrx 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic majority

The fact that there is now a Roman Catholic majority on the Suprme Court is in the article and I want that to stay in the article. I will give you people a few days to figure out why that might be notable. -- Pinktulip 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the turn in the country, the radicals-cons wanting to turn the nation from one of religious liberty to their own theocracy, the current abortion debate should be cast in light of the catholicism of the court. Scalia siad that his catholicism should not prvent him from support of the death penalty. I wonder about support or opposition to abortion? Are we just trying to impose our own religious views in the court? The recent 9-0 relgious can trump drug law decision is dangerous. The drug laws, whichI oppose, are laws of general application. Therefore, denying a relgious sect from using them is NOT discrimination against a religion. The drug laws should be reformed as to be within the medical field and not the purview of the criminal laws. People are self-medicating because they have pains that regular doctors cannot or will not address. But the reform should apply to drug laws for all people not only some religious sect. John wesley 20:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I give, why are they important? I don't see any reason for them.

Are you telling me that something which is truly important like their political philosophy is not deemed worthy, but disturbing, and is removed, but religious affiliation is considered important enough for a whole section?

That is inconsistant and wrong. I'll give you people a few days to fiqure out why.


  • Law is the practice of reason without passion.- Aristotle

The fact that there is a Catholic majority in the Supreme Court right now is completly irrelevant to the content of this article. The most important description about the justices should be their judicial philosphy--nothing more, nothing less. The fact that some of the justices are Catholic or Jewish or Protestant or whatever is irrelevant because, ultimately, their religious affiliation does not influence their decision making. Take the case of Justice Kennedy--a Catholic who has voted in favor of gay rights and abortion rights. Once again, religious affiliation is irrelevant for a justice and therefore, should be irrelevant in this article. The fact that there is a Catholic majority is as important as saying that the majority of the justices are over sixty years old or that the majority of the justices are blonde or brunnette. It is a fact that does not matter in terms of judicial information, which is what this article is about.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think its important that we list the religious makeup of the active court. When it changes, we can change the article. It helps to further understand the context in which some decisions are made. Pepsidrinka 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Religion is 1st Amdnt jurispridence. We should include 1st Amdt views of the Justices along with political leanings. I think a link to US ConLaw would be the trick. A link to an aticle on how each Justice has written about the main Constitutional issues. !John wesley 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, Coburnpharr04. One's religious beliefs necessarily feed one's political positions, and often vice versa. This relationship is often unpredictable, but to say that there is no relationship whatsoever is false. No one is unbiased or wholly objective; one's religious beliefs can provide details as to one's point of view. Jpers36 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that sometimes religion can affect judgement, but by saying there is a catholic "majority" in the court it sounds as if this majority is a team that might work together to reach certain decisions. Keep in mind that the "catholics" on the court in the majority of the cases go to different sides. For example, Kennedy vs. Roberts or Scalia. Perhaps the fact that this "catholic" majority exists can be mentioned in a trivia section of the articel. But I don't see the point of having it in the main body of the article. Judicial philosophy should be of more importance, since it is what really divides these justices.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 21:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, "Catholic" should be capitalized. JohnFlaherty

This: "Note that the Supreme Court now has a Roman Catholic majority in justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. Contrast this with the fact that there has been only one Roman Catholic U.S. President, John F. Kennedy." absolutely is (bigoted) POV and ought to be removed. There is absolutely NO reason this should be in the article. Merecat 06:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Well, yeah. Sure. I agree. 100%

I kinda said as much when I asked why removing their political leanings was considere fair, but adding comments on the religious affilliations was peachy.

