This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The entire early paragraph about the 2000 elections is is written from an anti-Roberts POV -- the writer attempted to hide this in "quotations", but the paragrpah, especially early in the article, gives it a completely anti-Republican and anti-Roberts POV. We can all find real quotations from news sources to give this article a zing in either politcal direction - this paragraph should be removed.
Agreed Paul 21:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Roberts was a clerk with the supreme court... that made me think: are there any lists of people who acted as a clerk with the names of the justices they clerked for? I surely can't find that information on Wikipedia. Are there just too much clerks? Or is the information not available? 81.241.66.46 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why the article should not mention that the Roberts' children are adopted. It's not exactly secret information, it's mentioned in most of the news articles. Let the reader decide what is relevant. Rhobite 04:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've not heard these terms are they British? In the US we say "plaintiff" and "defendant"- whicky1978 14:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I had included a direct reference to Bush v. Gore and the GWBush campaign in the explanation of Roberts's roll in the Florida recount. Paul deleted this, reasoning that it was already addressed in the recount article itself. I'm thinking it might be helpful to draw the direct connection to Bush because he's the president who ended up nominating Roberts. Should we add the direct connection back in? TheGoodReverend 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
This issue has crept back into the article.
This statement
While an attorney at Hogan & Hartson, Roberts accepted an invitation by Florida Governor Jeb Bush to fly to Florida to advise the governor on Republican legal efforts to stop the Florida election recount.
in the article is possibly NPOV. The article I saw about this (which is the one listed in Sources) only mentions
"He came down and met with the governor briefly and shared with him some of his thoughts on what he believed the governor's responsibilities were after a presidential election, a presidential election in dispute,"
It seems that without further testimony on this subject, the article's stating that the trip was to "[...] advise the governor on Republican legal efforts to stop the Florida election recount" is a bit argumentative and unsupported. -- Paul 21:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
216.254.30.152 removed the reference to Roberts' membership in the Federalist Society and yet the Washington Post [1] reports that he is a member. Which is the truth? -- Paul 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
That may have been me... see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002393165_member21.html for the news story (credited to the Washington Post, but published by the Seattle Times), for the story about him not actually being a member.-- Sharon 18:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
In Early Life 1973 refers to the year, not the school. This can be understood by the fact that the article about the school states that the typical class size is around 100. Please note and allow my correction, whoever is administering this page.
A correction or two was recently made to the Views section regarding the use of these two terms by Paul.h. There is a reference to this in the second to last paragraph of the Career section as well. It may need reconciled as well. I don't know enough about the difference to be comfortable doing it however.
Many in-line URLs have been moved to the ==Sources== section. where they are no longer tied to the fact in the article they were used to substantiate. Most of these entries should be converted to ==Notes== so that they are linked into the article at the appropriate place. -- Paul
I reverted a claim that said that Justice Roberts could overrule Roe. I think it is just inacurate. Indeed, Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginburg, Souter and Stevens (5 justices) are in favor of Roe. So Roberts will not be able to change it. However, he will be able, if he wants to, to overrule Scotus jurisprudence about Partial-Birth abortion laws.-- Revas 02:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The section on Roe v. Wade now quotes Roberts's testimony about following precedent and then says that his statement "may or may not apply to his actions as a Supreme Court justice, however, as the Supreme Court could limit or overrule these precedents, while the lower courts cannot." This is simply wrong. There is no "may or may not apply" uncertainty. The consideration he was citing is just totally inapplicable to his possible role on the Supreme Court. Circuit Court judges are required to apply existing Supreme Court precedent. Supreme Court Justices often have a tendency to follow existing precedent, in the interest of stability and predictability in the law, but that's a suggested principle of prudence, not a requirement.
I understand the desire to quote his Senate testimony, because it's one of the few occasions on which he's commented publicly on the law of reproductive rights. It's seriously misleading to quote that statement, however, without putting it in context. It seems like most of the objection voiced here concerns any "speculation" about the voting lineup on the Court on overruling Roe. In the news reports I've seen about initial reaction to the nomination, that issue has been the single most prominent. At some point there should be a section in this article about the politics of the confirmation process -- who was on each side and why, how they argued, etc. That section could certainly report how both sides have viewed the possible impact on Roe. In the meantime, I'll reword this passage to convey the distinction between his Circuit Court role and his possible Supreme Court role, while trying to ignore the elephant in the room. JamesMLane 17:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I have uploaded and added to the page under a new section, Media, the announcement of the SCOTUS nomination, including both Bush's and Roberts' remarks. It is ripped from the RealVideo movie of the event which was published at the White House web site. I think it is quite appropriate for this page because it captures Bush's justification for the nomination and Roberts' remarks about the Supreme Court, etc. However, please comment on whether or not you think it is a good idea. I would like to have replaced the photo of Roberts with Bush at the podium with an actual 320x240 video of the event, but I'm not quite sure how to get the .rm video into .ogg format. My mencoder chokes trying to decode the RealPlayer file (funny, since mplayer did just fine with it). But, of course, there are other considerations which lead me to believe that the video is a bad idea (how many people can actually play OGG video?), and the sound file together with the still photo are sufficient.-- Mm35173 19:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, Roberts has spent a grand total of two years on the bench, in only one position. Isn't that pretty low for a Supreme Court nominee? The article is silent on this point. I'd be surprised if no one at all had pointed out that, perhaps, he needs more experience before joining the highest court in the land. Tualha ( talk, contribs) 10:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The Categories table at the bottom of the page looks messed up to me. In particular, the middle bottom cell has some of the text obscured, so that it is partially unreadable.
