This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. This is my first substantial Wikipedia edit, and my first table in Wikipedia. As I'm still getting my legs, I'd appreciate it if you let me know the reasons for any edits you feel appropriate to that subsection. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecohansen ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Talk:United States district court, this article should be renamed "United States court of appeals" since it deals with the class of courts of appeals rather than a unique Court of Appeals.
— DLJessup ( talk) 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved as requested. "United States courts of appeal".... LOL! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether someone knows how appointments work. The president nominates a judge and then the judge is confirmed (or not) in the Senate, in the normal case. In the unusual case of course, the judge receives a recess appointment and is later nominated and possibly confirmed. My question is - when are judges allowed to then sit on panels and decide cases? If you look at bios on www.fjc.gov (go to biographies of judges since 1789) and then enter in a judge's last name. My example judges are Godbold and Gewin for the two kinds of appointments. Here are the relevant excerpts from their bios:
Godbold: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on June 28, 1966, to a seat vacated by Richard Taylor Rives; Confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 1966, and received commission on July 22, 1966. Served as chief judge, 1981-1981. Service terminated on October 1, 1981, due to assignment to another court. Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Reassigned October 1, 1981; Served as chief judge, 1981-1986. Assumed senior status on October 23, 1987.
Gewin: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Received a recess appointment from John F. Kennedy on October 5, 1961, to a new seat created by 75 Stat. 80; nominated on January 15, 1962; Confirmed by the Senate on February 5, 1962, and received commission on February 9, 1962. Assumed senior status on November 1, 1976. Service terminated on May 15, 1981, due to death.
My feeling is that for Godbold who went through the process normally, he gets to sit on panels after he receives "commission," which I'm assuming just means he's now given the power to decide cases. For Gewin, I believe he gets to decide cases after he receives the recess appointment. I know this is true because I looked on Lexis-Nexis's legal research section and found cases on whose panels Gewin was sitting after October 5, 1961 and before January 15, 1962. Obviously it wouldn't make any sense for Gewin not to be able to decide cases before he gets confirmed (otherwise, what is the point of recess appointments!). So I guess the remaining question is: For the normal appointment process, is the relevant "start date" the date of receiving commission?
Thanks for any help.
Borntostorm 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see my move proposal at Talk:Court of Appeals#Rename this article?. -- Mathew5000 19:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It was objected that:
The capitalization of this article (and also United States district court has been discussed in the past. I originally was in favor of capitalization, but I was convinced by the arguments of others that although an individual court is the "United States Court of Appeals for the Nth Circuit", the generic name of the courts is the " United States courts of appeals." Among other things, note that this is how the term is written in the United States Code. I do think you should have reviewed the discussion on the Talk page before moving, and I would encourage you to revert the move and re-open the discussion if you still think a move is appropriate. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered United States federal judicial circuits, which covers a little bit of historic material but omits most of the current info from this page; it seems to be talking about the same entities, though (and shares the same map image). So it seems like they should be merged... unfortunately I don't have near enough time to commit to this, sorry. / blahedo ( t) 05:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
How does the Court of Appeals determine which cases to review? Does the judge appeal, the defense, the prosecution, any of the above? Or does the Court of Appeals determine for itself what to review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.252.68 ( talk) 05:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The map needs improvement. The Sixth Circuit should be a different color than the Eleventh Circuit so that we can tell them apart. The States of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are in the Eleventh Circuit, and the States of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee are in the Sixth Circuit, but that division is not clear from the map, because both circuits are the same color. John Paul Parks ( talk) 14:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a mention of an interested Facebook page where we can discuss the SCOTUS, how the decide cases, etc. It's pretty interesting. A Facebook friend of mine started it and it has a lot of interesting interviews with the Justices and such. ~~ iMatti ~~ ( talk) 07:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces not included as part of this article? It is one of the circuit of the United States Court of Appeals correct? The website for the USCOA for the Armed Forces is actually hosted on the U.S. Courts .gov domain ( see here) and not the U.S. Military's .mil TLD. So unless I missed something here I think it should be part of the article. TheGoofyGolfer ( talk) 23:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This article begins:
"The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system."
The use in this article of the phrase "or circuit courts" is unfortunate. The article was probably written by a lawyer, and many lawyers informally among themselves do refer to the United States courts of appeals, when speaking generally, as "circuit courts," or in the case of a specific one of these courts as the "nth circuit" or even the "nth circuit court."
