![]() | A news item involving Sarah Weddington was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2021. | ![]() |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- Any chance we can get a more recent picture of her? She's still a notable person outside of Roe v. Wade for her many other accomplishments and is active on the public speaking circuit. The current photo makes the article look on first glance like the biography of a long dead historical figure. Sperril 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (This comment was deleted without a stated reason. I think it was an accident. I'm readding it.) Sperril 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ms. Weddington was told at the only law firm interview she was granted that to practice law, one had to curse, and it just wouldn't be appropriate to curse at women. She was also told that women had to be home in time to cook dinner, but that sometimes lawyers had to work late. She wasn't given an offer.
This type of explanation doesn't fit in that section (discussing Roe v. Wade and how she got the case) and only clouds an otherwise clear and concise bio. I'm disappointed that this type of explanation even became necessary, but the self-imposed ignorance that a few people have about a common situation for most women who graduated from law schools before the mid to late 1970s apparently requires this type of discussion. Lawguy 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)lawguy
That seems to be the most appropriate solution to me. Lawguy 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Lawguy
Teh lengthy paragraph about Norma McCorvey recolections of Roe v. Wade seems inapropriate for this page. Such a paragraph may be appropriate on the page about Norma McCorvey or Roe v. Wade itself, rather than on the page of her attorny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The statement that Weddington is the youngest person to argue a successful Supreme Court case, is dubious, for the following reasons:
1. The cited source, does not, itself, cite any sources that say she was the youngest person to argue a successful Supreme Court case.
2. I do not know of any collated or tabulated records that list the ages of all persons who have argued Supreme Court cases.
3. During the early days of the United States, and continuing well into the twentieth century, it was not at all unusual for lawyers to be admitted to the bar in their early twenties or even younger. Admission standards to the bar were much more lax then (until 1928, no state required that a person graduate from law school in order to be admitted to the bar.) [1]
4. The U.S. Supreme Court had much less prestige in the eighteenth and nineteenth century than it does today. [2] It would have been likely, that many young "rookie" lawyers have argued cases before the Supreme Court.
Thus, it is highly likely that a person younger than 27 has argued, successfully, before the U.S. Supreme Court. 2600:1700:7822:6190:2937:93D9:80A3:5A22 ( talk) 04:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving Sarah Weddington was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2021. | ![]() |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- Any chance we can get a more recent picture of her? She's still a notable person outside of Roe v. Wade for her many other accomplishments and is active on the public speaking circuit. The current photo makes the article look on first glance like the biography of a long dead historical figure. Sperril 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (This comment was deleted without a stated reason. I think it was an accident. I'm readding it.) Sperril 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ms. Weddington was told at the only law firm interview she was granted that to practice law, one had to curse, and it just wouldn't be appropriate to curse at women. She was also told that women had to be home in time to cook dinner, but that sometimes lawyers had to work late. She wasn't given an offer.
This type of explanation doesn't fit in that section (discussing Roe v. Wade and how she got the case) and only clouds an otherwise clear and concise bio. I'm disappointed that this type of explanation even became necessary, but the self-imposed ignorance that a few people have about a common situation for most women who graduated from law schools before the mid to late 1970s apparently requires this type of discussion. Lawguy 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)lawguy
That seems to be the most appropriate solution to me. Lawguy 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Lawguy
Teh lengthy paragraph about Norma McCorvey recolections of Roe v. Wade seems inapropriate for this page. Such a paragraph may be appropriate on the page about Norma McCorvey or Roe v. Wade itself, rather than on the page of her attorny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The statement that Weddington is the youngest person to argue a successful Supreme Court case, is dubious, for the following reasons:
1. The cited source, does not, itself, cite any sources that say she was the youngest person to argue a successful Supreme Court case.
2. I do not know of any collated or tabulated records that list the ages of all persons who have argued Supreme Court cases.
3. During the early days of the United States, and continuing well into the twentieth century, it was not at all unusual for lawyers to be admitted to the bar in their early twenties or even younger. Admission standards to the bar were much more lax then (until 1928, no state required that a person graduate from law school in order to be admitted to the bar.) [1]
4. The U.S. Supreme Court had much less prestige in the eighteenth and nineteenth century than it does today. [2] It would have been likely, that many young "rookie" lawyers have argued cases before the Supreme Court.
Thus, it is highly likely that a person younger than 27 has argued, successfully, before the U.S. Supreme Court. 2600:1700:7822:6190:2937:93D9:80A3:5A22 ( talk) 04:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)