Jump to content

Talk:Merrick Garland

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.95.24.246 (talk) at 21:10, 16 March 2016 (→Moderate/Centrist?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Merrick B. Garland 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) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-established that page as a redirect page to this article. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion?

Since MBG is oft-mentioned as a replacement for Justice Stevens, I am curious if anyone has a source to corroborate the assertion in this ABA Journal article that he is Jewish. Obviously, "diversity" of the Justices is now a topic of great interest. -- Y not? 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's Jewish, see CNN or LA Times. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does his religion even have to be mentioned? Is religion for each judge in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.223.132 (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is relevant because it is highly predictive of voting patterns on social issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:DB00:6860:C9BB:40FC:3F5F (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's satisfactory to have his religion mentioned in the article's infobox, with a cite, as is now the situation. If that became a major point of discussion, then it would be relevant to add it directly to the body of the article, perhaps in the "Personal life" section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Merrick B. Garland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected article

It will be a busy day for this article, but I wanted to note I semi-protected the article after a blitz of anonymous editing added incorrect info. It is set to expire after a week. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is a request required to extend the protection past one week? An onslaught of anonymous editing is inevitable. Buster Seven Talk 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court nomination

How about someone fixing the erroneous statement that is currently on this page about Mitch McConnel and the House Republicans vow to not vote on any nominee as "unprecedented"?!?! As it is no way unprecedented! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayliver78 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is, because even past times when Democrats said that, votes were still held. That said, this is not the forum to debate that. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the talk page IS the correct forum to discuss that. And the earlier comment is correct; calling it "unprecedented" is opinion. The statement should be sourced to explain WHO has called it that. --Outdowands (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unprecendented. See Anthony Kennedy's 1988 confirmation, when a Democratic Senate overwhelmingly confirmed him in Reagan's final year. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In the latest battle in the war for ideological control of the Federal courts, the Democrats who control the Senate have begun to delay confirming some of President Bush's nominees for major judgeships to preserve the vacancies for Gov. Bill Clinton to fill if he is elected President." http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/01/us/waiting-for-clinton-democrats-hold-up-court-confirmations.html?smid=tw-share

