This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Neil Gorsuch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I removed the political party parameter from the infobox saying that it's not relevant, and my removal was reverted by SPECIFICO.
I contend that Gorsuch being a Republican is not important for the infobox.
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says exclude any unnecessary content
. Because of this guideline, the parameter should be removed. Gorsuch has served in 2 notable positions in his life: a circuit court judge and an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Both these positions are officially non-partisan. He has never been significantly politically active in the Republican Party and has never served in a partisan position in government. Therefore, the fact he is Republican is simply not significant to his notability.
Additionally, the political party parameter is traditionally excluded from the infobox of Supreme Court justices. Lets take the current court, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all exclude the party parameter. Only John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh have it listed, with Roberts being added recently and Kavanaughs being there only because of a brief discussion. In my view, the party is only relevant to a judge if they have held a formerly partisan position. This applies to Kavanuagh (White House Press Secretary) as well as some others like Sandra Day O'Connor (Member of Arizona Senate), Earl Warren (governor of California), and John Marshall (U.S. Congress). There aren't many examples of just people who've held judge positions exclusively having party in the infobox, and from I'm noticed there's always been a tendency to not include the party of judges. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
all the other members of the US Supreme Court-- I agree, except that Kavanaugh probably has to be treated differently. The discussion at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh about the infobox upheld that the party field makes unique sense for Kavanaugh, because he was the Staff Secretary at the White House under George W. Bush. Endwise ( talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges.
Endwise (
talk)
16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I tagged this lead text "dubious". The references are from before his time on the Supreme Court and among other things entail overly broad self-description. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
All of the other justice's photos on their pages match those found on the current justices section of the SCOTUS website. Should we do that here too to match the other justices, or is there a copyright issue with the photo on the website or something? Pacamah ( talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I noted the page has very little detail on his writings on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause as a SCOTUS Justice despite that being an important part of his jurisprudence. I think a section should be added. Some more detail on this. Gorsuch joined a 2 page concurrence from Thomas criticising Locke in his concurrence and called the majority's endorsement of Locke concerning, although joined the majority because it construed Locke narrowly. Gorsuch also wrote his own concurrence also joined by Justice Thomas, in Trinity Lutheran rejecting the reasoning of footnote 3. Gorsuch criticised the distinction between religious status and religious use. He argued the distinction isn't clear and the same set of facts can be described as both status and use. Gorsuch reiterated these criticism more fully in a concurring opinion in Espinoza. He said it is a violation of free exercise either way.
In the COVID-19 emergency litigation, Gorsuch was an active writer for the Court. He wrote a number of concurring opinions. Importantly, he wrote a concurrence in Roman Catholic Brooklyn Diocese criticising Roberts concurrence in South Bay I for what he termed as being too deferential to government and inviting lower Courts to ignore religious liberty. He also compared various establishments including bike shops, liquor shops, acupuncturists etc. to churches for the purposes of neutrality analysis. He reiterated these points in South Bay II.
On these points and several others, I think this page could be improved.
Nosteponsnek76 ( talk) 08:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In the 2005 entry for "other publications", change "Matey, Matey" to "Matey, Paul" -- 2600:4040:2957:D900:BDF1:B686:BC52:42E0 ( talk) 01:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Given the background of the case was directly about whether or not the company on questions could refuse service to a gay couple it seems like it should get some mention underneath that header if it's not going to be mentioned in the 1st ammendment header. I think it'd belong more in the LGBT rights header anyways given it's direct relation to that subject. 2600:1702:55B0:FC00:F87F:D23D:83EE:8CCA ( talk) 01:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Neil Gorsuch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I removed the political party parameter from the infobox saying that it's not relevant, and my removal was reverted by SPECIFICO.
I contend that Gorsuch being a Republican is not important for the infobox.
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says exclude any unnecessary content
. Because of this guideline, the parameter should be removed. Gorsuch has served in 2 notable positions in his life: a circuit court judge and an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Both these positions are officially non-partisan. He has never been significantly politically active in the Republican Party and has never served in a partisan position in government. Therefore, the fact he is Republican is simply not significant to his notability.
Additionally, the political party parameter is traditionally excluded from the infobox of Supreme Court justices. Lets take the current court, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all exclude the party parameter. Only John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh have it listed, with Roberts being added recently and Kavanaughs being there only because of a brief discussion. In my view, the party is only relevant to a judge if they have held a formerly partisan position. This applies to Kavanuagh (White House Press Secretary) as well as some others like Sandra Day O'Connor (Member of Arizona Senate), Earl Warren (governor of California), and John Marshall (U.S. Congress). There aren't many examples of just people who've held judge positions exclusively having party in the infobox, and from I'm noticed there's always been a tendency to not include the party of judges. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
all the other members of the US Supreme Court-- I agree, except that Kavanaugh probably has to be treated differently. The discussion at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh about the infobox upheld that the party field makes unique sense for Kavanaugh, because he was the Staff Secretary at the White House under George W. Bush. Endwise ( talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges.
Endwise (
talk)
16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I tagged this lead text "dubious". The references are from before his time on the Supreme Court and among other things entail overly broad self-description. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
All of the other justice's photos on their pages match those found on the current justices section of the SCOTUS website. Should we do that here too to match the other justices, or is there a copyright issue with the photo on the website or something? Pacamah ( talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I noted the page has very little detail on his writings on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause as a SCOTUS Justice despite that being an important part of his jurisprudence. I think a section should be added. Some more detail on this. Gorsuch joined a 2 page concurrence from Thomas criticising Locke in his concurrence and called the majority's endorsement of Locke concerning, although joined the majority because it construed Locke narrowly. Gorsuch also wrote his own concurrence also joined by Justice Thomas, in Trinity Lutheran rejecting the reasoning of footnote 3. Gorsuch criticised the distinction between religious status and religious use. He argued the distinction isn't clear and the same set of facts can be described as both status and use. Gorsuch reiterated these criticism more fully in a concurring opinion in Espinoza. He said it is a violation of free exercise either way.
In the COVID-19 emergency litigation, Gorsuch was an active writer for the Court. He wrote a number of concurring opinions. Importantly, he wrote a concurrence in Roman Catholic Brooklyn Diocese criticising Roberts concurrence in South Bay I for what he termed as being too deferential to government and inviting lower Courts to ignore religious liberty. He also compared various establishments including bike shops, liquor shops, acupuncturists etc. to churches for the purposes of neutrality analysis. He reiterated these points in South Bay II.
On these points and several others, I think this page could be improved.
Nosteponsnek76 ( talk) 08:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In the 2005 entry for "other publications", change "Matey, Matey" to "Matey, Paul" -- 2600:4040:2957:D900:BDF1:B686:BC52:42E0 ( talk) 01:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Given the background of the case was directly about whether or not the company on questions could refuse service to a gay couple it seems like it should get some mention underneath that header if it's not going to be mentioned in the 1st ammendment header. I think it'd belong more in the LGBT rights header anyways given it's direct relation to that subject. 2600:1702:55B0:FC00:F87F:D23D:83EE:8CCA ( talk) 01:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)