![]() | Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article claims that no justice from the state of Florida has been appointed. Kentaji Brown Jackson grew up in Miami. Doesn't that make her from Florida? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:9D6F:509B:89FB:4256 ( talk) 12:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I was reading this section about Roman Catholics on the court and noticed Sherman Minton was listed there. I find this just a bit curious. Minton was, if anything, agnostic. He shunned religion almost his entire life, and only, very rarely, attended mass with his wife following his retirement from the court. He was in no way a practicing Catholic while he was a sitting Justice. At best, he was nominally Catholic, and arguably he only attended Mass in his retirement to please his wife. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I think he should be removed the table, but the information in prose is acceptable. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm away from my sources right now, but I seem to recall from the Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court that Frankfurter was the only justice who was not a native speaker of English. Should this be mentioned, perhaps in the Geographic section? Magidin ( talk) 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
In light of the death of Justice Ginsburg's husband, I am interested in appending the section covering marriage to indicate which Justices were widowers while on the bench. If anyone knows offhand of a Justice having lost their wife during their term of service, please let me know. bd2412 T 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
While I respect the opinion of BD2412, that the informal pictures of some justices livens up the page. I feel that they undermine the respect usually aforded to a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, especially since most of the images used in this article are portraits of the justices in their judicial robes. Also I am not saying that BD2412 has issued any bias but there might be precieved bias with the informal images used only with female justices.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a note for someone that's better versed in formatting references used in legal articles, but someone should really work on harmonizing the reference formatting in this article. I've gone through the body text and fixed the dash errors and reformatted the dates in the footnotes. Before my editing, there were hyphens being used inappropriately and 3–4 date formats in use in the footnotes. There is still a mix of formatting styles with some using templates and the rest hand-formatted in different styles. I have no opinion on switching them all to templates, which might be easier, or to convert all of the notes to hand-formatting. I just think that the formatting should be consistent no matter the approach. Imzadi 1979 → 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently, User:The Universe Is Cool and I have disagreed on the use of the term "European American" to describe Justices previously identified in the article as "White" or "Caucasian". I believe the phrase "European American" is unusual as a demographic descriptor, and that the more common terms, "White" or "Caucasian", should be used. I believe that because "European American" is an unusual way to describe white people of European descent, it will tend to mislead readers into thinking that Justices described in that way were actually born in Europe, or have some other unusual connection with continental Europe beyond that of typical white people born in the United States. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that there have been several actual European-born Justices. I have reviewed the sources referenced in this article, and have searched for others, but have not found a single source referring to the Justices as "European American". I would therefore like to gauge whether there is consensus to stick with the use of "White" or "Caucasian" to describe these Justices in this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In the section Religion, it says that of the 112 justices 91 were Protestant, 13 Catholics, 8 jews and 1 without any religious affiliation. However 91+13+8+1 = 113. Either the numbers are wrong or someones religious affiliation needs to be better explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.13.190 ( talk) 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Should Cardozo be counted as a Jewish justice in this section. He was of Jewish heritage and heavily involved in that community, but according to the rest of the article, as an adult he did not recognize that as his religion and was agnostic. It doesn't seem to fit as his "religion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.160.127 ( talk) 05:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've read recently, that in many US Supreme Court cases, the differences of opinion are often composed of a bipartisan divide, that is, a liberal view against a conservative view. Have any other WP contributors heard this idea before? If so, can you help me find reliable sources?
Five members of the current Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents. Four justices were nominated by a Democratic president. The standard (and simplistic) view of the current Court's politics is:
THE CONSERVATIVES: Scalia (appointed by Reagan) , Thomas (appointed by George Bush, Sr.), Alito (appointed by George W. Bush), and C. J. Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush). "SWING JUSTICE": Kennedy (appointed by Reagan). Justice Kennedy is more moderate of than the conservative justices. His views tend to be more libertarian than, for example, those of Chief Justice Roberts.
