![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Merrick B. Garland was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot ( talk) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Merrick B. Garland. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Since MBG is oft-mentioned as a replacement for Justice Stevens, I am curious if anyone has a source to corroborate the assertion in this ABA Journal article that he is Jewish. Obviously, "diversity" of the Justices is now a topic of great interest. -- Y not? 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Why does his religion even have to be mentioned? Is religion for each judge in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.223.132 ( talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is relevant because it is highly predictive of voting patterns on social issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:DB00:6860:C9BB:40FC:3F5F ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Can the phrase "as a Jew" be changed? "Raised Jewish" is a much better phrase. Maebyitsme ( talk) 22:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It will be a busy day for this article, but I wanted to note I semi-protected the article after a blitz of anonymous editing added incorrect info. It is set to expire after a week. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
He prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, right? That's lead-worthy stuff right there. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in an unprecedented move, issued an categorical vow not to consider any nominee put forth by President Obama, saying that the decision as to a Scalia replacement should be left to the next President.
S/B in a precedent move as set by Senator Joe Biden in 1992, when he declared that any SCOTUS opening during an election year should be left open for the next POTUS. Cnhbradley ( talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Text from Senator Joe Biden on the Senate Floor in 1992:
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.
And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.
I’m sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnhbradley ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I request that the text be changed to indicate WHO has called it "unprecedented" (which is easy to find, since pretty much every Democrat has done so.) -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu yes, either of those should work just fine. -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Outdowands ( talk) 17:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The Section titled Appointment to the D.C. Circuit makes references to a need to fill a 12th seat in one paragraph and then an 11th in the next which number is correct and is there a corroborating source? 174.96.14.12 ( talk) 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Under "Supreme Court Nomination," the reference given in first paragraph for Hatch's 2010 description of Garland as a "consensus nominee" (Shear, Michael, New York Times, March 16, 2016) does not mention Hatch's quote. I am supplying a reference to Salt Lake Tribune that does. A.T.S. in Texas ( talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think stating that the NYTimes "reported" that Obama is daring Republicans makes it sound like there was an actual "dare" made by the president to Senate Republicans. After reading the article, it sounds more like the NYTimes is framing the nomination as a dare but not that Obama has made an actual dare. Perhaps the term "reported" can be changed to "framed" or "interpreted."
How about someone fixing the erroneous statement that is currently on this page about Mitch McConnel and the House Republicans vow to not vote on any nominee as "unprecedented"?!?! As it is no way unprecedented! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayliver78 ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the talk page IS the correct forum to discuss that. And the earlier comment is correct; calling it "unprecedented" is opinion. The statement should be sourced to explain WHO has called it that. -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
"In the latest battle in the war for ideological control of the Federal courts, the Democrats who control the Senate have begun to delay confirming some of President Bush's nominees for major judgeships to preserve the vacancies for Gov. Bill Clinton to fill if he is elected President." http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/01/us/waiting-for-clinton-democrats-hold-up-court-confirmations.html?smid=tw-share
A judgeship is a judgeship at any level. The democrats did holdup an appointment for Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnhbradley ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu please stop pushing original research. I do not wish to debate with you as to whether the move is unprecedented or not. I am merely pointing out that the statement is disputed -- by roughly half the US population. I suggest that the article text be changed to indicate who has called it unprecedented. -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia's job to push accurate data. At the point where this specific situation - a Congress vowing to stop even hearing nominees with an entire year left in a president's term - has never happened before, unprecedented is accurate. "In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks." - http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/ Mt xing ( talk) 16:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Precedent is inherently a matter of interpretation. Roughly half the US population disagrees with calling it "unprecedented" -- this is a textbook example of original research. I am deliberately avoiding expressing any opinion on whether or not the move is unprecedented. My point is that we need to correctly attribute that statement, or remove it entirely. I think it's relevant to include, so I would suggest we add attribution rather than remove it. -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Attribution seems fair. Does anyone here have edit capabilities right now? Mt xing ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Neutrality I think you misunderstand what I was asking for, and I apologize for any way in which my phrasing contributed to that. I was not arguing that the statement itself be changed, but rather that additional footnotes be added. Some of those to which you refer were in fact added at my request (and with the help of Muboshgu) and that's all I was suggesting. I do think perhaps the ones more directly relevant to the "unprecedented" claim should be relocated to be adjacent to the word (so that it's clear that's what's being referenced) but I wasn't asking for a watering-down of the language, which I think is maybe what you thought, and why you were so opposed? Also, regarding Buster7's concerns regarding sockpuppetry, I can understand that and don't take offense. I create new accounts every time the "keep me logged in" on my previous one expires, because to be perfectly honest I've always found the community on Wikipedia to be highly toxic and would rather not have an ongoing history with it. I have a tendency to get involved with (and even seek out) talk page disputes because I am sometimes able to help smooth things over (which is something I feel good about doing, whenever I can) but not always... -- Outdowands ( talk) 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I draw your attention to page 9-10 in the following PDF (page 6-7 by page-number in footer), under the heading "Opposition to the President".
There is clearly precedent for senators to proactively disapprove supreme court nominations by a president that is soon to leave office. Though it has never been a senate majority leader, that doesn't make it "unprecedented". Whether an event has precedent is not dependent on the degree of the prior precedent, but the existence of it.
The wording should either change to "unprecedented degree", which I will concede is a fair middle-ground, or should be removed entirely. I would prefer the latter-- Democratic Party leaders have been relaying this questionable claim over the past few weeks since Scalia's death and I think it's a mistake to relay that onto this site without sources to back it up. Until there is an article about this topic where it can be judged for accuracy, the neutral action is to not talk about it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.199.68 ( talk) 17:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the content consideration, the current wording that says Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell, in an unprecedented degree, issued an categorical vow not to consider any nominee put forth by President Obama
is simply very awkward and verging on ungrammatical. You don't issue a vow in a degree in English. Things are done "to a degree", if anything, but not vows anyway. The move seems unprecedented enough to me, and there are sources to state it without
WP:SYNTHing ones that were written before these events, but even if not, let's at least try to make this encyclopedia readable.
LjL (
talk)
17:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's productive to argue here over whether or not the GOP position is unprecedented. It has now been attributed to particular sources making that claim, which I think is sufficient. Interpreting precedent is a matter of opinion, and the sources for the prevailing opinion (including a Republican) have been specified. -- Outdowands ( talk) 19:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
Since 2003, Garland has been a member of the board of overseers for Howard University.[12]
to
From 2003-2010, Garland was a member of the board of overseers for Harvard University.
because: Although the source [12] does mention Howard, this would appear to be an error. Garland was elected to Board of Overseers of Harvard in 2003 [3] and was elected president for his final year, 2009-2010 [4]
Rhoow ( talk) 19:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typo in the 3rd paragraph of the section "Service on the D.C. Circuit, reputation, and judicial philosophy." In that 3rd paragraph's first sentence, there is a word missing between "... Garland" and "that his most-admired...". The word might be "noted" or "stated".
2602:30A:2EFE:95F0:F876:B2EA:88E1:7DD8 ( talk) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I heard on the news tonight that his parents are Russian émigrés and yet I see no mention of it given here. Did someone adjudge that information to be irrelevant or has nobody yet realized this about his ancestral background?