Can someone with better HTML-fu than I have take a look at that?
Thanks! -- WAHooker 14:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to have an entire section of the article devoted to Jobn Roberts wife. His wife hasn't been nominated for anything. What's next, investigations and detailed listings on his parents and sisters? -- Paul 14:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that there's not a list of articles written by Roberts in this article. I've never submitted anything here before so I thought I'd send it to the discussion page before doing anything major. I hope I'm doing this right. Here's what I've got:
Developments in the Law – Zoning, “The Takings Clause,” 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1462 (1978). (Section III of a longer article beginning on p. 1427)
Comment, “Contract Clause – Legislative Alteration of Private Pension Agreements: Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus,” 92 Harv. L. Rev. 86 (1978). (Subsection C of a longer article beginning on p. 57)
New Rules and Old Pose Stumbling Blocks in High Court Cases, The Legal Times, February 26, 1990, co-authored with E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr.
Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L. J. 1219 (1992-1993).
Riding the Coattails of the Solicitor General, The Legal Times, March 29, 1993.
The New Solicitor General and the Power of the Amicus, The Wall Street Journal, May 5, 1993.
The 1992-1993 Supreme Court, Public Interest Law Review 107 (1994).
Forfeitures: Does Innocence Matter?, New Jersey Law Journal, October 9, 1995.
Thoughts on Presenting an Effective Oral Argument, School Law in Review (1997).
The Bush Panel, 2003 BYU L. Rev. 62 (2003). (Part of a tribute to Rex. E. Lee beginning on p. 1. “The Bush Panel” contains a speech by Roberts.)
Oral Advocacy and the Re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar, 30 J. Supr. Ct. Hist. 68 (2005).
I added back the editorial by a judge and the comments by a law professor on the subject (which were added by me when I was not logged in). I think that they help clarify the discussion, and I think that they're sufficiently qualified. We don't have to limit ourselves to government documents, and this is likely to be a big deal in the confirmation process. The question of whether or not Roberts could have legally ruled differently than he did is quite important. We could probably get by with paraphrasing the arguments and not citing sources, but I feel that's bad form. I'm willing to compromise, if someone disagrees, though. Dave (talk) 17:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
This is exactly why this stuff doesn't belong in this article, and why Wikinews exists. An enclyclopedia article is not the correct forum for arguing about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.The very nature of politics is such that there is no consensus, and politics are a crucial element of his nomination, as are analyses of his decisions
I didn't say it was important, I said it was a fair approach. I specified a concurrence or dissent because they would be by Judges on the same panel as Roberts and would have the same weight as his opinion. Plus, they are limited; there are a finite number of dissents and concurrences on any judgement. There are tens of thousands of opinions about Roberts, his memos, and his decisions by judges and and law professors. The Wikipedia standards mention a Neutral Point of View and verifiable facts as being positive characteristics of an article. These characteristics define a sphere of knowledge where we find reference material. Op-ed pieces inhabit a different sphere and I maintain they do not belong in this article, even if the op-ed piece in question had been written by Sandra Day O'Connor herself. -- Paul 22:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)You said that it was important to quote dissent "if the logic of the decision is questioned," and it was by a judge and a law professor, just not in a government document.
Saying that political controversies are off-limits for inclusion in an encyclopedia seems to miss the point. Controversies are encyclopedic. That's why we have articles like same-sex marriage, Abu Ghraib prison, sociobiology, race and intelligence, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Taiwan, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Libertarian economic views, starve the beast, Social Security privatization, and Objectivist philosophy, to say nothing of political groups like MoveOn.org or USA Next. There's no consensus on whether same-sex marriage is fair, sociobiology is reductionist, race has causal relations with intelligence, whether Taiwan is a country, cutting taxes cuts spending, or Ayn Rand knows what she's talking about. That doesn't mean we can't include good arguments from qualified people on both sides. Limiting ourselves to government documents or even factual accounts would impoverish the discussion of any of these issues: Is Bush a moron? Are the goals of USA Next desirable? What are the ethical arguments involved in prisoner abuse? Do the Palestinians have the right of return? None of these questions can be answered within the confines you're trying to set up because they're not uncontroversial legal questions: they have ethical and/or political controversies surrounding them, and that requires listing opinions as well as facts. That doesn't violate NPOV unless those opinions are presented as fact--which the paragraph in question does not. Saying what people think (as long as it's verifiable) is perfectly consistent with WP:NPOV.
