![]() | 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 |
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Neil M. Gorsuch 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) 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the abortion position be edited to use more direct statements of fact rather than what, to a neutral reader, appeared to be a value judgement laden and factually incorrect statement. In short, his specific position on abortion as a jurist is not known but the article implies that it is known. (i.e., "people on both sides of the issue know where he stands") Given the principle of stare decisis, Gorsuch may or may not uphold Roe v. Wade. I also believe that the statement of the article implies a negative judgment on Gorsuch's assumed position. I know this will be a controversial page so I will leave to higher editors to make the change. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.58.139 ( talk) 20:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He was paid only $350 on the book that he helped on, it currently says he made $5,000. Stormwolf4 ( talk) 01:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Boomer Vial
Holla
01:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to have him listed as an associate justice already -- he's only just been nominated and has yet to be confirmed. Is very premature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkjuniordelegate ( talk) 01:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
A nomination is good enough for it to be included in the article. Boomer Vial Holla 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The word "constitution" in the lead should be changed to " US Constitution" and linked:
50.53.39.142 ( talk) 01:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The Oxford degree is a DPhil, not a PhD. Although it means the same thing, PhD is not the Oxford usage. 191.125.128.229 ( talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This text seems to link to a different case by a similar name. Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg held the same view in their 2012 dissent of Reynolds v. United States Bad link: /info/en/?search=Reynolds_v._United_States The dissent being talked about: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-6549/dissent.html Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.156.198 ( talk) 04:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There is plenty of vandalism ongoing. Protection requested.
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At 49, he is the youngest nominee in 25 years to this lifetime position. Nss280 ( talk) 01:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It would probably be nice to have a name pronunciation guide in IPA as usual, since the spelling doesn't make it unambiguous. Does anyone know how he says it? Min6char ( talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll second that because pronunciation was the reason I consulted his article. For example, his name might rhyme with "such" or "Butch," or the "ch" could be a hard sound like "Offenbach." Thanks in advance. In fact, once someone adds that, the pronunciation would be useful in Anne Gorsuch Burford's article as well. RCTodd ( talk) 17:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Originally added by User:Frankam12 after Gorsuch was nominated. [3]
User:Neutrality, this op-ed was not a significant part of his career at the time it was published. It coincidentally features Merrick Garland whose nomination for a position Gorsuch is currently be considered for expired. Are there any new sources talking about this? If there are I think it's best suited for Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination. If there aren't it shouldn't be mentioned anywhere because then we're just highlighting something that might end up being looked over. Riley Cohen ( talk) 05:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This has been widely reported in the media, including the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, Business Insider, UPI, and more. Since these third-parties feel that it is of some sort of significance, I suggest keeping it in. Frankam12 ( talk) 17:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This applies to the wiki pages for every federal judge: is the verb "appointed" by or "nominated" by? Different pages are using different verbs and it might be better to make it consistent across wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskinsam ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph (beginning "Gorsuch clerked"), line 4, please change "Doctorate of Legal Philosophy" to "Doctor of Philosophy in Law". That is the proper name of the degree. See eg https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/admissions/postgraduate/doctor-philosophy-law
In the fifth paragraph (beginning "In 1985"), line 3, please:
a. delete "University College at ". Degrees are awarded by the University, not the College;
b. replace "where he received a Marshall Scholarship." by "where he was a Marshall Scholar at University College." to preserve the ref.to his College. Neverbeen~enwiki ( talk) 10:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Done (I think). I couldn't find where you wanted "University College at" to be deleted; maybe somebody already did so. Anyhow see if it is right now. --
MelanieN (
talk)
22:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is worth noting, that as we embark on the confirmation vote in the US Senate of this Supreme Court nominee, that Neil Gorsuch has faced a Senate confirmation before. This is listed in the article, but I believe it is important to note a few of the Senators, who now are decrying this nomination, have approved of him in the past. These include the following:
Former President and then Senator, Barrack Obama Former VP & then Senator, Joe Biden Former Senator, Harry Reid Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Minority Whip, Dick Durbin Senator, Robert Menendez Senator, Ron Wyden Benfirst46 ( talk) 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
ResultingConstant ( talk) 22:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
British press now reporting that Gorsuch met his English wife (maiden name Burletson?) whilst studying at Oxford University Telegraph Guardian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.148.29 ( talk) 01:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The single-sentence statement in the money in politics section is wrong. Judge Gorsuch did not argue that regulation of campaign contributions should categorically be subject to strict scrutiny. Rather, he said that intermediate scrutiny applies to First Amendment challenges, strict scrutiny applies to Fourteenth Amendment equal protection challenges, and it is unclear as to whether courts should apply strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny when the challenge is based on an equal protection argument under the Fourteenth Amendment but the underlying right is derived from the First Amendment. He says there is an argument in favor of applying strict scrutiny when there is a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim combined with a First Amendment challenge, but he stops short of adopting that position, concluding the relevant case law is ambiguous. He certainly doesn't say that strict scrutiny should apply to First Amendment challenges outside of that rare instance in which it is combined with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. Gorsuch declined to and didn't need to ascertain which level of scrutiny applied in that case because he (as well as the majority) found that regardless of which level of scrutiny applied, the statute in question was clearly unconstitutional. Specifically, see the text at pages 931-32:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4536436223189820388
Gorsuch did say that political expression is a fundamental right, but that isn't particularly remarkable as that was already well established, including in the campaign finance context by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. I am suggesting that the sentence currently in the money in politics section be replaced by the following paragraph regarding Gorsuch's stance in Riddle v. Hickenlooper:
Gorsuch opined that a state could not discriminate between candidates from major and minor political parties in setting campaign contribution limits. He concluded that such discrimination violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Gorsuch has also noted that restrictions on political expression implicate fundamental rights and such restrictions, including campaign contribution limits, cannot survive judicial scrutiny unless they are closely drawn to support a sufficiently important interest.
[1] Ao045q ( talk) 01:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done This is a complicated request, involving a lot more detail than we are giving to other cases. IMO it would require a talk page discussion to decide how much detail to go into with regard to this one decision. You could start such a discussion by changing the section heading here from "Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017" to something that summarizes what you are trying to say, perhaps "Money in politics section is too oversimplified" or "Money in politics section needs expansion". --
MelanieN (
talk)
21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a comma after "D.C." in the following sentence in the Career section:
"From 1995 to 2005, Gorsuch was a lawyer at the Washington, D.C.<<<INSERT COMMA HERE>>> law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel.[22] He was an associate from 1995 to 1997 and a partner from 1998 to 2005 [...]"
