Humanities desk
< August 12	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 13

Gorsuch Roberts Alito Kavanaugh

Are these United States Supreme Court Justices adherents of the Jesuit Society?Rich (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a graduate of a Jesuit university who is not Catholic, the notion of "adherents" seems strange to me in this context. None of these men are priests, and the Society of Jesus does not accept laymen as members. Gorsuch attended Columbia, Yale and Oxford. None of those universities are Jesuit. Roberts attended Harvard. Not Jesuit. Alito attended Princeton and Yale. Neither is Jesuit. Kavanaugh attended Yale. Not Jesuit. There are about 27 Jesuit universities in the United States. None of these Supreme Court justices attended one of them. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is not an invitation to debate. The notion of "adherent" (rather than "member") of the Society of Jesus is not particularly meaningful. Attending a Jesuit-run college-preparatory school (as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did) is not a kind of brainwashing that turns one into an "adherent". --Lambiam 08:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are allegations that "Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito either belong to or are close to members of Opus Dei". Opus Dei is different from the Jesuits. Pope Francis is a Jesuit and, in 2022, moved the position of Opus Dei within the church. Both organizations were founded by Spaniards but with centuries of difference. Opus Dei has a place for secular married and single men and women. Jesuits include only single men (but for, perhaps, Joanna of Austria, Princess of Portugal), most of them priests.

--Error (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Leo also is or used to be in Opus Dei. I have learned from your answers that I possibly should have asked instead if the justices I referred to were members of Opus Dei.Rich (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it. Just to note that the Jesuits and Opus Dei generally don't get on at all well. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that personal observation?Rich (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Controversies_about_Opus_Dei#Historical_opposition_from_Jesuits e.g. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If enough of the criticism of Opus Dei in the article you linked is valid, the organization seems capable of and likely to decide to groom and train people of high ability to infiltrate the U.S. Judiciary to make rulings that Opus Dei favors.Rich (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Leonard Leo is known to have facilitated this. --Lambiam 22:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Neil Gorsuch may have been raised Catholic but he now attends an Episcopal church and was married in a non-Catholic ceremony. I'm fairly sure it would be very weird for him to be remain in Opus Dei let alone to have some sort of continuing official connection with the Jesuits. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choice-of-court clauses in US federal courts

Special:Random led me to Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, in which the plaintiffs sued in one state despite a contract requiring them to bring any suits in a different state. When US federal law is relevant, if you violate a forum selection clause as these folks did, do you generally lay yourself open to a counter-lawsuit for breach of contract, or do you "merely" lay yourself open to having your lawsuit dismissed? Forum selection clause#Effect of breach says it is theoretically possible to sue for damages for bringing proceedings in breach of a jurisdiction clause, examples are rare, but the source discusses English law. Nyttend (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot cite relevant cases, but it stands to reason that when one party to a contract causes significant damages to the other party by voluntarily disregarding their contractual obligations, they thereby make themselves liable to legal action. I can't think of a reason why this should be otherwise here, unless for some reason the forum selection clause on the contract is null and void by law. --Lambiam 08:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is often a good faith dispute as to the validity of a forum selection clause (as was the case in Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute), and the appropriate remedy for the choice of an inappropriate venue is either transfer to the appropriate venue or dismissal without prejudice. I suppose that a court might be willing to grant some kind of damages for a bad faith choice of an inappropriate venue, but I've never seen that granted or even asked for in a U.S. court. John M Baker (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

I have just noticed that there is a full category of Category:United States presidential election endorsements. On first sight, they seem to be a list of "I will vote for X in the upcoming elections!" said by notable people. Just to be clear (I'm not from the US and know little about its laws), is a political endorsement in the US really just that? I mean, is it something formal or legally binding on the one who said it, part of some legal requirement, or a relevant aspect of the electoral process? Or is it just trivia like a "List of notable Star Trek fans"? Cambalachero (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possibility of these pronouncements being legally binding. The word "endorsement" means literally "writing on the back." That is what happens when someone "endorses" a cheque. An endorsement on an insurance policy is a change of the terms and conditions. That may originally have been done by writing on the back, but was often effected by the use of stickers modifying the standard wording. See political endorsement. 91.234.214.10 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen the stub, and it's not of much help, because it's that, a stub. Cambalachero (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question: No, these endorsements have no legal standing. A person who has some fame (politician, actor, etc) may announce publicly that he/she supports a certain candidate (party, or policy), as a means of encouraging other people to support the same candidate. It is just as easy to endorse someone as it is to change your mind and un-endorse them. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalachero, back to the original question: some of these are more significant, e.g. List of United States presidential election endorsements made by The New York Times. NYT consistently gives its reasoning for its endorsements, and they often get mentioned in other publications, e.g. this from CNN; it's not merely saying "I'll support X". Also, pre-1960s primary endorsement pages are much more significant, since these date from a time when the party officeholders in question were much more significant. Today, primary elections functionally choose the party's candidate, and the party convention is generally a rubberstamp and a chance for the party to get publicity, but in that era, the convention made the real decisions, and officeholders such as the ones mentioned in Endorsements in the 1920 Republican Party presidential primaries were significant because they were a large share of the convention, and (perhaps, I don't know) might have been bound to their endorsements. This is radically different from List of Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign endorsements, which is basically what you describe on first sight. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]