Which brings me to a question - how does someone just get the unilateral right to make a decision about something like that in a SCOTUS entry? I woul;d never just unilaterally remove a whole section without asking first.JohnFlaherty I don't see why listing the fact that 5 justices are Catholic is any worse than listing that 5 justices went to Harvard Law School. Contrasting it to JFK is unnecessary and may be somehow bigoted, but I don't see why this information should be barred from this article. Aardhart 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on folks. It is so statistically extreme that it is notable in its own right. There is plenty of literature about Kennedy being a means by which the Vatican might have controlled the USA remotely (most now acknowledge that such did not happen). They did not invent the acronym WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) for nuttin'. And, OF COURSE, it is worth thinking about with aborting rights seeming to be back in play. If you are not a U.S. Citizen (as I am), then PLEASE try to take your time before meddling. 12 seconds? 12 minutes? 12 hours? (OMG! 12 days?!?) Give it a try! Your POV can easily and more subtlely interfere with your Judgement if you have nothing to lose. Let us test the waters by putting it back (not my style; I like to talk these things out, but I am going to go for it anyway). I put it in there via a different account because other news organizations includeing the BBC felt that it was newsworthy. -- AlhambraGuy 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that Special:Contributions/Merecat displays an unusual pattern of activity. -- AlhambraGuy 01:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Please DO NOT use HTML marks if you are not going to terminate them, because you obfuscate the following rebuttals. -- AlhambraGuy 01:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really have to argue about the RC thing? It is merely a statisical fact. Those of you who are uncomfortable with this fact should try a little introspection to discover the source of that discomfort. When it is no longer true, we can rip it out. Do we reall have to go and add a half dozen links to demonstrate the notability of this statisitcal fact? One such link has now been added. Hopefully that is enough for mature editors to see that it is merely true and notable and that this fact does not represent the end of civilization as we know it. -- 68.120.198.243 15:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative explaination: Based on historical statistics, this majority seems unlikely to last very long and is perhaps best viewed as a historical anomaly or, possibly, the tradition of Catholics to operate within strictly laid down rules and in the respect of ancient precedent.

Those are attributes that are considered very desirable in a Judge: strictly adhering to the Law and strong respect for precedent. These attributes have nothing to do with religious faith or dogma. They have to do with human character and what makes a good Judge, religious, aetheist or otherwise. -- 68.120.198.243 16:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that picture?

I remember reading elsewhere that there was one single picture of the justices in session; this was taken in teh 1930s or so, and in May It Please the Court it said that it was possibly the only picture that existed. Can anybody verify, and add it into the article? - Hbdragon88 06:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, your other left

During Court sessions, the Justices sit according to seniority... with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate left, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the right farthest away from the Chief Justice...

Even the "seating chart" shown following this section depicts it otherwise. Per the SCOTUS website the senior Associate justice is to the CJ's right. Perhaps the author who added this forgot that the CJ's left hand is on the author's right when he looks at the bench?

Considering the "featured" tag and the level of discussion in here, I thought it best to point this out in Talk before I made the change. Opusaug 15:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New Group Picture

A new group picture of the court was taken on March 3, 2006. However, I can't find a good copy of the image on the internet. Does someone know where to finf one?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 12:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotus redirect

I personally find "xxxx redirects here..." notices at the top of pages to be extremely distracting and annoying, and think they should be reserved for only the most necessary of ambiguous situations. I don't think this is one of them.

"Scotus" does not refer to the Supreme Court of the United States. "SCOTUS" does. I understand that some may type "scotus" and because of the forced capitalization they would reach Scotus, but this is an improper abbreviation and I don't feel like it merits the annoying and attention-grabbing notice at the top of this page.

Therefore I think Scotus should be changed to a disambiguation page and this page should not carry the "redirects here" notice at the top. Does anyone support or oppose this? GT 18:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't find {{redirect}} notices distracting or annoying at all, and I personally think that Wikipedia contains too many unnecessary disambiguation pages. I feel that disambiguation pages should be reserved for only the most necessary of ambiguous situations, where precisely the same word has multiple unrelated meanings. I don't think this is one of them. (Also, as a matter of form, [[Feh]] should not redirect to [[Feh (disambiguation)]], but rather the other way around.) --Russ Blau (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former Justices Table?

I don't know how to create the tables, but it seems the page is wanting one for former Justices especially considering that all of the federal Courts of Appeals pages have one. Would be a great and useful addition to this page as it would allow readers to not only quickly chart the history of appointments to the Court, but also to determine which have wikipages up.--Smashingworth 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States? Or any of the other pages listed in the box on the upper-right corner of this article? --Russ Blau (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sorry. Looks good. I might suggest including that link under the section already on the page for Former Justices. Not a big deal.--Smashingworth 02:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justice O'Connor and Senior status vs. retirement

  • I took the bold step of adding Justice O'Connor to the table. The fact that she is retired doesn't mean she is no longer a member of the Court...in fact, she is still a member of the Supreme Court. The difference is that she is in Senior status, and cannot participate in the decisions proccess.

Read this, from the Senior status article: In 1937, the senior status option was extended to Supreme Court justices. A senior justice is essentially an at-large senior judge, able to be assigned to any court by the Chief Justice of the United States, but receiving the salary of a retired justice.