When providing a state or district, we add a comma before the state and also AFTER, if we mean to continue the sentence. 73.238.198.254 ( talk) 05:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in 2.1.5:
The child's family brought a federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights) action against school officials and the school resource officer who made the arrest, arguing that it was a false arrest that violated F.M.'s constitutional rights.
"F.M.'s" should be changed to "the child's" for the sake of clarity. Wikigazz ( talk) 04:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Info box should include Religion. Various sources report that he is Episcopalian. According to the Washington Post he and his family attend St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. Perhaps this should also be included under Personal Life. [1] [2] BlueMesa171 ( talk) 02:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
References
During his freshman year at his elite high school Georgetown Preparatory Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ″Fascism Forever Club″. Read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html -- 87.156.236.251 ( talk) 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This article clarifies that the club did not exist and it was a yearbook joke. http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/02/02/no-neil-gorsuch-did-not-start-fascism-forever-club-his-jesuit-high NPalgan2 ( talk) 01:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Gorsuch's nominee questionnaire and appendixes to the questionnaire are now available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme/pn55-115 . BEWARE, however, some of the appendixes are very large, one reaching 3516 pages, so if your on a slow connection you may want to be cautious in clicking on the appendix links. Safiel ( talk) 17:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm removing the title from the infobox because it is rarely used on wikipedia. There are thousands of positions accorded this title, but this is one of few pages that actually has it. For that reason, I'm removing it. SlitherySentinel ( talk) 00:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CHANGE:
Gorsuch was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to replace Judge David M. Ebel, who took Senior status in 2006. Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate on July 20, 2006. In September 2016, during the U.S. presidential election, then-candidate Donald Trump included Gorsuch, as well as his circuit colleague Timothy Tymkovich, in a list of 21 current judges whom Trump would consider nominating to the Supreme Court if elected.[10]
TO:
Gorsuch was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to replace Judge David M. Ebel, who took Senior status in 2006. Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate on July 20, 2006. In September 2016, during the U.S. presidential election, then-candidate Donald Trump included Gorsuch, as well as his circuit colleague Timothy Tymkovich, in a list of 21 current judges whom Trump would consider nominating to the Supreme Court if elected.[10] The American Bar Association gives Judge Neil Gorsuch their top rating - "Well Qualified" - to serve as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. [1] Mike D. Roper ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section titled U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit please note the spelling error in the first sentence of the paragraph and change "While House Counsel Harriet Miers." to "White House Counsel Harriet Miers." Hoghead101 ( talk) 16:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ADD the following sentences to the first paragraph after the sentence that ends, "...to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia eleven months earlier.[4]"
Gorsuch is the second judge to be nominated to the Supreme Court to fill Scalia's seat. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on March 16, 2016 but the Republican Senate Majority, in a highly controversial move < https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/14/republicans-democrats-draw-battle-lines-supreme-court-nomination-obama> declined to hold a hearing for Garland < https://elections.ap.org/content/republican-senators-no-hearing-or-vote-obama-court-pic>]; the seat was left empty for the remainder of Obama's term. Dustmouse3 ( talk) 16:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Dustmouse3
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page incorrectly lists Judge Gorsuch as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. The judge has yet to make it out of sub-committee, let alone proceeded to a full vote. It is incorrect and politically biased to list him as something other than his current title. If voted on, and confirmed, it would then be appropriate to hist him as a justice with a pending swearing in date. The article is incorrect, premature, and politically biased. 24.241.225.233 ( talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm asking that you change the formatting of the infobox to this to make it more in line with other Trump nominees.
Neil Gorsuch | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Nominee | |
Assuming office TBD* | |
Nominated by | Donald Trump |
Succeeding | Antonin Scalia |
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | |
Assumed office August 8, 2006 | |
Nominated by | George W. Bush |
Preceded by | David M. Ebel |
Personal details | |
Born | Neil McGill Gorsuch August 29, 1967 Denver, Colorado, U.S. |
Political party | Republican |
Spouse | Louise Gorsuch |
Relations | Anne Gorsuch Burford (mother) |
Children | 2 |
Education |
Columbia University (
BA) Harvard University ( JD) University College, Oxford ( DPhil) |
*Pending Senate Confirmation | |
108.52.100.147 ( talk) 23:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
ADD the following sentences to the first paragraph after the sentence that ends, "...to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia eleven months earlier.[4]"
Gorsuch is the second judge to be nominated to the Supreme Court to fill Scalia's seat. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on March 16, 2016. No hearing was held and Garland's nomination expired on Jan. 3, 2017. Dustmouse3 ( talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Dustmouse3
This is my second attempt to edit the introduction. I tried to make it politically neutral in response to the editor's comment. Leaving this information out seems like too big an omission. Not everyone who reads the Neil Gorsuch entry will also read the Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Nomination entry so this one needs to be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustmouse3 ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Boutique Firm should have a wiki definition for lay readers.
72.94.230.78 ( talk) 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the asterisked content "pending Senate confirmation" which refers to an at-present non-public section. 137.165.72.51 ( talk) 19:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the bottom of Judge Gorsuch's infobox, it says "*Pending Senate confirmation." That note was there for when it had the office of nominee for associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It would make more sense to have the "*Pending Senate confirmation" at the bottom of Judge Gorsuch's infobox removed, as it just makes no sense. 206.144.31.60 ( talk) 19:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nominations of Merrick Garland and John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated" by the Senate.[32][33]
Merrick Garland was nominated in 2016 so Mr. Neil Gorsuch could not have penned an op-ed complaining about US Senate refusal to consider his nomination in 2002. Please correct the entry by removing Mr. Merrick Garland's name. JoLa8 ( talk) 20:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this:
108.52.100.147 ( talk) 20:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please merge the two boxes together? I think simply deleting the middle "start" and "end" would do it. 108.52.100.147 ( talk) 23:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The Manual of Style MOS:STOPS calls for full stops (periods) to be used in abbreviations in American English, while they are optional in European English. The abbreviations for Bachelor of Arts, Juris Doctor and Doctor of Philosophy should read B.A., J.D., and D.Phil., respectfully. I made the change accordingly but another user reverted. So putting the question here. Safiel ( talk) 19:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
In Section 2.4.1 "Administrative Law", I'd like to include a paragraph discussing "TransAm Trucking Inc. v. Administrative Review Board" as a notable dissenting opinion of his on Administrative Law and his rejection of Chevron Deference. I'd also like to mention that his opinion on the case, sometimes known as the "Case of the Frozen Trucker", is controversial, and his dissent in the case was brought up during his Senate nomination hearings. The case referenced in Section 2.4.8 "List of Judicial Opinions" but given its national spotlight and controversy I think it should mentioned in greater detail. Proposed text below:
"Gorsuch was the lone dissent in TransAm Trucking Inc. v. Administrative Review Board [2] [3], also known as the "Case of the Frozen Trucker" [4] [5]. He wrote that the federal statute protecting employees from termination who "refuse to operate a vehicle [with] reasonable apprehension of serious injury" did not apply to the case of Alphonse Maddin, a truck driver who abandoned his trailer after the breaks were stuck frozen. Maddin waited several hours for help in a truck with a broken heater system, and fearing hypothermia, he unhooked the trailer and drove to safety. Relying on textual definition, Gorsuch argued that Maddin's actions did not constitute "refusal to operate a vehicle", regardless of his removal of the trailer or life-threatening circumstances therein. He further rejected the Department of Labor's interpretation of the statute, opposing the use of Chevron Deference in this case. His ruling garnered controversy, and was brought up multiple times during the Senate Hearings for his Supreme Court Nomination. [6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raikespeare ( talk • contribs) 19:51, March 27, 2017 (UTC)
References
Could someone modify this template title from 2016-present to 2016-2017 and create a new one for 2017-present? I'm asking here because the request will get more visibility.