The fact he participated to the decision to seek death penalty for OK bombing prosecution has been dropped of the article. This is an important information, as SCOTUS deals a lot with death penalty. Removal diff were [5]. Please note the neutrality issue to replace raw facts by a cherry-pick of only a praise. -- Dereckson ( talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Radio stations are beginning to report negotiations between concerned parties that, should Mrs. Clinton be the Democratic nominee, several high-ranking Republicans would be willing to favor approving Judge Garland in the two months preceding the election due to fears that Clintons choice would be more liberal. Any legs as an article mention? Buster Seven Talk 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I've seen the word Jurist mentioned for this person in several articles. This is significant information which should be included here, because a Jurist is something which is unique and relevant to law. Can someone please include this information? Thanks. Andiar.rohnds ( talk) 00:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This diff removes "married at the Harvard Club in New York City on September 19, 1987" from the article with the claim of excessive unencyclopedic detail. I would like to here some editors comment about what is blatant removal of simple factual detail. It's as though the article was a skeleton and editors are not allowed to put some meat and muscle and sinew to it. Hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles contain the most inane and minuscule facts about their subject matter and this article is not allowed to mention that the Garland married in a rather prestigious place? I don't get it. I guess we could do an RfC but, for now, I'd just like to get an idea of how this article will be allowed to grow. Buster Seven Talk 06:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The article unquestioningly asserts that Garland is "considered" a centrist, as if that's some sort of consensus opinion, simply because two news articles assert he is. While the article details any Republican support, praise or contact, right down to mentioning he once heard Pres. Nixon speak live, it doesn't provide any support for his alleged centrism. No conservative or even center-right mentors, opinions, or positions are expressed. Instead, this seems simply like the decades-old and much-maligned public relations point of labeling every liberal as a centrist to make opposition seem unreasonable. A space alien reading sources like the New York Times and Washington Post without access to a translation would conclude that the opposite of "conservative" was "moderate." Neutrality 96.95.24.246 ( talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)>
Possible photos suggested for use in the article:
The profile photo currently used in the infobox is up for deletion at Commons. link
Suggest swapping it out with one of the free-use-licensed profile photos, above.
Also the other images could be possible suggested photos for use in the article.
More pictures and free-use-licensed media at commons:Merrick Garland and commons:Category:Merrick Garland.
I wish everyone best of luck and collegiality in the editing process,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
...that's not what was decided in that case, is it? It was decided that marijuana should remain schedule I, which doesn't necessarily mean it's as dangerous as any other schedule I substance, but only that like the other schedule I substances, it has no legally recognized medical use. It's not phrased like that in the article, and it reads like a bit of cannabis-lobby snark. If this weren't such a contentious article, I'd have removed it already. Twin Bird ( talk) 01:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
A video expressly promoting Garland has been included and re-included in the article. The video is non-neutral as it has a nakedly promotional tone; more importantly, its inclusion in our article is blatantly non-neutral as it implicitly signals to readers that we are taking the White House's "side" on his nomination, and, by logical extension, on Garland himself. As informative as the video is there is no way we can include it in our article. (I posted this same issue at Talk:Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination#White House video.)-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
White House video produced to promote Garland's Supreme Court nomination. Feel free to revert if necessary. With regards to the policy aspect of this, the relevant section is WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements. Biased/non-neutral statements of opinion can be presented as long as it has an in-text attribution. The issue I think DrFlieschman is seeing is WP:WEIGHT. If we are to include such a biased statement, we need to give other statements fair representation as well. Mz7 ( talk) 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that this is an openly promotional video. I also disagree that WP:NPOV would prevent us from including a promotional video.
The video shows that Garland walks, talks, does not have two heads, has a wife and two kids, and a mother and had a father, some personal history, and his very basic judicial philosophy. If that is promotional, we'd have to exclude most media, including most videos. Sure almost all media has a POV - consider a photo of the Statue of Liberty taken on a beautiful sunny day - but it is impossible in most cases not to include some sort of POV that could be removed if we were just including words rather than images. But we don't exclude images and other media for that reason.
Also consider an autobiographical quote. It would be difficult to ensure that these quotes are all "perfectly neutral", but we do not exclude autobiographical quotes.
What WP:NPOV is about is making sure that all significant POVs are represented in the article. It is not about making each individual piece of the article neutral - it almost requires that some pieces are not totally neutral. (This assumes of course that we can't write a complete article where every word and sentence is perfectly and blandly neutral.)
So readers should know that the video comes from the White House. If there is another video that deserves equal weight that shows, e.g. that he has two heads, that should be included. What's the problem?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
On this subject, there's a little bit of precedent to look at: in the article Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, the law which instituted same-sex marriage in England and Wales, we include two images that were produced as promotional material by the British government (and thus appropriately licensed under the Open Government License). In the case of the marriage law, there's really not much to illustrate it otherwise. Generic pictures of people getting married are a dull cliché. Nobody seems to have complained about the presence of the promotional images there.
As for this article, I don't think there should be any blanket rule on whether to include such material: so long as it is appropriately marked as being material produced by the government, that the article has appropriate balance and overall NPOV is in the article, including the material is something that mostly benefits the reader. Nobody is going to be in any doubt as to its origin. I don't buy the argument that the inclusion of the video is an endorsement of it, any more than if we had, say, the videos associated with the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth or the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, Wikipedia would be endorsing the positions expressed in them by including them in the articles. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Please also see subsection, below, with suggestions of additional and/or alternative free-use licensed files.
Additional free-use-licensed video files include:
Further research at commons:Merrick Garland and commons:Category:Merrick Garland.
I wish you all the best of luck in having a civil discussion and with the editing process,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The article currently identifies the synagogue that Garland attends, based on this Jewish Journal source. Should we really be including this content? I'm not sure:
In an abundance of caution I am removing this content. I suggest we come to a consensus before re-including it. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
People shouldn't add this weird claim that his father was Protestant, which today was stated in a few Jewish papers. His father was the son of Max Garland and Rose Kaplan, both of whom were Jewish immigrants. Max was the brother of Louis Garland, who was Iowa Governor Terry Branstad's maternal grandfather (Branstad's mother was Jewish). Garland's father was buried in a Jewish cemetery, as you can see here. Again, totally false claim, we shouldn't spread it even further by repeating it here. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 19:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
And the JTA has corrected its articles across the board (i.e. here and here). Not before the New York Times repeated the claim, though. As to your question, I no longer care about reliable sources. They make too many errors. That's their problem, not ours. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 06:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggest replacement with another suitable free-use-licensed photo such as:
Other photos and free-use-licensed media files may be seen at:
I wish you all the best of luck in the editing process,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggested sister-links that could be added to External links sect:
{{commons|Merrick Garland}} {{wikiquote|Merrick Garland}} {{wikisource|Author:Merrick Brian Garland}}
Perhaps editors and/or readers may find some useful material there,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Judge Garland's 2009-2010 consideration for SCOTUS was just removed because it was not sufficiently important for (the)lead. The thought struck me, "In the long history of the Supreme Court, how many candidates have risen to the pinnacle of their profession and been considered for appointment to the Court?". Two hundred? Three hundred? Certainly a select and small group of individuals when compared to the hundreds of thousands of equally competent and qualified individuals over that span of time. But that major event in Garlands life has been removed from the lead. I think it IS sufficiently important to be considered and should be included in the lead. Per Wp:Lead, the lead should be a concise overview of the article's topic. It should explain why the topic is notable and briefly summarize the most important and prominment points. Lets re-consider. Buster Seven Talk 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Re this diff: a "compared to?" tag has been added to this sentence: According to Goldstein, Garland has "tended to take a broader view" of First Amendment rights.
If you look at the source (the Golstein post from 2010), the term is used as a general descriptor; it's not meant to be a comparison. I don't find the phrase to be garbled or unclear at all. Neutrality talk 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
i'm going to nominate for GA, since the revscore indicates that level. [6]. i trust User:Neutrality has that in hand. Duckduckstop ( talk) 19:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone find a reliable source saying that Garland is a Democrat? It seems obvious at first, but reliable sources say he's a centrist and a moderate, so maybe he doesn't identify with either major party. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I've removed an external link to a anti-Garland video produced by a conservative activist group, the Judicial Crisis Network.