Saying that there are too many opinions about Roberts doesn't mean we should include none, it just means that we should include the best ones. I think just about every editor here would disagree with you that an op-ed written by Sandra Day O'Connor would not be significant. Dave (talk) 02:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Paul's switching "served" to "spent," but what's the reasoning behind moving private law practice up in the paragraph ahead of the agency jobs? It seems to me that the time in the Adminsitrations is more notable and should go first. Why do you think the private practice should precede it? TheGoodReverend 17:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I think his private practice (specializing in appeals) may be more relevant here, since he will be dealing with appeals lawyers all the time when he is on the court. The same is true of Thurgood Marshall, his appeals work for NAACP seems more relevant than his various government jobs before he got on the court. NoSeptember 18:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Both these arguments make sense, and I like where NoSeptember is going, but one difference between what you stated about Marshall and the way this is presented about Roberts is that this seems vague, almost to the point of being inconsequential. Viewed as descriptive phrases, "appeals work for the NAACP" seems relevant in a way that "fourteen years in private practice" does not. One way to think of what I'm saying is, an average guy who spent fourteen years in private practice probably wouldn't have a wikipedia article devoted to him, but a person who, with no other notable accomplishments, argued appeals for the NAACP for years might. Perhaps it would be useful to make the reference to private practice a little more specific and therefore notable, maybe by saying something like "fourteen years as a federal appellate litigator." TheGoodReverend 02:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we need a new section called "The battle for confirmation to the Supreme Court" with 2 subsections "For" and "Against". We could place the current media preliminaries here (the story about investigating his kids, the story about his work for a Gay rights cause, etc.). These will keep coming until and during the hearings in a few weeks. We can be NPOV about how the media is reporting these issues. NoSeptember 13:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we need a new article to cover the confirmation process including speculation on Roberts' views. If it isn't handled that way, the next six weeks will see the current article grow by 2 or 3 times, filling up with "he said she said" stuff, which will all have to be removed from the article after the confirmation process is over. There is already a great deal of material in the Roberts article that could be spun off into a sub-article -- Paul 15:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
How about "John G. Roberts, Jr. SCOTUS Nomination and Hearings"?
Here's my nomination for spin off material:
* 5.1 General approach to the Constitution * 5.2 The Commerce Clause * 5.3 Federalism * 5.4 Judicial activism and deference to legislatures * 5.5 Record as an attorney * 5.6 On Roe v. Wade * 5.7 Neutrality
* 6.1 As Deputy Solicitor General o 6.1.1 Abortion o 6.1.2 Environmental regulation o 6.1.3 Separation of church and state * 6.2 Private law practice
plus some material buried in other sections. -- Paul 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The proposed article format sounds fine. Be bold and create it, just don't get married to the first draft, as a lot of editors will refine it to what will become the consensus version. NoSeptember 23:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Schiavo "I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy," Wyden said, in a telephone interview after the meeting. "His answer was, 'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.' "
In discussing how the law is evolving on end-of-life care, Wyden said Roberts cited a dissent by Justice Louis Brandeis in a 1928 Supreme Court case, in which Brandeis famously spoke of "the right to be left alone." Legal scholars view that dissent as a pithy formulation of the right to privacy -- a principle that, years later and in a different context, formed the basis for the court's ruling in Roe vs. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.
There was an interesting article in the NY Times today about Roberts' argument in a case that tried to use the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act against antiabortion protesters. I've added some relevant text and references to the Ku Klux Klan article. One thing I don't quite understand is how anyone could try to use the Klan Act in 1991 if its criminal provisions were ruled unconstitutional in the 1882 Harris case. I'd welcome any insights anyone could provide at Talk:Ku Klux Klan. Seems like this also ought to be discussed in the Roberts article, although I understand that most people (even on the left) see the TV ad as misleading.-- Bcrowell 18:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
User RGTraynor, whose current special interest is working on the Soldier of Fortune magazine article, inserted the following into the high-level summary of Robert's career:
-- during which he was one of the attorneys for Soldier of Fortune magazine in the landmark Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine case --
It is true that Roberts was one of the team of attorneys hired by the magazine to work on this case, however, this is an obscure case, not a "landmark" one, and a reference to it does not belong in the high-level summary of Roberts career where the only other case referred to is United States v. Microsoft which is a landmark case. I have removed the reference because 1) it does not belong in the high-level career summary of this article, and 2) there is no reference to the case, as there is for United States v. Microsoft. If RGTraynor would like to write an article on Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine and discuss its relevance to Robert's views on the First Amendment (which would be a bit of a stretch given that he was on a team of attorneys arguing the case for a client) the appropriate place to do it would be in the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings which discusses Robert's work as a Judge and attorney and the relationship thereof to various constitutional concepts. -- Paul 05:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
All the cases in the "Civil Rights" section (recently added by an anon users) are written to suggest that Roberts is hostile toward minorities. The wording needs to be changed so it does not suggest Roberts is a racist.
I thought I read somewhere that he lived in Chevy Chase, not Bethesda as the article says. I could be wrong. (For those who don't know the area, the two are right next to each other and for practical purposes might as well be considered the same. But, the distinction is notable.) Andyluciano 17:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The section on Confirmation Hearings and Views displays the following text:
See John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings for details on the 2005 Supreme Court nomination and confirmation hearings. Please add any new material dealing with views and current analysis to that hearings article.