108.52.100.147 ( talk) 23:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please change the box that states he is an Associate Justice at the bottom of the page from "designate" to 2017-present.
108.52.100.147 ( talk) 01:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It is really really silly to claim that Gorsuch may have converted to Protestantism. It is NOT a denomination of Christianity. Why not be even more vague and say he may have converted to Christianity or to Deism? Has it been established that he was a member of the Roman Catholic Church? The editor doesn't even apparently know the difference between Anglican and Episcopalian denominations. 98.21.212.86 ( talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
By longstanding practice, the start date in infobox is the commission date, which reflects the start of the term. The oath date is when the Judge/Justice actually enters into performance of the office. But the start date should reflect the commission date, as is the practice for every article about an Article III Federal Judge that has an infobox. Safiel ( talk) 16:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change in the sub-section of the "Legal Philosophy" section, "Judicial Activism", this sentence. "In a 2005 speech at Case Western Reserve University, Gorsuch said that judges should strive..." Change "In a 2005 speech" to in a "2016 speech", because he gave those remarks in 2016.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/know-dont-neil-gorsuchs-judicial-philosophy/
And add on to Case Western Reserve University and add School Of Law, because that's where he made the speech at their School of Law. Same source.
Thank you. Hitterneuron ( talk) 22:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have changed a number of Supreme Court Chief Justice and Associate Justice Articles to reflect commission date as the term start. I intend to pursue this issue further via Request for Comment if necessary. If an RfC is necessary, I intend to place the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges rather than here, as this will be a consensus that would effect ALL Article III (and Article I & IV) Federal Judge articles. I will leave a notification here if I post an RfC. Safiel ( talk) 07:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Neil Gorsuch's Term Acually Began on April 10, not April 9. 2601:401:C503:63C6:703B:5990:A21F:5431 ( talk) 17:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
18:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Another user and I have had a disagreement on the infobox regarding his doctorate in law. Gorsuch got that degree from Oxford, which awards the DPhil. The American standard is typically a Phd, as seen at Harvard. What should the abbreviation be? JocularJellyfish ( talk) 02:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The article should make it clear that Gorsuch was nominated for an empty seat for which Republicans refused to consider a previously properly nominated candidate, Garland. The Supreme Court has been rigged. Paulhummerman ( talk) 19:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The section on his views of religious freedom calls his stance "broad" but the context really isn't clear from the article that his stance is very controversial among church-state separation advocates. I made an edit a few days ago (see above) that was reverted because no citation and biased language, and the editor who reverted it was nice enough to give an explanation. Now my latest edit was reverted with NO explanation even though there was a citation (Americans United for Separation of Church and State is NO MORE BIASED a source than than some of the citations of sources PRAISING Gorsuch's church-state views but it was removed with no explanation. I'd like to seek consensus please from others here on how to make changes to this section covering Gorsuch's views on religious freedom that are "not biased" but clearly communicate the controversial aspect of this. Unless there is some kind of agenda here to obscure his views. I'm not asking Wikipedia to take a stance on this, but it's an issue I feel strongly about as a voter and the details on this page are skimpy and not helpful to those of us who would say it's urgent that people know there is a controversy here. I don't usually edit wikipedia articles, but I felt obligated and called to edit this one because of how important this issue is. Thanks.
Possible reading material to help build consensus on more directly and explicitly acknowledging that this controversy exists (without wikipedia taking a "side"):
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.150.37 ( talk) 21:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Neil Gorsuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In his concurring opinion in Sessions v. Dimaya he cites both Coke and Blackstone with respect to due process. I wonder if this is covered somewhere or in some substantial reliable source, or is that what originalists do? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The circumstances under which Gorsuch became a SC justice should be covered in the lede. A six-week old account just deleted any mention of Garland [13]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
If Neil Gorsuch is verified as a member of the Episcopal Church, as he was on the official member rolls of Holy Comforter Church, why does the article express language that wonders if he considers himself Roman Catholic? The Anglican Communion, of which The Episcopal Church is part, considers itself both Catholic and Reformed. SeminarianJohn ( talk) 22:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC) He may consider himself Roman Catholic, although he has not said that, but we do know that he is a member of The Episcopal Church, the US branch of the Anglican Communion, and he volunteered actively as an usher at St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. [1] Also, while he could consider himself to be both Roman Catholic and Episcopalian, which can be left there since that's possible, the Catholic Church does not consider a person to be a communicant member of the Catholic Church if that person marries, joins, and receives communion in a Protestant denomination. [2] The Episcopal Church, however, does allow open communion. [3] SeminarianJohn ( talk) 04:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
One suggestion I have, and I have asked at least one admin editor to give feedback here, is that what is there presently remain but it also just be stated "Gorsuch is a member of an Episcopal church; he is not currently a member of a Catholic church." Could that give a clearer statement while the use of the indefinite article still leaves room for how his own conceptualization of his identity fits into religion? Also, Catholic media report that he is Episcopalian and not currently Catholic. [4] [5] SeminarianJohn ( talk) 06:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