THE LIBERALS: Breyer (appointed by Clinton), Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton), Sotomayor (appointed by Obama), Kagan (appointed by Obama). University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
On the other hand, is there a controversy over whether the above idea is true? That is, do sources generally say that liberal vs. conservative politics doesn't really enter into Supreme Court rulings, or do some say yes while others say no? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
There is discussion about marriage on the demographics page, but there is nothing about children. I believe that having children keeps people in touch with more modern advances in technology. The latest technological gaffes by the SCOTUS highlight this. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have never had children, and they are the youngest on the court. The other justices are pretty much grandparents which just serves to emphasize their distance from our fast-paced tech-driven world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCA4:C6F0:21F5:CAA9:D592:267F ( talk) 12:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
User:128.12.253.5 has sought to edit this page, primarily by changing all instances of "African-American" to "black", stating in his edit summary, "You can't use white and African American. Even ignoring the fact that African American is used improperly on this page, its use, for purposes of consistency, the term European American would be required". Other editors clearly disagree with this proposition. Let's discuss and see if we can reach a consensus. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
There's been at least two (well-meaning, I am sure) edits adding Merrick Garland to the discussion on Jewish justices; here and here. I reverted both of them. There are a few references to nominees and potential nominees in the article, but they are all either failed nominations, or about speculation on the first potential nominee of a particular group. It seems to me to be a stretch to be adding Garland to this article at this point in time. Magidin ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. 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) 19:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/john_paul_stevens_second_oldest_justice_ever{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://chrome.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/histBio.htmlWhen 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) 19:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you please add a timeline just for Protestant Jaustices? I really need one. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:C7C:3525:AAE9:5A67 ( talk) 00:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
We need to stop the back and forth. The whole point of the reliable citation is that, as of last report, not even his brother knows whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or not. We count Thomas on the basis of what he considers himself (he was not counted as a "Catholic justice" when confirmed), so Gorsuch would be a "Catholic justice" if he considers himself a Catholic, regardless of what Church he attends on a regular basis, and a "Protestant justice" if he considers himself to be a member of the Episcopal Church. We don't decide that for him. I favor the previous neutral language rather than trying to shoehorn Gorsuch into the count by hook or by crook, leading to caveats. The current phrasing is bad, ("With Anthony Kennedy's retirement in July 2018, the number of Catholic Justices went down to four, and returned to five by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, or six if Gorsuch is demarcated as a "Catholic.") because it didn't go from four to six if Gorsuch is counted as Catholic; so it should have to say "down to four, or five if Gorsuch is considered a Catholic, to five by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, or six if Gorsuch is demarcated as a "Catholic"." or some similar locution, which is a mess. We don't decide for him; he isn't saying; his immediately family is unsure. I say we go back to the previous version, With Anthony Kennedy's retirement in July 2018, the number of Catholic Justices went down by one, and returned to its previous number by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.) Magidin ( talk) 21:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
In public participation and on official membership record, which has been made public, Neil Gorsuch is a member, and an active member, of the Episcopal Church. This was confirmed by reliable media outlets and by the parishes themselves. I think it is appropriate for the article page to note that this includes media speculation that hey may conceptualize his faith as being Catholic and also a member of The Episcopal Church. However, the facts should be clearer. It is not 'uncertain' what his membership his. He himself has been clear through his public membership and participation. I think Neil Gorsuch speaks for himself through his voluntary, public, and committed membership in The Episcopal Church. What is fair to say is uncertain is that he may very well consider himself to be Catholic and Episcopalian at the same time. Many Americans identify with one more more Christian denomination or even religion. So, that I think is accurate to say and explain.
