![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 2, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm skeptical that the single mentions in SCOTUSblog constitute "frequent" mention. bd2412 T 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "far-fetched". Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog specifically laid out in the introductory post to his list that he used several clear criteria in choosing which people he thought a Democratic president would choose:
First, I drew an ideological line. Nominees are obviously likely to be of the same party as the President. On the other hand, I tried to set realistic ideological boundaries. Some brilliant and accomplished lawyers were left out because their previous writings identified them as too liberal or controversial to be reasonably confirmable.
Second, I identified a relevant body of previous experience. I assume that the next nominees will come from the federal bench, a state supreme court, Congress, a Governorship, a previous senior Justice Department position, or the Deanship of a major law school. Roughly 500 Democratic candidates fit that bill. (I sought to include in the final list multiple candidates from each category of experience.)
I did not include any of the many individuals (e.g., Teresa Roseborough) who could be considered serious candidates after even brief seasoning on the federal bench but who don’t yet have a sufficient body of experience. I focused instead on potential nominees for openings in the very immediate wake of the 2008 elections.
Third, I gave priority to demographics. I believe that the next President will feel an extraordinary pressure (and for some potential Presidents, a genuine desire) to name another woman to the Court, likely in a first appointment. In addition, I think that the next nominee will be non-white, and most likely Hispanic. In terms of gender, the final list includes 12 women. In terms of race, 12 candidates are African American, 6 are Hispanic, and 1 is Asian American.
Finally, I employed an age cutoff. The appointments of the Chief Justice, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas indicate that Republicans are serious about naming members who will have the opportunity to serve for many decades. I expect that Republicans will continue in that approach and that Democrats will seek to emulate it.
Goldstein's reasoning seems pretty sound to me, especially since he is a prominent Supreme Court litigator who is also a Democrat. BoBo ( talk) 06:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
SCOTUSblog is not a notable or reliable source for anything. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would remind editors that only blogs affiliated with reliable news organizations can be used as reliable sources. There are far too many references to blogs (DailyKos, SCOTUSblog, Prawfblog, etc.) Please remove these and keep them out. Madcoverboy ( talk) 14:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that any name listed in the article under "names mentioned" should have at least two sources. bd2412 T 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we please remove this section? Yes, they are sourced, but every one of them was before they were nominated to the Cabinet. There is no way he will nominate someone to his Cabinet and then turn around and nominate this unexperienced person to the Supreme Court. This section is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Reywas92 Talk 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
While there's a fair amount of speculation in this area, it's still important to include citations for factual statements, even the background ones. Without them, the speculation, etc., is just nattering (and I'm sure we don't want to do that).-- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There is still way too many assumptions going on here. We assume that someone will step down or pass away. We assume that Obama will serve out a full term, and we assume that he will pick any one of the people in this article. Obama will pick whomever he wishes when the time comes, but lets not put the cart before the horse.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Though the subject matter is speculative, the sourcing looks impressive, the structure is good, the use of maps and infoboxes is nice, and some effort appears to have been made to cover the subject comprehensively (though I wonder if more discussion of legal theory may be available). I think it qualifies for B-class, and is nearly ready to move on to WP:Good article review. I've been setting individual Obama appointments as importance Mid; since this may concern no more than one person I've set this article to the same. Mike Serfas ( talk) 09:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that a vacancy has occurred, and speculation is starting to run across a broader spectrum, I'd like to propose again the "two-mention rule" that I proposed above - that is, no name should be listed unless two independent reliable sources have suggested that name as a likely nominee. bd2412 T 18:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This section needs to be grossly condensed as it is currently an example/link farm. Rather than a speculative list, it needs to be repurposed to a descriptive account emphasizing those names that (apparently) originated within the White House with verifiable rationales for their inclusion. Current popular memes include appointing a woman, appointing a moderate, appointing a minority which have only been superficially discussed at this stage. In addition, several sources conspire to bloat this list (like SCOTUSblog and Politico) and insofar as these names have not also been suggested by reliable sources, should be removed as fringe theories. Madcoverboy ( talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly shouldn't this page give some narrative account of why they're under consideration, as suggested by Madcoverboy above? The notion that anyone interested in the topic