But "circuit court" is not an acceptable alternative name for these courts, speaking generally, nor is "nth circuit" or "nth circuit court" an acceptable alternative name for that specific court of appeals. They are merely shorthand references used among themselves by people who know exactly what the proper names actually are and, therefore, are quite certain there will be no confusion as to what court is being referred to.
A layperson should not be told that "circuit court" is an alternative name. Further, in an encyclopedia article, even using the shorthand "circuit court" to refer back to the perfectly correctly stated name earlier in the article is dangerous because it will encourage lay readers to use the term "circuit court" as a generally acceptable substitute for the correct name, which it isn't.
Aside from its being disrespectful or demeaning to refer to an appellate court as a "circuit" court, it can also be confusing to laypersons because many US states have trial courts named "circuit courts."
Although this article laudably does again and again use the word "appeals" (in context with other words) when referring to these United States courts of appeals, I believe, nevertheless, that, in the several places in the article where it is used, a reference to "circuit court" should be replaced with "court of appeals" or "appeals court" or "the lower court" or any other way of saying it that does not encourage laypersons to refer to these courts using the word "circuit" unaccompanied by some appropriate version of the word "appeal." Even better would probably be not using the word "circuit" at all, except in a phrase such as "...for the Ninth Circuit."
Under "Procedure," for example, is the phrase: "Except in the Ninth Circuit Courts.... That is dangerous. Better would be "Except in the appeals courts for the Ninth Circuit..." or some other rewording. Wikifan2744 ( talk) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In fairness, the US Senate calls the judges, "circuit judge," when they confirm them. Cf. Vote 118: "On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel P. Collins, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )" [1] Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlCanton ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
In United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, it seems that Elena Kagan is the "circuit justice". That's quite confusing to me because she is also on SCOTUS. Maybe it would be good to explain somewhere what a "circuit justice" is. (I really don't know, and I would like to learn).
This line in the section about population per circuit is misleading:
All of the other circuits have jurisdiction over specific geographical areas. The Federal Circuit does not because it's jurisdiction is limited to particular types of cases, not geography. It may technically be correct that the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction for everybody in the US, and that the entire population of the US divided by the number of judges is 26 million. However, these statistics don't say anything useful. (In fact, it would be much more correct to list the United States Supreme Court on this line, even though the USSC is not a Court of Appeal.) I suggest replacing the population, percent, and population per judge in that table with a dash ('-') instead of a number, and perhaps some explanation directly below. Techielaw ( talk) 07:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to split the 9th Circuit into 2, adding a 12th circuit. The bill is linked here ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/250/text) do you think this should be included or is it better placed somewhere else, or perhaps it should not be mentioned till the bill moves further along the legislative process. Javerthugo ( talk) 00:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The "Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences" was replaced with the "Patent Trial and Appeal Board". The Section on Circuit Composition (for appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) still mentions the former.
Comments from other editors would be welcome on the recent addition of a link to Superior Court of the District of Columbia in this article's "See also" section. I have reverted it twice, so will not do so again, but I think this link should be removed because it is irrelevant to the topic of United States courts of appeals. User:Dequanhargrove believes it is relevant because "The judges on Superior Court of the District of Columbia are appointed by the president & confirmed by the senate just like the other judges on courts listed above on the same page." Obviously, I disagree that this is a relevant criterion; just because a tribunal has judges appointed by the President does not make it particularly similar to a court of appeals. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 12:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I respect the users opinion but I guess my question is what is the issue with having an additional link of a court where the judges are appointed by the president & confirmed by the senate in the “See also” section. It’s all the way at the bottom out of the view of the other courts. I do not understand why anybody who cares about the courts would have an issue with it. President Biden’s first batch of 11 judicial nominees included a judge for the Superior courts of DC. Without this link on the page you would have to type the nominees name in the search bar at the top. I think it’s much easier to just click on the link at the bottom. Dequanhargrove ( talk) 15:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
One additional note... While the link to the Superior court of DC is at the BOTTOM of the page in the "See also" section, below are a list of links for Administrative agencies that are at the TOP of the page alongside the links for the Court of Appeals that have much less to do with the subject manner then the Superior court of DC & nobody (Certainly not I) is asking for them to be removed.