It is completely inappropriate under WP:ELBLP ("In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline") and WP:ELPOV ("avoid providing links too great in ... weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority view"). Neutrality talk 01:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There is apparently a widespread misconception that a President (i.e. Obama) can "withdraw" a nomination for person on the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't describe such a thing. There are certainly references in history that say a nomination was "withdrawn". Sure, a President can declare that he "withdraws" a nomination, but it is far from certain that this would have the effect of making the Senate unable to later confirm him, despite the apparent wishes of the President. Usually, and perhaps always in history, when a President is said to have "withdrawn" a nomination, that confirmation wasn't going to happen, making it a mere formality. One argument for voting to confirm Garland now is that if Hillary Clinton is elected, she would nominate somebody worse than Garland. Possible, but this doesn't mean that a still-Republican-majority Senate couldn't confirm Garland even if Obama "withdraws" the nomination, or for that matter even after Clinton takes office on January 2017. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 19:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC) User Jonathunder attempted to remove this paragraph, above, claiming "this is not a forum". I reverted his rude action, pointing out "This is not your property". Merrick Garland has been nominated to the Supreme Court, therefore commentary about that event is relevant here too. My point, above, in fact counters various information observations and opinions that we occasionally find on articles, referring to "withdrawing" that nomination for strategic reasons. Jonathunder has not provided any reason that my comment is somehow off-topic, or irrelevant to the specific function of this article. Most likely, he simply doesn't like my observation that Garland's nomination can't be "withdrawn" in a way binding on the U.S. Senate: They can confirm Garland whenever they wish. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I want to explain that I want to put references into the article where media sources refer to the strategic idea of "withdrawing" Garland's nomination, presumably after a Clinton win in November 2016, yet before any Republican Senate control is lost, depending on those same elections. Such references assume that a President can "withdraw" a nomination, but not only that, can by doing so somehow block the Senate from confirming that "withdrawn" nomination. This discussion is obviously relevant in the Talk page, as it will be on the main page once the appropriate edits include well-sourced media references. Editors like "Jonathunder" and "Neutrality" should be embarrassed that they try to manipulate the editing process here, simply for the purpose of concealing from the public the observation I am referring to. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
|
please restrict to User talk or
WP:VPP
|
---|
Bully editor LjL tried to back up bully editors Jonathunder and bully editor Neutrality by claiming: "There is no mechanism for a President to "withdraw" a Supreme Court nomination: The word "withdraw" doesn't appear even once in THE ARTICLE. This is a talk page about THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, not about what the media say or do not say. WP:NOTFORUM)" [end of quote] Bully editor LjL pretends to ignore the fact that I am in the process of selecting for inclusion media references to withdrawing Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination. I decided that the best way to do the edits on the article was to lay the groundwork by FIRST making comments on the Talk page, and only then editing the main article. It is completely illogical, therefore, for rude person LjL to justify the revert/deletion of my Talk page comments, merely on the ground that the article itself DIDN'T YET mention "withdraw". There is not defined method for a person to proceed with edits: Main article first? Or Talk page first? My position is that neither is necessarily "right" nor "wrong". An editor may need to make changes BOTH in the main article and ALSO the Talk page. Bully LjL simply seems to be enforcing some fictitious 'law' that he knows simply does not exist, for the purpose of obstructing development of article edits that refer to media references to "withdrawing" Subsequently, I will be adding these comments to the Merrick Garland Supreme Court Nomination main article and Talk page. But that doesn't make these thugs' actions proper here. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 22:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
Here is an example of an article in which game-playing in regards to withdrawing Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination by Obama is proposed and considered. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/17/how-obama-could-get-last-laugh-in-supreme-court-fight/ The bully-editors of WP should stop pretending that it is not a proper subject for discussion in this article, nor Talk page. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
In the lead section, Markwothe changed "the unwillingness of Senate Republicans to consider the nomination" to "the decision by Senate Republicans not to consider the nomination." This change was reverted by Neutrality. I prefer Markwothe's more neutral version, since "unwillingness" implies obstructionism and reflects negatively on Senate Republicans without encyclopedic benefit. We should avoid these sorts of implications. If we have reliable sourcing that the Republicans are engaging in obstructionism then our article should say that explicitly, not implicitly. See WP:WTW and WP:SYNTH. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I am against including genealogical information about the ethnicity of Garland's paternal grandfather on WP:BLP and WP:TRIVIA grounds. This information is not encyclopedic because it adds no biographical value about Garland himself. Garland's father was Jewish and Garland himself was raised Jewish. That's all we need to know. The source is a new (launched in 2009) Jewish online magazine of limited public interest. As it indicates, the sole reason why people looked into Garland's genealogy was because they were curious why a Jew would have an un-Jewish name. That's trivia. If this story gets picked up by the mainstream media then I could see changing my mind on this, but I highly suspect that won't happen.
This is not equivalent to the current content about Garland's maternal grandparents, which demonstrates that Garland is a 3rd generation political refugee. (Even that may be a bit of a stretch, but that's another matter.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ DrFleischman:, I added the archiveurls to the citations to prevent link rot, not to address dead links. I don't think information should be taken out of a citation just because it looks cluttered in the markup format, because these links prevent linkrot. See the web archive section for info on how this is used for prevention and not necessarily dead links. I'm going to revert your reversion, but I'm not going to start an edit war, so if you decide to remove the archiveurls once again, I won't stop you. Please consider, however, that archiveurls strengthen the encyclopedia and that the markup isn't necessarily designed to be read but rather to act as the guts of the page, so being easy to read shouldn't be a priority. Thanks, Icebob99 ( talk) 17:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I recently reverted an IP edit that put Garland's party affiliation as Democratic [7]. I don't think he's a registered Democrat, and a quick scan of reputable sources puts him as a moderate, so I think I was correct in this revert, but if anyone knows something I don't about his party, I would appreciate it if I heard it here. Icebob99 ( talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
As I was reading this article today, I became more concerned that this article suffers from a number of POV issues. Some (by no means a comprehensive list) areas of concern include the following statements: 1. "with some Americans saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen"." - use of weasel words to imply POV without attribution 2. The "Notable cases" section reads more as a cheering section for Merrick Garland, presenting only viewpoints and quotes that speak positively of him in overly flowery or idealized language 3. In the "Administrative and Environmental Law" section, the statement "Then-Circuit Judge John Roberts dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, writing that Congress's interstate commerce power cannot reach "a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California" has little to nothing to do with Merrick Garland. Rather, it appears to push a politic agenda to convince Republicans to support Garland by pairing him with John Roberts, someone Republicans generally see favorably 4. The above can be said in the "Criminal law and whistleblower protection" section. The author of this section is using verbal gymnastics in order to use John Roberts to portray Merrick Garland in a positive light. If the statements are made by John Roberts, and not Merrick Garland, the connection to this topic is vague. 5. In "Second Amendment" - "Goldstein commented, "Garland did not take a formal position on the merits of the case" and "even if he had concluded that the statute was constitutional, that view of the case would have conformed" to widespread views under then-existing Supreme Court precedent.[23] Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute nonetheless wrote that libertarians and conservatives should be concerned about Garland's stance on gun rights.[62]" frames the section argumentatively. Rather than describing his viewpoints on the Second Amendment, the author is rather scant on facts and long on opinion masquerading as documented fact through an overabundance of citation. 6. The author appears to rely heavily on Tom Goldstein (citation 23), especially when making some of their more non-neutral statements 7. "Scalia vacancy and 2016 nomination" - the entire section frames the debate as an "us vs. them". It has considerable editorializing and make no attempt whatsoever to honestly present the opposition to Merrick Garland's opposition.
These are a few of the concerns that I have been able to note. Quite frankly, it appears that the NPOV issues are pervasive in this article. Short of a rewrite, I don't see how to root out all of the various bias and weasel words. Smit8678 ( talk) 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the previous, longstanding form of the second paragraph of the lead section. I did not find the most recent changes to be helpful. If folks have wording changes to propose to this section, I think it would be a good idea to discuss them here and obtain consensus before implementing. Neutrality talk 19:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I figure I allowed for enough time to receive an answer to my questions vis-a-vis the attempt to remove the sneering and accusatory tone of the lead paragraph. I am thus interpreting the lack of answer as "no contest"/"consensus achieved"; as such, I will proceed at reinstating my modifications which, again, should remove the accusatory tone of the lead paragraph, and give it a neutral tone.
