This article was nominated for deletion on 16 December 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Is it not odd to have the subheading "Successfully appointed nominees" under the heading "List of failed, stalled or filibustered appellate nominees". None of the examples listed were 'failed, stalled or filibustered'. Lin4671again ( talk) 19:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I recently added three delayed nominees to the list. Two are for appellate courts who are very controversial. One is for an Article 1 court who has been delayed though not controversial. Someone removed those entries, even though they were accurate and had links proving their accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD0B:B100:ADEF:5D3F:FADE:CBC4 ( talk) 00:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This article probably should include Justin R. Walker, Lee Rudofsky, and Sarah Pitlyk, who are either confirmed or pending district court nominees. They appear/appeared relatively controversial and were confirmed by narrow margins. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 21:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Mitch McConnell has been privately contacting sitting federal judges and urging them to retire so they can be replaced while the Republicans still hold the Senate and the White House. McConnell and other Senate Republicans have contacted an unknown number of Republican-nominated judges who are eligible to retire and reminding them that if they don’t retire soon they may have to wait another eight years before they can leave under another Republican administration. More than 90 Republican-nominated judges are either currently eligible or will become eligible this year to enter “senior status,” which allows their spots on the bench to be filled, even though they’ll still be allowed to hear cases, hire clerks, and receive full pay.
X1\ ( talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that an earlier edit removed Cory Wilson's district court nomination. Is it appropriate to delete that mention, or should it be restored? While that nomination was dropped in favor of the circuit court nomination, I think it also was true that the district court nomination saw some controversy/criticism from his opponents on its own terms. I lean in favor of restoring it but am open to the opinions of others.
Unrelated, based on media coverage and Senate vote margins of certain nominees, it might be worth considering whether some other nominees/judges should be added to the list, though that might also depend on how we define "controversies." -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 00:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The section doesn't seem to mention any controversies regarding his nomination, so should it be included? 73.110.217.186 ( talk) 03:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, 2601:241:300:b610:5cc5:9dcc:991a:8b45. I noticed you reverted my edit retaining the nomination of Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach, because it wasn't controversial. However, a Google search reveals that there was some controversy, because the nomination occurred during the lame duck period [1] [2]. If the mention of Arias-Marxuach included a reference to this specific controversy, I think it would fit in the article, but I'd like to establish consensus before I edit. What do you think? BobEret (he/him) ( talk) 14:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 December 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Is it not odd to have the subheading "Successfully appointed nominees" under the heading "List of failed, stalled or filibustered appellate nominees". None of the examples listed were 'failed, stalled or filibustered'. Lin4671again ( talk) 19:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I recently added three delayed nominees to the list. Two are for appellate courts who are very controversial. One is for an Article 1 court who has been delayed though not controversial. Someone removed those entries, even though they were accurate and had links proving their accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD0B:B100:ADEF:5D3F:FADE:CBC4 ( talk) 00:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This article probably should include Justin R. Walker, Lee Rudofsky, and Sarah Pitlyk, who are either confirmed or pending district court nominees. They appear/appeared relatively controversial and were confirmed by narrow margins. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 21:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Mitch McConnell has been privately contacting sitting federal judges and urging them to retire so they can be replaced while the Republicans still hold the Senate and the White House. McConnell and other Senate Republicans have contacted an unknown number of Republican-nominated judges who are eligible to retire and reminding them that if they don’t retire soon they may have to wait another eight years before they can leave under another Republican administration. More than 90 Republican-nominated judges are either currently eligible or will become eligible this year to enter “senior status,” which allows their spots on the bench to be filled, even though they’ll still be allowed to hear cases, hire clerks, and receive full pay.
X1\ ( talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that an earlier edit removed Cory Wilson's district court nomination. Is it appropriate to delete that mention, or should it be restored? While that nomination was dropped in favor of the circuit court nomination, I think it also was true that the district court nomination saw some controversy/criticism from his opponents on its own terms. I lean in favor of restoring it but am open to the opinions of others.
Unrelated, based on media coverage and Senate vote margins of certain nominees, it might be worth considering whether some other nominees/judges should be added to the list, though that might also depend on how we define "controversies." -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 00:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The section doesn't seem to mention any controversies regarding his nomination, so should it be included? 73.110.217.186 ( talk) 03:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, 2601:241:300:b610:5cc5:9dcc:991a:8b45. I noticed you reverted my edit retaining the nomination of Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach, because it wasn't controversial. However, a Google search reveals that there was some controversy, because the nomination occurred during the lame duck period [1] [2]. If the mention of Arias-Marxuach included a reference to this specific controversy, I think it would fit in the article, but I'd like to establish consensus before I edit. What do you think? BobEret (he/him) ( talk) 14:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)