I also wanted to take a moment to note the apparent contradictions in the CNN(2017) article. It simultaneously says that Gorsuch "joined" Holy Comforter and that the Gorsuches were listed as members "according to church records" and that there is no record that he formally joined. [1] So, we have to take the reporting with that grain of salt. Part of reviewing sources includes reviewing the accuracy and reliability of a report. I do not think that the source is unreliable. However, the reporting for that article has some ambiguity. I'd even say that it is the article that is complicated, unnecessarily so, and not so much the Gorsuches' faith. It does come across that the CNN article is unclear given what church records say. Other sources also confirm that the Gorsuches were members belonging to their Episcopal churches at which they attended mass. [2] SeminarianJohn ( talk) 04:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Neil Gorsuch and his wife were married in The Church of England, also a part of the Anglican Communion of which The Episcopal Church is the US branch. [3] Several other media outlets, other than CNN, also report that Gorsuch is a member of St. John's Episcopal Church. [4] [5] [6] [7] SeminarianJohn ( talk) 05:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Regarding the recent edits about Gorsuch by me, @ 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:55E1: and @ BD2412:, do we agree that any claim that Gorsuch specifically isn't Protestant is unsupportable? In addition to the sources above, journalists from Washington Post and Denver Post and a social scientist from Gallup have written specifically that he is an Episcopalian (Protestant), and used to be a Catholic. (Also, many other sources from within the Episcopalian Church claim him too, but their potential bias is maybe too much to be worth considering here.) I couldn't find the contrary position expressed (that he is nevertheless a Catholic). CNN reports in detail that there is ambiguity. TheFeds 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has changed "always white male Protestants" in the lede to "always white male Secularists (in some cases Secular humanists) or Protestants". Reference to secularists or secular humanists is not found in Segal and Spaeth, which is the source to which the other demographic characteristics are attributed. The same editor has added the following paragraph:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits use of religious law or legal fictions as a source of law in its interpretation, and Justices who are either intentionally using religious law (or legal fictions) or subsconsciously doing so have often faced questions about their competency and legitimacy. Two of the Supreme Court decisions most infamous for this are Roger Taney's Papal-based view of the "Person" and "Citizen" ineligibility of Africans he imposed in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Samuel Freeman Miller's claim of "God"-originated law in Bradwell v. Illinois that women were, by their bio sex, unqualified for practice of law and states could deny them law licenses on grounds of their bio sex alone.
None of this is cited. I find this content controversial, and propose that it should be removed. Note that if there is no consensus in favor of retaining this content, the status quo ante will be restored, per WP:BRD. bd2412 T 02:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you please fix the timeline of Catholic Justices? Because Kennedy's line still continues even though Brett Kavanaugh is on the graph. Please fix Kennedy's line. Please.
She's the second minority Justice and the first Hispanic one, but Hispanic is not a racial classification. Is it correct to call her the second non-white Justice? 2A02:A03F:506A:1700:15C7:69F1:8AB4:D6E0 ( talk) 22:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The article states that Byrnes, appointed June 1941, was the last justice without a law degree to be appointed. The page on Robert H. Jackson claims the distinction for him, and Jackson's service started in July 1941. Byrnes and Jackson were both nominated/appointed on June 12, 1941; the vote on Byrnes happened the same day, and he took the oath on July 8, 1941. Jackson's vote was on July 7, 1941, and he took the oath on July 11, 1941. So it seems that Jackson is the correct name to have there, not Byrnes. Magidin ( talk) 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The Geographic Background section, fourth paragraph, currently reads: "As of 2020, the Court has a majority from the Northeastern United States, with six justices coming from states to the north and east of Washington, D.C. including two justices born or raised in New York City, two from Maryland, and two from Massachusetts. The remaining three justices come from Georgia, California and Colorado[.]" There's an extra one after Ginsburg's death, and in any case, I'm not sure what all the designations might be. Georgia is Thomas, California is Breyer, Colorado is Gorsuch, New York City are Sotomayor and Kagan. It looks like the rest are mixing where they were born and where they might be from when appointed? Kavanaugh was born in D.C., but presumably is one of the ones described as "Maryland"; Alito was born in New Jersey, Roberts in Buffalo. I'm at a loss here, and in any case I don't think it's particularly good to be mixing born/raised with where they may be "from" when commissioned (assuming that's what the issue is here, rather than orphaned text that was not changed at some earlier point)... Magidin ( talk) 21:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Barrett is a native of Louisiana, grew up in New Orleans, and attended college in Tennessee. Her connection to Indiana begins with Law School (Notre Dame), and her later professional life (professor at Notre Dame and then in the 7th Circuit). While her commission refers to her as being from Indiana, should the Louisiana connection be acknowledged or indicated? Magidin ( talk) 16:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The opening paragraph in the Religion section reads in part: "Of the 114 justices who have been appointed to the court, 91 have been from various Protestant denominations, 13 have been Catholics (one other justice, Sherman Minton, converted to Catholicism after leaving the Court)." This needs to be updated. The table in the section shows 15 justices under "Catholic". ScotusBlog refers to Barrett as the 115th justice (which matches our numbers: 103 associate justices, 17 chief justices, and of the latter five were previously associate justices: Rutledge, Ed White, Hughes, Stone, and Rehnquist), so I think the numbers should be 115 total and 15 Catholics. Magidin ( talk) 16:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Genetically speaking, ethnically Jewish people are not White. This was definitively proven during the Korean War when Primaquine was used on them. Primaquine causes no adverse side effects on Whites, but Jews, Blacks, Lebanese, and other groups of Non-Whites have severe and potentially fatal reactions.
