Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 19 April 2012

United States courts and judges NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject United States courts and judges and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court

There's a question about whether the associate justices of the USSC can be said to occupy numbered seats, with one justice succeedig another, or if they are all simply undifferentiated seats. See Talk:John Paul Stevens#Why Preceded and succeeded by ? and Talk:List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat (same questioner). Any informed opinions would be helpful.   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Since vacancies arise one at a time (rather than turnover of many Justices at once), it is generally possible to trace the history of a particular seat on the Court back through time. Whether a Justice holds "seat #2" or "seat #7" or whatever has no practical meaning in the work of the Court (what does matter is seniority of appointment), and the Justices never use designations like that, but it does sometimes happen that a Justice will refer to his or her predecessors in a particular seat on the Court (for example, Justice Blackmun publicly mentioned more than once that he occupied the seat that Justice Story once held .

Identification of specific seats on the Court was formerly more important than it is now; in prior eras, there was "the New England seat" and "the Virginia seat" (geographical balance was crucial in the 19th century when the Justices actually rode circuit), and for a long time "the Catholic seat" and later "the Jewish seat." These designations would no longer fit today, but they are highly relevant in historical contexts Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Norman H. Wolfe

The article on United States Tax Court special trial judge Norman H. Wolfe has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that Tax Court judges are not inherently notable. Please contribute to the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1986 California Supreme Court retention election

I've just completed a copy-edit on Cruz Reynoso that turned into a major rewrite. In the course of researching this fascinating man, I turned up a wealth of sources. Many of them could be used to improve the articles for Rose Bird and Joseph Grodin, the two other justices who were ousted in the 1986 California Supreme Court retention election. For that matter, I'm surprised that last is a red link, given its lasting impact! I'm sort of burned out after the work on Reynoso, so I'm hoping someone else would like to pick up the ball and run with it. I'm cross-posting this invitation to WikiProject California as well. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This actually raises a question about the scope of this project that we have never squarely addressed: are we taking responsibility for overseeing all courts and judges in the United States, including those at the state level? I suppose that there is not going to be any other project that addresses such articles. bd2412 T 19:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Created new portal = Supreme Court of the United States

• Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

I've created a new portal for this topic. Collaboration and help would be appreciated, just drop a note at Portal talk:Supreme Court of the United States. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! bd2412 T 03:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at peer review

A new portal Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Misplaced Pages:Portal peer review/Supreme Court of the United States/archive1. I put a bit of effort into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at Featured Portal candidates

• Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is a candidate for Featured Portal, with discussion at Misplaced Pages:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Supreme Court of the United States. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of federal judicial nominees

Recent district court nominee Gregg Costa has been nominated for deletion with the following comment: Has not been confirmed. With current politically climate, he might never be confirmed or could take a long time. With sports players, they have to play a game in major professional game first, same hold here. Re-add page when he is confirmed. Does the project have an official stance as to the notability of nominees? I seem to recall a discussion where it was decided that a nominee would either be confirmed (in which case they were notable), or otherwise they'd likely warrant a separate article as one of the few failed judicial nominations. I think that's what kicked off the practice of creating articles for any and all Obama nominees to date, and no one had really objected till now. Billyboy01 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• As it happens, I have been working for a very long time on a proposed set of criteria at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. Under that criteria, a district court nominee would not be inherently notable, but might become notable by the circumstances of their confirmation or rejection. Obviously, a person who happens to be nominated for such a position might well already be notable for other reasons, since the President doesn't pick nominees out of the phone book. In any case, I think it is time for us to finalize and implement our own notability criteria. This project has taken the lead and borne the brunt of labor in making articles on federal judges and federal courts, and we are the ones who have developed the expertise to know what makes a topic under our heading notable. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent resource. Everything you've laid out seems reasonable to me. The only class of nominees I don't see explicitly covered at the moment are nominees who are not acted upon before a president leaves office (i.e., all the "returned to the President under the provisions of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6" nominees; the John J. Tharps and John S. W. Lim of the world). I think the guidelines for such nominees would be identical to "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable", and in fact might be covered by the same bullet items given minor rewrites. Billyboy01 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to make any changes you feel are appropriate - this draft should be made as thorough as possible before being proposed for ratification by the community. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off-topic, but in your draft section on magistrates and bankruptcy judges, you have a bullet point about "nominees or potential nominees". Magistrates and bankruptcy judges are not nominated. Magistrates are appointed by the district court, and bankruptcy judges are appointed by the circuit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is true, I'll fix it now. bd2412 T 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I wanted to chime in rather late with my opinion. I feel it is wise to continue the practice of creating articles on all judicial nominees. At the end of the President's term, it would seem easy enough to purge those that have 1. not been confirmed AND 2. are not otherwise notable. Safiel (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree, as current nominees may be of more interest than those who were nominated but for which nothing came of it. However, I understand that it is our policy that fleeting notability is not notability. bd2412 T 14:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ewing Werlein, Jr.