For reference, I am reproducing my (now archived) comments here: "1. ... The fact remains that the paragraph (in its "longstanding form") was not written in good faith, and has a snarky and sneering tone, which I have been trying to get rid of by giving it a neutral, anodyne, and equitable feel. There is no question that my proposal is more neutral and bland, and that the only thing it leaves behind is the "longstanding form's" otherwise carefully dissimulated snide--snide that should not "adorn" the pages of an encyclopedia to begin with. (Sadly though, it looks like the absence of snide is precisely the problem.) 2. If you read my comment above carefully, you'll see that I agree that, unfortunately, "Republican majority" is, indeed "well-understood," though that does not constitute a good reason to not replace it with "senate majority," especially since "Republican majority" is accompanied by "refusal" in a clearly accusatory fashion (which, again, Wikipedia should not promote: it is not Wikipedia's job to proffer accusations.). Hence no inaccuracy here. 3. Yes, "controversial in many circles," all of which are widely known as harboring a leftist/liberal bent (most of them unabashedly so). Regardless, how is the phrase "Senate majority's declining to consider the nomination was criticized by liberal circles, and applauded by conservatives" an "inaccuracy"? What is "inaccurate" about it? (Please be very specific.) How is this more "inaccurate" than your "refusal [...] was highly controversial"? 4. To conclude, none of the "inaccuracies" you have pointed out are actual inaccuracies. Nevertheless, you may have spotted others, so please reply with what hopefully are actual inaccuracies, and please be very specific. I am hoping that I have made my case that your remarks so far have no factual basis." Aqualung ( talk) 00:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is extremely important -- not so much because of Garland, himself, but because of the pivotal event of his Supreme Court nomination, and the outcomes -- and their exceptionally frequent public, political and media reference point as precedent (or not) for future (and current) Supreme Court nominations. The Garland nomination-and-rejection remain one of the most intense U.S. judicial and political controversies of this century, regardless of which side you're on.
Consequently, this should not be a sloppy, poorly-sourced, article. MUCH better sourcing is urgently needed -- especially for some of the many single-sourced statements in the article. This is especially true for those sources that have a deliberate and well-established and pronounced political-editorial leaning (e.g.: The New Republic vs. National Review; Fox News vs. MSNBC; New York Times vs. Wall Street Journal; Washington Post vs. Los Angeles Times / Chicago Tribune; U.S. News vs. Newsweek; etc.).
Thus, for any statement, here -- if it could be the subject of controversy, or an important fact:
IMHO. Any corrections, to my assertion, from WP:RS?
Article reads, "The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was deemed highly controversial." In reality this has happened at least once before in American history, with the refusal to consider the nomination of Pierce Butler by President Harding the first time the President nominated him. At the very least, the article could read that the move was unprecedented in recent history to better reflect reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.243.80 ( talk) 19:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Please, add
Thank you! - J.W.Pold ( talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section titled Department of Justice and Private Practice, 3rd sentence now reads:
While at Arnold & Porter, the white shoe firm founded by Justice Abe Fortas, Garland mostly practiced corporate litigation.
This should be changed to read:
While at Arnold & Porter, the white shoe firm co-founded by Justice Abe Fortas, Garland mostly practiced corporate litigation.
As made clear in the Arnold & Porter entry, Justice Fortas co-founded the firm with Thurman Arnold. Fortas did not found the firm alone, as is suggested by the current wording. Gregoryla ( talk) 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In the third paragraph, the article mentions "President Obama, a Democrat", with the word "Democrat" linking to the list of all political parties worldwide that could be translated to having that name. Maybe it should link to the page for the US Democratic Party? 108.54.184.110 ( talk) 03:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)jonahdichter
The article's sentence "The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was deemed highly controversial." has itself been controversial in edits over the past month and presumably beyond. I attempted to make a talk page about it a month ago but got no reply. I think the current issue with the article as it stands is that the link given as a citation for this statement (as seen in the Edit page notes right beside the sentence in question) itself presents both sides of the case of the precedent for the decision by Senate Republicans to refuse to consider Garland's nomination and by no means presents one as the truth in the sort of way you'd think, for it to act as a citation for a claim. The article discusses the study calling the event unprecedented; it does not affirm it. Rather it presents an ongoing debate on the matter.
Whether or not the event was actually unprecedented was and obviously still is a controversial topic with academics on both sides making claims. I believe it would be best if the article reflects this rather than implicitly affirming one side by unconditionally referring to the event as unprecedented.
I'll second the above point. It appears to me that conservatives edit articles which inflames liberals who vandalize or the reverse with conservatives vandalizing liberal edits. This is not what wikipedia should be. Garland's page is riddled with biased wording and contains "factual statements" with no backing. Wikipedia should be the AP of resources, no bias, just plain verifiable 204.89.153.87 ( talk) 18:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC) facts.
The article has the line "Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date by far[3]) and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress."
Does the use of parenthesis bother anyone else here? I didn't see anything in the wiki style guide saying not to write like that but it rubs me the wrong way. I'd turn it into a prepositional phrase or preferably just delete the aside since it's mentioned later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatZombies ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The parenthetical "(the longest to date by far,[3])" in the introduction (paragraph 3, 2nd to last sentence)
"Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date by far,[3]) and it expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress."
is incorrect. Additionally, the citation is to progressive political blog which appears highly biased ( https://progresstexas.org/). The correct parenthetical is "(one of the longest in recent history)" with citation to Pew Research:
Thank you for your time and consideration. 73.96.160.164 ( talk) 02:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
What's the source for claiming that he's already resigned as a federal judge? His bio is still live on the court's website: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+Judges+-+MBG His resignation doesn't automatically happen when the Senate confirms him as AG. Plainsong ( talk) 20:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Folks, I have been through this many times. Senate advice and consent (confirmation) is not equal to appointment. The Senate is merely giving its required consent. Only the President appoints and he does so after the Senate consents. In this case, the White House has indicated that Garland will receive his commission (appointment) tomorrow and that he will take the Oath of Office (assume office) the same day. Until then, the article should indicate that he is the confirmed nominee, NOT incumbent in the office. Safiel ( talk) 01:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The department of Justice Civil Rights office did not "languish" under the Trump administration. There's no room for bias in Wikipedia! 2603:6081:4140:6200:DD23:D925:985E:FB4C ( talk) 20:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The word "unprecedented" in the intro is POV, but, more importantly, vague. How is it unprecedented? If it's that he wasn't considered before the end of the term, then that's not unprecedented, just something that hasn't been done since before the Civil War. If it's the length that lasted, then that duplicates NPOV information in the next sentence: "Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date by far)." If it's the length of time that it wasn't considered, then that's redundant with the length that it lasted. Clearly the longest nomination, if not considered, would be the longest that a nomination was not considered. If it's the timing - that he was nominated prior to the election and not voted on - then that's really not clear from the sentence, and, I believe, untrue. Edward A. Bradford was nominated in August 1852 and tabled. If it's the lack of a hearing plus a combination of the other factors... then that's way too complicated to infer from this little sentence.