The demographics need to be adjusted, as it paints a false picture, as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim are all equally non-White.
Additional discussion should also be considered for Irish, Scottish, and Welsh origins, as Celts and the like weren't considered White until less than a Century ago, and similar misidentification of Whiteness of them can be as misleading as misidentifying Jews as White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:30D1:C030:3879:A489:BA93:D10F ( talk) 14:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The table in Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Catholic_justices shows him as Chief Justice throughout his tenure. He was actually an Associate Justice from 1894 to 1910, and Chief Justice from then until 1921. I suggest that the table should look something like this - although I am not sure how to fix the fact that it shows McKenna J as starting in 1895 rather than 1898.
Graphical timeline of Catholic justices:
In the first sentence of the "Ethnic groups that have never been represented" section, it states that "there has never been a Justice with any Slavic ... ancestry". John Roberts's mother is of Slovak descent. Am I missing something here? I can't imagine something this brazenly incorrect could have lasted for long. - Mad Mismagius ( talk) 11:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I am interested in what the heights of the Supreme Court Justices have been (who was the shortest and tallest, etc.); would it be reasonable to add a section for that here? (The article was one of the top results for a Google search of "supreme court justices height" despite not actually appearing to contain that information as of present). Cooljeanius ( talk) ( contribs) 16:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a section discussing the propensity of justices to either retire from the Court, or serve until their death. BD2412 T 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Drdpw removed from the section on individual states a note stating that "President Nixon reportedly intended to nominate Herschel Friday of Arkansas to a seat on the Court, but changed his mind hours before announcing a different nominee.<ref name ="atb">{{Cite book |last=Margolick |first=David |url=https://archive.org/details/atbarpassions00marg/page/212 |title=At the bar : the passions and peccadilloes of American lawyers |date=1995 |publisher=New York : Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-0-671-88787-2 |pages=213-4}}</ref>"
I have looked through Wikipedia's policies, and can't seem to find one that says that an encyclopedia article can only discuss nominated individuals, even where reliable sources discuss those who were considered for nomination, even with the nomination decision being withdrawn hours before the announcement. Can someone point me to the policy that specifies that, because WP:RS and WP:NOTEWORTHY seem to suggest otherwise. BD2412 T 04:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
There is some lack of consistency about where justices are listed being "from". In the Gender section, for example, Barrett is listed as being from Indiana, and Jackson as being from D.C. Barrett was born in Louisiana, and didn't leave the state until she went to College in Tennessee; her Indiana identification comes from her later professional life. Jackson was born in D.C., but moved to Florida before she started public school, and lived in Florida from an early age until she went to Harvard for undergraduate. I don't see how these two identifications can be consistent with each other. (Unless the D.C. identification of Jackson is from her service as a Federal Judge?) We should either settle for a uniform practice, or add the necessary caveats where appropriate. Magidin ( talk) 17:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article claims that no justice from the state of Florida has been appointed. Kentaji Brown Jackson grew up in Miami. Doesn't that make her from Florida? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:9D6F:509B:89FB:4256 ( talk) 12:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I was reading this section about Roman Catholics on the court and noticed Sherman Minton was listed there. I find this just a bit curious. Minton was, if anything, agnostic. He shunned religion almost his entire life, and only, very rarely, attended mass with his wife following his retirement from the court. He was in no way a practicing Catholic while he was a sitting Justice. At best, he was nominally Catholic, and arguably he only attended Mass in his retirement to please his wife. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I think he should be removed the table, but the information in prose is acceptable. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm away from my sources right now, but I seem to recall from the Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court that Frankfurter was the only justice who was not a native speaker of English. Should this be mentioned, perhaps in the Geographic section? Magidin ( talk) 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