A CNN report speculating that Gorsuch might consider himself Catholic, in addition to church records of his membership at Holy Comforter Episcopal Church, was earlier given undue weight when other major reporting agencies were less ambiguous. An earlier contributor, I did not review all the history and of course am not going to call out any one person as improving an article is a collaborative effort, made implied assertions about membership in the Catholic Church. It is fair and accurate to note that it is possible that Neil Gorsuch self-identifies as Catholic in addition to belonging to an Episcopal church. However, that possibility is not a hard fact and leaves out any explanation of what the Catholic Church teaches within its own catechesis. One thing I always find important is to be respectful to the religion being discussed. It is sometimes forgotten that religious studies, divinity studies, and theology are academic disciplines in their own right. The Catholic Church's teaching on communicant membership should be respected. Likewise, I think the undue weight given to the CNN article has caused unnecessary confusion about Justice Gorsuch. His membership and active lay service in his church should be able to be stated clearly without that ambiguity. It seems that the implication that he might still be a member of the Catholic Church, when he is not, is an improper manipulation of a synthesis of information. Thank you fellow editors and I hope this continues to be improved upon! SeminarianJohn ( talk) 06:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am continuing to work on suggestions for the talk page. I really do appreciate it. Just as a note of correction, American Magazine refers to him as Episcopalian in contrast to Justice Kavanaugh whom it identifies as Catholic. We would have to talk about baptism, which as you say is personal opinion and I respect that, because if you're baptized Catholic yes you are Catholic unless** asterisk there you join another church and become a communicant of that other church. Since Justice Gorsuch is a communicant member of an Anglican church, he would not be Catholic by their measure of that. I was confirmed Greek Orthodox, but I do not believe they consider me Orthodox any more! (like you said that's all just hypothetical but just wanted to throw that in here) haha I hope it's okay to put emojis but again thank you :) SeminarianJohn ( talk) 15:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
BTW I am perfectly agreeable to the consensus you have brought to the talk page. I agree with you that the current wording is satisfactory unless Justice Gorsuch says otherwise. SeminarianJohn ( talk) 15:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely, Jonathunder, and I made that note on the page awhile back in a previous edit. The question we were discussing is whether he considers himself "Roman Catholic." The Catholic Church generally says "Catholic" without the qualifying adjective "Roman." And, in part, your point was an earlier reason of mine for wanting the clarification. He could very well have put down Catholic because many Anglicans would describe themselves as 'Catholic' just as many would describe themselves as 'Reformed.' The Via Media, which under the Elizabethan Settlement came to include a middle way between Catholicism and continental Protestantism, was originally an Anglican middle way between Calvinism and Lutheranism. So the Reformed and Catholic traditions of Christianity are very present in the Anglican Communion SeminarianJohn ( talk) 16:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. I am very agreeable to the way it the talk page has helped to put some information here and then keep what is relevant in the article. Thank you so much and I do hope to chat with you again. SeminarianJohn ( talk) 23:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
A NY Times piece focused on Gorsuch's contradictory views on using examples from other countries. [14] This belongs in this article, as it sheds light on Gorsuch's legal philosophy. Text on this was removed, with the assertion that it was WP:SYNTH. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
User:X1\ added to the early life section that Gorsuch’s mother, Anne Gorsuch (which was her name at the time), was "the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress." [16]. I removed it saying Is this really relevant to his biography? If people want to know about her they can click on the link. [17] X1\ re-added a somewhat shortened version, saying significant mother's first (contempt of Congress) since son is Supreme Court justice; reworded, shortened [18] I would like people's opinion whether this belongs in an article about her son, or if it is just an attempt to tar him with her brush. IMO that wasn't even the most notable thing about her tenure at the EPA. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
In 1982, Congress charged that the EPA had mishandled the $1.6 billion toxic waste Superfund and demanded records from Ms. Gorsuch Burford. Ms. Gorsuch Burford refused and became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress. [1] [2]
Ms. Gorsuch Burford refused and became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to turnover EPA records. [3] [4]
References
By the end of 1982, multiple congressional committees were investigating Anne Gorsuch for her indifference to enforcing the cleanup of Superfund sites, and the House voted to hold her in contempt of Congress
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
By the end of 1982, multiple congressional committees were investigating Anne Gorsuch for her indifference to enforcing the cleanup of Superfund sites, and the House voted to hold her in contempt of Congress
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
His wife's name is given both ways and should be clarified. DavidFarmbrough ( talk) 01:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
He also voted on protecting the LGBT community from discrimination just now. Could anybody edit that in?
Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.All SCOTUS judges are supposed to place the Constitution above the Bible. That's a mandatory requirement for their job. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Bit of a nitpick but my understanding is that when lawyers become judges they're no longer considered lawyers by the profession. There's a distinction between the "bench" and "bar" and when someone becomes a judge they're not exactly a member of the bar anymore. I certainly don't believe they're allowed to practice law. I'd put "American jurist" in the lede instead of "American lawyer". 199.66.69.67 ( talk) 00:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the court case McGirt v. Oklahoma to the section on Native American law. 73.168.5.183 ( talk) 17:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I recommend changing "opined" here to "argued:"
A judge issues an opinion stating reasons for their decision, but lawyer's briefs are not considered opinions. Rather, they are considered arguments, and the verb opined isn't used to describe them.
I don't think this changes the substantive meaning of the sentence--after all, those are his words--but it would better conform to the usage of argued/opined in the legal community, and would avoid any potential confusion that he wrote that in a judicial opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.255.198 ( talk) 14:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump told acting attorney general, according to an aide’s notes
"the rest" may mean 2021 United States Capitol attack ... sadly, I am no native speaker. Is there a fellow wikipedian who wants & who can write sth. about that ? thanks in advance, -- Präziser ( talk) 23:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Date of birth is listed as 1967 right at the beginning and then 1963 under "Early life and education."
IPA on this page says /ˈɡɔːrsʌtʃ/ , but his mom Anne Gorsuch Burford's is /ˈɡɔːrsətʃ/ . One of these might be inaccurate, right?-- RZuo ( talk) 09:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the pronunciation should be altered so that the "u" has a schwa sound /ə/ rather than a flat sound like in "such" /ʌ/. 67.83.99.134 ( talk) 01:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)corpho
Yesterday, I wrote as follows: Gorsuch is considered part of a doctrinaire conservative bloc willing to overrule precedent, alongside Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, though he has sided with the liberal justices on some occasions, most notably in the landmark LGBT rights case Bostock v. Clayton County. For some reason, this was marked by another user as POV, even though I provided 4 (!) reputable, ideologically diverse sources for Gorsuch's general philosophy and sourced his role in the Bostock decision. What is wrong here? Island Pelican ( talk) 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I will concede that the phrase "Doctrinaire" was inappropriate, but is it really in dispute that he is A. Part of the rightmost faction on the court, and B. Willing to overrule precedent? Island Pelican ( talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.