However, it then goes on to list Roberts' views and on certain issues and includes quotes about certain issues. My question is this, is it really appropriate to list some views, but discourage people from adding new ones? I understand why people do not want this article to be a list of quotes and opinions, but I do not think we can give allow some views and not others. Also, the wording the the above text seems to discourage any additions on this page which strikes me as very un-wiki. Any comments? -- Gpyoung talk 19:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
If confirmed, Roberts would be the third Catholic Chief Justice in the nation's history, and one of four Catholics on the court. If Bush nominates another Catholic to the court, then the court for the first time will be majority Catholic (and seven of nine will be religious minorities: Catholic or Jewish). ~Anon. Hyde
I have added information regarding the religious test being posited consistently and exclusively for devout Catholic (aka pro-life Catholic) nominees to the federal bench - including Robert - juxtaposing that to the blanket prohibition of any religious test (barring any disqualification for judicial office based on a person's adherence or non-adherence to any religios belief), contained in Art 6 of the US Constitution. 214.13.4.151 13:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be duplication in this article about his early life. I'd merge the two sections myself, but someone is wiki-stalking me, so I figure it would be better for someone else to do this. Ruy Lopez 05:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
With Rehnquist's death, the Supreme Court's membership became for the first time plurality Catholic by religious affiliation, with three Catholics (Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) of eight justices (also plurality Protestant with three Protestants as well as majority-minority, with five members of minority religious groupings, e.g. non-protestant). The confirmation of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice would add a fourth Catholic Justice to the Supreme Court, confirming the primacy of the Catholic plurality, and an additional Catholic named to the court would for the first time create a Catholic majority Supreme Court. -- unsigned
Should it be mentionned that he's an agent of the Matrix? Come on, with a name like that and not a single misplaced blond hair over his blue eyes...
--I'm sorry, couldn't resist, feel free to delete-- Jules LT 17:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If Judge Roberts is going to be appointed today, then it is true that there is no need to nitpick on whether he is Chief Justice-elect or whatever. However, whether he is to be appointed today is important, at least theoretically. Here are the steps required for a nominee to gain an office appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate:
Number 3 is the crucial step. We all know that step one and two have taken place, but step 3 must take place before Roberts can become Chief Justice. Even after Senate confirmation, the President could theoretically change his mind, reject Roberts, and nominate another person. Obviously, the President is not going to do that to Roberts, but until he appoints Roberts, Roberts is not Chief Justice.
The oath of office doesn't factor into this equation either. Roberts can become Chief Justice before taking the oath. However, he cannot exercise the office of Chief Justice until he takes the oath. That's the difference. Either way, it's highly likely that Roberts has already been appointed, so I'll just make a note of it in the article. Pmadrid 18:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Roberts doesn't technically become Chief Justice until he takes the judicial oath of office provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Anyone care to find a place in this article to gracefully and unparenthetically note this nitpicking detail? 66.167.138.84 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Who calls him this? Every single article or news story I've seen about him calls him "John Roberts" or "Judge John Roberts". I realize that some people on this site have a bizarre fetish for unused middle initials, but shouldn't the page be at the most common name? Googlefight shows well over 5 times as many responses to "John Roberts" than the lengthier alternative.
The article title is correct, but I have seen some overuse of "John G. Roberts, Jr." in some of the related articles and charts. In a list of judges he should be referred to as "John Roberts" with a proper wikilink to this article. There are some justices whose middle names are well known (John Paul Stevens, Sanda Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg), but Roberts is not one of them. NoSeptember 15:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
So, what's all the controversy about? I mean, I'm not American, but if this guy will stop Activision from selling Soldier of Fortune. Hey, he's my kinda guy.
I removed "The Honorable" from the introduction and photograph illustration. No disrespect intended. This is just for consistency. I checked the biographies of other justices, including Thomas, Scalia and O'Conner, and they did not include honorifics.
I do not think encyclopedia entries include honorifics in most cases.
I for one, just hope that Mr. Roberts stops big corporation from selling violent content that only justifies their lack of creativity. Being "Mature" does not mean to be "Violent". Violent videogames do cause harm. It's not the same to watch Pac-Man in a dark room than to watch a man with a machinegun blasting his way through a city while glorious and heroic music plays in the background. It's time big corporations like EA and Ubisoft stop pretending they are the good guys and christians and psychologists the bad guys. 168.243.218.8
I changed his name to CP from "Jr." Please understand that CP is less ambiguos than Jr. Jr. can mean "Junior" whereas CP MEANS "Cerebral Pares."
"John Roberts received more Senate votes supporting his nomination than any other nominee for Chief Justice in American history."
This sounds like a pretty misleading statistic. There are far more senators now than there were in, say, 1800. -- WikiAce 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a generally good article but it is massively overlinked. Please help make this article more readable. In general, only the first instance of a topic should be linked in an article. In other words, please only link William Rehnquist once. We should not link every occurrence of his name. We should also put some editorial thought into which links are useful and which are more distracting than helpful. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Will Roberts use the gold bars on his robe sleeves like Rehnquist did, as a sign of respect for his predecessor?
I removed the name/link of the pastor (Msgr. Vaghi) of The Church of the Little Flower.
"...Pastor Vaghi's Church of the Little Flower..."
First, a church is never owned by the pastor. The monsignor merely works there. Unless (possibly) the article is about the pastor. If you must, you can state in a separate sentence that Monsignor Vaghi is the pastor.
Secondly, although this priest is noteworthy in some circles, this article is about Roberts. It is more confusing than anything to mention Vaghi at all. (I had to go to another link to find out who he was.) Then I learn that this priest is noteworthy only because of some of the people who go to his church, one of whom is Roberts. It's just too circular.
I would only mention Vaghi if he was more commonly known, like Jesse Jackson.
