Talk:John Roberts

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Roberts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

United States courts and judges Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Indiana High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as High-importance).

Abortion Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 29, 2015.

Roberts refused the Chief Justice robes

On the 29 September 2005, John Roberts stated he would not be donning Chief Justice Renquist's robes. These robes had black stripes on either arm around the elbow.

Robert's said at the time he didn't want to be seen as being "above" the other, more-experienced Justices and preferred to be one of several Justices. And so it has continued.

In my opinion, he knew in his heart he could not command nor fulfill the highest position on the court. He doubted his supervisory abilities and did not want to be seen as 'boss of the court.' While he has been comfortable with being a tie breaker, he has never risen to the position for which he was nominated.

This is evident today with the severe ethical lapses on the court. He acts like a church mouse and is happy to not get involved.

I have recognized this flaw in him since September of 2005.

RG  Clark, Dallas (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "...ban could justified on the basis of national security..." to "...ban could be justified on the basis of national security..." Bigfatmidget (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the class

White whirlwind I would just add that graduating at the top of your class can surely mean either you are ranked first (i.e., with the Fay Diploma), or in the top decile. You are right — there is no source saying that Roberts was ranked first, and no source I've found has specified what exact rank he was. But the source verifies that he was "at the top of his class," and its an accurate reflection to stick to it. I would say that "near the top" also implies that he wasn't "at the top" (i.e., the top decile), and that would be untrue. GuardianH (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the easiest solution would be to reword to something like "graduated as one of the top students in his class" or "was one of the top students in his class". White Whirlwind 03:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede discussion

Clearly we're going to have to a discussion about this so I'm preëmpting it by kicking this off. I believe PoliticalWizard55's reversion of the lede is misguided at best and leans too heavily on precedent as a determining factor.

It is fundamentally incorrect to describe Roberts broadly as an institutionalist anymore—the decisions in Chevron and Trump v. US make such an idea fallacious at best. Further, to revert changes that reflect Roberts' new positions on executive, judicial, and federal-enforcement power due to "some perceptions of one term" is ignorant of the fact that the most recent Supreme Court term was unprecedented in and of itself.

Propose reverting the final two sentences of the lede to: Once regarded as a swing vote,^[1]^[2] Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions.^[3] Fiendpie (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left? Antignomi (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely cannot tell if you're trolling. Do you have a point? Fiendpie (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make the changes you asked for without a reliable source. Does the source you provided ("Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left", a 2018 article from the Economist) say that Roberts was "once regarded as a swing vote"? Antignomi (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and apologies for coming in hot—I was pulling the direct language from the original edit so I didn't check the sourcing as closely as I should have. The below links more closely align with the sentence:

Once regarded as a swing vote,^[4] Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions.^[5]^[6] Fiendpie (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't replied because I wasn't able to access your sources. I was hoping someone else would weigh in. Could you quote the sources here? Two of them I couldn't access. Antignomi (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the portion after the comma is good, but being the median or "swing justice" does not mean the same thing as being a swing vote. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the proposed edit to the lede leaving out the part before the comma and adding an improved citation. Antignomi (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This change was reverted by @GuardianH: who explained the removal in an edit summary but did not participate in the discussion. Removing the content without replacing it was not my understanding of this proposal when I supported it so I'm restoring the longstanding version. Discussions on other articles suggest a lack of consensus that significant changes should be made based on the most recent news reports. Antignomi (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stone/Biskupic

@GuardianH: Stone changes "parochial" to "pedestrian". Biskupic originally wrote: "Roberts was not going to follow the pattern...and attend a parochial high school". You can find out more at La Lumiere School where it is explained that the school is an independent (non-parochial) school. Antignomi (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because La Lumiere eased its affiliation. At its founding, and when Roberts attended it, it was a Catholic parochial school. This is clear in Biskupic (in a later section, when describing the school's religious affiliation) and other sources. Toobin explains in The New Yorker:

Jackie, as he [John Roberts] was known, was educated at Catholic schools, and graduated from La Lumiere, at the time an all-boys parochial boarding school in LaPorte.

Tatiana Morales in CBS News:

John Glover Roberts Jr. grew up in Indiana near the shores of Lake Michigan, attending parochial schools and serving as an altar boy.

GuardianH (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still Catholic. I don't think it was ever a parochial school. "At the time" probably refers to its being a co-educational school now. She says it was founded by businessmen. Antignomi (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"At the time" is referring to when Roberts attended it – its pretty clear this is what Toobin and others refer to. GuardianH (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toobin is correct that it was an all-boys school. But it was not a parochial school. If you are satisfied with the factual error you have added to the article then leave it as it is. I don't know why you are arguing with me. I have absolutely no intention of reverting this. Antignomi (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left". The Economist. Archived from the original on July 27, 2020. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
^ Barnes, Robert (2018-06-28). "'If it wasn't the Roberts court already, it is the Roberts court now'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 6, 2018. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
^ "7 in 10 Americans think Supreme Court justices put ideology over impartiality: poll". The Oakland Press. 2024-06-27. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
^ Thomson-Devaux, Amelia; Bronner, Laura; Mejia, Elena (2020-07-16). "Roberts Is The New Swing Justice. That Doesn't Mean He's Becoming More Liberal". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2024-07-18.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Cole, David (2024-07-06). "The Supreme Court's Power Grab". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved 2024-07-18.
^ "7 in 10 Americans think Supreme Court justices put ideology over impartiality: poll". The Oakland Press. 2024-06-27. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

[1] "Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left". The Economist. Archived from the original on July 27, 2020. Retrieved 2018-10-06.

[2] Barnes, Robert (2018-06-28). "'If it wasn't the Roberts court already, it is the Roberts court now'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 6, 2018. Retrieved 2018-10-06.

[3] "7 in 10 Americans think Supreme Court justices put ideology over impartiality: poll". The Oakland Press. 2024-06-27. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

[4] Thomson-Devaux, Amelia; Bronner, Laura; Mejia, Elena (2020-07-16). "Roberts Is The New Swing Justice. That Doesn't Mean He's Becoming More Liberal". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2024-07-18.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[5] Cole, David (2024-07-06). "The Supreme Court's Power Grab". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved 2024-07-18.

[6] "7 in 10 Americans think Supreme Court justices put ideology over impartiality: poll". The Oakland Press. 2024-06-27. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]