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, United States International Trade Commission, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, United States Congress Office of Compliance, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Government Accountability Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
25 April 2021 (UTC) So once again I am asking for the link to the Superior court of DC to remain along with the links I mentioned above that have a lot less to do with the court of appeals. The more information the better.
Thank you for our time
Absolutely & once again I in no way & asking for removing any of the administrative agencies. I am all for as much information as possible. And just as you mentioned the administrative agencies which the courts of appeals has jurisdiction over, I would like to point out all appeals of the Superior Court of DC decisions go to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which is also listed on the page for court of appeals so I believe that makes it relevant to the subject matter just as the administrative agencies you mentioned.
I am requesting the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to be added to the "See also" section of the United States courts of appeals. Since judges on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia are nominated by the president & confirmed (Or rejected) by the senate, all appeals of the Superior Court of DC decisions go to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which is also listed on the page for court of appeals & since we have a pending nominee for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia waiting for a hearing & subsequent confirmation, I think this would be a relevant as well as welcome addition. I am not asking for the link to be included at the top of the page with the rest of the court of appeals court, simply in the "See also" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dequanhargrove ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello @BD2412 T. I hope your having a good day. I was not referencing the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Chief judge: Sri Srinivasan) which is at the top of the page I'm requesting the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to be added to in my post. I was referencing the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Chief judge: Anna Blackburne-Rigsby). This court is the court in which appeals from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia go to. That court is listed in the "See also" section of the court of appeals page which is why I feel it is relevant to add the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to the "See also" section as well, along with the other reasons I listed above. An additional reason I didn't mention above that I believe it is relevant is current Superior Court of the District of Columbia judge Florence Y. Pan has been nominated to be a judge on the District Court for the District of Columbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dequanhargrove ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@R'n'B I agree we do not want the "See also" section to become cluttered. Other then the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, I can not think of any other court that should be added so there should be no issue with it becoming cluttered. Adding that one court would make it a total of nine links in the "See also" section. In contrast the Wikepedia page on Supreme Court of the United States has 36 links in it's "See also" section. I can assure you if the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is added to the court of appeals page, I am good with leaving it at the nine links it would be brought up to... In regards to the example given regarding if there is a Wikepedia page on subject A & not needing to post links about subject D just because D is related to C, C is related to B & B is related to A, I would argue that my request would be considered subject B in your example (Which is why I am asking for it to be added as a link in the "See also" section & not at the top of the main page). The reason is because we have the link to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals already in the "See also" section. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia is directly related to that court & all appeals from the court go to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. So even though I personally do not have an issue if somebody did want to include subject D from your example in the "See also" section (Not the main upper portion of a page) because I believe the more information the better, it still shouldn't prevent the request I made because I respectfully argue I am requesting subject B to be added, not subject D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dequanhargrove ( talk • contribs)
@BD2412 Thank you & I will make sure to end my post on the talk page with the signature. I was unaware of that prior to your post...
As for the subject matter, I guess I am just not seeing the consistency in the arguments I have read. I understand the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is neither a court in the U.S. federal court system, nor an appellate court, however neither are state supreme courts. Yet the link for state supreme courts are included (And I am happy the link is included & am in no way asking for it to be removed) in the very same "See also" section I am asking to include the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in. And unlike state supreme court judges, judges on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia are nominated by the president of the United States & confirmed by the US senate (Both part of the federal government). Then there is the issue of not wanting to clutter the section with too many links but as I mentioned above in my earlier post, this would only be the ninth link in this section. The "See Also" section for the US supreme court page has 36 links in it. I reviewed the history of that page & do not see even one complaint about it being cluttered. I already mentioned in my earlier post that this is the only court I am asking to be added so it is not as if adding this one would lead to me requesting additional courts to be added. So I must admit I am a little taken aback as to why the request to add this one link has any issues against it. I am sure you are much more well versed in Wikepedia policies & procedures then I am. It seems we are at an impasse so I guess my question is what is the next step at this point? I don't want to cause anybody any stress or discomfort so I am reaching out to see how this can be resolved? Any input would be welcomed. Dequanhargrove ( talk) 23:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi;
I just updated the population figures in the table for the 2020 census, but I wasn't able to easily check that the number of judgeships remained constant. Could someone else with more court savvy than I confirm that the numbers of judgeships per circuit (and ergo the population per judge figures) in the table remain accurate?
Thanks!