-- Charlesreid1 ( talk) 08:19, 3 July 2022 (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 |
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Neil M. Gorsuch 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) 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the abortion position be edited to use more direct statements of fact rather than what, to a neutral reader, appeared to be a value judgement laden and factually incorrect statement. In short, his specific position on abortion as a jurist is not known but the article implies that it is known. (i.e., "people on both sides of the issue know where he stands") Given the principle of stare decisis, Gorsuch may or may not uphold Roe v. Wade. I also believe that the statement of the article implies a negative judgment on Gorsuch's assumed position. I know this will be a controversial page so I will leave to higher editors to make the change. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.58.139 ( talk) 20:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He was paid only $350 on the book that he helped on, it currently says he made $5,000. Stormwolf4 ( talk) 01:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Boomer Vial
Holla
01:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to have him listed as an associate justice already -- he's only just been nominated and has yet to be confirmed. Is very premature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkjuniordelegate ( talk) 01:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
A nomination is good enough for it to be included in the article. Boomer Vial Holla 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The word "constitution" in the lead should be changed to " US Constitution" and linked:
50.53.39.142 ( talk) 01:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The Oxford degree is a DPhil, not a PhD. Although it means the same thing, PhD is not the Oxford usage. 191.125.128.229 ( talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This text seems to link to a different case by a similar name. Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg held the same view in their 2012 dissent of Reynolds v. United States Bad link: /info/en/?search=Reynolds_v._United_States The dissent being talked about: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-6549/dissent.html Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.156.198 ( talk) 04:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There is plenty of vandalism ongoing. Protection requested.
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At 49, he is the youngest nominee in 25 years to this lifetime position. Nss280 ( talk) 01:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It would probably be nice to have a name pronunciation guide in IPA as usual, since the spelling doesn't make it unambiguous. Does anyone know how he says it? Min6char ( talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll second that because pronunciation was the reason I consulted his article. For example, his name might rhyme with "such" or "Butch," or the "ch" could be a hard sound like "Offenbach." Thanks in advance. In fact, once someone adds that, the pronunciation would be useful in Anne Gorsuch Burford's article as well. RCTodd ( talk) 17:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Originally added by User:Frankam12 after Gorsuch was nominated. [3]
User:Neutrality, this op-ed was not a significant part of his career at the time it was published. It coincidentally features Merrick Garland whose nomination for a position Gorsuch is currently be considered for expired. Are there any new sources talking about this? If there are I think it's best suited for Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination. If there aren't it shouldn't be mentioned anywhere because then we're just highlighting something that might end up being looked over. Riley Cohen ( talk) 05:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This has been widely reported in the media, including the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, Business Insider, UPI, and more. Since these third-parties feel that it is of some sort of significance, I suggest keeping it in. Frankam12 ( talk) 17:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This applies to the wiki pages for every federal judge: is the verb "appointed" by or "nominated" by? Different pages are using different verbs and it might be better to make it consistent across wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskinsam ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph (beginning "Gorsuch clerked"), line 4, please change "Doctorate of Legal Philosophy" to "Doctor of Philosophy in Law". That is the proper name of the degree. See eg https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/admissions/postgraduate/doctor-philosophy-law
In the fifth paragraph (beginning "In 1985"), line 3, please:
a. delete "University College at ". Degrees are awarded by the University, not the College;
b. replace "where he received a Marshall Scholarship." by "where he was a Marshall Scholar at University College." to preserve the ref.to his College. Neverbeen~enwiki ( talk) 10:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Done (I think). I couldn't find where you wanted "University College at" to be deleted; maybe somebody already did so. Anyhow see if it is right now. --
MelanieN (
talk)
22:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is worth noting, that as we embark on the confirmation vote in the US Senate of this Supreme Court nominee, that Neil Gorsuch has faced a Senate confirmation before. This is listed in the article, but I believe it is important to note a few of the Senators, who now are decrying this nomination, have approved of him in the past. These include the following:
Former President and then Senator, Barrack Obama Former VP & then Senator, Joe Biden Former Senator, Harry Reid Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Minority Whip, Dick Durbin Senator, Robert Menendez Senator, Ron Wyden Benfirst46 ( talk) 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
ResultingConstant ( talk) 22:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
British press now reporting that Gorsuch met his English wife (maiden name Burletson?) whilst studying at Oxford University Telegraph Guardian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.148.29 ( talk) 01:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The single-sentence statement in the money in politics section is wrong. Judge Gorsuch did not argue that regulation of campaign contributions should categorically be subject to strict scrutiny. Rather, he said that intermediate scrutiny applies to First Amendment challenges, strict scrutiny applies to Fourteenth Amendment equal protection challenges, and it is unclear as to whether courts should apply strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny when the challenge is based on an equal protection argument under the Fourteenth Amendment but the underlying right is derived from the First Amendment. He says there is an argument in favor of applying strict scrutiny when there is a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim combined with a First Amendment challenge, but he stops short of adopting that position, concluding the relevant case law is ambiguous. He certainly doesn't say that strict scrutiny should apply to First Amendment challenges outside of that rare instance in which it is combined with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. Gorsuch declined to and didn't need to ascertain which level of scrutiny applied in that case because he (as well as the majority) found that regardless of which level of scrutiny applied, the statute in question was clearly unconstitutional. Specifically, see the text at pages 931-32:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4536436223189820388
Gorsuch did say that political expression is a fundamental right, but that isn't particularly remarkable as that was already well established, including in the campaign finance context by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. I am suggesting that the sentence currently in the money in politics section be replaced by the following paragraph regarding Gorsuch's stance in Riddle v. Hickenlooper:
Gorsuch opined that a state could not discriminate between candidates from major and minor political parties in setting campaign contribution limits. He concluded that such discrimination violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Gorsuch has also noted that restrictions on political expression implicate fundamental rights and such restrictions, including campaign contribution limits, cannot survive judicial scrutiny unless they are closely drawn to support a sufficiently important interest.
[1] Ao045q ( talk) 01:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done This is a complicated request, involving a lot more detail than we are giving to other cases. IMO it would require a talk page discussion to decide how much detail to go into with regard to this one decision. You could start such a discussion by changing the section heading here from "Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017" to something that summarizes what you are trying to say, perhaps "Money in politics section is too oversimplified" or "Money in politics section needs expansion". --
MelanieN (
talk)
21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a comma after "D.C." in the following sentence in the Career section:
"From 1995 to 2005, Gorsuch was a lawyer at the Washington, D.C.<<<INSERT COMMA HERE>>> law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel.[22] He was an associate from 1995 to 1997 and a partner from 1998 to 2005 [...]"