The biography for district court judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. was recently deleted. Billyboy01 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• I restored it, and it has now been proposed for deletion again at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ewing Werlein, Jr.. Please weigh in. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, and anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites of courthouses to the NRHP county lists." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability of elected judges

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Judge Adams's article has been nominated for deletion, mainly based on WP:BLP1E. The creation of the article is clearly an attack piece on the judge, but it has nonetheless spawned an interesting discussion on whether Adams is automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN. I think that issue should interest the project, and it would be helpful if people contributed to the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if anyone from this project is contributing to the Adams discussion about his notability as a judge. I seem to be the only one arguing in any depth, but the argument centers on WP:POLITICIAN, how it should be interpreted and how it should be applied to elected judges. It's a very frustrating discussion. In looking at this project's notability guidlines, I'm curious where you would put Adams. Would he fall in the section "Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction"? I don't see anywhere else for him to be put, but it's not clear to me what is meant by the phrase "general jurisdiction". I'm also not sure what is meant by "specialty court judges". Like a judge who hears only family law matters? If that's true, although that kind of thing varies from state to state, in California, judges are moved around. One superior court judge in one county may for a time hear only family law matters, but may then be moved to hear only criminal matters, but then may be moved again to hear all kinds of civil matters. Might be better if these terms were defined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Charles Bernard Day

Former district court nominee Charles Bernard Day, who recently withdrew after being blocked from receiving a hearing, has been nominated for deletion. This is a borderline case per the notability guidelines, so it would benefit from a multitude of opinions. Billyboy01 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed in that discussion that we should perhaps adjust our guidelines to give additional weight to someone who, like Day, was actually twice nominated and still not confirmed. When that happens, it shows that the appointing President is particularly interested in having this person confirmed, and the Senate is particularly reticent to comply. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Judicial nominations of November 10, 2011

I have completed stubs for all five Article III Judicial Nominations of November 10, 2011. I was unable to find birth date and/or birth location info on a few. Feel free to fill in the blanks if you can. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I anticipate that if these nominees are confirmed, the FJC will provide that information. Of course, that may be a long wait. bd2412 T 17:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

List of judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

I added the six most recently appointed judges to the article List of judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The main article was getting updated ok, but this separate list got ignored. I left the update tag on the article as it still may not be completely up to date in regards to judges who have retired or taken senior status. Safiel (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! bd2412 T 03:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I broke up the table into three separate tables, one for active judges, one for senior judges and one for past judges. That should make it slightly easier to navigate. Safiel (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Progress on cleaning up judges.

Cleanup of judge articles is being done along several fronts:

• By appointing president: All judges appointed by George Washington through Millard Fillmore are done; working on List of federal judges appointed by James Buchanan.
• By district: Working on judges of the Middle District of Alabama.
• Supreme Court Justices: Working through the list of Justices chronologically; done through Nathan Clifford.