In light of the death of Justice Ginsburg's husband, I am interested in appending the section covering marriage to indicate which Justices were widowers while on the bench. If anyone knows offhand of a Justice having lost their wife during their term of service, please let me know. bd2412 T 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
While I respect the opinion of BD2412, that the informal pictures of some justices livens up the page. I feel that they undermine the respect usually aforded to a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, especially since most of the images used in this article are portraits of the justices in their judicial robes. Also I am not saying that BD2412 has issued any bias but there might be precieved bias with the informal images used only with female justices.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a note for someone that's better versed in formatting references used in legal articles, but someone should really work on harmonizing the reference formatting in this article. I've gone through the body text and fixed the dash errors and reformatted the dates in the footnotes. Before my editing, there were hyphens being used inappropriately and 3–4 date formats in use in the footnotes. There is still a mix of formatting styles with some using templates and the rest hand-formatted in different styles. I have no opinion on switching them all to templates, which might be easier, or to convert all of the notes to hand-formatting. I just think that the formatting should be consistent no matter the approach. Imzadi 1979 → 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently, User:The Universe Is Cool and I have disagreed on the use of the term "European American" to describe Justices previously identified in the article as "White" or "Caucasian". I believe the phrase "European American" is unusual as a demographic descriptor, and that the more common terms, "White" or "Caucasian", should be used. I believe that because "European American" is an unusual way to describe white people of European descent, it will tend to mislead readers into thinking that Justices described in that way were actually born in Europe, or have some other unusual connection with continental Europe beyond that of typical white people born in the United States. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that there have been several actual European-born Justices. I have reviewed the sources referenced in this article, and have searched for others, but have not found a single source referring to the Justices as "European American". I would therefore like to gauge whether there is consensus to stick with the use of "White" or "Caucasian" to describe these Justices in this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In the section Religion, it says that of the 112 justices 91 were Protestant, 13 Catholics, 8 jews and 1 without any religious affiliation. However 91+13+8+1 = 113. Either the numbers are wrong or someones religious affiliation needs to be better explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.13.190 ( talk) 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Should Cardozo be counted as a Jewish justice in this section. He was of Jewish heritage and heavily involved in that community, but according to the rest of the article, as an adult he did not recognize that as his religion and was agnostic. It doesn't seem to fit as his "religion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.160.127 ( talk) 05:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've read recently, that in many US Supreme Court cases, the differences of opinion are often composed of a bipartisan divide, that is, a liberal view against a conservative view. Have any other WP contributors heard this idea before? If so, can you help me find reliable sources?
Five members of the current Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents. Four justices were nominated by a Democratic president. The standard (and simplistic) view of the current Court's politics is:
THE CONSERVATIVES: Scalia (appointed by Reagan) , Thomas (appointed by George Bush, Sr.), Alito (appointed by George W. Bush), and C. J. Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush). "SWING JUSTICE": Kennedy (appointed by Reagan). Justice Kennedy is more moderate of than the conservative justices. His views tend to be more libertarian than, for example, those of Chief Justice Roberts.