The word adds nothing but ambiguity and would be best omitted or at the very least clarified so that people would know the meaning of the sentence it is in. One word cannot do the heavy lifting its author intended it to do. Calbaer ( talk) 23:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't Garland have a long-standing affiliation with the Federalist Society? If so, why does the current version of this article not mention this? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 04:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Why does a footnote mention the Federalist Society, yet this organization is mentioned nowhere in the text of the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 02:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
Add below under Voting Rights:
On December 6, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, claiming that legislative maps adopted in recent weeks discriminate against Black and Latino voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Also supply a reliable reference. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
20:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Merrick B. Garland was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot ( talk) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Merrick B. Garland. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Since MBG is oft-mentioned as a replacement for Justice Stevens, I am curious if anyone has a source to corroborate the assertion in this ABA Journal article that he is Jewish. Obviously, "diversity" of the Justices is now a topic of great interest. -- Y not? 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Why does his religion even have to be mentioned? Is religion for each judge in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.223.132 ( talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is relevant because it is highly predictive of voting patterns on social issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:DB00:6860:C9BB:40FC:3F5F ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Can the phrase "as a Jew" be changed? "Raised Jewish" is a much better phrase. Maebyitsme ( talk) 22:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It will be a busy day for this article, but I wanted to note I semi-protected the article after a blitz of anonymous editing added incorrect info. It is set to expire after a week. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
He prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, right? That's lead-worthy stuff right there. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in an unprecedented move, issued an categorical vow not to consider any nominee put forth by President Obama, saying that the decision as to a Scalia replacement should be left to the next President.
S/B in a precedent move as set by Senator Joe Biden in 1992, when he declared that any SCOTUS opening during an election year should be left open for the next POTUS. Cnhbradley ( talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Text from Senator Joe Biden on the Senate Floor in 1992:
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.
And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.
I’m sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnhbradley ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I request that the text be changed to indicate WHO has called it "unprecedented" (which is easy to find, since pretty much every Democrat has done so.) -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu yes, either of those should work just fine. -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Outdowands ( talk) 17:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The Section titled Appointment to the D.C. Circuit makes references to a need to fill a 12th seat in one paragraph and then an 11th in the next which number is correct and is there a corroborating source? 174.96.14.12 ( talk) 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Under "Supreme Court Nomination," the reference given in first paragraph for Hatch's 2010 description of Garland as a "consensus nominee" (Shear, Michael, New York Times, March 16, 2016) does not mention Hatch's quote. I am supplying a reference to Salt Lake Tribune that does. A.T.S. in Texas ( talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think stating that the NYTimes "reported" that Obama is daring Republicans makes it sound like there was an actual "dare" made by the president to Senate Republicans. After reading the article, it sounds more like the NYTimes is framing the nomination as a dare but not that Obama has made an actual dare. Perhaps the term "reported" can be changed to "framed" or "interpreted."
How about someone fixing the erroneous statement that is currently on this page about Mitch McConnel and the House Republicans vow to not vote on any nominee as "unprecedented"?!?! As it is no way unprecedented! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayliver78 ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the talk page IS the correct forum to discuss that. And the earlier comment is correct; calling it "unprecedented" is opinion. The statement should be sourced to explain WHO has called it that. -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
"In the latest battle in the war for ideological control of the Federal courts, the Democrats who control the Senate have begun to delay confirming some of President Bush's nominees for major judgeships to preserve the vacancies for Gov. Bill Clinton to fill if he is elected President." http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/01/us/waiting-for-clinton-democrats-hold-up-court-confirmations.html?smid=tw-share
A judgeship is a judgeship at any level. The democrats did holdup an appointment for Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnhbradley ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu please stop pushing original research. I do not wish to debate with you as to whether the move is unprecedented or not. I am merely pointing out that the statement is disputed -- by roughly half the US population. I suggest that the article text be changed to indicate who has called it unprecedented. -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia's job to push accurate data. At the point where this specific situation - a Congress vowing to stop even hearing nominees with an entire year left in a president's term - has never happened before, unprecedented is accurate. "In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks." - http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/ Mt xing ( talk) 16:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Precedent is inherently a matter of interpretation. Roughly half the US population disagrees with calling it "unprecedented" -- this is a textbook example of original research. I am deliberately avoiding expressing any opinion on whether or not the move is unprecedented. My point is that we need to correctly attribute that statement, or remove it entirely. I think it's relevant to include, so I would suggest we add attribution rather than remove it. -- Outdowands ( talk) 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Attribution seems fair. Does anyone here have edit capabilities right now? Mt xing ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Neutrality I think you misunderstand what I was asking for, and I apologize for any way in which my phrasing contributed to that. I was not arguing that the statement itself be changed, but rather that additional footnotes be added. Some of those to which you refer were in fact added at my request (and with the help of Muboshgu) and that's all I was suggesting. I do think perhaps the ones more directly relevant to the "unprecedented" claim should be relocated to be adjacent to the word (so that it's clear that's what's being referenced) but I wasn't asking for a watering-down of the language, which I think is maybe what you thought, and why you were so opposed? Also, regarding Buster7's concerns regarding sockpuppetry, I can understand that and don't take offense. I create new accounts every time the "keep me logged in" on my previous one expires, because to be perfectly honest I've always found the community on Wikipedia to be highly toxic and would rather not have an ongoing history with it. I have a tendency to get involved with (and even seek out) talk page disputes because I am sometimes able to help smooth things over (which is something I feel good about doing, whenever I can) but not always... -- Outdowands ( talk) 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I draw your attention to page 9-10 in the following PDF (page 6-7 by page-number in footer), under the heading "Opposition to the President".
There is clearly precedent for senators to proactively disapprove supreme court nominations by a president that is soon to leave office. Though it has never been a senate majority leader, that doesn't make it "unprecedented". Whether an event has precedent is not dependent on the degree of the prior precedent, but the existence of it.
The wording should either change to "unprecedented degree", which I will concede is a fair middle-ground, or should be removed entirely. I would prefer the latter-- Democratic Party leaders have been relaying this questionable claim over the past few weeks since Scalia's death and I think it's a mistake to relay that onto this site without sources to back it up. Until there is an article about this topic where it can be judged for accuracy, the neutral action is to not talk about it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.199.68 ( talk) 17:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the content consideration, the current wording that says Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell, in an unprecedented degree, issued an categorical vow not to consider any nominee put forth by President Obama
is simply very awkward and verging on ungrammatical. You don't issue a vow in a degree in English. Things are done "to a degree", if anything, but not vows anyway. The move seems unprecedented enough to me, and there are sources to state it without
WP:SYNTHing ones that were written before these events, but even if not, let's at least try to make this encyclopedia readable.
LjL (
talk)
17:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's productive to argue here over whether or not the GOP position is unprecedented. It has now been attributed to particular sources making that claim, which I think is sufficient. Interpreting precedent is a matter of opinion, and the sources for the prevailing opinion (including a Republican) have been specified. -- Outdowands ( talk) 19:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
Since 2003, Garland has been a member of the board of overseers for Howard University.[12]
to
From 2003-2010, Garland was a member of the board of overseers for Harvard University.
because: Although the source [12] does mention Howard, this would appear to be an error. Garland was elected to Board of Overseers of Harvard in 2003 [3] and was elected president for his final year, 2009-2010 [4]
Rhoow ( talk) 19:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typo in the 3rd paragraph of the section "Service on the D.C. Circuit, reputation, and judicial philosophy." In that 3rd paragraph's first sentence, there is a word missing between "... Garland" and "that his most-admired...". The word might be "noted" or "stated".
2602:30A:2EFE:95F0:F876:B2EA:88E1:7DD8 ( talk) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I heard on the news tonight that his parents are Russian émigrés and yet I see no mention of it given here. Did someone adjudge that information to be irrelevant or has nobody yet realized this about his ancestral background?