should have to read through a couple dozen Wikipeida articles and more references to get the four or five line information summary we can give here seems counterintuitive. - Banyan Tree 01:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of this name because the lone reference was a Slate article which asks readers to pick their favorite potential justice but does not indicate that Saufley is on any short list, or is considered by experts to be a potential nominee. bd2412 T 21:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the renaming of this article from Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates to Barack Obama's candidates to the Supreme Court. First, this does not match up with the long series of articles that has now been generated on the subject (going back to Truman, so far); second, this makes it sound like everyone discussed is someone that Obama himself considers a candidate for the Court, rather than the actual thrust of the article, which is people who are thought by pundits and court experts to be candidates that Barack is likely to choose from; third, it introduces an unnecessary possessive case into the title; and finally, shouldn't it be candidates for the Supreme Court rather than to the Supreme Court? Cheers! bd2412 T 00:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
From the lede:
I'm not sure this is entirely reflective of the full situation. My understanding of the issue is that Obama gave a whole laundry list of things he wanted in a Supreme Court nominee in his speeches, most of which were noncontroversial (intelligent, skilled in the law, etc.). It was more that the "empathy" line twigged off a much larger reaction among the media as this was thought to be code for "liberal judicial activist who will govern by outcomes to favor the sympathetic, not by the law." I think it's fair to report on said media reaction, but the lede seems to be implying that Obama himself made a huge fuss about "empathy." (Which might be true, I could have missed something, but then this statement should be referenced.) SnowFire ( talk) 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently, Potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States redirects to this page. However, this is time sensitive. What happens in 2012 when a Republican runs against Obama? What happens in 2013 or 2017 when a new President takes office? It's absolutely reasonable to have such a page link to this page, but it doesn't make sense to me to have it be a redirect. Obviously this won't be a big deal for the next two years or so, but it seems like something that should have some policy in place. Mdfst13 ( talk) 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Citations are certainly important, but is it really necessary for Diane Wood to have a line of thirty-six citations following her name in the Names Mentioned section? Granted, her name came up a lot before Sotomayor was nominated for the Souter seat and is again being mentioned frequently for the Stevens seat, but even so, what's there now seems like overkill. John ( talk) 20:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Six years later, I came here to complain about the same thing, but I see that I am not the first. Looks super ugly, and at least for my chosen resolution, the long line of citations breaks layout. -- Y not? 17:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The following names on the list currently cite only one source supporting their inclusion. I believe we had agreed above that, absent a White House statement including someone on a short list, we would require two independent reliable sources to include someone, which means these names need to either be further sourced, or removed.
Cheers! bd2412 T 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Kagan should remain under administration officials, rather than Supreme Court litigators. Although her job does have her litigating before the Supreme Court, she does so in the context of her position within the administration. The section for Supreme Court litigators should be limited to private practitioners for whom this is their primary claim to credibility. bd2412 T 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The line for " Sheila Abdus-Salaam (born 1952) - Associate Judge, New York Court of Appeals" has never been supported by a citation. I have done a fairly deep search into Google hits mentioning this subject, and can find nothing at all from any reliable source suggesting that she has ever been considered a possible Obama Supreme Court candidate. The name was originally added by a Canadian IP, so it seems that it is at best someone's wishful thinking, and at worst an outright hoax. bd2412 T 12:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The list of names on the page is defined as a list of persons "mentioned in various news accounts as the most likely potential nominees"; it is not a list of people who are not anywhere considered likely to be nominees, but are advocated for by individual essayists. Furthermore, we have a long established rule that individuals must be named in multiple sources to be on this list at all (i.e. various news accounts). bd2412 T 14:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Pursuant to the foregoing, I have removed the following single-sourced names from the list; in some cases, the source did not actually suggest that the subject was "likely" to be a nominee at all, but merely advocated for an unlikely person.
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)/)Cheers! bd2412 T 15:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 10:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates →
Barack Obama Supreme Court nominations – SCOTUS justices aren't elected, rather nominated. So Barack Obama Supreme Court nominations might be a better name, as it talks about the nominations mostly.
Swil999 (
talk)
01:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Tagging @@
BD2412:, is there a reason you think this would be controversial?