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. This is my first substantial Wikipedia edit, and my first table in Wikipedia. As I'm still getting my legs, I'd appreciate it if you let me know the reasons for any edits you feel appropriate to that subsection. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecohansen ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Talk:United States district court, this article should be renamed "United States court of appeals" since it deals with the class of courts of appeals rather than a unique Court of Appeals.
— DLJessup ( talk) 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved as requested. "United States courts of appeal".... LOL! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether someone knows how appointments work. The president nominates a judge and then the judge is confirmed (or not) in the Senate, in the normal case. In the unusual case of course, the judge receives a recess appointment and is later nominated and possibly confirmed. My question is - when are judges allowed to then sit on panels and decide cases? If you look at bios on www.fjc.gov (go to biographies of judges since 1789) and then enter in a judge's last name. My example judges are Godbold and Gewin for the two kinds of appointments. Here are the relevant excerpts from their bios:
Godbold: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson on June 28, 1966, to a seat vacated by Richard Taylor Rives; Confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 1966, and received commission on July 22, 1966. Served as chief judge, 1981-1981. Service terminated on October 1, 1981, due to assignment to another court. Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Reassigned October 1, 1981; Served as chief judge, 1981-1986. Assumed senior status on October 23, 1987.
Gewin: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Received a recess appointment from John F. Kennedy on October 5, 1961, to a new seat created by 75 Stat. 80; nominated on January 15, 1962; Confirmed by the Senate on February 5, 1962, and received commission on February 9, 1962. Assumed senior status on November 1, 1976. Service terminated on May 15, 1981, due to death.
My feeling is that for Godbold who went through the process normally, he gets to sit on panels after he receives "commission," which I'm assuming just means he's now given the power to decide cases. For Gewin, I believe he gets to decide cases after he receives the recess appointment. I know this is true because I looked on Lexis-Nexis's legal research section and found cases on whose panels Gewin was sitting after October 5, 1961 and before January 15, 1962. Obviously it wouldn't make any sense for Gewin not to be able to decide cases before he gets confirmed (otherwise, what is the point of recess appointments!). So I guess the remaining question is: For the normal appointment process, is the relevant "start date" the date of receiving commission?
Thanks for any help.
Borntostorm 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see my move proposal at Talk:Court of Appeals#Rename this article?. -- Mathew5000 19:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It was objected that:
The capitalization of this article (and also United States district court has been discussed in the past. I originally was in favor of capitalization, but I was convinced by the arguments of others that although an individual court is the "United States Court of Appeals for the Nth Circuit", the generic name of the courts is the " United States courts of appeals." Among other things, note that this is how the term is written in the United States Code. I do think you should have reviewed the discussion on the Talk page before moving, and I would encourage you to revert the move and re-open the discussion if you still think a move is appropriate. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered United States federal judicial circuits, which covers a little bit of historic material but omits most of the current info from this page; it seems to be talking about the same entities, though (and shares the same map image). So it seems like they should be merged... unfortunately I don't have near enough time to commit to this, sorry. / blahedo ( t) 05:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
How does the Court of Appeals determine which cases to review? Does the judge appeal, the defense, the prosecution, any of the above? Or does the Court of Appeals determine for itself what to review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.252.68 ( talk) 05:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The map needs improvement. The Sixth Circuit should be a different color than the Eleventh Circuit so that we can tell them apart. The States of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are in the Eleventh Circuit, and the States of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee are in the Sixth Circuit, but that division is not clear from the map, because both circuits are the same color. John Paul Parks ( talk) 14:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a mention of an interested Facebook page where we can discuss the SCOTUS, how the decide cases, etc. It's pretty interesting. A Facebook friend of mine started it and it has a lot of interesting interviews with the Justices and such. ~~ iMatti ~~ ( talk) 07:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces not included as part of this article? It is one of the circuit of the United States Court of Appeals correct? The website for the USCOA for the Armed Forces is actually hosted on the U.S. Courts .gov domain ( see here) and not the U.S. Military's .mil TLD. So unless I missed something here I think it should be part of the article. TheGoofyGolfer ( talk) 23:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This article begins:
"The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system."
The use in this article of the phrase "or circuit courts" is unfortunate. The article was probably written by a lawyer, and many lawyers informally among themselves do refer to the United States courts of appeals, when speaking generally, as "circuit courts," or in the case of a specific one of these courts as the "nth circuit" or even the "nth circuit court."