When providing a state or district, we add a comma before the state and also AFTER, if we mean to continue the sentence. 73.238.198.254 ( talk) 05:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in 2.1.5:
The child's family brought a federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights) action against school officials and the school resource officer who made the arrest, arguing that it was a false arrest that violated F.M.'s constitutional rights.
"F.M.'s" should be changed to "the child's" for the sake of clarity. Wikigazz ( talk) 04:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Info box should include Religion. Various sources report that he is Episcopalian. According to the Washington Post he and his family attend St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. Perhaps this should also be included under Personal Life. [1] [2] BlueMesa171 ( talk) 02:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
References
During his freshman year at his elite high school Georgetown Preparatory Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ″Fascism Forever Club″. Read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html -- 87.156.236.251 ( talk) 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This article clarifies that the club did not exist and it was a yearbook joke. http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/02/02/no-neil-gorsuch-did-not-start-fascism-forever-club-his-jesuit-high NPalgan2 ( talk) 01:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Gorsuch's nominee questionnaire and appendixes to the questionnaire are now available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme/pn55-115 . BEWARE, however, some of the appendixes are very large, one reaching 3516 pages, so if your on a slow connection you may want to be cautious in clicking on the appendix links. Safiel ( talk) 17:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm removing the title from the infobox because it is rarely used on wikipedia. There are thousands of positions accorded this title, but this is one of few pages that actually has it. For that reason, I'm removing it. SlitherySentinel ( talk) 00:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CHANGE:
Gorsuch was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to replace Judge David M. Ebel, who took Senior status in 2006. Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate on July 20, 2006. In September 2016, during the U.S. presidential election, then-candidate Donald Trump included Gorsuch, as well as his circuit colleague Timothy Tymkovich, in a list of 21 current judges whom Trump would consider nominating to the Supreme Court if elected.[10]
TO:
Gorsuch was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to replace Judge David M. Ebel, who took Senior status in 2006. Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate on July 20, 2006. In September 2016, during the U.S. presidential election, then-candidate Donald Trump included Gorsuch, as well as his circuit colleague Timothy Tymkovich, in a list of 21 current judges whom Trump would consider nominating to the Supreme Court if elected.[10] The American Bar Association gives Judge Neil Gorsuch their top rating - "Well Qualified" - to serve as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. [1] Mike D. Roper ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section titled U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit please note the spelling error in the first sentence of the paragraph and change "While House Counsel Harriet Miers." to "White House Counsel Harriet Miers." Hoghead101 ( talk) 16:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ADD the following sentences to the first paragraph after the sentence that ends, "...to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia eleven months earlier.[4]"
Gorsuch is the second judge to be nominated to the Supreme Court to fill Scalia's seat. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on March 16, 2016 but the Republican Senate Majority, in a highly controversial move < https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/14/republicans-democrats-draw-battle-lines-supreme-court-nomination-obama> declined to hold a hearing for Garland < https://elections.ap.org/content/republican-senators-no-hearing-or-vote-obama-court-pic>]; the seat was left empty for the remainder of Obama's term. Dustmouse3 ( talk) 16:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Dustmouse3
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page incorrectly lists Judge Gorsuch as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. The judge has yet to make it out of sub-committee, let alone proceeded to a full vote. It is incorrect and politically biased to list him as something other than his current title. If voted on, and confirmed, it would then be appropriate to hist him as a justice with a pending swearing in date. The article is incorrect, premature, and politically biased. 24.241.225.233 ( talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm asking that you change the formatting of the infobox to this to make it more in line with other Trump nominees.
Neil Gorsuch | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Nominee | |
Assuming office TBD* | |
Nominated by | Donald Trump |
Succeeding | Antonin Scalia |
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | |
Assumed office August 8, 2006 | |
Nominated by | George W. Bush |
Preceded by | David M. Ebel |
Personal details | |
Born | Neil McGill Gorsuch August 29, 1967 Denver, Colorado, U.S. |
Political party | Republican |
Spouse | Louise Gorsuch |
Relations | Anne Gorsuch Burford (mother) |
Children | 2 |
Education |
Columbia University (
BA) Harvard University ( JD) University College, Oxford ( DPhil) |
*Pending Senate Confirmation | |
108.52.100.147 ( talk) 23:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
ADD the following sentences to the first paragraph after the sentence that ends, "...to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia eleven months earlier.[4]"
Gorsuch is the second judge to be nominated to the Supreme Court to fill Scalia's seat. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on March 16, 2016. No hearing was held and Garland's nomination expired on Jan. 3, 2017. Dustmouse3 ( talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Dustmouse3
This is my second attempt to edit the introduction. I tried to make it politically neutral in response to the editor's comment. Leaving this information out seems like too big an omission. Not everyone who reads the Neil Gorsuch entry will also read the Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Nomination entry so this one needs to be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustmouse3 ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Boutique Firm should have a wiki definition for lay readers.
72.94.230.78 ( talk) 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the asterisked content "pending Senate confirmation" which refers to an at-present non-public section. 137.165.72.51 ( talk) 19:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the bottom of Judge Gorsuch's infobox, it says "*Pending Senate confirmation." That note was there for when it had the office of nominee for associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It would make more sense to have the "*Pending Senate confirmation" at the bottom of Judge Gorsuch's infobox removed, as it just makes no sense. 206.144.31.60 ( talk) 19:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nominations of Merrick Garland and John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated" by the Senate.[32][33]
Merrick Garland was nominated in 2016 so Mr. Neil Gorsuch could not have penned an op-ed complaining about US Senate refusal to consider his nomination in 2002. Please correct the entry by removing Mr. Merrick Garland's name. JoLa8 ( talk) 20:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this:
108.52.100.147 ( talk) 20:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please merge the two boxes together? I think simply deleting the middle "start" and "end" would do it. 108.52.100.147 ( talk) 23:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The Manual of Style MOS:STOPS calls for full stops (periods) to be used in abbreviations in American English, while they are optional in European English. The abbreviations for Bachelor of Arts, Juris Doctor and Doctor of Philosophy should read B.A., J.D., and D.Phil., respectfully. I made the change accordingly but another user reverted. So putting the question here. Safiel ( talk) 19:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
In Section 2.4.1 "Administrative Law", I'd like to include a paragraph discussing "TransAm Trucking Inc. v. Administrative Review Board" as a notable dissenting opinion of his on Administrative Law and his rejection of Chevron Deference. I'd also like to mention that his opinion on the case, sometimes known as the "Case of the Frozen Trucker", is controversial, and his dissent in the case was brought up during his Senate nomination hearings. The case referenced in Section 2.4.8 "List of Judicial Opinions" but given its national spotlight and controversy I think it should mentioned in greater detail. Proposed text below:
"Gorsuch was the lone dissent in TransAm Trucking Inc. v. Administrative Review Board [2] [3], also known as the "Case of the Frozen Trucker" [4] [5]. He wrote that the federal statute protecting employees from termination who "refuse to operate a vehicle [with] reasonable apprehension of serious injury" did not apply to the case of Alphonse Maddin, a truck driver who abandoned his trailer after the breaks were stuck frozen. Maddin waited several hours for help in a truck with a broken heater system, and fearing hypothermia, he unhooked the trailer and drove to safety. Relying on textual definition, Gorsuch argued that Maddin's actions did not constitute "refusal to operate a vehicle", regardless of his removal of the trailer or life-threatening circumstances therein. He further rejected the Department of Labor's interpretation of the statute, opposing the use of Chevron Deference in this case. His ruling garnered controversy, and was brought up multiple times during the Senate Hearings for his Supreme Court Nomination. [6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raikespeare ( talk • contribs) 19:51, March 27, 2017 (UTC)
References
Could someone modify this template title from 2016-present to 2016-2017 and create a new one for 2017-present? I'm asking here because the request will get more visibility.