I think it is great that Roberts is mentioned in Vaghi's piece, however. Roberts will be better known than Vaghi. Johno95 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)johno95
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The entire early paragraph about the 2000 elections is is written from an anti-Roberts POV -- the writer attempted to hide this in "quotations", but the paragrpah, especially early in the article, gives it a completely anti-Republican and anti-Roberts POV. We can all find real quotations from news sources to give this article a zing in either politcal direction - this paragraph should be removed.
Agreed Paul 21:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Roberts was a clerk with the supreme court... that made me think: are there any lists of people who acted as a clerk with the names of the justices they clerked for? I surely can't find that information on Wikipedia. Are there just too much clerks? Or is the information not available? 81.241.66.46 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why the article should not mention that the Roberts' children are adopted. It's not exactly secret information, it's mentioned in most of the news articles. Let the reader decide what is relevant. Rhobite 04:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've not heard these terms are they British? In the US we say "plaintiff" and "defendant"- whicky1978 14:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I had included a direct reference to Bush v. Gore and the GWBush campaign in the explanation of Roberts's roll in the Florida recount. Paul deleted this, reasoning that it was already addressed in the recount article itself. I'm thinking it might be helpful to draw the direct connection to Bush because he's the president who ended up nominating Roberts. Should we add the direct connection back in? TheGoodReverend 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
This issue has crept back into the article.
This statement
While an attorney at Hogan & Hartson, Roberts accepted an invitation by Florida Governor Jeb Bush to fly to Florida to advise the governor on Republican legal efforts to stop the Florida election recount.
in the article is possibly NPOV. The article I saw about this (which is the one listed in Sources) only mentions
"He came down and met with the governor briefly and shared with him some of his thoughts on what he believed the governor's responsibilities were after a presidential election, a presidential election in dispute,"
It seems that without further testimony on this subject, the article's stating that the trip was to "[...] advise the governor on Republican legal efforts to stop the Florida election recount" is a bit argumentative and unsupported. -- Paul 21:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
216.254.30.152 removed the reference to Roberts' membership in the Federalist Society and yet the Washington Post [1] reports that he is a member. Which is the truth? -- Paul 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
That may have been me... see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002393165_member21.html for the news story (credited to the Washington Post, but published by the Seattle Times), for the story about him not actually being a member.-- Sharon 18:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
In Early Life 1973 refers to the year, not the school. This can be understood by the fact that the article about the school states that the typical class size is around 100. Please note and allow my correction, whoever is administering this page.
A correction or two was recently made to the Views section regarding the use of these two terms by Paul.h. There is a reference to this in the second to last paragraph of the Career section as well. It may need reconciled as well. I don't know enough about the difference to be comfortable doing it however.
Many in-line URLs have been moved to the ==Sources== section. where they are no longer tied to the fact in the article they were used to substantiate. Most of these entries should be converted to ==Notes== so that they are linked into the article at the appropriate place. -- Paul
I reverted a claim that said that Justice Roberts could overrule Roe. I think it is just inacurate. Indeed, Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginburg, Souter and Stevens (5 justices) are in favor of Roe. So Roberts will not be able to change it. However, he will be able, if he wants to, to overrule Scotus jurisprudence about Partial-Birth abortion laws.-- Revas 02:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The section on Roe v. Wade now quotes Roberts's testimony about following precedent and then says that his statement "may or may not apply to his actions as a Supreme Court justice, however, as the Supreme Court could limit or overrule these precedents, while the lower courts cannot." This is simply wrong. There is no "may or may not apply" uncertainty. The consideration he was citing is just totally inapplicable to his possible role on the Supreme Court. Circuit Court judges are required to apply existing Supreme Court precedent. Supreme Court Justices often have a tendency to follow existing precedent, in the interest of stability and predictability in the law, but that's a suggested principle of prudence, not a requirement.
I understand the desire to quote his Senate testimony, because it's one of the few occasions on which he's commented publicly on the law of reproductive rights. It's seriously misleading to quote that statement, however, without putting it in context. It seems like most of the objection voiced here concerns any "speculation" about the voting lineup on the Court on overruling Roe. In the news reports I've seen about initial reaction to the nomination, that issue has been the single most prominent. At some point there should be a section in this article about the politics of the confirmation process -- who was on each side and why, how they argued, etc. That section could certainly report how both sides have viewed the possible impact on Roe. In the meantime, I'll reword this passage to convey the distinction between his Circuit Court role and his possible Supreme Court role, while trying to ignore the elephant in the room. JamesMLane 17:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I have uploaded and added to the page under a new section, Media, the announcement of the SCOTUS nomination, including both Bush's and Roberts' remarks. It is ripped from the RealVideo movie of the event which was published at the White House web site. I think it is quite appropriate for this page because it captures Bush's justification for the nomination and Roberts' remarks about the Supreme Court, etc. However, please comment on whether or not you think it is a good idea. I would like to have replaced the photo of Roberts with Bush at the podium with an actual 320x240 video of the event, but I'm not quite sure how to get the .rm video into .ogg format. My mencoder chokes trying to decode the RealPlayer file (funny, since mplayer did just fine with it). But, of course, there are other considerations which lead me to believe that the video is a bad idea (how many people can actually play OGG video?), and the sound file together with the still photo are sufficient.-- Mm35173 19:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, Roberts has spent a grand total of two years on the bench, in only one position. Isn't that pretty low for a Supreme Court nominee? The article is silent on this point. I'd be surprised if no one at all had pointed out that, perhaps, he needs more experience before joining the highest court in the land. Tualha ( talk, contribs) 10:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The Categories table at the bottom of the page looks messed up to me. In particular, the middle bottom cell has some of the text obscured, so that it is partially unreadable.