The fact he participated to the decision to seek death penalty for OK bombing prosecution has been dropped of the article. This is an important information, as SCOTUS deals a lot with death penalty. Removal diff were [5]. Please note the neutrality issue to replace raw facts by a cherry-pick of only a praise. -- Dereckson ( talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Radio stations are beginning to report negotiations between concerned parties that, should Mrs. Clinton be the Democratic nominee, several high-ranking Republicans would be willing to favor approving Judge Garland in the two months preceding the election due to fears that Clintons choice would be more liberal. Any legs as an article mention? Buster Seven Talk 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I've seen the word Jurist mentioned for this person in several articles. This is significant information which should be included here, because a Jurist is something which is unique and relevant to law. Can someone please include this information? Thanks. Andiar.rohnds ( talk) 00:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This diff removes "married at the Harvard Club in New York City on September 19, 1987" from the article with the claim of excessive unencyclopedic detail. I would like to here some editors comment about what is blatant removal of simple factual detail. It's as though the article was a skeleton and editors are not allowed to put some meat and muscle and sinew to it. Hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles contain the most inane and minuscule facts about their subject matter and this article is not allowed to mention that the Garland married in a rather prestigious place? I don't get it. I guess we could do an RfC but, for now, I'd just like to get an idea of how this article will be allowed to grow. Buster Seven Talk 06:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The article unquestioningly asserts that Garland is "considered" a centrist, as if that's some sort of consensus opinion, simply because two news articles assert he is. While the article details any Republican support, praise or contact, right down to mentioning he once heard Pres. Nixon speak live, it doesn't provide any support for his alleged centrism. No conservative or even center-right mentors, opinions, or positions are expressed. Instead, this seems simply like the decades-old and much-maligned public relations point of labeling every liberal as a centrist to make opposition seem unreasonable. A space alien reading sources like the New York Times and Washington Post without access to a translation would conclude that the opposite of "conservative" was "moderate." Neutrality 96.95.24.246 ( talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)>
Possible photos suggested for use in the article:
The profile photo currently used in the infobox is up for deletion at Commons. link
Suggest swapping it out with one of the free-use-licensed profile photos, above.
Also the other images could be possible suggested photos for use in the article.
More pictures and free-use-licensed media at commons:Merrick Garland and commons:Category:Merrick Garland.
I wish everyone best of luck and collegiality in the editing process,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
...that's not what was decided in that case, is it? It was decided that marijuana should remain schedule I, which doesn't necessarily mean it's as dangerous as any other schedule I substance, but only that like the other schedule I substances, it has no legally recognized medical use. It's not phrased like that in the article, and it reads like a bit of cannabis-lobby snark. If this weren't such a contentious article, I'd have removed it already. Twin Bird ( talk) 01:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
A video expressly promoting Garland has been included and re-included in the article. The video is non-neutral as it has a nakedly promotional tone; more importantly, its inclusion in our article is blatantly non-neutral as it implicitly signals to readers that we are taking the White House's "side" on his nomination, and, by logical extension, on Garland himself. As informative as the video is there is no way we can include it in our article. (I posted this same issue at Talk:Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination#White House video.)-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
White House video produced to promote Garland's Supreme Court nomination. Feel free to revert if necessary. With regards to the policy aspect of this, the relevant section is WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements. Biased/non-neutral statements of opinion can be presented as long as it has an in-text attribution. The issue I think DrFlieschman is seeing is WP:WEIGHT. If we are to include such a biased statement, we need to give other statements fair representation as well. Mz7 ( talk) 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that this is an openly promotional video. I also disagree that WP:NPOV would prevent us from including a promotional video.
The video shows that Garland walks, talks, does not have two heads, has a wife and two kids, and a mother and had a father, some personal history, and his very basic judicial philosophy. If that is promotional, we'd have to exclude most media, including most videos. Sure almost all media has a POV - consider a photo of the Statue of Liberty taken on a beautiful sunny day - but it is impossible in most cases not to include some sort of POV that could be removed if we were just including words rather than images. But we don't exclude images and other media for that reason.
Also consider an autobiographical quote. It would be difficult to ensure that these quotes are all "perfectly neutral", but we do not exclude autobiographical quotes.
What WP:NPOV is about is making sure that all significant POVs are represented in the article. It is not about making each individual piece of the article neutral - it almost requires that some pieces are not totally neutral. (This assumes of course that we can't write a complete article where every word and sentence is perfectly and blandly neutral.)
So readers should know that the video comes from the White House. If there is another video that deserves equal weight that shows, e.g. that he has two heads, that should be included. What's the problem?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
On this subject, there's a little bit of precedent to look at: in the article Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, the law which instituted same-sex marriage in England and Wales, we include two images that were produced as promotional material by the British government (and thus appropriately licensed under the Open Government License). In the case of the marriage law, there's really not much to illustrate it otherwise. Generic pictures of people getting married are a dull cliché. Nobody seems to have complained about the presence of the promotional images there.
As for this article, I don't think there should be any blanket rule on whether to include such material: so long as it is appropriately marked as being material produced by the government, that the article has appropriate balance and overall NPOV is in the article, including the material is something that mostly benefits the reader. Nobody is going to be in any doubt as to its origin. I don't buy the argument that the inclusion of the video is an endorsement of it, any more than if we had, say, the videos associated with the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth or the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, Wikipedia would be endorsing the positions expressed in them by including them in the articles. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Please also see subsection, below, with suggestions of additional and/or alternative free-use licensed files.
Additional free-use-licensed video files include:
Further research at commons:Merrick Garland and commons:Category:Merrick Garland.
I wish you all the best of luck in having a civil discussion and with the editing process,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The article currently identifies the synagogue that Garland attends, based on this Jewish Journal source. Should we really be including this content? I'm not sure:
In an abundance of caution I am removing this content. I suggest we come to a consensus before re-including it. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
People shouldn't add this weird claim that his father was Protestant, which today was stated in a few Jewish papers. His father was the son of Max Garland and Rose Kaplan, both of whom were Jewish immigrants. Max was the brother of Louis Garland, who was Iowa Governor Terry Branstad's maternal grandfather (Branstad's mother was Jewish). Garland's father was buried in a Jewish cemetery, as you can see here. Again, totally false claim, we shouldn't spread it even further by repeating it here. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 19:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
And the JTA has corrected its articles across the board (i.e. here and here). Not before the New York Times repeated the claim, though. As to your question, I no longer care about reliable sources. They make too many errors. That's their problem, not ours. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 06:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggest replacement with another suitable free-use-licensed photo such as:
Other photos and free-use-licensed media files may be seen at:
I wish you all the best of luck in the editing process,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggested sister-links that could be added to External links sect:
{{commons|Merrick Garland}} {{wikiquote|Merrick Garland}} {{wikisource|Author:Merrick Brian Garland}}
Perhaps editors and/or readers may find some useful material there,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Judge Garland's 2009-2010 consideration for SCOTUS was just removed because it was not sufficiently important for (the)lead. The thought struck me, "In the long history of the Supreme Court, how many candidates have risen to the pinnacle of their profession and been considered for appointment to the Court?". Two hundred? Three hundred? Certainly a select and small group of individuals when compared to the hundreds of thousands of equally competent and qualified individuals over that span of time. But that major event in Garlands life has been removed from the lead. I think it IS sufficiently important to be considered and should be included in the lead. Per Wp:Lead, the lead should be a concise overview of the article's topic. It should explain why the topic is notable and briefly summarize the most important and prominment points. Lets re-consider. Buster Seven Talk 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Re this diff: a "compared to?" tag has been added to this sentence: According to Goldstein, Garland has "tended to take a broader view" of First Amendment rights.
If you look at the source (the Golstein post from 2010), the term is used as a general descriptor; it's not meant to be a comparison. I don't find the phrase to be garbled or unclear at all. Neutrality talk 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
i'm going to nominate for GA, since the revscore indicates that level. [6]. i trust User:Neutrality has that in hand. Duckduckstop ( talk) 19:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone find a reliable source saying that Garland is a Democrat? It seems obvious at first, but reliable sources say he's a centrist and a moderate, so maybe he doesn't identify with either major party. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I've removed an external link to a anti-Garland video produced by a conservative activist group, the Judicial Crisis Network.