THE LIBERALS: Breyer (appointed by Clinton), Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton), Sotomayor (appointed by Obama), Kagan (appointed by Obama). University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
On the other hand, is there a controversy over whether the above idea is true? That is, do sources generally say that liberal vs. conservative politics doesn't really enter into Supreme Court rulings, or do some say yes while others say no? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
There is discussion about marriage on the demographics page, but there is nothing about children. I believe that having children keeps people in touch with more modern advances in technology. The latest technological gaffes by the SCOTUS highlight this. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have never had children, and they are the youngest on the court. The other justices are pretty much grandparents which just serves to emphasize their distance from our fast-paced tech-driven world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCA4:C6F0:21F5:CAA9:D592:267F ( talk) 12:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
User:128.12.253.5 has sought to edit this page, primarily by changing all instances of "African-American" to "black", stating in his edit summary, "You can't use white and African American. Even ignoring the fact that African American is used improperly on this page, its use, for purposes of consistency, the term European American would be required". Other editors clearly disagree with this proposition. Let's discuss and see if we can reach a consensus. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
There's been at least two (well-meaning, I am sure) edits adding Merrick Garland to the discussion on Jewish justices; here and here. I reverted both of them. There are a few references to nominees and potential nominees in the article, but they are all either failed nominations, or about speculation on the first potential nominee of a particular group. It seems to me to be a stretch to be adding Garland to this article at this point in time. Magidin ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. 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) 19:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/john_paul_stevens_second_oldest_justice_ever{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://chrome.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/histBio.htmlWhen 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) 19:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you please add a timeline just for Protestant Jaustices? I really need one. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:C7C:3525:AAE9:5A67 ( talk) 00:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
We need to stop the back and forth. The whole point of the reliable citation is that, as of last report, not even his brother knows whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or not. We count Thomas on the basis of what he considers himself (he was not counted as a "Catholic justice" when confirmed), so Gorsuch would be a "Catholic justice" if he considers himself a Catholic, regardless of what Church he attends on a regular basis, and a "Protestant justice" if he considers himself to be a member of the Episcopal Church. We don't decide that for him. I favor the previous neutral language rather than trying to shoehorn Gorsuch into the count by hook or by crook, leading to caveats. The current phrasing is bad, ("With Anthony Kennedy's retirement in July 2018, the number of Catholic Justices went down to four, and returned to five by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, or six if Gorsuch is demarcated as a "Catholic.") because it didn't go from four to six if Gorsuch is counted as Catholic; so it should have to say "down to four, or five if Gorsuch is considered a Catholic, to five by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, or six if Gorsuch is demarcated as a "Catholic"." or some similar locution, which is a mess. We don't decide for him; he isn't saying; his immediately family is unsure. I say we go back to the previous version, With Anthony Kennedy's retirement in July 2018, the number of Catholic Justices went down by one, and returned to its previous number by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.) Magidin ( talk) 21:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
In public participation and on official membership record, which has been made public, Neil Gorsuch is a member, and an active member, of the Episcopal Church. This was confirmed by reliable media outlets and by the parishes themselves. I think it is appropriate for the article page to note that this includes media speculation that hey may conceptualize his faith as being Catholic and also a member of The Episcopal Church. However, the facts should be clearer. It is not 'uncertain' what his membership his. He himself has been clear through his public membership and participation. I think Neil Gorsuch speaks for himself through his voluntary, public, and committed membership in The Episcopal Church. What is fair to say is uncertain is that he may very well consider himself to be Catholic and Episcopalian at the same time. Many Americans identify with one more more Christian denomination or even religion. So, that I think is accurate to say and explain.
