![]() | 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. |
Considering that this page is about to become very busy, I think we need to create a Talk page for it.
A few resources:
(From which someone has currently lifted the entire paragraph beginning "In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA" to this page Cromis 00:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
more resources:
google news digs up articles here and here.
older profile
here.
Let's get ready to rumble!!! Now, fellows, let's try to keep in mind Point of View in this article. Neutralityyy please! I'm sure this will turn out to be a controversial decision, but let's try to be professionals with this article. Happy writing! <<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Protected the article page temporarily to clean up massive anon edits that had reduced the article to one paragraph. Please be patient, and USE SECTION EDITING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID EDIT CONFLICTS! If an edit conflict happens, please do not just hit "save" on your version to quash existing text. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
also... interesting history here, he seems to be a former bush campaign contributer. he represented the legal firm he worked for ( Hogan & Hartson), whose Hogan & Hartson Political Action Commitee (H&H PAC), is listed as one of the larger PACs in Washington, and it's history can be found here, qualifying on this list, according to the [FEC], having donated $163,000 in a less than one year stretch between 2003 and mid-2004. source (pdf)
Can someone find one?
It is good to see an article that I created has finally hit the big time. :) NoSeptember 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, that image is PD since it's provided by the DC Court of Appeals. ^_^ Cookiecaper 00:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Kudos to whomever shrunk that first image of Roberts -- the article looks better now without it taking up so much of the screen Rast 01:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Did we really need to archive discussion so soon? It's not as if the discussion page was overflowing...
I can see something of an edit war brewing over this section and what it should be titled. It should be noted that John G. Roberts Jr. which means that if he follows the Churches teachings he will not only regard abortion as "sinful" but also any form of birth control. So personally I think we should go with "Reproductive rights". Evil Monkey∴ Hello 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
How about just saying "Roe vs. Wade"; that's as neutral a term as we'll probably find. Bedford
Abortion and reproductive rights are two different things. Abortion is a subset of reproductive issues. Reproductive rights (or, "reproductive freedom" are neutral terms, no more POV than terms such as "voting rights," "free speech rights," or "property rights." If the discussion is limited to abortion, the label "abortion" is appropriate, but if we include discussion of his views on, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, "reproductive rights" is a more accurate term. -asx- 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality, how are the subheadings messing up your browser? And is it only in this article? What browser do you use? -- pile0nades talk | contribs 02:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
David Boies on MSNBC just said that he represented the Playboy Channel in a case. Can someone mention this in the article with the details? -Amit
I added that he got his BA in only three years per MSNBC whicky1978 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article that indicates Roberts is Roman Catholic, yet it is one of the categories. whicky1978 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yes there is. It says in the article that he is a practicing Catholic.
Shouldn't this be moved to John G. Roberts, Jr.? Postdlf 02:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, my quote from Sen. Kennedy got taken out while I was looking for a counterbalancing quote from the same source (his confirmation hearings in 2003). What's the policy on quotes -- are they allowed? Chip Unicorn 04:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
One interesting way to get insight into Judge Roberts' judicial temperment might be looking at which schools he has drawn interns from. Anyone know how to find that out? -asx- 04:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"Beastiality" this looks like vandalism. This should probably be removed unless there is a source backing it up.
Why does the entry refer to the judge being "really stupid" and President Bush being a "Douchebag?" (page does not allow editing right now)
Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.
Saying that this particular decision is AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION is like saying abortion rights groups are against babies. It's easily as much about the specifics of that case and about sueing the government.
This is not a list of his views, this is a list of reasons liberals won't like him, and should either be titled as such or reworked to be neutral.
