Talk:Courts of California

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Courts of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731223019/http://www.ncsconline.org/D_KIS/info_court_web_sites.html to http://www.ncsconline.org/D_kis/info_court_web_sites.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging inappropriate ahistorical edits by User:Amitabho applying the administrative court rubric to American administrative hearings

It looks like User:Amitabho has some experience with administrative law (including writs of administrative mandate) but not enough training in political science. (I was a history major, but I did take courses in poli sci and political philosophy in college.) As anyone familiar with both poli sci and admin law is aware, the term administrative court is unheard of in the United States because an admin court in countries which have them is part of the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

As Justice Scalia explained (in the quote which I added to the administrative law judge article), admin agencies make rules and adjudicate disputes, but those are pursuant to the executive power, not the judicial power, because of the strict separation of powers under the federal Constitution (which is also adhered to by the state constitutions). Accordingly, User:Amitabho's attempt to apply the "administrative court" rubric to adjudicative hearings held by American admin agencies is original research in violation of WP:NOR, as well as flatly wrong in violation of WP:V. Any objections before I start cleaning up this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objections, I'm taking out the trash. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolcaesar: Had I seen the original post, I would have registered my agreement with you at that time. BD2412 T 21:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]