It is completely inappropriate under WP:ELBLP ("In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline") and WP:ELPOV ("avoid providing links too great in ... weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority view"). Neutrality talk 01:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There is apparently a widespread misconception that a President (i.e. Obama) can "withdraw" a nomination for person on the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't describe such a thing. There are certainly references in history that say a nomination was "withdrawn". Sure, a President can declare that he "withdraws" a nomination, but it is far from certain that this would have the effect of making the Senate unable to later confirm him, despite the apparent wishes of the President. Usually, and perhaps always in history, when a President is said to have "withdrawn" a nomination, that confirmation wasn't going to happen, making it a mere formality. One argument for voting to confirm Garland now is that if Hillary Clinton is elected, she would nominate somebody worse than Garland. Possible, but this doesn't mean that a still-Republican-majority Senate couldn't confirm Garland even if Obama "withdraws" the nomination, or for that matter even after Clinton takes office on January 2017. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 19:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC) User Jonathunder attempted to remove this paragraph, above, claiming "this is not a forum". I reverted his rude action, pointing out "This is not your property". Merrick Garland has been nominated to the Supreme Court, therefore commentary about that event is relevant here too. My point, above, in fact counters various information observations and opinions that we occasionally find on articles, referring to "withdrawing" that nomination for strategic reasons. Jonathunder has not provided any reason that my comment is somehow off-topic, or irrelevant to the specific function of this article. Most likely, he simply doesn't like my observation that Garland's nomination can't be "withdrawn" in a way binding on the U.S. Senate: They can confirm Garland whenever they wish. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I want to explain that I want to put references into the article where media sources refer to the strategic idea of "withdrawing" Garland's nomination, presumably after a Clinton win in November 2016, yet before any Republican Senate control is lost, depending on those same elections. Such references assume that a President can "withdraw" a nomination, but not only that, can by doing so somehow block the Senate from confirming that "withdrawn" nomination. This discussion is obviously relevant in the Talk page, as it will be on the main page once the appropriate edits include well-sourced media references. Editors like "Jonathunder" and "Neutrality" should be embarrassed that they try to manipulate the editing process here, simply for the purpose of concealing from the public the observation I am referring to. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
|
please restrict to User talk or
WP:VPP
|
---|
Bully editor LjL tried to back up bully editors Jonathunder and bully editor Neutrality by claiming: "There is no mechanism for a President to "withdraw" a Supreme Court nomination: The word "withdraw" doesn't appear even once in THE ARTICLE. This is a talk page about THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, not about what the media say or do not say. WP:NOTFORUM)" [end of quote] Bully editor LjL pretends to ignore the fact that I am in the process of selecting for inclusion media references to withdrawing Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination. I decided that the best way to do the edits on the article was to lay the groundwork by FIRST making comments on the Talk page, and only then editing the main article. It is completely illogical, therefore, for rude person LjL to justify the revert/deletion of my Talk page comments, merely on the ground that the article itself DIDN'T YET mention "withdraw". There is not defined method for a person to proceed with edits: Main article first? Or Talk page first? My position is that neither is necessarily "right" nor "wrong". An editor may need to make changes BOTH in the main article and ALSO the Talk page. Bully LjL simply seems to be enforcing some fictitious 'law' that he knows simply does not exist, for the purpose of obstructing development of article edits that refer to media references to "withdrawing" Subsequently, I will be adding these comments to the Merrick Garland Supreme Court Nomination main article and Talk page. But that doesn't make these thugs' actions proper here. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 22:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
Here is an example of an article in which game-playing in regards to withdrawing Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination by Obama is proposed and considered. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/17/how-obama-could-get-last-laugh-in-supreme-court-fight/ The bully-editors of WP should stop pretending that it is not a proper subject for discussion in this article, nor Talk page. 75.175.105.188 ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
In the lead section, Markwothe changed "the unwillingness of Senate Republicans to consider the nomination" to "the decision by Senate Republicans not to consider the nomination." This change was reverted by Neutrality. I prefer Markwothe's more neutral version, since "unwillingness" implies obstructionism and reflects negatively on Senate Republicans without encyclopedic benefit. We should avoid these sorts of implications. If we have reliable sourcing that the Republicans are engaging in obstructionism then our article should say that explicitly, not implicitly. See WP:WTW and WP:SYNTH. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I am against including genealogical information about the ethnicity of Garland's paternal grandfather on WP:BLP and WP:TRIVIA grounds. This information is not encyclopedic because it adds no biographical value about Garland himself. Garland's father was Jewish and Garland himself was raised Jewish. That's all we need to know. The source is a new (launched in 2009) Jewish online magazine of limited public interest. As it indicates, the sole reason why people looked into Garland's genealogy was because they were curious why a Jew would have an un-Jewish name. That's trivia. If this story gets picked up by the mainstream media then I could see changing my mind on this, but I highly suspect that won't happen.
This is not equivalent to the current content about Garland's maternal grandparents, which demonstrates that Garland is a 3rd generation political refugee. (Even that may be a bit of a stretch, but that's another matter.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ DrFleischman:, I added the archiveurls to the citations to prevent link rot, not to address dead links. I don't think information should be taken out of a citation just because it looks cluttered in the markup format, because these links prevent linkrot. See the web archive section for info on how this is used for prevention and not necessarily dead links. I'm going to revert your reversion, but I'm not going to start an edit war, so if you decide to remove the archiveurls once again, I won't stop you. Please consider, however, that archiveurls strengthen the encyclopedia and that the markup isn't necessarily designed to be read but rather to act as the guts of the page, so being easy to read shouldn't be a priority. Thanks, Icebob99 ( talk) 17:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I recently reverted an IP edit that put Garland's party affiliation as Democratic [7]. I don't think he's a registered Democrat, and a quick scan of reputable sources puts him as a moderate, so I think I was correct in this revert, but if anyone knows something I don't about his party, I would appreciate it if I heard it here. Icebob99 ( talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
As I was reading this article today, I became more concerned that this article suffers from a number of POV issues. Some (by no means a comprehensive list) areas of concern include the following statements: 1. "with some Americans saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen"." - use of weasel words to imply POV without attribution 2. The "Notable cases" section reads more as a cheering section for Merrick Garland, presenting only viewpoints and quotes that speak positively of him in overly flowery or idealized language 3. In the "Administrative and Environmental Law" section, the statement "Then-Circuit Judge John Roberts dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, writing that Congress's interstate commerce power cannot reach "a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California" has little to nothing to do with Merrick Garland. Rather, it appears to push a politic agenda to convince Republicans to support Garland by pairing him with John Roberts, someone Republicans generally see favorably 4. The above can be said in the "Criminal law and whistleblower protection" section. The author of this section is using verbal gymnastics in order to use John Roberts to portray Merrick Garland in a positive light. If the statements are made by John Roberts, and not Merrick Garland, the connection to this topic is vague. 5. In "Second Amendment" - "Goldstein commented, "Garland did not take a formal position on the merits of the case" and "even if he had concluded that the statute was constitutional, that view of the case would have conformed" to widespread views under then-existing Supreme Court precedent.[23] Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute nonetheless wrote that libertarians and conservatives should be concerned about Garland's stance on gun rights.[62]" frames the section argumentatively. Rather than describing his viewpoints on the Second Amendment, the author is rather scant on facts and long on opinion masquerading as documented fact through an overabundance of citation. 6. The author appears to rely heavily on Tom Goldstein (citation 23), especially when making some of their more non-neutral statements 7. "Scalia vacancy and 2016 nomination" - the entire section frames the debate as an "us vs. them". It has considerable editorializing and make no attempt whatsoever to honestly present the opposition to Merrick Garland's opposition.
These are a few of the concerns that I have been able to note. Quite frankly, it appears that the NPOV issues are pervasive in this article. Short of a rewrite, I don't see how to root out all of the various bias and weasel words. Smit8678 ( talk) 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the previous, longstanding form of the second paragraph of the lead section. I did not find the most recent changes to be helpful. If folks have wording changes to propose to this section, I think it would be a good idea to discuss them here and obtain consensus before implementing. Neutrality talk 19:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I figure I allowed for enough time to receive an answer to my questions vis-a-vis the attempt to remove the sneering and accusatory tone of the lead paragraph. I am thus interpreting the lack of answer as "no contest"/"consensus achieved"; as such, I will proceed at reinstating my modifications which, again, should remove the accusatory tone of the lead paragraph, and give it a neutral tone.