-- 66.74.199.238 05:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the case of interstate commerce and the "hapless toad", first a case citation (i.e. the name of the case) would be an important addition. Also, the quotes chosen do not, IMHO, further illustrate his position (as opposed completing the same sentence without quoting him). I humbly suggest finding a more substantial (lengthier, providing more context) and more logically based quote that further illustrates the legal basis for his dissent. Perhaps something that clarifies _why_ interstate commerce would prevent the government from protecting this species. - DL
This article is drowning in blue hypertext. Many terms and dates are linked over and over again. Like "July 19," linked nearly a dozen times in one screenful of text. This drives users away and makes the actual content hard to read. Don't get me wrong: I think liberal use of links is a good thing. But not the same term over and over. This article currently has Supreme Court, George Bush, and other terms linked multiple times. -asx- 05:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Gay marriage is a hot topic these days. Has anyone got anything on what this guy's position on that is? Since the whole FMA thing was about a feared conflict between the executive and judicial branches' positions on the issue in light of the recent events in Canada's courts, some mention of the stance taken by this nominee should be made here, even if it's just something he said in an interview and not in court. Dave
Someone keeps removing my links to HHLaw. Can this be justified? Isn't it expected that such a valuable link be made available when it's known? User:Slonob
Does anyone agree that the yearbook photo doesn't belong? If we had baby pictures, would we upload them too? It doesn't seem to add anything to this article to see what he looked like 30 years ago. — Cleared as filed. 03:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
By its nature, a nomination of a SCOTUS justice is significantly about the impact that his confirmation to the court will have. Would a section such as the following be useful in this article?:
Of course, specific details about these decisions would be added as well. If not a section of this article, we could create a daughter article on the speculation on the impact on the direction of the court. NoSeptember 13:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Can the photos at this government link be used? Are they public domain? whicky1978 14:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC) white house link
As far as I know, nobody has uploaded them. I thought I would ask before I did it. 64.136.27.225 12:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Does he own any pets? -- Fastflam 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Has he ever expressed any opinions that might be pertinent to the financial markets. I don't mean the dictum about the frog who lived in California. I mean, for example, insider-trading prosecutions? Securities-fraud civil lawsuits? Enron-style accounting chicanery? Protection for corporate whistle blowers? -- Christofurio 15:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
There's probably a better term for this than "constitutional philosophy" so if anyone knows one, let me know. Basically what I'm getting at is what is his philosophy on how the Constitution should be interpreted? There are terms for some of the different views on this, but I don't recall any of those offhand... I'll see if I can find some examples. Saying that he's a member of the Federalist Society is a clue, but if there's any more information, that would be very nice to have. - DL
Okay, I guess I was close. "Judicial philosophy" seems to be the term, or at least the one used elsewhere in Wikipedia. Some examples of what I'm talking about can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Judicial_philosophy - DL
The introductory paragraph refers to Judge Roberts as Political Figure. Since, to my knowledge, he has never run for office or pursued politics professionally I believe this is an incorrect characterization. The only possible justification for this description is that his appointment must be approved by the Senate and it is causing a lot of politics. Using such reasoning, almost anyone mentioned in the Congressional Records could be referred to as a Political Figure and it makes the term almost useless. G.W. Bush is a political figure, Chuck Schumer is a political figure, but John Roberts and, for instance, Stephen Breyer are not political figures, and describing them as such has no vaild reason I can see other than providing a rationale for the political storm that seems to brewing. Since we are having a revision war on these two words, I would like to see the justification for using this term. -- Paul 19:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's the first paragraph of a Washington Post article that appeared on the front page today:
The capsule summary needs some work to clarify the issues a bit, but not sure how to go about this without introducing too much POV. I recommend reading the opinion to get a firmer grasp of the issues and the reasoning of the court. One interesting item that I think deserves mention is that the court believes that even though Afghanistan is a contracting party to the Geneva Conventions, al Qaeda is not, and that the US is supposedly "at war" with al Qaeda separately from its involvement in Afghanistan. It's curious reasoning indeed, at p. 15 of 22 in the PDF. Whig 20:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Keetoowah deleted the ending comment about further review from the end of this paragraph. Here is what I believe that comment was referring to:
Suppose we are mistaken about Common Article 3.
Suppose it does cover Hamdan. Even then we would abstain from testing the military commission against the requirement in Common Article 3(1)(d) that sentences must be pronounced “by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” See Councilman, 420 U.S. at 759; New, 129 F.3d at 644; supra Part I. Unlike his arguments that the military commission lacked jurisdiction, his argument here is that the commission’s procedures -- particularly its alleged failure to require his presence at all stages of the proceedings -- fall short of what Common Article 3 requires. The issue thus raised is not whether the commission may try him, but rather how the commission may try him. That is by no stretch a jurisdictional argument. No one would say that a criminal defendant’s contention that a district court will not allow him to confront the witnesses against him raises a jurisdictional objection. Hamdan’s claim therefore falls outside the recognized exception to the Councilman doctrine. Accordingly, comity would dictate that we defer to the ongoing military proceedings. If Hamdan were convicted, and if Common Article 3 covered him, he could contest his conviction in federal court after he exhausted his military
remedies.
There's a level of supposition there in between. Should the reference to further review after conviction be reinserted in a reworded form, or left out altogether? TheGoodReverend 13:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur in all aspects of the cour's opinion except for the conclusion that Common Aritcle 3 does not apply to the United States's conduct toward al Qaeda personnel captured in the conflict in Afghanistan. Maj. Op. 15-16. Because I agree that the Geneva Convention is not enforceable in courts of the United States, and that any claims under Common Ariticle 3 should be deferred until proceedings against Hamdan are finished. I fully agree with the court's judgement.