Can someone with better HTML-fu than I have take a look at that?
Thanks! -- WAHooker 14:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to have an entire section of the article devoted to Jobn Roberts wife. His wife hasn't been nominated for anything. What's next, investigations and detailed listings on his parents and sisters? -- Paul 14:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that there's not a list of articles written by Roberts in this article. I've never submitted anything here before so I thought I'd send it to the discussion page before doing anything major. I hope I'm doing this right. Here's what I've got:
Developments in the Law – Zoning, “The Takings Clause,” 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1462 (1978). (Section III of a longer article beginning on p. 1427)
Comment, “Contract Clause – Legislative Alteration of Private Pension Agreements: Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus,” 92 Harv. L. Rev. 86 (1978). (Subsection C of a longer article beginning on p. 57)
New Rules and Old Pose Stumbling Blocks in High Court Cases, The Legal Times, February 26, 1990, co-authored with E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr.
Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L. J. 1219 (1992-1993).
Riding the Coattails of the Solicitor General, The Legal Times, March 29, 1993.
The New Solicitor General and the Power of the Amicus, The Wall Street Journal, May 5, 1993.
The 1992-1993 Supreme Court, Public Interest Law Review 107 (1994).
Forfeitures: Does Innocence Matter?, New Jersey Law Journal, October 9, 1995.
Thoughts on Presenting an Effective Oral Argument, School Law in Review (1997).
The Bush Panel, 2003 BYU L. Rev. 62 (2003). (Part of a tribute to Rex. E. Lee beginning on p. 1. “The Bush Panel” contains a speech by Roberts.)
Oral Advocacy and the Re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar, 30 J. Supr. Ct. Hist. 68 (2005).
I added back the editorial by a judge and the comments by a law professor on the subject (which were added by me when I was not logged in). I think that they help clarify the discussion, and I think that they're sufficiently qualified. We don't have to limit ourselves to government documents, and this is likely to be a big deal in the confirmation process. The question of whether or not Roberts could have legally ruled differently than he did is quite important. We could probably get by with paraphrasing the arguments and not citing sources, but I feel that's bad form. I'm willing to compromise, if someone disagrees, though. Dave (talk) 17:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
This is exactly why this stuff doesn't belong in this article, and why Wikinews exists. An enclyclopedia article is not the correct forum for arguing about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.The very nature of politics is such that there is no consensus, and politics are a crucial element of his nomination, as are analyses of his decisions
I didn't say it was important, I said it was a fair approach. I specified a concurrence or dissent because they would be by Judges on the same panel as Roberts and would have the same weight as his opinion. Plus, they are limited; there are a finite number of dissents and concurrences on any judgement. There are tens of thousands of opinions about Roberts, his memos, and his decisions by judges and and law professors. The Wikipedia standards mention a Neutral Point of View and verifiable facts as being positive characteristics of an article. These characteristics define a sphere of knowledge where we find reference material. Op-ed pieces inhabit a different sphere and I maintain they do not belong in this article, even if the op-ed piece in question had been written by Sandra Day O'Connor herself. -- Paul 22:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)You said that it was important to quote dissent "if the logic of the decision is questioned," and it was by a judge and a law professor, just not in a government document.
Saying that political controversies are off-limits for inclusion in an encyclopedia seems to miss the point. Controversies are encyclopedic. That's why we have articles like same-sex marriage, Abu Ghraib prison, sociobiology, race and intelligence, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Taiwan, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Libertarian economic views, starve the beast, Social Security privatization, and Objectivist philosophy, to say nothing of political groups like MoveOn.org or USA Next. There's no consensus on whether same-sex marriage is fair, sociobiology is reductionist, race has causal relations with intelligence, whether Taiwan is a country, cutting taxes cuts spending, or Ayn Rand knows what she's talking about. That doesn't mean we can't include good arguments from qualified people on both sides. Limiting ourselves to government documents or even factual accounts would impoverish the discussion of any of these issues: Is Bush a moron? Are the goals of USA Next desirable? What are the ethical arguments involved in prisoner abuse? Do the Palestinians have the right of return? None of these questions can be answered within the confines you're trying to set up because they're not uncontroversial legal questions: they have ethical and/or political controversies surrounding them, and that requires listing opinions as well as facts. That doesn't violate NPOV unless those opinions are presented as fact--which the paragraph in question does not. Saying what people think (as long as it's verifiable) is perfectly consistent with WP:NPOV.