For reference, I am reproducing my (now archived) comments here: "1. ... The fact remains that the paragraph (in its "longstanding form") was not written in good faith, and has a snarky and sneering tone, which I have been trying to get rid of by giving it a neutral, anodyne, and equitable feel. There is no question that my proposal is more neutral and bland, and that the only thing it leaves behind is the "longstanding form's" otherwise carefully dissimulated snide--snide that should not "adorn" the pages of an encyclopedia to begin with. (Sadly though, it looks like the absence of snide is precisely the problem.) 2. If you read my comment above carefully, you'll see that I agree that, unfortunately, "Republican majority" is, indeed "well-understood," though that does not constitute a good reason to not replace it with "senate majority," especially since "Republican majority" is accompanied by "refusal" in a clearly accusatory fashion (which, again, Wikipedia should not promote: it is not Wikipedia's job to proffer accusations.). Hence no inaccuracy here. 3. Yes, "controversial in many circles," all of which are widely known as harboring a leftist/liberal bent (most of them unabashedly so). Regardless, how is the phrase "Senate majority's declining to consider the nomination was criticized by liberal circles, and applauded by conservatives" an "inaccuracy"? What is "inaccurate" about it? (Please be very specific.) How is this more "inaccurate" than your "refusal [...] was highly controversial"? 4. To conclude, none of the "inaccuracies" you have pointed out are actual inaccuracies. Nevertheless, you may have spotted others, so please reply with what hopefully are actual inaccuracies, and please be very specific. I am hoping that I have made my case that your remarks so far have no factual basis." Aqualung ( talk) 00:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is extremely important -- not so much because of Garland, himself, but because of the pivotal event of his Supreme Court nomination, and the outcomes -- and their exceptionally frequent public, political and media reference point as precedent (or not) for future (and current) Supreme Court nominations. The Garland nomination-and-rejection remain one of the most intense U.S. judicial and political controversies of this century, regardless of which side you're on.
Consequently, this should not be a sloppy, poorly-sourced, article. MUCH better sourcing is urgently needed -- especially for some of the many single-sourced statements in the article. This is especially true for those sources that have a deliberate and well-established and pronounced political-editorial leaning (e.g.: The New Republic vs. National Review; Fox News vs. MSNBC; New York Times vs. Wall Street Journal; Washington Post vs. Los Angeles Times / Chicago Tribune; U.S. News vs. Newsweek; etc.).
Thus, for any statement, here -- if it could be the subject of controversy, or an important fact:
IMHO. Any corrections, to my assertion, from WP:RS?
Article reads, "The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was deemed highly controversial." In reality this has happened at least once before in American history, with the refusal to consider the nomination of Pierce Butler by President Harding the first time the President nominated him. At the very least, the article could read that the move was unprecedented in recent history to better reflect reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.243.80 ( talk) 19:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Please, add
Thank you! - J.W.Pold ( talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section titled Department of Justice and Private Practice, 3rd sentence now reads:
While at Arnold & Porter, the white shoe firm founded by Justice Abe Fortas, Garland mostly practiced corporate litigation.
This should be changed to read:
While at Arnold & Porter, the white shoe firm co-founded by Justice Abe Fortas, Garland mostly practiced corporate litigation.
As made clear in the Arnold & Porter entry, Justice Fortas co-founded the firm with Thurman Arnold. Fortas did not found the firm alone, as is suggested by the current wording. Gregoryla ( talk) 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In the third paragraph, the article mentions "President Obama, a Democrat", with the word "Democrat" linking to the list of all political parties worldwide that could be translated to having that name. Maybe it should link to the page for the US Democratic Party? 108.54.184.110 ( talk) 03:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)jonahdichter
The article's sentence "The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was deemed highly controversial." has itself been controversial in edits over the past month and presumably beyond. I attempted to make a talk page about it a month ago but got no reply. I think the current issue with the article as it stands is that the link given as a citation for this statement (as seen in the Edit page notes right beside the sentence in question) itself presents both sides of the case of the precedent for the decision by Senate Republicans to refuse to consider Garland's nomination and by no means presents one as the truth in the sort of way you'd think, for it to act as a citation for a claim. The article discusses the study calling the event unprecedented; it does not affirm it. Rather it presents an ongoing debate on the matter.
Whether or not the event was actually unprecedented was and obviously still is a controversial topic with academics on both sides making claims. I believe it would be best if the article reflects this rather than implicitly affirming one side by unconditionally referring to the event as unprecedented.
I'll second the above point. It appears to me that conservatives edit articles which inflames liberals who vandalize or the reverse with conservatives vandalizing liberal edits. This is not what wikipedia should be. Garland's page is riddled with biased wording and contains "factual statements" with no backing. Wikipedia should be the AP of resources, no bias, just plain verifiable 204.89.153.87 ( talk) 18:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC) facts.
The article has the line "Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date by far[3]) and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress."
Does the use of parenthesis bother anyone else here? I didn't see anything in the wiki style guide saying not to write like that but it rubs me the wrong way. I'd turn it into a prepositional phrase or preferably just delete the aside since it's mentioned later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatZombies ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The parenthetical "(the longest to date by far,[3])" in the introduction (paragraph 3, 2nd to last sentence)
"Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date by far,[3]) and it expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress."
is incorrect. Additionally, the citation is to progressive political blog which appears highly biased ( https://progresstexas.org/). The correct parenthetical is "(one of the longest in recent history)" with citation to Pew Research:
Thank you for your time and consideration. 73.96.160.164 ( talk) 02:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
What's the source for claiming that he's already resigned as a federal judge? His bio is still live on the court's website: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+Judges+-+MBG His resignation doesn't automatically happen when the Senate confirms him as AG. Plainsong ( talk) 20:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Folks, I have been through this many times. Senate advice and consent (confirmation) is not equal to appointment. The Senate is merely giving its required consent. Only the President appoints and he does so after the Senate consents. In this case, the White House has indicated that Garland will receive his commission (appointment) tomorrow and that he will take the Oath of Office (assume office) the same day. Until then, the article should indicate that he is the confirmed nominee, NOT incumbent in the office. Safiel ( talk) 01:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The department of Justice Civil Rights office did not "languish" under the Trump administration. There's no room for bias in Wikipedia! 2603:6081:4140:6200:DD23:D925:985E:FB4C ( talk) 20:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The word "unprecedented" in the intro is POV, but, more importantly, vague. How is it unprecedented? If it's that he wasn't considered before the end of the term, then that's not unprecedented, just something that hasn't been done since before the Civil War. If it's the length that lasted, then that duplicates NPOV information in the next sentence: "Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date by far)." If it's the length of time that it wasn't considered, then that's redundant with the length that it lasted. Clearly the longest nomination, if not considered, would be the longest that a nomination was not considered. If it's the timing - that he was nominated prior to the election and not voted on - then that's really not clear from the sentence, and, I believe, untrue. Edward A. Bradford was nominated in August 1852 and tabled. If it's the lack of a hearing plus a combination of the other factors... then that's way too complicated to infer from this little sentence.
The word adds nothing but ambiguity and would be best omitted or at the very least clarified so that people would know the meaning of the sentence it is in. One word cannot do the heavy lifting its author intended it to do. Calbaer ( talk) 23:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't Garland have a long-standing affiliation with the Federalist Society? If so, why does the current version of this article not mention this? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 04:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Why does a footnote mention the Federalist Society, yet this organization is mentioned nowhere in the text of the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 02:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
Add below under Voting Rights:
On December 6, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, claiming that legislative maps adopted in recent weeks discriminate against Black and Latino voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Also supply a reliable reference. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
20:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)