This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I keep seeing this bandied about, but Benjamin Cardozo was of Spanish/Portuguese Jewish descent. I guess it depends on how one defines Hispanic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.176.122 ( talk) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The references copied over the Sonia Sotomayor article need to be fixed; I've tried fixing one to no avail. It's been a while since I used the <ref> system... 67.8.211.192 ( talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Changed "Prior to her reported selection as President Obama's nominee, Sotomayor had been regarded as a potential Supreme Court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic." to ..."had been appointed as a judge by both Republican and Democratic presidents." I'm pretty sure GWB never gave her much thought, please cite if I'm wrong. ErikHaugen ( talk) 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I am reinserting the reaction from Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute. He is editor of Supreme Court review for CATO. You can find his biography here [1]. If you look at Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination you will see that there is many different reactions from different people and groups.-- T*85 ( talk) 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the Quotes on impartiality and life experience section should be merged back into the Sonia Sotomayor article. If you look at the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination article it basically is only about the nomination/confirmation process. The quotes on impartiality probably will get brought up in the confirmation process, if it does then it should be included in this article. Right now it just seems out of place and would be better in the main Sonia Sotomayor article.-- T*85 ( talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This definitely needs its own article, I only thought that "Quotes on impartiality and life experience" section should have been merged or deleted. Kind of weird to have something included in the nomination article before we know if it will have any effect on the nomination. If you look at the Alito nomination article the only things listed were the ones that were brought up in the confirmation process.
To the above poster, I added most of the quotes and I count 9 out of 17 quotes being supportive of Sotomayor even though that really does not matter.-- T*85 ( talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say we're past the point today of this being a merge candidate. rootology/ equality 16:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This sections needs to be balanced. Why the arbitrary selected quotes from Sotomayor and Dana Milbank? Why the Ann Coulte, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich reaction? Since when their fringe views are important to a Supreme Court nomination process wp:undue, anyone? -- J mundo 13:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to add content about her membership (as of today, former membership) to the Belizean Grove, I've gathered a few sources here. I don't know if it belongs in this article, but thought I'd mention the sources. APK (If You Wanna) 23:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting to think it would be a good idea to mention the membership kerfuffle, although I'm not sure where it would best fit. I looked at the article's stats, and apparently readers are interested in the topic (compare it with this article). APK (If You Wanna) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
With the hearings beginning a few minutes ago, I'm curious whether we should create the page " Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court confirmation hearings." I won't be able to contribute to it until this evening, but I'm sure it will aggregate a great deal of content. Agradman talk/ contribs 14:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering her hearing has already been interrupted by hecklers at least four times in two days, shouldn't something mentioning this fact be included in the article? Since according to Wasted Time R and BD2412 just right above this section, this article should cover the hearings, rather than only the nomination itself, which consumes about 75 percent of the article. Gage ( talk) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In part, the article currently reads as follows:
"As of July 2009, the Senate has 58 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 40 Republicans. In order to block the nomination, Republicans must either vote unanimously against Sotomayor and persuade nine non-Republican Senators to follow suit, or they must prevent a vote from taking place at all through a filibuster, which means the Democrats would need 60 senators to vote for cloture."
By my count, forty plus nine is forty-nine, which is fewer than fifty-one. It may be the case that Senators Byrd and Kennedy are not currently participating in Senate activities, but 1) if that is true, the article should state the conditions that predicate its mathematics, and 2) forty-nine and forty-nine would still be equal, resulting in a tiebreaking-vote by the Vice-president (I assume...) 24.149.110.44 ( talk) 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Was there any testimony given on July 17, meaning today? I was not able to watch CNN's streaming at 9:30AM, but there is currently no stream of Sotomayor testimony, and Senator Kaufman who was the last chairman for the day yesterday mentioned nothing about reconvening, so I just wanted to make sure. Gage ( talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The table of votes is just that, a table of votes, not a table of how people are saying they plan to vote. It should not be "filled in" until there is a vote to record, and I have hidden it for the time being accordingly. bd2412 T 05:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Lieberman was previously listed in the voting table as an independent Democrat, which is how he is listed on the Senate website. But Zntrip edited it to simply independent and has reversed efforts to restore that previous designation. So which is it? – Cg-realms ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
yes, I eliminated a big chuck of opinion. Nobody here took care of balancing this section, the tag was here for months. Yes, probably I will be reverted, but this section is crap and nobody seems to care. Calling a racist nowadays is something routine. Again, this is about the confirmation hearing, the senators and the witness, who cares what I think or what Ann Coulter think, she just looking for the sound bite in fox news. Wikipedia is more than that, I hope, Wikipedia is about the truth and not the intensive editing of some POV editors. Deal with it, we have a black President and a future Latina Justice. A dont worry, the Wise latina crap is mention several times in the article. -- J.Mundo ( talk) 06:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no attempt to filibuster the nomination. I have edited this multiple times and I keep getting overturned for no logical reason. The supposed source does not talk about a filibuster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.164.253 ( talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination. 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 04:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination. 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 17:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I keep seeing this bandied about, but Benjamin Cardozo was of Spanish/Portuguese Jewish descent. I guess it depends on how one defines Hispanic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.176.122 ( talk) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The references copied over the Sonia Sotomayor article need to be fixed; I've tried fixing one to no avail. It's been a while since I used the <ref> system... 67.8.211.192 ( talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Changed "Prior to her reported selection as President Obama's nominee, Sotomayor had been regarded as a potential Supreme Court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic." to ..."had been appointed as a judge by both Republican and Democratic presidents." I'm pretty sure GWB never gave her much thought, please cite if I'm wrong. ErikHaugen ( talk) 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I am reinserting the reaction from Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute. He is editor of Supreme Court review for CATO. You can find his biography here [1]. If you look at Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination you will see that there is many different reactions from different people and groups.-- T*85 ( talk) 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the Quotes on impartiality and life experience section should be merged back into the Sonia Sotomayor article. If you look at the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination article it basically is only about the nomination/confirmation process. The quotes on impartiality probably will get brought up in the confirmation process, if it does then it should be included in this article. Right now it just seems out of place and would be better in the main Sonia Sotomayor article.-- T*85 ( talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This definitely needs its own article, I only thought that "Quotes on impartiality and life experience" section should have been merged or deleted. Kind of weird to have something included in the nomination article before we know if it will have any effect on the nomination. If you look at the Alito nomination article the only things listed were the ones that were brought up in the confirmation process.