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 2, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm skeptical that the single mentions in SCOTUSblog constitute "frequent" mention. bd2412 T 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "far-fetched". Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog specifically laid out in the introductory post to his list that he used several clear criteria in choosing which people he thought a Democratic president would choose:
First, I drew an ideological line. Nominees are obviously likely to be of the same party as the President. On the other hand, I tried to set realistic ideological boundaries. Some brilliant and accomplished lawyers were left out because their previous writings identified them as too liberal or controversial to be reasonably confirmable.
Second, I identified a relevant body of previous experience. I assume that the next nominees will come from the federal bench, a state supreme court, Congress, a Governorship, a previous senior Justice Department position, or the Deanship of a major law school. Roughly 500 Democratic candidates fit that bill. (I sought to include in the final list multiple candidates from each category of experience.)
I did not include any of the many individuals (e.g., Teresa Roseborough) who could be considered serious candidates after even brief seasoning on the federal bench but who don’t yet have a sufficient body of experience. I focused instead on potential nominees for openings in the very immediate wake of the 2008 elections.
Third, I gave priority to demographics. I believe that the next President will feel an extraordinary pressure (and for some potential Presidents, a genuine desire) to name another woman to the Court, likely in a first appointment. In addition, I think that the next nominee will be non-white, and most likely Hispanic. In terms of gender, the final list includes 12 women. In terms of race, 12 candidates are African American, 6 are Hispanic, and 1 is Asian American.
Finally, I employed an age cutoff. The appointments of the Chief Justice, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas indicate that Republicans are serious about naming members who will have the opportunity to serve for many decades. I expect that Republicans will continue in that approach and that Democrats will seek to emulate it.
Goldstein's reasoning seems pretty sound to me, especially since he is a prominent Supreme Court litigator who is also a Democrat. BoBo ( talk) 06:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
SCOTUSblog is not a notable or reliable source for anything. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would remind editors that only blogs affiliated with reliable news organizations can be used as reliable sources. There are far too many references to blogs (DailyKos, SCOTUSblog, Prawfblog, etc.) Please remove these and keep them out. Madcoverboy ( talk) 14:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that any name listed in the article under "names mentioned" should have at least two sources. bd2412 T 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we please remove this section? Yes, they are sourced, but every one of them was before they were nominated to the Cabinet. There is no way he will nominate someone to his Cabinet and then turn around and nominate this unexperienced person to the Supreme Court. This section is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Reywas92 Talk 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
While there's a fair amount of speculation in this area, it's still important to include citations for factual statements, even the background ones. Without them, the speculation, etc., is just nattering (and I'm sure we don't want to do that).-- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There is still way too many assumptions going on here. We assume that someone will step down or pass away. We assume that Obama will serve out a full term, and we assume that he will pick any one of the people in this article. Obama will pick whomever he wishes when the time comes, but lets not put the cart before the horse.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Though the subject matter is speculative, the sourcing looks impressive, the structure is good, the use of maps and infoboxes is nice, and some effort appears to have been made to cover the subject comprehensively (though I wonder if more discussion of legal theory may be available). I think it qualifies for B-class, and is nearly ready to move on to WP:Good article review. I've been setting individual Obama appointments as importance Mid; since this may concern no more than one person I've set this article to the same. Mike Serfas ( talk) 09:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that a vacancy has occurred, and speculation is starting to run across a broader spectrum, I'd like to propose again the "two-mention rule" that I proposed above - that is, no name should be listed unless two independent reliable sources have suggested that name as a likely nominee. bd2412 T 18:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This section needs to be grossly condensed as it is currently an example/link farm. Rather than a speculative list, it needs to be repurposed to a descriptive account emphasizing those names that (apparently) originated within the White House with verifiable rationales for their inclusion. Current popular memes include appointing a woman, appointing a moderate, appointing a minority which have only been superficially discussed at this stage. In addition, several sources conspire to bloat this list (like SCOTUSblog and Politico) and insofar as these names have not also been suggested by reliable sources, should be removed as fringe theories. Madcoverboy ( talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly shouldn't this page give some narrative account of why they're under consideration, as suggested by Madcoverboy above? The notion that anyone interested in the topic