This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
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
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.
This 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 is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
I know better now than to argue with you over dense wording and other such issues. I do think that this is an exceptionally well presented article, laying out the legal history and ultimate legal resolutions and ramifications clearly. So I'll just mention two unclear points. What do these phrases mean:
"sitting by designation."
This means a judge appointed to one court is sitting on another court. Unfortunately, there is no article on Wikipedia to link to for further explanation (yet). I feel like I have explained this concept, at least somewhat, by noting the court that the judge is appointed to and the court that is hearing the case. I am hesitant to slow down the prose by explaining this concept much further (the procedures that go into determining which judges hear which case are not directly relevant to any of the issues in this case). If there were something to link to, I would. Savidan 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I gather from the context that a "judge is appointed" etc. I guess my question is, who does the appointing? Some overall presiding judge, or appellate court/judge or what? In other words, it sounds like a possibly partial process, depending on how the "appointing" process is carried out. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Assignment to actual cases is basically random within the judges on the relevant court. The chief judge of the court can approve federal judges from other courts to sit by designation. Savidan 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, doesn't reassure me though - "random with the judges" - how do they manage that? But I'll leave it be. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"placing the matter on the pending call indefinitely"
This is a quirk of Illinois state grand jury law (at least at the time). The only real relevance to the article is that the defendants utilized this procedural device to cause the case against the bribe-payors not to proceed. Savidan 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