![]() | 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. |
Considering that this page is about to become very busy, I think we need to create a Talk page for it.
A few resources:
(From which someone has currently lifted the entire paragraph beginning "In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA" to this page Cromis 00:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
more resources:
google news digs up articles here and here.
older profile
here.
Let's get ready to rumble!!! Now, fellows, let's try to keep in mind Point of View in this article. Neutralityyy please! I'm sure this will turn out to be a controversial decision, but let's try to be professionals with this article. Happy writing! <<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Protected the article page temporarily to clean up massive anon edits that had reduced the article to one paragraph. Please be patient, and USE SECTION EDITING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID EDIT CONFLICTS! If an edit conflict happens, please do not just hit "save" on your version to quash existing text. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
also... interesting history here, he seems to be a former bush campaign contributer. he represented the legal firm he worked for ( Hogan & Hartson), whose Hogan & Hartson Political Action Commitee (H&H PAC), is listed as one of the larger PACs in Washington, and it's history can be found here, qualifying on this list, according to the [FEC], having donated $163,000 in a less than one year stretch between 2003 and mid-2004. source (pdf)
Can someone find one?
It is good to see an article that I created has finally hit the big time. :) NoSeptember 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, that image is PD since it's provided by the DC Court of Appeals. ^_^ Cookiecaper 00:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Kudos to whomever shrunk that first image of Roberts -- the article looks better now without it taking up so much of the screen Rast 01:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Did we really need to archive discussion so soon? It's not as if the discussion page was overflowing...
I can see something of an edit war brewing over this section and what it should be titled. It should be noted that John G. Roberts Jr. which means that if he follows the Churches teachings he will not only regard abortion as "sinful" but also any form of birth control. So personally I think we should go with "Reproductive rights". Evil Monkey∴ Hello 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
How about just saying "Roe vs. Wade"; that's as neutral a term as we'll probably find. Bedford
Abortion and reproductive rights are two different things. Abortion is a subset of reproductive issues. Reproductive rights (or, "reproductive freedom" are neutral terms, no more POV than terms such as "voting rights," "free speech rights," or "property rights." If the discussion is limited to abortion, the label "abortion" is appropriate, but if we include discussion of his views on, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, "reproductive rights" is a more accurate term. -asx- 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality, how are the subheadings messing up your browser? And is it only in this article? What browser do you use? -- pile0nades talk | contribs 02:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
David Boies on MSNBC just said that he represented the Playboy Channel in a case. Can someone mention this in the article with the details? -Amit
I added that he got his BA in only three years per MSNBC whicky1978 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article that indicates Roberts is Roman Catholic, yet it is one of the categories. whicky1978 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yes there is. It says in the article that he is a practicing Catholic.
Shouldn't this be moved to John G. Roberts, Jr.? Postdlf 02:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, my quote from Sen. Kennedy got taken out while I was looking for a counterbalancing quote from the same source (his confirmation hearings in 2003). What's the policy on quotes -- are they allowed? Chip Unicorn 04:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
One interesting way to get insight into Judge Roberts' judicial temperment might be looking at which schools he has drawn interns from. Anyone know how to find that out? -asx- 04:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"Beastiality" this looks like vandalism. This should probably be removed unless there is a source backing it up.
Why does the entry refer to the judge being "really stupid" and President Bush being a "Douchebag?" (page does not allow editing right now)
Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.
Saying that this particular decision is AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION is like saying abortion rights groups are against babies. It's easily as much about the specifics of that case and about sueing the government.
This is not a list of his views, this is a list of reasons liberals won't like him, and should either be titled as such or reworked to be neutral.