108.52.100.147 ( talk) 23:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please change the box that states he is an Associate Justice at the bottom of the page from "designate" to 2017-present.
108.52.100.147 ( talk) 01:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It is really really silly to claim that Gorsuch may have converted to Protestantism. It is NOT a denomination of Christianity. Why not be even more vague and say he may have converted to Christianity or to Deism? Has it been established that he was a member of the Roman Catholic Church? The editor doesn't even apparently know the difference between Anglican and Episcopalian denominations. 98.21.212.86 ( talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
By longstanding practice, the start date in infobox is the commission date, which reflects the start of the term. The oath date is when the Judge/Justice actually enters into performance of the office. But the start date should reflect the commission date, as is the practice for every article about an Article III Federal Judge that has an infobox. Safiel ( talk) 16:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change in the sub-section of the "Legal Philosophy" section, "Judicial Activism", this sentence. "In a 2005 speech at Case Western Reserve University, Gorsuch said that judges should strive..." Change "In a 2005 speech" to in a "2016 speech", because he gave those remarks in 2016.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/know-dont-neil-gorsuchs-judicial-philosophy/
And add on to Case Western Reserve University and add School Of Law, because that's where he made the speech at their School of Law. Same source.
Thank you. Hitterneuron ( talk) 22:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have changed a number of Supreme Court Chief Justice and Associate Justice Articles to reflect commission date as the term start. I intend to pursue this issue further via Request for Comment if necessary. If an RfC is necessary, I intend to place the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges rather than here, as this will be a consensus that would effect ALL Article III (and Article I & IV) Federal Judge articles. I will leave a notification here if I post an RfC. Safiel ( talk) 07:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Neil Gorsuch's Term Acually Began on April 10, not April 9. 2601:401:C503:63C6:703B:5990:A21F:5431 ( talk) 17:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
18:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Another user and I have had a disagreement on the infobox regarding his doctorate in law. Gorsuch got that degree from Oxford, which awards the DPhil. The American standard is typically a Phd, as seen at Harvard. What should the abbreviation be? JocularJellyfish ( talk) 02:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The article should make it clear that Gorsuch was nominated for an empty seat for which Republicans refused to consider a previously properly nominated candidate, Garland. The Supreme Court has been rigged. Paulhummerman ( talk) 19:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The section on his views of religious freedom calls his stance "broad" but the context really isn't clear from the article that his stance is very controversial among church-state separation advocates. I made an edit a few days ago (see above) that was reverted because no citation and biased language, and the editor who reverted it was nice enough to give an explanation. Now my latest edit was reverted with NO explanation even though there was a citation (Americans United for Separation of Church and State is NO MORE BIASED a source than than some of the citations of sources PRAISING Gorsuch's church-state views but it was removed with no explanation. I'd like to seek consensus please from others here on how to make changes to this section covering Gorsuch's views on religious freedom that are "not biased" but clearly communicate the controversial aspect of this. Unless there is some kind of agenda here to obscure his views. I'm not asking Wikipedia to take a stance on this, but it's an issue I feel strongly about as a voter and the details on this page are skimpy and not helpful to those of us who would say it's urgent that people know there is a controversy here. I don't usually edit wikipedia articles, but I felt obligated and called to edit this one because of how important this issue is. Thanks.
Possible reading material to help build consensus on more directly and explicitly acknowledging that this controversy exists (without wikipedia taking a "side"):
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.150.37 ( talk) 21:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Neil Gorsuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In his concurring opinion in Sessions v. Dimaya he cites both Coke and Blackstone with respect to due process. I wonder if this is covered somewhere or in some substantial reliable source, or is that what originalists do? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The circumstances under which Gorsuch became a SC justice should be covered in the lede. A six-week old account just deleted any mention of Garland [13]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
If Neil Gorsuch is verified as a member of the Episcopal Church, as he was on the official member rolls of Holy Comforter Church, why does the article express language that wonders if he considers himself Roman Catholic? The Anglican Communion, of which The Episcopal Church is part, considers itself both Catholic and Reformed. SeminarianJohn ( talk) 22:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC) He may consider himself Roman Catholic, although he has not said that, but we do know that he is a member of The Episcopal Church, the US branch of the Anglican Communion, and he volunteered actively as an usher at St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. [1] Also, while he could consider himself to be both Roman Catholic and Episcopalian, which can be left there since that's possible, the Catholic Church does not consider a person to be a communicant member of the Catholic Church if that person marries, joins, and receives communion in a Protestant denomination. [2] The Episcopal Church, however, does allow open communion. [3] SeminarianJohn ( talk) 04:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
One suggestion I have, and I have asked at least one admin editor to give feedback here, is that what is there presently remain but it also just be stated "Gorsuch is a member of an Episcopal church; he is not currently a member of a Catholic church." Could that give a clearer statement while the use of the indefinite article still leaves room for how his own conceptualization of his identity fits into religion? Also, Catholic media report that he is Episcopalian and not currently Catholic. [4] [5] SeminarianJohn ( talk) 06:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