A judgeship is a judgeship at any level. The democrats did holdup an appointment for Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnhbradley (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the Republicans have confirmed so few Obama judicial nominees that there are judicial emergencies on "over two dozen" federal courts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu please stop pushing original research. I do not wish to debate with you as to whether the move is unprecedented or not. I am merely pointing out that the statement is disputed -- by roughly half the US population. I suggest that the article text be changed to indicate who has called it unprecedented. --Outdowands (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia's job to push accurate data. At the point where this specific situation - a Congress vowing to stop even hearing nominees with an entire year left in a president's term - has never happened before, unprecedented is accurate. "In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks." - http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/ Mt xing (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is inherently a matter of interpretation. Roughly half the US population disagrees with calling it "unprecedented" -- this is a textbook example of original research. I am deliberately avoiding expressing any opinion on whether or not the move is unprecedented. My point is that we need to correctly attribute that statement, or remove it entirely. I think it's relevant to include, so I would suggest we add attribution rather than remove it. --Outdowands (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution seems fair. Does anyone here have edit capabilities right now? Mt xing (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an issue of historical fact, not political interpretation. The neutral, third-party sources are clear that the so-called Thurmond rule is a myth (see this report from the Brookings Institution), and that the move to deny the president's nominate a confirmation hearing is unprecedented (e.g., CNN: "In an unprecedented move"); see open letter from scholars, law professors, and presidential historians, describing move as "unprecedented breach of norms")
Because this is not a seriously contested assertion among scholars or journalists, we can (and should) state it in our own voice, giving the usual endnote, with no need for in-text attribution. Neutralitytalk 16:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it still appropriate to cite historical facts, though? Mt xing (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality the issue isn't whether the statement is true or not, it's a matter of finding a reliable source that clearly states that claim. Please see WP:SYNTH for many such examples of (somewhat obviously) true statements that nonetheless require attribution. --Outdowands (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not synth, since the sources (the Brookings link excepted) discuss the unprecedented nature of the refusal to consider a nomination to this particular vacancy.
As for citation, of course it is necessary to cite historical facts. But these are cited in the footnotes section (not in-text attribution).
Out of curiosity, Mt xing and Outdowands - are you the same user? Neutralitytalk 17:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that one of the primary ways in which people use Wikipedia is as a way to find references for various facts. I for one don't pay much attention to the specific claims made in our articles, particularly political articles, because I know that the content of our articles is dictated largely by the political views of whichever group of editors is camped out on a particular page. The references are far more useful. --Outdowands (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality as a general rule of thumb, if you find a significant number of other editors disagreeing with a fact, then that's a clear indication that the statement should be properly attributed. Adding sources to statements in no way detracts from their veracity -- quite the opposite, in fact. And no, I'm not Mt xing, I'm just me. :) --Outdowands (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is properly attributed, multiple times, in the footnotes. As for in-text attribution, the question is not whether a given fact is disagreed with by random wiki editors. It is whether it is not seriously contested among relevant authorities: i.e., scholars and journalists. Here, it is not. This is very simple. Neutralitytalk 17:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your opposition to adding attribution. It's useful to readers, and helps to defuse the debate here (and prevent edit-warring) and does not detract from the truth of the statement. It is not appropriate to argue about facts here; merely add a reliable source and move on. Why are you so opposed to having the attribution? --Outdowands (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is attributed, in the footnotes. I explained why in-text attribution is unnecessary and uncalled for above. If you're not going to get that, there is little reason to continue this back-and-forth. Neutralitytalk 17:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Not to cast aspersions toward any editor but to keep the talk clean, I too thought that recent editors that have contributed to this talk page were all surprisingly new or recently activated and had only a few minor contributions. What I'm saying is that Neutrality's question about sockpuppets was not an isolated observance. Buster Seven Talk 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality I think you misunderstand what I was asking for, and I apologize for any way in which my phrasing contributed to that. I was not arguing that the statement itself be changed, but rather that additional footnotes be added. Some of those to which you refer were in fact added at my request (and with the help of Muboshgu) and that's all I was suggesting. I do think perhaps the ones more directly relevant to the "unprecedented" claim should be relocated to be adjacent to the word (so that it's clear that's what's being referenced) but I wasn't asking for a watering-down of the language, which I think is maybe what you thought, and why you were so opposed? Also, regarding Buster7's concerns regarding sockpuppetry, I can understand that and don't take offense. I create new accounts every time the "keep me logged in" on my previous one expires, because to be perfectly honest I've always found the community on Wikipedia to be highly toxic and would rather not have an ongoing history with it. I have a tendency to get involved with (and even seek out) talk page disputes because I am sometimes able to help smooth things over (which is something I feel good about doing, whenever I can) but not always... --Outdowands (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could relocate the citations to be directly after the word "unprecedented" rather than at the end of the sentence, but many of the cites support the entire sentence (i.e., the unprecedented part but also everything else). Neutralitytalk 18:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two of them were added (by Muboshgu -- thanks!) at my request specifically to support the "unprecedented" so I think it would be okay to move them. The way I use Wikipedia is to look up articles in order to find reliable sources for things, so if I came to the article trying to find support for the position that the GOP position was unprecedented, it would make that task a lot easier if the references were right there. I am also sensitive to the fact that too many references mid-sentence can be visually cluttering, so I'm not THAT strongly attached to the idea. But since the "unprecedented" claim seems to be particularly controversial to some, I think making the connection as clear as possible would go a long way to defusing arguments from the other side. --Outdowands (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

I think stating that the NYTimes "reported" that Obama is daring Republicans makes it sound like there was an actual "dare" made by the president to Senate Republicans. After reading the article, it sounds more like the NYTimes is framing the nomination as a dare but not that Obama has made an actual dare. Perhaps the term "reported" can be changed to "framed" or "interpreted."

Good point; I have copy edited a bit to hopefully make that more clear. Neutralitytalk 18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus nominee"

Under "Supreme Court Nomination," the reference given in first paragraph for Hatch's 2010 description of Garland as a "consensus nominee" (Shear, Michael, New York Times, March 16, 2016) does not mention Hatch's quote. I am supplying a reference to Salt Lake Tribune that does. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the source, by citing the 2010 Reuters article directly, which does include that phrase. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in an unprecedented move, issued an categorical vow not to consider any nominee put forth by President Obama, saying that the decision as to a Scalia replacement should be left to the next President.

S/B in a precedent move as set by Senator Joe Biden in 1992, when he declared that any SCOTUS opening during an election year should be left open for the next POTUS. Cnhbradley (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, there's no specific edit you're suggesting. But if you want to talk about Joe Biden's 1992 comments, it's best to consider them in their entirety, rather than take the snippet that fits Republican Party talking points.[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text from Senator Joe Biden on the Senate Floor in 1992:

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.

