Talk:Lisa Blatt/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: SilverLocust (talk · contribs) 05:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take a look. Feel free to ignore me if and when I stray beyond what the criteria require.

She worked in the Office of the Solicitor General until 2009, when she joined Arnold & Porter. – the source ([1]) says there was a brief interregnum: "Blatt left the solicitor general's office in May 2009 and since then has served as an antitrust litigation consultant to the Federal Trade Commission. She argued on behalf of the commission in Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon Inc., a still-pending case that aims to stop a brand-name drugmaker from paying generic competitors to stay out of the market."
Added FTC. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

winning in nearly 90% of them – probably best to find a better source than David Lat for this (even just [2]) since we're bordering on WP:BLPSPS territory.
I'll cite Politico's 40–6 and Bloomberg's 41–5 for that, since those divide to 87% or 89%. To be more conservative, it could just say "over 80%". (Since then there's 4 more cases won, which would bring it to 88% or 90%, but I haven't seen a source noting 44–6 or 45–5.) SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she didn't really win in Gonzales or Cantero (as Oyez agrees), so I guess that would get us to 84%/86%? This is going to be a pretty tricky statistic to maintain long-term without original research: it might make sense to either date it in-line ("according to x in April 2024") or just replace with a generic reference to her high win rate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further demonstrating that I was in a rush when responding. Sorry, busy past few days. SilverLocust 💬 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this all-female practice – unclear what "this" is referring to
Oops, lost the context about her female partners that when I removed the sentence before it. I'll add back in more about that from this profile from Law.com. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Periods go outside quotation marks per MOS:LQ
True. I'll fix the quotation mark placement. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the first argument since 2003 by one of only two black men in private practice to argue before the Supreme Court – there's really no good way to say this unambiguously. Maybe just "one of the few black lawyers in private practice to argue..." (per [3])
~~[Response to come.]~~ SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with just quoting what she said. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the audio clip of her voice really public-domain? The recording may not be an issue, but I would think the words of her opening statement would be copyrightable in their own right. Probably safest to just pull it.
[~~Response to come.~~ It could be replaced with oral argument from when she was at DOJ.] SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough to say whether one can have a copyright on statements in an oral argument at SCOTUS. (Taking a class on copyright didn't exactly make me expert. And, to quote Blatt, "I didn't go to a fancy law school".)

There are several similar files uploaded by User:LosPajaros and used on other articles for oral advocates. You could raise the question on Commons:Village pump/Copyright or nominate the file for deletion and see if there would be a consensus on that.

I would like to include the audio here if it's public domain. Her argument style is markedly more Blattish (to use your word) than her pre-2010 oral arguments for DOJ. SilverLocust 💬 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The audio should be public domain. It's from the Supreme Court governmental website and oral argument audio traditionally ends up in the national archives. It's the reason why the Oyez Project is able to upload audio files without being sued by the U.S. government. LosPajaros (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LosPajaros/3. (We can just let this take its course independent of the GA review.) I think the copyright argument would be weaker if it was an extemporaneous remark/exchange (and hence not fixed "by or under the authority of the author"), so that would be another option if these are deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
has described the legal profession as "overrun with men" whom she has criticized as "obviously clueless that they have no talent." – the "overrun with men" part is from a different source and needs a separate cite. More generally, while it's certainly a very Blattish way of putting it, I'm not sure piecing together quips really gives readers a fair understanding of her position on this issue, which she talks about at length in a number of articles. Maybe you can find a better way to strike that balance.
I have no idea where that portion of the quote came from. I'll rephrase the sentence. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's from her Politico piece, for what it's worth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(In my haste to write some responses, I accidentally searched for "overrun with men" "list blatt".) SilverLocust 💬 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded that portion a bit. Let me know if there was some other aspect of her views on inclusion that you had in mind for a fair understanding of her position. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe consider picking a few of her more prominent/well-covered cases (e.g., Adoptive Couple, the Redskins case, the "cursing cheerleader", the Section 230 case, the first virtual argument, whatever you like) and describing them briefly: I think that can be useful for readers.
I'll add some case coverage in the next few days. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilverLocust 💬 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be in good shape. More later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Initial responses until I'm available later. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, let's wrap this up:

In 1993, she moved... et seq.: the prose is a bit choppy here (lots of short sentences starting with "she")
distinctively blunt and informal style of speaking in court: it would be fundamentally wrong in several respects not to include an example here (whichever one you like)
The court of appeals held that public schools...: something like "the court of appeals had previously held" might make the chronology clearer.
Maybe include a page range for the Kavanaugh hearing transcript (ref. 25): a 1689-page PDF is a tad daunting.
I would just leave out her children's names; they don't really add anything, and "the presumption in favor of privacy is strong".

I think that's all, although I'll give it a final read-through once you're done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. SilverLocust 💬 19:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.