Richard F. Cebull and notable decisions

Richard F. Cebull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This really isn't about the e-mail incident. One editor has added two "notable" decisions by Cebull to his bio. I removed the second (I'm not crazy about the first, either), and now there's a discussion about it. People here have more experience as to what constitutes a notable decision by a federal district court judge at Misplaced Pages generally, so it would be helpful if you would comment on his Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Seal of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

Can we please get a picture of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, like we have for commons:Category:Seals of the United States district courts ?? I wasn't able to find one, can someone help me with this?? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

They appear to have one on the court website. I would guess that to be the District's official seal, and that being a U.S. government website, it's in the public domain to be copied and uploaded here. bd2412 T 04:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but that one looks pretty generic, nothing about Wisconsin on it, compare with top left here, you see? — Cirt (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I note that that the bankruptcy court for the W.D.Wis. has its own seal. There is also a Facebook page with some seal images, but I see nothing there to provide confidence that this is in any sense an official seal. bd2412 T 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it's their official Facebook page, then those should be fine. — Cirt (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The name on the page is "Western District of Wisconsin U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services", which would certainly seem to be an office within the court itself. It is odd that I haven't been able to find those images anywhere else, but if they come from an official U.S. government source - even one that is posting them on Facebook - then they are in the public domain and free to upload and use here. bd2412 T 13:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you! :) — Cirt (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and Andrew S. Effron

I updated United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and Andrew S. Effron for the fact that Judge Effron's term expired on September 30, 2011 and the fact that a vacancy now exists on the court. Both articles probably could stand some TLC at some point, however. Safiel (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Biographical Directory of Federal Judges

A note that the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges website has been down since about April 1 and continues to be offline as of April 4. Safiel (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It continues to be offline after close of business on April 6. Safiel (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If something is broken, I wouldn't anticipate any further change in status until after the holiday. bd2412 T 23:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like as of the afternoon of April 10 they have gotten their problem resolved and the site is online. Safiel (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

See Also

In the SA sections of Associate Justices of the USSC I've been finding links to

It provides context. It's been in the many articles (where I've put them) for years. Nobody else is "confused." Its not confusing to readers.

This is a new issue, and I strongly disagree. While I don't see the relevance of his metaphor, plainly See also should be a "tick" for the reader, and get them to other pages that might have useful information. But I agree that it would be good for us all to come to a consensus.

Mr. William deleted see also in

• Frank Murphy ‎ (Go to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges Talk page) (top)
• 12:39, 19 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-60)‎ . . Pierce Butler (justice) ‎ (Go to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges Talk page) (top)
• 12:38, 19 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-60)‎ . . Edward Terry Sanford ‎ (Go here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_courts_and_judges#See_Also) (top)
• 12:34, 19 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-60)‎ . . Stanley Forman Reed ‎ (He was never CJ) (top)
• 11:10, 19 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Potter Stewart ‎ (He was never CJ) (top)
• 11:09, 19 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-60)‎ . . Charles Evans Whittaker ‎ (He was never CJ) (top)
• 10:57, 19 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-61)‎ . . Frank Murphy ‎ (He was never CJ)
• 10:55, 19 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-60)‎ . . Pierce Butler (justice) ‎ (He was never CJ)
• 10:53, 19 April 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-60)‎ . . Edward Terry Sanford

The rationale that was offered for the edits that changed the status quo (See e.g., Edward Terry Sanford) was that "he's not Chief Justice." On that point I agree. But he worked with a CJ, and even the CJs exist in the context of the court's history. Isolating articles and individual justices makes little sense.

A whole lot of these articles on Associate Justices (particularly) are underconnected, underwritten and underdeveloped. They are not quite WP:orphans, but they are close. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I already addressed the 'work to' part. That's above. The SA link to this particular thing doesn't enhance this article. It's just a list of people he mostly didn't work with.

The lack of content in AJ articles(which I agree with) isn't addressed by this See Also. The article itself needs more content. How about the decisions that were ruled on when this particular AJ was on the court and putting that into the articles instead.

Here's a proposal between you and me. We invite editor Nuclear Warfare(NW is away right now but I'm willing to wait a reasonable period of time for him to resurface. Otherwise we find somebody else.) or some other editor who works on Judges articles over to decide or mediate this issue. In the meantime I won't change anything more and you don't do reversions either. The status quo till this matter is settled. Agreed?...William 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• NA-Class United States courts and judges pages
• NA-importance United States courts and judges pages