But "circuit court" is not an acceptable alternative name for these courts, speaking generally, nor is "nth circuit" or "nth circuit court" an acceptable alternative name for that specific court of appeals. They are merely shorthand references used among themselves by people who know exactly what the proper names actually are and, therefore, are quite certain there will be no confusion as to what court is being referred to.
A layperson should not be told that "circuit court" is an alternative name. Further, in an encyclopedia article, even using the shorthand "circuit court" to refer back to the perfectly correctly stated name earlier in the article is dangerous because it will encourage lay readers to use the term "circuit court" as a generally acceptable substitute for the correct name, which it isn't.
Aside from its being disrespectful or demeaning to refer to an appellate court as a "circuit" court, it can also be confusing to laypersons because many US states have trial courts named "circuit courts."
Although this article laudably does again and again use the word "appeals" (in context with other words) when referring to these United States courts of appeals, I believe, nevertheless, that, in the several places in the article where it is used, a reference to "circuit court" should be replaced with "court of appeals" or "appeals court" or "the lower court" or any other way of saying it that does not encourage laypersons to refer to these courts using the word "circuit" unaccompanied by some appropriate version of the word "appeal." Even better would probably be not using the word "circuit" at all, except in a phrase such as "...for the Ninth Circuit."
Under "Procedure," for example, is the phrase: "Except in the Ninth Circuit Courts.... That is dangerous. Better would be "Except in the appeals courts for the Ninth Circuit..." or some other rewording. Wikifan2744 ( talk) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In fairness, the US Senate calls the judges, "circuit judge," when they confirm them. Cf. Vote 118: "On the Nomination (Confirmation Daniel P. Collins, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )" [1] Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlCanton ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
In United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, it seems that Elena Kagan is the "circuit justice". That's quite confusing to me because she is also on SCOTUS. Maybe it would be good to explain somewhere what a "circuit justice" is. (I really don't know, and I would like to learn).
This line in the section about population per circuit is misleading:
All of the other circuits have jurisdiction over specific geographical areas. The Federal Circuit does not because it's jurisdiction is limited to particular types of cases, not geography. It may technically be correct that the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction for everybody in the US, and that the entire population of the US divided by the number of judges is 26 million. However, these statistics don't say anything useful. (In fact, it would be much more correct to list the United States Supreme Court on this line, even though the USSC is not a Court of Appeal.) I suggest replacing the population, percent, and population per judge in that table with a dash ('-') instead of a number, and perhaps some explanation directly below. Techielaw ( talk) 07:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to split the 9th Circuit into 2, adding a 12th circuit. The bill is linked here ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/250/text) do you think this should be included or is it better placed somewhere else, or perhaps it should not be mentioned till the bill moves further along the legislative process. Javerthugo ( talk) 00:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The "Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences" was replaced with the "Patent Trial and Appeal Board". The Section on Circuit Composition (for appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) still mentions the former.
Comments from other editors would be welcome on the recent addition of a link to Superior Court of the District of Columbia in this article's "See also" section. I have reverted it twice, so will not do so again, but I think this link should be removed because it is irrelevant to the topic of United States courts of appeals. User:Dequanhargrove believes it is relevant because "The judges on Superior Court of the District of Columbia are appointed by the president & confirmed by the senate just like the other judges on courts listed above on the same page." Obviously, I disagree that this is a relevant criterion; just because a tribunal has judges appointed by the President does not make it particularly similar to a court of appeals. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 12:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I respect the users opinion but I guess my question is what is the issue with having an additional link of a court where the judges are appointed by the president & confirmed by the senate in the “See also” section. It’s all the way at the bottom out of the view of the other courts. I do not understand why anybody who cares about the courts would have an issue with it. President Biden’s first batch of 11 judicial nominees included a judge for the Superior courts of DC. Without this link on the page you would have to type the nominees name in the search bar at the top. I think it’s much easier to just click on the link at the bottom. Dequanhargrove ( talk) 15:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
One additional note... While the link to the Superior court of DC is at the BOTTOM of the page in the "See also" section, below are a list of links for Administrative agencies that are at the TOP of the page alongside the links for the Court of Appeals that have much less to do with the subject manner then the Superior court of DC & nobody (Certainly not I) is asking for them to be removed.