And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I’m sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnhbradley (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I request that the text be changed to indicate WHO has called it "unprecedented" (which is easy to find, since pretty much every Democrat has done so.) --Outdowands (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democrats like Lindsey Graham? We follow reliable sources, and plenty of them (like this one) clearly state that this has never happened before. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Muboshgu. The so-called Thurmond rule is a myth, and many, many sources (including the one we cite) accurately characterize the refusal to even consider a president's appointee as unprecedented. Neutralitytalk 16:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu yes, either of those should work just fine. --Outdowands (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it then. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Outdowands (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

He prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, right? That's lead-worthy stuff right there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "unprecedented" for senators to vow to not consider nominations.

I draw your attention to page 9-10 in the following PDF (page 6-7 by page-number in footer), under the heading "Opposition to the President".

There is clearly precedent for senators to proactively disapprove supreme court nominations by a president that is soon to leave office. Though it has never been a senate majority leader, that doesn't make it "unprecedented". Whether an event has precedent is not dependent on the degree of the prior precedent, but the existence of it.

The wording should either change to "unprecedented degree", which I will concede is a fair middle-ground, or should be removed entirely. I would prefer the latter-- Democratic Party leaders have been relaying this questionable claim over the past few weeks since Scalia's death and I think it's a mistake to relay that onto this site without sources to back it up. Until there is an article about this topic where it can be judged for accuracy, the neutral action is to not talk about it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.199.68 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to argue proceedure, this seems to be a minor change, so it's  Done. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, guess it is, knock yourselves out. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unprecedented for the Senate to refuse to even consider a president's nominee. This is an issue of historical fact, not political interpretation. The neutral, third-party sources are clear that the move to deny the president's nominee a confirmation hearing is unprecedented, see, e.g\,
CNN: "In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks. The historic move..."
open letter from scholars of American history and law: "We express our dismay at the unprecedented breach of norms by the Senate majority. In fact it is standard practice when a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court to have a president, whatever the stage in his term, to nominate a successor and have the Senate consider it."
Huffington Post: "One of the Republican Party's most candid senators, Lindsey Graham (S.C.), admitted Thursday a stark fact that the rest of his colleagues have tried their best to avoid: that their blockade of any Supreme Court nominee by President Barack Obama is unprecedented. ... "We are setting a precedent here today ... "We're headed to changing the rules, probably in a permanent fashion."
In what way is whitehouse.gov a "third-party" source, or HuffingtonPost "neutral"? All three of these links are editorials. My source is the Federation of American Scientists, a non-profit organization, and the piece was written in 2010 prior to any politicizing of this topic. Sources are abundant. 98.100.199.68 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The letter is published on the White House's website, but it is not produced by the White House. It is from a group of scholars from outside government, including Norman J. Ornstein (of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank), Erwin Chemerinsky (dean of the UC Irvine Law School and probably one of the leading constitutional law profs living), Doris Kearns Goodwin (a famous historian), Geoffrey R. Stone (well-known constitutional law professor), etc. Neutralitytalk 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. politics is frequently a reality distortion field, but here at Wikipedia we're supposed to follow the sources. Neutralitytalk 17:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it is the word "vow" that makes this proposed Senate non-action unprecedented. Buster Seven Talk 17:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF says, "Nineteen Senators issued a statement indicating that, on [the basis that LBJ was in a lame duck year], they would oppose any nomination by President Johnson." As far as I'm concerned, this directly opposes what's being said in the newer revision of the page-- I think that "oppose any nomination" is definitely a "categorical vow". 98.100.199.68 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, 19 senators taking a position is different from the Senate majority leader and the majority caucus taking a position. Second, the Senate did consider the Abe Fortas nomination. In fact: "the Senate held swift confirmation hearings for Fortas]." As the sources indicate, refusing to even consider a nominee is unprecedented.
In any case, that PDF report is from 2010. Reading the tea leaves from it in order to come at our own conclusion—one at odds with the more recent sources directly addressing the 2016 vacancy—is pure synthesis. Neutralitytalk 17:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not they eventually considered the Abe Fortas nomination is irrelevant-- Republicans today might still hold a confirmation hearing on Garland, too. As the current wording in the article paints it, the "unprecedented" action is not the actualized denial of a hearing, but the issuing of a declaration to do so-- the "vow" is what is described as unprecedented, and I have provided a very good source saying that it is not.
I think it's disingenuous to call this synthesis. I'm not pulling a bunch of random sources together in an attempt to paint a certain picture; the source directly talks directly about the question at hand. It is completely backwards to penalize this article because it's from 2010-- if anything, newer articles should be called into question. The idea that historical interpretation can somehow become better with increased relevance is tenuous. 98.100.199.68 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it sources reflect, the Senate Republican Caucus has vowed not to hold a confirmation hearing or otherwise consider Garland. Hypothetically, they could backtrack, and we could update the article at that time to reflect that. But I don't get your suggested "actualized denial" vs. "declaration" distinction - both are unprecedented when taken by the majority caucus of the Senate. The PDF report says nothing to the contrary. Neutralitytalk 18:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the content consideration, the current wording that says Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in an unprecedented degree, issued an categorical vow not to consider any nominee put forth by President Obama is simply very awkward and verging on ungrammatical. You don't issue a vow in a degree in English. Things are done "to a degree", if anything, but not vows anyway. The move seems unprecedented enough to me, and there are sources to state it without WP:SYNTHing ones that were written before these events, but even if not, let's at least try to make this encyclopedia readable. LjL (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to User:98.100.199.68---"oppose" is not a solemn promise to act in a certain way. "Vow" implies a solid, stern, unrelenting commitment to act in a certain way. Buster Seven Talk 18:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my response above with regards to synthesis. As for the grammar point, I agree. I am arguing more for the idea than some exact phrasing. (New to wikipedia) 98.100.199.68 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's productive to argue here over whether or not the GOP position is unprecedented. It has now been attributed to particular sources making that claim, which I think is sufficient. Interpreting precedent is a matter of opinion, and the sources for the prevailing opinion (including a Republican) have been specified. --Outdowands (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment to the D.C. Circuit section 11 Seats or 12 Seats