I also wanted to take a moment to note the apparent contradictions in the CNN(2017) article. It simultaneously says that Gorsuch "joined" Holy Comforter and that the Gorsuches were listed as members "according to church records" and that there is no record that he formally joined. [1] So, we have to take the reporting with that grain of salt. Part of reviewing sources includes reviewing the accuracy and reliability of a report. I do not think that the source is unreliable. However, the reporting for that article has some ambiguity. I'd even say that it is the article that is complicated, unnecessarily so, and not so much the Gorsuches' faith. It does come across that the CNN article is unclear given what church records say. Other sources also confirm that the Gorsuches were members belonging to their Episcopal churches at which they attended mass. [2] SeminarianJohn ( talk) 04:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Neil Gorsuch and his wife were married in The Church of England, also a part of the Anglican Communion of which The Episcopal Church is the US branch. [3] Several other media outlets, other than CNN, also report that Gorsuch is a member of St. John's Episcopal Church. [4] [5] [6] [7] SeminarianJohn ( talk) 05:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Regarding the recent edits about Gorsuch by me, @ 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:55E1: and @ BD2412:, do we agree that any claim that Gorsuch specifically isn't Protestant is unsupportable? In addition to the sources above, journalists from Washington Post and Denver Post and a social scientist from Gallup have written specifically that he is an Episcopalian (Protestant), and used to be a Catholic. (Also, many other sources from within the Episcopalian Church claim him too, but their potential bias is maybe too much to be worth considering here.) I couldn't find the contrary position expressed (that he is nevertheless a Catholic). CNN reports in detail that there is ambiguity. TheFeds 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has changed "always white male Protestants" in the lede to "always white male Secularists (in some cases Secular humanists) or Protestants". Reference to secularists or secular humanists is not found in Segal and Spaeth, which is the source to which the other demographic characteristics are attributed. The same editor has added the following paragraph:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits use of religious law or legal fictions as a source of law in its interpretation, and Justices who are either intentionally using religious law (or legal fictions) or subsconsciously doing so have often faced questions about their competency and legitimacy. Two of the Supreme Court decisions most infamous for this are Roger Taney's Papal-based view of the "Person" and "Citizen" ineligibility of Africans he imposed in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Samuel Freeman Miller's claim of "God"-originated law in Bradwell v. Illinois that women were, by their bio sex, unqualified for practice of law and states could deny them law licenses on grounds of their bio sex alone.
None of this is cited. I find this content controversial, and propose that it should be removed. Note that if there is no consensus in favor of retaining this content, the status quo ante will be restored, per WP:BRD. bd2412 T 02:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you please fix the timeline of Catholic Justices? Because Kennedy's line still continues even though Brett Kavanaugh is on the graph. Please fix Kennedy's line. Please.
She's the second minority Justice and the first Hispanic one, but Hispanic is not a racial classification. Is it correct to call her the second non-white Justice? 2A02:A03F:506A:1700:15C7:69F1:8AB4:D6E0 ( talk) 22:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The article states that Byrnes, appointed June 1941, was the last justice without a law degree to be appointed. The page on Robert H. Jackson claims the distinction for him, and Jackson's service started in July 1941. Byrnes and Jackson were both nominated/appointed on June 12, 1941; the vote on Byrnes happened the same day, and he took the oath on July 8, 1941. Jackson's vote was on July 7, 1941, and he took the oath on July 11, 1941. So it seems that Jackson is the correct name to have there, not Byrnes. Magidin ( talk) 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The Geographic Background section, fourth paragraph, currently reads: "As of 2020, the Court has a majority from the Northeastern United States, with six justices coming from states to the north and east of Washington, D.C. including two justices born or raised in New York City, two from Maryland, and two from Massachusetts. The remaining three justices come from Georgia, California and Colorado[.]" There's an extra one after Ginsburg's death, and in any case, I'm not sure what all the designations might be. Georgia is Thomas, California is Breyer, Colorado is Gorsuch, New York City are Sotomayor and Kagan. It looks like the rest are mixing where they were born and where they might be from when appointed? Kavanaugh was born in D.C., but presumably is one of the ones described as "Maryland"; Alito was born in New Jersey, Roberts in Buffalo. I'm at a loss here, and in any case I don't think it's particularly good to be mixing born/raised with where they may be "from" when commissioned (assuming that's what the issue is here, rather than orphaned text that was not changed at some earlier point)... Magidin ( talk) 21:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Barrett is a native of Louisiana, grew up in New Orleans, and attended college in Tennessee. Her connection to Indiana begins with Law School (Notre Dame), and her later professional life (professor at Notre Dame and then in the 7th Circuit). While her commission refers to her as being from Indiana, should the Louisiana connection be acknowledged or indicated? Magidin ( talk) 16:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The opening paragraph in the Religion section reads in part: "Of the 114 justices who have been appointed to the court, 91 have been from various Protestant denominations, 13 have been Catholics (one other justice, Sherman Minton, converted to Catholicism after leaving the Court)." This needs to be updated. The table in the section shows 15 justices under "Catholic". ScotusBlog refers to Barrett as the 115th justice (which matches our numbers: 103 associate justices, 17 chief justices, and of the latter five were previously associate justices: Rutledge, Ed White, Hughes, Stone, and Rehnquist), so I think the numbers should be 115 total and 15 Catholics. Magidin ( talk) 16:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Genetically speaking, ethnically Jewish people are not White. This was definitively proven during the Korean War when Primaquine was used on them. Primaquine causes no adverse side effects on Whites, but Jews, Blacks, Lebanese, and other groups of Non-Whites have severe and potentially fatal reactions.