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, United States International Trade Commission, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, United States Congress Office of Compliance, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Government Accountability Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
25 April 2021 (UTC) So once again I am asking for the link to the Superior court of DC to remain along with the links I mentioned above that have a lot less to do with the court of appeals. The more information the better.
Thank you for our time
Absolutely & once again I in no way & asking for removing any of the administrative agencies. I am all for as much information as possible. And just as you mentioned the administrative agencies which the courts of appeals has jurisdiction over, I would like to point out all appeals of the Superior Court of DC decisions go to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which is also listed on the page for court of appeals so I believe that makes it relevant to the subject matter just as the administrative agencies you mentioned.
I am requesting the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to be added to the "See also" section of the United States courts of appeals. Since judges on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia are nominated by the president & confirmed (Or rejected) by the senate, all appeals of the Superior Court of DC decisions go to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which is also listed on the page for court of appeals & since we have a pending nominee for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia waiting for a hearing & subsequent confirmation, I think this would be a relevant as well as welcome addition. I am not asking for the link to be included at the top of the page with the rest of the court of appeals court, simply in the "See also" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dequanhargrove ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello @BD2412 T. I hope your having a good day. I was not referencing the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Chief judge: Sri Srinivasan) which is at the top of the page I'm requesting the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to be added to in my post. I was referencing the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Chief judge: Anna Blackburne-Rigsby). This court is the court in which appeals from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia go to. That court is listed in the "See also" section of the court of appeals page which is why I feel it is relevant to add the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to the "See also" section as well, along with the other reasons I listed above. An additional reason I didn't mention above that I believe it is relevant is current Superior Court of the District of Columbia judge Florence Y. Pan has been nominated to be a judge on the District Court for the District of Columbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dequanhargrove ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@R'n'B I agree we do not want the "See also" section to become cluttered. Other then the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, I can not think of any other court that should be added so there should be no issue with it becoming cluttered. Adding that one court would make it a total of nine links in the "See also" section. In contrast the Wikepedia page on Supreme Court of the United States has 36 links in it's "See also" section. I can assure you if the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is added to the court of appeals page, I am good with leaving it at the nine links it would be brought up to... In regards to the example given regarding if there is a Wikepedia page on subject A & not needing to post links about subject D just because D is related to C, C is related to B & B is related to A, I would argue that my request would be considered subject B in your example (Which is why I am asking for it to be added as a link in the "See also" section & not at the top of the main page). The reason is because we have the link to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals already in the "See also" section. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia is directly related to that court & all appeals from the court go to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. So even though I personally do not have an issue if somebody did want to include subject D from your example in the "See also" section (Not the main upper portion of a page) because I believe the more information the better, it still shouldn't prevent the request I made because I respectfully argue I am requesting subject B to be added, not subject D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dequanhargrove ( talk • contribs)
@BD2412 Thank you & I will make sure to end my post on the talk page with the signature. I was unaware of that prior to your post...
As for the subject matter, I guess I am just not seeing the consistency in the arguments I have read. I understand the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is neither a court in the U.S. federal court system, nor an appellate court, however neither are state supreme courts. Yet the link for state supreme courts are included (And I am happy the link is included & am in no way asking for it to be removed) in the very same "See also" section I am asking to include the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in. And unlike state supreme court judges, judges on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia are nominated by the president of the United States & confirmed by the US senate (Both part of the federal government). Then there is the issue of not wanting to clutter the section with too many links but as I mentioned above in my earlier post, this would only be the ninth link in this section. The "See Also" section for the US supreme court page has 36 links in it. I reviewed the history of that page & do not see even one complaint about it being cluttered. I already mentioned in my earlier post that this is the only court I am asking to be added so it is not as if adding this one would lead to me requesting additional courts to be added. So I must admit I am a little taken aback as to why the request to add this one link has any issues against it. I am sure you are much more well versed in Wikepedia policies & procedures then I am. It seems we are at an impasse so I guess my question is what is the next step at this point? I don't want to cause anybody any stress or discomfort so I am reaching out to see how this can be resolved? Any input would be welcomed. Dequanhargrove ( talk) 23:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi;
I just updated the population figures in the table for the 2020 census, but I wasn't able to easily check that the number of judgeships remained constant. Could someone else with more court savvy than I confirm that the numbers of judgeships per circuit (and ergo the population per judge figures) in the table remain accurate?
Thanks!