Furthermore, when the United States Reports volume for October 2005 is published, you will see in the first page that it says "Justices" and under it there is the list of current justices, and O'Connor's name will appear with an asterisk that says *retired. Check the October 2001 term volume and you will find that Justice Byron White still appeared as a member of the court even though he had been replaced by Justice Ginsburg in 1993. Therefore, I think Justice O'Connor should appear in the current table we have. I added her name, just placed it in italics. But if someone recommends another method, we can talk about it.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 06:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But did SOC take senior status, or did she retire? As Senior status says, senior status is "a form of semi-retirement for U.S. federal judges . . . [that] they are allowed to assume" (emphasis added). A judge can either retire, or they can take senior status - the two are distinct from one another, and in her resignation letter, O'Connor declared her retirement, not her decision to assume senior status.[1]
Moreover, senior status and retirement for judges are defined by statute. 28 U.S.C. §371(a) says that "[a]ny justice or judge of the United States . . . may retire from the office after attaining the age and meeting the service requirements . . . and shall, during the remainder of his lifetime, receive an annuity equal to the salary he was receiving at the time he retired," but §371(b) says that "[a]ny justice or judge of the United States . . . may retain the office but retire from regular active service." Again, the statute treats retirement from the bench and retirement into senior status as being two separate and distinct choices a Judge can make having attained a certain age.
IMHO, if Justice O'Connor has gone into retirement, per §371(a), she should not be in the table; if she has entered senior status per §371(b), she should be in the table. So which is it? I would submit that it is the former. §371(e)(1) sets out a series of work requirements for a judge on senior status, none of which are compatible with what SOC is currently doing. Has O'Connor "carried in the preceding calendar year a caseload involving courtroom participation which is equal to or greater than the amount of work involving courtroom participation which an average judge in active service would perform in three months," per §371(e)(1)(a)? Has O'Connor undertaken "substantial judicial duties not involving courtroom participation . . . including settlement efforts, motion decisions, writing opinions in cases that have not been orally argued, and administrative duties for the court to which the justice or judge is assigned," per §371(e)(1)(b)? Has O'Connor "performed substantial administrative duties directly related to the operation of the courts, or has performed substantial duties for a Federal or State governmental entity," per §371(e)(1)(d)? And if she has not done any of the foregoing, is that merely "because of a temporary or permanent disability," per §371(e)(1)(e)?
If the glove does not fit, you must acquit. Sandra Day O'Connor did not retire into senior status, she retired from the bench, and should therefore not be in the table of Justices. For the foregoing reasons, her entry in said table is
Removed
Simon Dodd 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Federal Judicial Center, O'Connor is in senior status. Now, when time comes for her to be certified as having completed the requirements for senior status for this year, they may kick her into full retirement, but the federal government certainly presently regards her as being in senior status.
— DLJessup (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's what FJC says, but the statute also says what it says. The §371(e)(1) criteria all assume an ongoing involvement by a Judge on senior status with the operation of the court, that is, that senior status is not retirement in the sense of leaving the court, but rather, remaining on the court with a diminshed workload. It seems to me that Justice O'Connor had and has no intention of the latter, and in any event, will not meet the statutory criteria for a judge on senior status. Maybe FJC's listing is merely an anomaly because her retirement came mid-term? Simon Dodd 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably want to take a look at this article, which goes into the statute in great detail while arguing that senior status is, in fact, unconstitutional. Take note of page 11, in which the authors note that O'Connor was taking senior status, or page 13 in which the authors note that the work that Chief Justice Burger performed to retain senior status was the chair of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, hardly a judicial office. In other words, yes, O'Connor is probably playing fast and loose with the rules of senior status—but no one's stopping her and the government is behaving as if she is in senior status.
Now, should O'Connor be on the table of the current Supreme Court, which is the issue that started this foofooraw? No. As I understand it, there is little to no work of the Supreme Court that she is presently able to do. I suppose theoretically the Court could hire O'Connor as a special master for an original jurisdiction case, but those cases are few and far between and are generally farmed out to highly successful lawyers in their prime. Since pretty much any work she will do will be administrative or be for a lower level court, she is not a member of the current Supreme Court, even though she is a senior justice.
— DLJessup (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will read that paper with interest. :) However, in advance of doing so, I feel bound to note that Burger is probably off the hook; unless the statute has been amended since that time, the work performed does not necessarily have to be judicial; §371(e)(1)(d) to be certified if they have "performed substantial administrative duties directly related to the operation of the courts, or . . . [performed such duties] for a Federal or State governmental entity", emphasis added. Simon Dodd 20:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You (Simon) probably also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. If the Federal Judicial Center says that O'Connor is in senior status, and our article cites that, that is a verifiable fact from a reliable source. If, however, Simon Dodd reads the statute, performs his own analysis of the work that O'Connor is doing, and comes to the conclusion that she should not be eligible for senior status, I'm afraid that doesn't meet the same standard of verifiability. Even if you're right! --Russ Blau (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "verifiable fact" from a "reliable source" would be a statement that on the morning of April 20th, 2006, it rained for a period in Toledo from a news outlet in Toledo. If the White House website - a "reliable source" as much as is FJC - had a press release saying that the President had authority to appoint Judges without the advice or consent of the Senate, would it be original research to read the Constitution and conclude that the White House press release was wrong? I find it hard to believe that it is better practise for the article to be inaccurate than for Wikipedia:No original research to be followed slavishly. It seems to me that whether or not a judge is in senior status is a verifiable fact, because it is defined and cirsumsribed by statute; its verification too, comes from a reliable source: title 28 of the United States Code. Simon Dodd 20:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, I must concur with your statement that O'Connor did "retire". However she did not resign. Her letter anounces to President Bush that she is retiringfrom the bench, not resigning. Furthermore, I think you are mistaken by saying that O'Connor currently has no connection to the court regarding work-load. She still has a chamber in the Supreme Court Building and she still keeps one clerk working on the court (doing what, i don't know). So, it is clear that O'Connor is in Senior Status, the Federal Judiciary Center says so, ergo, O'Connor is still a member of the USSC, only that she is in Senior Service.
Now, regarding the issue of whether or not she should be included in the table: I guess it will be confusing for people to see her name along the current justices. So, I propose that we do not include her name in the current justices table, but that we include her in the infobox at the beginning of the article, specifically pointing out that she is in Senior Status. MHO.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not as clear to me as it is to you why the mere fact that O'Connor retired rather than resigned, or that she maintains chambers and a law clerk (as has been the case with all recent retirements), would have any relevance to whether or not she has senior status. Senior status isn't some nebulous concept that can arbitrarily be used descriptively as a kinder synonym for "old judge", it is a specifically-defined term whose meaning and criteria are set by statute. The relevant questions are, ultimately, has she been certified as being in senior status by the Chief Justice of the United States, per §371(e)(1), and which of the criteria for such certification defined in §371(e)(1)(a-e) is she presently meeting? Simon Dodd 20:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • The Federal Judiciary Center has the following information. I looked at the last eight justices who retired, and all of them appear to have assumed senior status. Their service terminated on the date of their death. That's the important part....they were all members of the court, even after they retired. Hence, their appearence as members of the court in the volumes of the United States Reports. I think it is pretty obvious that all the justices who retire assume senior status, and their service ends when they die. Or is the FJC wrong after all these years?