The demographics need to be adjusted, as it paints a false picture, as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim are all equally non-White.
Additional discussion should also be considered for Irish, Scottish, and Welsh origins, as Celts and the like weren't considered White until less than a Century ago, and similar misidentification of Whiteness of them can be as misleading as misidentifying Jews as White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:30D1:C030:3879:A489:BA93:D10F ( talk) 14:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The table in Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Catholic_justices shows him as Chief Justice throughout his tenure. He was actually an Associate Justice from 1894 to 1910, and Chief Justice from then until 1921. I suggest that the table should look something like this - although I am not sure how to fix the fact that it shows McKenna J as starting in 1895 rather than 1898.
Graphical timeline of Catholic justices:
In the first sentence of the "Ethnic groups that have never been represented" section, it states that "there has never been a Justice with any Slavic ... ancestry". John Roberts's mother is of Slovak descent. Am I missing something here? I can't imagine something this brazenly incorrect could have lasted for long. - Mad Mismagius ( talk) 11:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I am interested in what the heights of the Supreme Court Justices have been (who was the shortest and tallest, etc.); would it be reasonable to add a section for that here? (The article was one of the top results for a Google search of "supreme court justices height" despite not actually appearing to contain that information as of present). Cooljeanius ( talk) ( contribs) 16:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a section discussing the propensity of justices to either retire from the Court, or serve until their death. BD2412 T 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Drdpw removed from the section on individual states a note stating that "President Nixon reportedly intended to nominate Herschel Friday of Arkansas to a seat on the Court, but changed his mind hours before announcing a different nominee.<ref name ="atb">{{Cite book |last=Margolick |first=David |url=https://archive.org/details/atbarpassions00marg/page/212 |title=At the bar : the passions and peccadilloes of American lawyers |date=1995 |publisher=New York : Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-0-671-88787-2 |pages=213-4}}</ref>"
I have looked through Wikipedia's policies, and can't seem to find one that says that an encyclopedia article can only discuss nominated individuals, even where reliable sources discuss those who were considered for nomination, even with the nomination decision being withdrawn hours before the announcement. Can someone point me to the policy that specifies that, because WP:RS and WP:NOTEWORTHY seem to suggest otherwise. BD2412 T 04:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
There is some lack of consistency about where justices are listed being "from". In the Gender section, for example, Barrett is listed as being from Indiana, and Jackson as being from D.C. Barrett was born in Louisiana, and didn't leave the state until she went to College in Tennessee; her Indiana identification comes from her later professional life. Jackson was born in D.C., but moved to Florida before she started public school, and lived in Florida from an early age until she went to Harvard for undergraduate. I don't see how these two identifications can be consistent with each other. (Unless the D.C. identification of Jackson is from her service as a Federal Judge?) We should either settle for a uniform practice, or add the necessary caveats where appropriate. Magidin ( talk) 17:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)