Saying that there are too many opinions about Roberts doesn't mean we should include none, it just means that we should include the best ones. I think just about every editor here would disagree with you that an op-ed written by Sandra Day O'Connor would not be significant. Dave (talk) 02:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Paul's switching "served" to "spent," but what's the reasoning behind moving private law practice up in the paragraph ahead of the agency jobs? It seems to me that the time in the Adminsitrations is more notable and should go first. Why do you think the private practice should precede it? TheGoodReverend 17:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I think his private practice (specializing in appeals) may be more relevant here, since he will be dealing with appeals lawyers all the time when he is on the court. The same is true of Thurgood Marshall, his appeals work for NAACP seems more relevant than his various government jobs before he got on the court. NoSeptember 18:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Both these arguments make sense, and I like where NoSeptember is going, but one difference between what you stated about Marshall and the way this is presented about Roberts is that this seems vague, almost to the point of being inconsequential. Viewed as descriptive phrases, "appeals work for the NAACP" seems relevant in a way that "fourteen years in private practice" does not. One way to think of what I'm saying is, an average guy who spent fourteen years in private practice probably wouldn't have a wikipedia article devoted to him, but a person who, with no other notable accomplishments, argued appeals for the NAACP for years might. Perhaps it would be useful to make the reference to private practice a little more specific and therefore notable, maybe by saying something like "fourteen years as a federal appellate litigator." TheGoodReverend 02:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we need a new section called "The battle for confirmation to the Supreme Court" with 2 subsections "For" and "Against". We could place the current media preliminaries here (the story about investigating his kids, the story about his work for a Gay rights cause, etc.). These will keep coming until and during the hearings in a few weeks. We can be NPOV about how the media is reporting these issues. NoSeptember 13:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we need a new article to cover the confirmation process including speculation on Roberts' views. If it isn't handled that way, the next six weeks will see the current article grow by 2 or 3 times, filling up with "he said she said" stuff, which will all have to be removed from the article after the confirmation process is over. There is already a great deal of material in the Roberts article that could be spun off into a sub-article -- Paul 15:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
How about "John G. Roberts, Jr. SCOTUS Nomination and Hearings"?
Here's my nomination for spin off material:
* 5.1 General approach to the Constitution * 5.2 The Commerce Clause * 5.3 Federalism * 5.4 Judicial activism and deference to legislatures * 5.5 Record as an attorney * 5.6 On Roe v. Wade * 5.7 Neutrality
* 6.1 As Deputy Solicitor General o 6.1.1 Abortion o 6.1.2 Environmental regulation o 6.1.3 Separation of church and state * 6.2 Private law practice
plus some material buried in other sections. -- Paul 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The proposed article format sounds fine. Be bold and create it, just don't get married to the first draft, as a lot of editors will refine it to what will become the consensus version. NoSeptember 23:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Schiavo "I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy," Wyden said, in a telephone interview after the meeting. "His answer was, 'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.' "
In discussing how the law is evolving on end-of-life care, Wyden said Roberts cited a dissent by Justice Louis Brandeis in a 1928 Supreme Court case, in which Brandeis famously spoke of "the right to be left alone." Legal scholars view that dissent as a pithy formulation of the right to privacy -- a principle that, years later and in a different context, formed the basis for the court's ruling in Roe vs. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.
There was an interesting article in the NY Times today about Roberts' argument in a case that tried to use the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act against antiabortion protesters. I've added some relevant text and references to the Ku Klux Klan article. One thing I don't quite understand is how anyone could try to use the Klan Act in 1991 if its criminal provisions were ruled unconstitutional in the 1882 Harris case. I'd welcome any insights anyone could provide at Talk:Ku Klux Klan. Seems like this also ought to be discussed in the Roberts article, although I understand that most people (even on the left) see the TV ad as misleading.-- Bcrowell 18:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
User RGTraynor, whose current special interest is working on the Soldier of Fortune magazine article, inserted the following into the high-level summary of Robert's career:
-- during which he was one of the attorneys for Soldier of Fortune magazine in the landmark Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine case --
It is true that Roberts was one of the team of attorneys hired by the magazine to work on this case, however, this is an obscure case, not a "landmark" one, and a reference to it does not belong in the high-level summary of Roberts career where the only other case referred to is United States v. Microsoft which is a landmark case. I have removed the reference because 1) it does not belong in the high-level career summary of this article, and 2) there is no reference to the case, as there is for United States v. Microsoft. If RGTraynor would like to write an article on Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine and discuss its relevance to Robert's views on the First Amendment (which would be a bit of a stretch given that he was on a team of attorneys arguing the case for a client) the appropriate place to do it would be in the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings which discusses Robert's work as a Judge and attorney and the relationship thereof to various constitutional concepts. -- Paul 05:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
All the cases in the "Civil Rights" section (recently added by an anon users) are written to suggest that Roberts is hostile toward minorities. The wording needs to be changed so it does not suggest Roberts is a racist.
I thought I read somewhere that he lived in Chevy Chase, not Bethesda as the article says. I could be wrong. (For those who don't know the area, the two are right next to each other and for practical purposes might as well be considered the same. But, the distinction is notable.) Andyluciano 17:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The section on Confirmation Hearings and Views displays the following text:
See John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings for details on the 2005 Supreme Court nomination and confirmation hearings. Please add any new material dealing with views and current analysis to that hearings article.