Here are the last eight retirements I checked, all assuming senior status:

I really don't see how we can continue to question this. O'Connor is in senior status...the last eight justices to retire all went into senior status and ended their service on the date of their date, not their retirement death. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of that answers, the point, though. I have no idea what Harry Blackmun's retirement letter said, and even less idea on what terms Justice Douglas retired. The question isn't whether I think FJC is wrong, the question is whether you think that the United States Code is just kidding when it says that senior status is a specific and definable thing. Simon Dodd 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • I am not questioning that senior status is a pecific and definable thing. I am arguing that the only verifiable source we have right now is the FJC, which says not only that O'Connor is in senior status, but that all of the justices who have retired in the last 30 years also dwent into senior status.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

little help

RICO page contains the sentence "The Supreme Court will soon (26 April 2006) hear Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, which concerns what sort of corporations fall under the scope of RICO". Since it's the middle of May, perhaps someone could update it with the results - I think this page gets more attention than that one.

Miguel Estrada

This man deserves another shot at becoming a federal judge given all his hard work since coming to America. Those dirty Democrats had no right to gripe about John Roberts and Sam Alito being two more white guys after what they did to this man. I remember reading some complaints by those dirty Democrats and liberal Latino voters about Bush failing to nominate a Hispanic to the Supreme Court, and I thought to myself, "Well, what the hell about Miguel Estrada, you schmucks?" The man received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association, and yet the Democrats filibustered him. They claim he didn't provide enough information about his views, but I think what really bothered them was the fact that he is a conservative Hispanic. This just goes to show you what those dirty Democrats really are whenever blacks and Hispanics step out of line by espousing conservatism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.14 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 May 2006.

    • DC Circuit is quirky b/c it's not a state. Generally, the senator from the state that the court will be in has a veto on the nominee. But DC is not one, so no senator. When any prez nominates a person for the DC Ct of apples manzana be aware. John wesley 21:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&oldid=62520852"