should have to read through a couple dozen Wikipeida articles and more references to get the four or five line information summary we can give here seems counterintuitive. - Banyan Tree 01:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of this name because the lone reference was a Slate article which asks readers to pick their favorite potential justice but does not indicate that Saufley is on any short list, or is considered by experts to be a potential nominee. bd2412 T 21:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the renaming of this article from Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates to Barack Obama's candidates to the Supreme Court. First, this does not match up with the long series of articles that has now been generated on the subject (going back to Truman, so far); second, this makes it sound like everyone discussed is someone that Obama himself considers a candidate for the Court, rather than the actual thrust of the article, which is people who are thought by pundits and court experts to be candidates that Barack is likely to choose from; third, it introduces an unnecessary possessive case into the title; and finally, shouldn't it be candidates for the Supreme Court rather than to the Supreme Court? Cheers! bd2412 T 00:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
From the lede:
I'm not sure this is entirely reflective of the full situation. My understanding of the issue is that Obama gave a whole laundry list of things he wanted in a Supreme Court nominee in his speeches, most of which were noncontroversial (intelligent, skilled in the law, etc.). It was more that the "empathy" line twigged off a much larger reaction among the media as this was thought to be code for "liberal judicial activist who will govern by outcomes to favor the sympathetic, not by the law." I think it's fair to report on said media reaction, but the lede seems to be implying that Obama himself made a huge fuss about "empathy." (Which might be true, I could have missed something, but then this statement should be referenced.) SnowFire ( talk) 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently, Potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States redirects to this page. However, this is time sensitive. What happens in 2012 when a Republican runs against Obama? What happens in 2013 or 2017 when a new President takes office? It's absolutely reasonable to have such a page link to this page, but it doesn't make sense to me to have it be a redirect. Obviously this won't be a big deal for the next two years or so, but it seems like something that should have some policy in place. Mdfst13 ( talk) 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Citations are certainly important, but is it really necessary for Diane Wood to have a line of thirty-six citations following her name in the Names Mentioned section? Granted, her name came up a lot before Sotomayor was nominated for the Souter seat and is again being mentioned frequently for the Stevens seat, but even so, what's there now seems like overkill. John ( talk) 20:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Six years later, I came here to complain about the same thing, but I see that I am not the first. Looks super ugly, and at least for my chosen resolution, the long line of citations breaks layout. -- Y not? 17:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The following names on the list currently cite only one source supporting their inclusion. I believe we had agreed above that, absent a White House statement including someone on a short list, we would require two independent reliable sources to include someone, which means these names need to either be further sourced, or removed.
Cheers! bd2412 T 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Kagan should remain under administration officials, rather than Supreme Court litigators. Although her job does have her litigating before the Supreme Court, she does so in the context of her position within the administration. The section for Supreme Court litigators should be limited to private practitioners for whom this is their primary claim to credibility. bd2412 T 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The line for " Sheila Abdus-Salaam (born 1952) - Associate Judge, New York Court of Appeals" has never been supported by a citation. I have done a fairly deep search into Google hits mentioning this subject, and can find nothing at all from any reliable source suggesting that she has ever been considered a possible Obama Supreme Court candidate. The name was originally added by a Canadian IP, so it seems that it is at best someone's wishful thinking, and at worst an outright hoax. bd2412 T 12:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The list of names on the page is defined as a list of persons "mentioned in various news accounts as the most likely potential nominees"; it is not a list of people who are not anywhere considered likely to be nominees, but are advocated for by individual essayists. Furthermore, we have a long established rule that individuals must be named in multiple sources to be on this list at all (i.e. various news accounts). bd2412 T 14:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Pursuant to the foregoing, I have removed the following single-sourced names from the list; in some cases, the source did not actually suggest that the subject was "likely" to be a nominee at all, but merely advocated for an unlikely person.
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)/)Cheers! bd2412 T 15:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 10:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates →
Barack Obama Supreme Court nominations – SCOTUS justices aren't elected, rather nominated. So Barack Obama Supreme Court nominations might be a better name, as it talks about the nominations mostly.
Swil999 (
talk)
01:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Tagging @@
BD2412:, is there a reason you think this would be controversial?