![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A think the article needs to say a few more words about plurality opinions. Specifically, that for each issue there will be a final tally on whether to affirm or reverse, so even if there is disagreement on the reasoning, even a plurality opinion will result in a definite disposal of the case despite; and that the plurality is the opinion on the winning side that commands the most votes (so even if four justices agree on a single opinion to, say, reverse, and no opinion to affirm commands more than three votes, the plurality opinion would still be a 3-vote opinion to affirm, not the 4-vote opinion to reverse). Right now, I think the description is potentially ambiguous. Magidin ( talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems a little long going by how the article describes the process of forming an opinion. What do the Justices do with all their time? Read lots and lots of old cases and law books? The article presents it as if they make their decision straight off the bat and then spend a little time debating it.-- occono ( talk) 03:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I reverted an edit that changed "blue" to "orange" in the Rehnquist quote about the bindings of the briefs. In the edit summary I mentioned that the quote "need not reflect current color coding." However, looking through the Court's rules (page 43, which is page 47 of the PDF file), I note that the brief on the merits by the Petitioner is to be bound in light blue, and the brief on the merits by the Respondent in light red; this agrees with the Rehnquist quote. Magidin ( talk) 22:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
In the Tied votes and lack of quorum section, there is the following sentence:
I think this is a bit misleading/potentially confusing; O'Connor's retirement did not become final until Alito was confirmed, so there wasn't a 8-member Court (Roberts was confirmed to Rehnquist's place before the term opened). If I'm not mistaken, these would be cases that were argued between October 2005 and February 2006, but were not handed down before Alito took his seat. Should something more precise be added there, to clarify that it was not the vacancy, but rather that the decision did not come down before O'Connor left? Magidin ( talk) 19:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A think the article needs to say a few more words about plurality opinions. Specifically, that for each issue there will be a final tally on whether to affirm or reverse, so even if there is disagreement on the reasoning, even a plurality opinion will result in a definite disposal of the case despite; and that the plurality is the opinion on the winning side that commands the most votes (so even if four justices agree on a single opinion to, say, reverse, and no opinion to affirm commands more than three votes, the plurality opinion would still be a 3-vote opinion to affirm, not the 4-vote opinion to reverse). Right now, I think the description is potentially ambiguous. Magidin ( talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems a little long going by how the article describes the process of forming an opinion. What do the Justices do with all their time? Read lots and lots of old cases and law books? The article presents it as if they make their decision straight off the bat and then spend a little time debating it.-- occono ( talk) 03:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I reverted an edit that changed "blue" to "orange" in the Rehnquist quote about the bindings of the briefs. In the edit summary I mentioned that the quote "need not reflect current color coding." However, looking through the Court's rules (page 43, which is page 47 of the PDF file), I note that the brief on the merits by the Petitioner is to be bound in light blue, and the brief on the merits by the Respondent in light red; this agrees with the Rehnquist quote. Magidin ( talk) 22:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
In the Tied votes and lack of quorum section, there is the following sentence:
I think this is a bit misleading/potentially confusing; O'Connor's retirement did not become final until Alito was confirmed, so there wasn't a 8-member Court (Roberts was confirmed to Rehnquist's place before the term opened). If I'm not mistaken, these would be cases that were argued between October 2005 and February 2006, but were not handed down before Alito took his seat. Should something more precise be added there, to clarify that it was not the vacancy, but rather that the decision did not come down before O'Connor left? Magidin ( talk) 19:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)