To the above poster, I added most of the quotes and I count 9 out of 17 quotes being supportive of Sotomayor even though that really does not matter.-- T*85 ( talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say we're past the point today of this being a merge candidate. rootology/ equality 16:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This sections needs to be balanced. Why the arbitrary selected quotes from Sotomayor and Dana Milbank? Why the Ann Coulte, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich reaction? Since when their fringe views are important to a Supreme Court nomination process wp:undue, anyone? -- J mundo 13:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to add content about her membership (as of today, former membership) to the Belizean Grove, I've gathered a few sources here. I don't know if it belongs in this article, but thought I'd mention the sources. APK (If You Wanna) 23:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting to think it would be a good idea to mention the membership kerfuffle, although I'm not sure where it would best fit. I looked at the article's stats, and apparently readers are interested in the topic (compare it with this article). APK (If You Wanna) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
With the hearings beginning a few minutes ago, I'm curious whether we should create the page " Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court confirmation hearings." I won't be able to contribute to it until this evening, but I'm sure it will aggregate a great deal of content. Agradman talk/ contribs 14:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering her hearing has already been interrupted by hecklers at least four times in two days, shouldn't something mentioning this fact be included in the article? Since according to Wasted Time R and BD2412 just right above this section, this article should cover the hearings, rather than only the nomination itself, which consumes about 75 percent of the article. Gage ( talk) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In part, the article currently reads as follows:
"As of July 2009, the Senate has 58 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 40 Republicans. In order to block the nomination, Republicans must either vote unanimously against Sotomayor and persuade nine non-Republican Senators to follow suit, or they must prevent a vote from taking place at all through a filibuster, which means the Democrats would need 60 senators to vote for cloture."
By my count, forty plus nine is forty-nine, which is fewer than fifty-one. It may be the case that Senators Byrd and Kennedy are not currently participating in Senate activities, but 1) if that is true, the article should state the conditions that predicate its mathematics, and 2) forty-nine and forty-nine would still be equal, resulting in a tiebreaking-vote by the Vice-president (I assume...) 24.149.110.44 ( talk) 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Was there any testimony given on July 17, meaning today? I was not able to watch CNN's streaming at 9:30AM, but there is currently no stream of Sotomayor testimony, and Senator Kaufman who was the last chairman for the day yesterday mentioned nothing about reconvening, so I just wanted to make sure. Gage ( talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The table of votes is just that, a table of votes, not a table of how people are saying they plan to vote. It should not be "filled in" until there is a vote to record, and I have hidden it for the time being accordingly. bd2412 T 05:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Lieberman was previously listed in the voting table as an independent Democrat, which is how he is listed on the Senate website. But Zntrip edited it to simply independent and has reversed efforts to restore that previous designation. So which is it? – Cg-realms ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
yes, I eliminated a big chuck of opinion. Nobody here took care of balancing this section, the tag was here for months. Yes, probably I will be reverted, but this section is crap and nobody seems to care. Calling a racist nowadays is something routine. Again, this is about the confirmation hearing, the senators and the witness, who cares what I think or what Ann Coulter think, she just looking for the sound bite in fox news. Wikipedia is more than that, I hope, Wikipedia is about the truth and not the intensive editing of some POV editors. Deal with it, we have a black President and a future Latina Justice. A dont worry, the Wise latina crap is mention several times in the article. -- J.Mundo ( talk) 06:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no attempt to filibuster the nomination. I have edited this multiple times and I keep getting overturned for no logical reason. The supposed source does not talk about a filibuster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.164.253 ( talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination. 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 04:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination. 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 17:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)