-- 66.74.199.238 05:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the case of interstate commerce and the "hapless toad", first a case citation (i.e. the name of the case) would be an important addition. Also, the quotes chosen do not, IMHO, further illustrate his position (as opposed completing the same sentence without quoting him). I humbly suggest finding a more substantial (lengthier, providing more context) and more logically based quote that further illustrates the legal basis for his dissent. Perhaps something that clarifies _why_ interstate commerce would prevent the government from protecting this species. - DL
This article is drowning in blue hypertext. Many terms and dates are linked over and over again. Like "July 19," linked nearly a dozen times in one screenful of text. This drives users away and makes the actual content hard to read. Don't get me wrong: I think liberal use of links is a good thing. But not the same term over and over. This article currently has Supreme Court, George Bush, and other terms linked multiple times. -asx- 05:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Gay marriage is a hot topic these days. Has anyone got anything on what this guy's position on that is? Since the whole FMA thing was about a feared conflict between the executive and judicial branches' positions on the issue in light of the recent events in Canada's courts, some mention of the stance taken by this nominee should be made here, even if it's just something he said in an interview and not in court. Dave
Someone keeps removing my links to HHLaw. Can this be justified? Isn't it expected that such a valuable link be made available when it's known? User:Slonob
Does anyone agree that the yearbook photo doesn't belong? If we had baby pictures, would we upload them too? It doesn't seem to add anything to this article to see what he looked like 30 years ago. — Cleared as filed. 03:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
By its nature, a nomination of a SCOTUS justice is significantly about the impact that his confirmation to the court will have. Would a section such as the following be useful in this article?:
Of course, specific details about these decisions would be added as well. If not a section of this article, we could create a daughter article on the speculation on the impact on the direction of the court. NoSeptember 13:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Can the photos at this government link be used? Are they public domain? whicky1978 14:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC) white house link
As far as I know, nobody has uploaded them. I thought I would ask before I did it. 64.136.27.225 12:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Does he own any pets? -- Fastflam 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Has he ever expressed any opinions that might be pertinent to the financial markets. I don't mean the dictum about the frog who lived in California. I mean, for example, insider-trading prosecutions? Securities-fraud civil lawsuits? Enron-style accounting chicanery? Protection for corporate whistle blowers? -- Christofurio 15:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
There's probably a better term for this than "constitutional philosophy" so if anyone knows one, let me know. Basically what I'm getting at is what is his philosophy on how the Constitution should be interpreted? There are terms for some of the different views on this, but I don't recall any of those offhand... I'll see if I can find some examples. Saying that he's a member of the Federalist Society is a clue, but if there's any more information, that would be very nice to have. - DL
Okay, I guess I was close. "Judicial philosophy" seems to be the term, or at least the one used elsewhere in Wikipedia. Some examples of what I'm talking about can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Judicial_philosophy - DL
The introductory paragraph refers to Judge Roberts as Political Figure. Since, to my knowledge, he has never run for office or pursued politics professionally I believe this is an incorrect characterization. The only possible justification for this description is that his appointment must be approved by the Senate and it is causing a lot of politics. Using such reasoning, almost anyone mentioned in the Congressional Records could be referred to as a Political Figure and it makes the term almost useless. G.W. Bush is a political figure, Chuck Schumer is a political figure, but John Roberts and, for instance, Stephen Breyer are not political figures, and describing them as such has no vaild reason I can see other than providing a rationale for the political storm that seems to brewing. Since we are having a revision war on these two words, I would like to see the justification for using this term. -- Paul 19:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's the first paragraph of a Washington Post article that appeared on the front page today:
The capsule summary needs some work to clarify the issues a bit, but not sure how to go about this without introducing too much POV. I recommend reading the opinion to get a firmer grasp of the issues and the reasoning of the court. One interesting item that I think deserves mention is that the court believes that even though Afghanistan is a contracting party to the Geneva Conventions, al Qaeda is not, and that the US is supposedly "at war" with al Qaeda separately from its involvement in Afghanistan. It's curious reasoning indeed, at p. 15 of 22 in the PDF. Whig 20:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Keetoowah deleted the ending comment about further review from the end of this paragraph. Here is what I believe that comment was referring to:
Suppose we are mistaken about Common Article 3.
Suppose it does cover Hamdan. Even then we would abstain from testing the military commission against the requirement in Common Article 3(1)(d) that sentences must be pronounced “by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” See Councilman, 420 U.S. at 759; New, 129 F.3d at 644; supra Part I. Unlike his arguments that the military commission lacked jurisdiction, his argument here is that the commission’s procedures -- particularly its alleged failure to require his presence at all stages of the proceedings -- fall short of what Common Article 3 requires. The issue thus raised is not whether the commission may try him, but rather how the commission may try him. That is by no stretch a jurisdictional argument. No one would say that a criminal defendant’s contention that a district court will not allow him to confront the witnesses against him raises a jurisdictional objection. Hamdan’s claim therefore falls outside the recognized exception to the Councilman doctrine. Accordingly, comity would dictate that we defer to the ongoing military proceedings. If Hamdan were convicted, and if Common Article 3 covered him, he could contest his conviction in federal court after he exhausted his military
remedies.
There's a level of supposition there in between. Should the reference to further review after conviction be reinserted in a reworded form, or left out altogether? TheGoodReverend 13:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur in all aspects of the cour's opinion except for the conclusion that Common Aritcle 3 does not apply to the United States's conduct toward al Qaeda personnel captured in the conflict in Afghanistan. Maj. Op. 15-16. Because I agree that the Geneva Convention is not enforceable in courts of the United States, and that any claims under Common Ariticle 3 should be deferred until proceedings against Hamdan are finished. I fully agree with the court's judgement.