However, it then goes on to list Roberts' views and on certain issues and includes quotes about certain issues. My question is this, is it really appropriate to list some views, but discourage people from adding new ones? I understand why people do not want this article to be a list of quotes and opinions, but I do not think we can give allow some views and not others. Also, the wording the the above text seems to discourage any additions on this page which strikes me as very un-wiki. Any comments? -- Gpyoung talk 19:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
If confirmed, Roberts would be the third Catholic Chief Justice in the nation's history, and one of four Catholics on the court. If Bush nominates another Catholic to the court, then the court for the first time will be majority Catholic (and seven of nine will be religious minorities: Catholic or Jewish). ~Anon. Hyde
I have added information regarding the religious test being posited consistently and exclusively for devout Catholic (aka pro-life Catholic) nominees to the federal bench - including Robert - juxtaposing that to the blanket prohibition of any religious test (barring any disqualification for judicial office based on a person's adherence or non-adherence to any religios belief), contained in Art 6 of the US Constitution. 214.13.4.151 13:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be duplication in this article about his early life. I'd merge the two sections myself, but someone is wiki-stalking me, so I figure it would be better for someone else to do this. Ruy Lopez 05:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
With Rehnquist's death, the Supreme Court's membership became for the first time plurality Catholic by religious affiliation, with three Catholics (Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) of eight justices (also plurality Protestant with three Protestants as well as majority-minority, with five members of minority religious groupings, e.g. non-protestant). The confirmation of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice would add a fourth Catholic Justice to the Supreme Court, confirming the primacy of the Catholic plurality, and an additional Catholic named to the court would for the first time create a Catholic majority Supreme Court. -- unsigned
Should it be mentionned that he's an agent of the Matrix? Come on, with a name like that and not a single misplaced blond hair over his blue eyes...
--I'm sorry, couldn't resist, feel free to delete-- Jules LT 17:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If Judge Roberts is going to be appointed today, then it is true that there is no need to nitpick on whether he is Chief Justice-elect or whatever. However, whether he is to be appointed today is important, at least theoretically. Here are the steps required for a nominee to gain an office appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate:
Number 3 is the crucial step. We all know that step one and two have taken place, but step 3 must take place before Roberts can become Chief Justice. Even after Senate confirmation, the President could theoretically change his mind, reject Roberts, and nominate another person. Obviously, the President is not going to do that to Roberts, but until he appoints Roberts, Roberts is not Chief Justice.
The oath of office doesn't factor into this equation either. Roberts can become Chief Justice before taking the oath. However, he cannot exercise the office of Chief Justice until he takes the oath. That's the difference. Either way, it's highly likely that Roberts has already been appointed, so I'll just make a note of it in the article. Pmadrid 18:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Roberts doesn't technically become Chief Justice until he takes the judicial oath of office provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Anyone care to find a place in this article to gracefully and unparenthetically note this nitpicking detail? 66.167.138.84 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Who calls him this? Every single article or news story I've seen about him calls him "John Roberts" or "Judge John Roberts". I realize that some people on this site have a bizarre fetish for unused middle initials, but shouldn't the page be at the most common name? Googlefight shows well over 5 times as many responses to "John Roberts" than the lengthier alternative.
The article title is correct, but I have seen some overuse of "John G. Roberts, Jr." in some of the related articles and charts. In a list of judges he should be referred to as "John Roberts" with a proper wikilink to this article. There are some justices whose middle names are well known (John Paul Stevens, Sanda Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg), but Roberts is not one of them. NoSeptember 15:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
So, what's all the controversy about? I mean, I'm not American, but if this guy will stop Activision from selling Soldier of Fortune. Hey, he's my kinda guy.
I removed "The Honorable" from the introduction and photograph illustration. No disrespect intended. This is just for consistency. I checked the biographies of other justices, including Thomas, Scalia and O'Conner, and they did not include honorifics.
I do not think encyclopedia entries include honorifics in most cases.
I for one, just hope that Mr. Roberts stops big corporation from selling violent content that only justifies their lack of creativity. Being "Mature" does not mean to be "Violent". Violent videogames do cause harm. It's not the same to watch Pac-Man in a dark room than to watch a man with a machinegun blasting his way through a city while glorious and heroic music plays in the background. It's time big corporations like EA and Ubisoft stop pretending they are the good guys and christians and psychologists the bad guys. 168.243.218.8
I changed his name to CP from "Jr." Please understand that CP is less ambiguos than Jr. Jr. can mean "Junior" whereas CP MEANS "Cerebral Pares."
"John Roberts received more Senate votes supporting his nomination than any other nominee for Chief Justice in American history."
This sounds like a pretty misleading statistic. There are far more senators now than there were in, say, 1800. -- WikiAce 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a generally good article but it is massively overlinked. Please help make this article more readable. In general, only the first instance of a topic should be linked in an article. In other words, please only link William Rehnquist once. We should not link every occurrence of his name. We should also put some editorial thought into which links are useful and which are more distracting than helpful. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Will Roberts use the gold bars on his robe sleeves like Rehnquist did, as a sign of respect for his predecessor?
I removed the name/link of the pastor (Msgr. Vaghi) of The Church of the Little Flower.
"...Pastor Vaghi's Church of the Little Flower..."
First, a church is never owned by the pastor. The monsignor merely works there. Unless (possibly) the article is about the pastor. If you must, you can state in a separate sentence that Monsignor Vaghi is the pastor.
Secondly, although this priest is noteworthy in some circles, this article is about Roberts. It is more confusing than anything to mention Vaghi at all. (I had to go to another link to find out who he was.) Then I learn that this priest is noteworthy only because of some of the people who go to his church, one of whom is Roberts. It's just too circular.
I would only mention Vaghi if he was more commonly known, like Jesse Jackson.
I think it is great that Roberts is mentioned in Vaghi's piece, however. Roberts will be better known than Vaghi. Johno95 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)johno95