The Section titled Appointment to the D.C. Circuit makes references to a need to fill a 12th seat in one paragraph and then an 11th in the next which number is correct and is there a corroborating source? 174.96.14.12 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

Please change

Since 2003, Garland has been a member of the board of overseers for Howard University.[12]

to

From 2003-2010, Garland was a member of the board of overseers for Harvard University.

because: Although the source [12] does mention Howard, this would appear to be an error. Garland was elected to Board of Overseers of Harvard in 2003 [3] and was elected president for his final year, 2009-2010 [4]

Rhoow (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, it's been fixed. Pretty-big goof for the Congressional Directory to mix up Howard and Harvard - they are usually quite reliable. Neutralitytalk 19:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His parents were both Jewish

People shouldn't add this weird claim that his father was Protestant, which today was stated in a few Jewish papers. His father was the son of Max Garland and Rose Kaplan, both of whom were Jewish immigrants. Max was the brother of Louis Garland, who was Iowa Governor Terry Branstad's maternal grandfather (Branstad's mother was Jewish). Garland's father was buried in a Jewish cemetery, as you can see here. Again, totally false claim, we shouldn't spread it even further by repeating it here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this. Many publications rush to publish stuff without doing proper fact-checking, it seems. Neutralitytalk 19:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty typical stuff for a big news event. Lots of nonsense in the early hours and days, but it will sort itself eventually. —Torchiest talkedits 19:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Garland lived in Lincolnwood, IL and attended High School in Skokie, IL at a time when the whole Skokie/Lincolnwood/Morton Grove area had a high Jewish presence. Buster Seven Talk 20:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

There is a typo in the 3rd paragraph of the section "Service on the D.C. Circuit, reputation, and judicial philosophy." In that 3rd paragraph's first sentence, there is a word missing between "... Garland" and "that his most-admired...". The word might be "noted" or "stated".

2602:30A:2EFE:95F0:F876:B2EA:88E1:7DD8 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Neutralitytalk 20:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Making

Radio stations are beginning to report negotiations between concerned parties that, should Mrs. Clinton be the Democratic nominee, several high-ranking Republicans would be willing to favor approving Judge Garland in the two months preceding the election due to fears that Clintons choice would be more liberal. Any legs as an article mention? Buster Seven Talk 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality: Moderate/Centrist?

The article unquestioningly asserts that Garland is "considered" a centrist, as if that's some sort of consensus opinion, simply because two news articles assert he is. While the article details any Republican support, praise or contact, right down to mentioning he once heard Pres. Nixon speak live, it doesn't provide any support for his alleged centrism. No conservative or even center-right mentors, opinions, or positions are expressed. Instead, this seems simply like the decades-old and much-maligned public relations point of labeling every liberal as a centrist to make opposition seem unreasonable. A space alien reading sources like the New York Times and Washington Post without access to a translation would conclude that the opposite of "conservative" was "moderate." Neutrality 96.95.24.246 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)>[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merrick_Garland&oldid=710416492"