A CNN report speculating that Gorsuch might consider himself Catholic, in addition to church records of his membership at Holy Comforter Episcopal Church, was earlier given undue weight when other major reporting agencies were less ambiguous. An earlier contributor, I did not review all the history and of course am not going to call out any one person as improving an article is a collaborative effort, made implied assertions about membership in the Catholic Church. It is fair and accurate to note that it is possible that Neil Gorsuch self-identifies as Catholic in addition to belonging to an Episcopal church. However, that possibility is not a hard fact and leaves out any explanation of what the Catholic Church teaches within its own catechesis. One thing I always find important is to be respectful to the religion being discussed. It is sometimes forgotten that religious studies, divinity studies, and theology are academic disciplines in their own right. The Catholic Church's teaching on communicant membership should be respected. Likewise, I think the undue weight given to the CNN article has caused unnecessary confusion about Justice Gorsuch. His membership and active lay service in his church should be able to be stated clearly without that ambiguity. It seems that the implication that he might still be a member of the Catholic Church, when he is not, is an improper manipulation of a synthesis of information. Thank you fellow editors and I hope this continues to be improved upon! SeminarianJohn ( talk) 06:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am continuing to work on suggestions for the talk page. I really do appreciate it. Just as a note of correction, American Magazine refers to him as Episcopalian in contrast to Justice Kavanaugh whom it identifies as Catholic. We would have to talk about baptism, which as you say is personal opinion and I respect that, because if you're baptized Catholic yes you are Catholic unless** asterisk there you join another church and become a communicant of that other church. Since Justice Gorsuch is a communicant member of an Anglican church, he would not be Catholic by their measure of that. I was confirmed Greek Orthodox, but I do not believe they consider me Orthodox any more! (like you said that's all just hypothetical but just wanted to throw that in here) haha I hope it's okay to put emojis but again thank you :) SeminarianJohn ( talk) 15:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
BTW I am perfectly agreeable to the consensus you have brought to the talk page. I agree with you that the current wording is satisfactory unless Justice Gorsuch says otherwise. SeminarianJohn ( talk) 15:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely, Jonathunder, and I made that note on the page awhile back in a previous edit. The question we were discussing is whether he considers himself "Roman Catholic." The Catholic Church generally says "Catholic" without the qualifying adjective "Roman." And, in part, your point was an earlier reason of mine for wanting the clarification. He could very well have put down Catholic because many Anglicans would describe themselves as 'Catholic' just as many would describe themselves as 'Reformed.' The Via Media, which under the Elizabethan Settlement came to include a middle way between Catholicism and continental Protestantism, was originally an Anglican middle way between Calvinism and Lutheranism. So the Reformed and Catholic traditions of Christianity are very present in the Anglican Communion SeminarianJohn ( talk) 16:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. I am very agreeable to the way it the talk page has helped to put some information here and then keep what is relevant in the article. Thank you so much and I do hope to chat with you again. SeminarianJohn ( talk) 23:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
A NY Times piece focused on Gorsuch's contradictory views on using examples from other countries. [14] This belongs in this article, as it sheds light on Gorsuch's legal philosophy. Text on this was removed, with the assertion that it was WP:SYNTH. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
User:X1\ added to the early life section that Gorsuch’s mother, Anne Gorsuch (which was her name at the time), was "the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress." [16]. I removed it saying Is this really relevant to his biography? If people want to know about her they can click on the link. [17] X1\ re-added a somewhat shortened version, saying significant mother's first (contempt of Congress) since son is Supreme Court justice; reworded, shortened [18] I would like people's opinion whether this belongs in an article about her son, or if it is just an attempt to tar him with her brush. IMO that wasn't even the most notable thing about her tenure at the EPA. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
In 1982, Congress charged that the EPA had mishandled the $1.6 billion toxic waste Superfund and demanded records from Ms. Gorsuch Burford. Ms. Gorsuch Burford refused and became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress. [1] [2]
Ms. Gorsuch Burford refused and became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to turnover EPA records. [3] [4]
References
By the end of 1982, multiple congressional committees were investigating Anne Gorsuch for her indifference to enforcing the cleanup of Superfund sites, and the House voted to hold her in contempt of Congress
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
By the end of 1982, multiple congressional committees were investigating Anne Gorsuch for her indifference to enforcing the cleanup of Superfund sites, and the House voted to hold her in contempt of Congress
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
His wife's name is given both ways and should be clarified. DavidFarmbrough ( talk) 01:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
He also voted on protecting the LGBT community from discrimination just now. Could anybody edit that in?
Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.All SCOTUS judges are supposed to place the Constitution above the Bible. That's a mandatory requirement for their job. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Bit of a nitpick but my understanding is that when lawyers become judges they're no longer considered lawyers by the profession. There's a distinction between the "bench" and "bar" and when someone becomes a judge they're not exactly a member of the bar anymore. I certainly don't believe they're allowed to practice law. I'd put "American jurist" in the lede instead of "American lawyer". 199.66.69.67 ( talk) 00:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neil Gorsuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the court case McGirt v. Oklahoma to the section on Native American law. 73.168.5.183 ( talk) 17:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I recommend changing "opined" here to "argued:"
A judge issues an opinion stating reasons for their decision, but lawyer's briefs are not considered opinions. Rather, they are considered arguments, and the verb opined isn't used to describe them.
I don't think this changes the substantive meaning of the sentence--after all, those are his words--but it would better conform to the usage of argued/opined in the legal community, and would avoid any potential confusion that he wrote that in a judicial opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.255.198 ( talk) 14:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump told acting attorney general, according to an aide’s notes
"the rest" may mean 2021 United States Capitol attack ... sadly, I am no native speaker. Is there a fellow wikipedian who wants & who can write sth. about that ? thanks in advance, -- Präziser ( talk) 23:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Date of birth is listed as 1967 right at the beginning and then 1963 under "Early life and education."
IPA on this page says /ˈɡɔːrsʌtʃ/ , but his mom Anne Gorsuch Burford's is /ˈɡɔːrsətʃ/ . One of these might be inaccurate, right?-- RZuo ( talk) 09:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the pronunciation should be altered so that the "u" has a schwa sound /ə/ rather than a flat sound like in "such" /ʌ/. 67.83.99.134 ( talk) 01:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)corpho
Yesterday, I wrote as follows: Gorsuch is considered part of a doctrinaire conservative bloc willing to overrule precedent, alongside Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, though he has sided with the liberal justices on some occasions, most notably in the landmark LGBT rights case Bostock v. Clayton County. For some reason, this was marked by another user as POV, even though I provided 4 (!) reputable, ideologically diverse sources for Gorsuch's general philosophy and sourced his role in the Bostock decision. What is wrong here? Island Pelican ( talk) 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I will concede that the phrase "Doctrinaire" was inappropriate, but is it really in dispute that he is A. Part of the rightmost faction on the court, and B. Willing to overrule precedent? Island Pelican ( talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.
-- Charlesreid1 ( talk) 08:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)