This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bedford (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 20 July 2005 (→PROTECTED). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:43, 20 July 2005 by Bedford (talk | contribs) (→PROTECTED)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Talk:John G. Roberts Jr./Archive 1
Considering that this page is about to become very busy, I think we need to create a Talk page for it.
Resources
A few resources:
- A Pictureat the
Drudge ReportWashington Post . - AP story confirming his nomination.
- There's a good reference on Roberts here, for whoever's editing the article right now. Adam Faanes 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
(From which someone has currently lifted the entire paragraph beginning "In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA" to this page Cromis 00:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
more resources:
google news digs up articles here and here.
older profile here.
POV
Let's get ready to rumble!!! Now, fellows, let's try to keep in mind Point of View in this article. Neutralityyy please! I'm sure this will turn out to be a controversial decision, but let's try to be professionals with this article. Happy writing!<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Things to mention: ABCNews is reporting that he was nominated twice before his 2003 appointment and was struck down both times, which should be mentioned, and is also reporting that he confirmed before he got his federal judgeship that he would have no problems following the strong precedent of Roe v Wade despite his personal views. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=955020)
- We need to be very careful when using court cases which he argued as an attourney for positions he holds, those are the positions of his clients. It is likely that he holds the same opinion, though, for the cases cited. His decisions as a justice, however, are prime examples of his legal views. --Jacob 05:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- There seems to be some conflict as to whether Feminists for Life should be "pro-life" or "anti-abortion". Might I suggest something more neutral, like "a group which does not support abortions" or something similar?
- That's a question for the ages, Falcorian - if anyone ever does figure out a truly emotionally neutral way of separating those two viewpoints, I shall eat my hat. Kwh 08:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
PROTECTED
Protected the article page temporarily to clean up massive anon edits that had reduced the article to one paragraph. Please be patient, and USE SECTION EDITING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID EDIT CONFLICTS! If an edit conflict happens, please do not just hit "save" on your version to quash existing text. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- This reason is in violation of Misplaced Pages:Protection policy, and subverts the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Edit lock. - O^O 00:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Although the reason seems to follow the following guideline "Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.". Falcorian 00:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- O^O, "assume good faith." If you look at the 7 July 2005 London bombings page and other fast moving news pages, they were all protected dozens of times to fix up problems of lost edits and quickkly unprotected again. Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
UNPROTECTED - Fuzheado | Talk 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Past Campaign Contributions
also... interesting history here, he seems to be a former bush campaign contributer. he represented the legal firm he worked for (Hogan & Hartson), whose Hogan & Hartson Political Action Commitee (H&H PAC), is listed as one of the larger PACs in Washington, and it's history can be found here, qualifying on this list, according to the , having donated $163,000 in a less than one year stretch between 2003 and mid-2004. source (pdf)
We need a public domain picture of Roberts ASAP
Can someone find one?
It is good to see an article that I created has finally hit the big time. :) NoSeptember 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Good luck. PD pictures of judges are rather hard to find on the internet. --tomf688 00:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, none of the sites I checked had any, nor did any of the major search engins turn up any. Falcorian 00:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Forget PD, find a picture where he is one of a dozen people in the pick and clip him out of it - that would be a fair use. :-D -- BDAbramson 00:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, none of the sites I checked had any, nor did any of the major search engins turn up any. Falcorian 00:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, that image is PD since it's provided by the DC Court of Appeals. ^_^ Cookiecaper 00:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Kudos to whomever shrunk that first image of Roberts -- the article looks better now without it taking up so much of the screen Rast 01:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Past Court Cases
- "In his role on the Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote the unanimous decision for a three-judge panel rejecting the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating one French fry in the D.C. Metro" source.
- The section "Political and judicial views" discusses mostly cases he tried as an attorney. Unless there's something I'm unaware of, this seems relatively un-indicative of his own views since as a lawyer one tries the cases, and the sides on the cases, that one is hired to do. Cases he tried as an attorney are not inappropriate to the article, but belong in a different section. What would seem more relevant to this section would be some of the cases he presided over as a judge, and some information on his "Constitutional philosophy" so to speak.
- True, BUT... attorneys do not need to accept every case offered to them. In fact, as morality (surprisingly) becomes more and more of an issue with attorneys, they turn down more and more cases; They simply refuse to argue in ways conflicting with their personal beliefs or for someone they believe to be guilty. To me, the fact that Roberts has even argued for such cases shows me one of two things: his moral guideline (or lack thereof) or his weak backbone (to support any idea people are willing to pay him to support). I believe this is what the author indended to show in this section.
Archiving already?
Did we really need to archive discussion so soon? It's not as if the discussion page was overflowing...
- I put it back. --pile0nades 01:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Abortion v. Reproductive Rights v. Abortion and birth control
I can see something of an edit war brewing over this section and what it should be titled. It should be noted that John G. Roberts Jr. which means that if he follows the Churches teachings he will not only regard abortion as "sinful" but also any form of birth control. So personally I think we should go with "Reproductive rights". Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- You "personally"??? Then stop trying to impose your "personally" on others. "Reproductive rights" is a loaded special-interest term. Using it here, along with a carefully marshalled citation, reflects a bias which makes a mockery of Wikepedia's NPOV. Not only is the term disingenuous and agenda promoting, it's innaccurate. The issue is abortion, the decisions are about abortion, the cases are about abortion, the laws are about abortion, not so-called "reproductive rights," which, aside from their weasely euphemization, generically cover a wide range of issues. Calling the issue of abortion "reproductive rights" is like calling civilian casualties "collateral damage".
- I've placed an NPOV tag on the article, and we'll let arbitration sort it out. Meanwhile, "Abortion and birth control" are perfectly neutral terms. LEAVE THEM ALONE! — J M Rice 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- What does birth control have to do with the price of tea in China, so to speak? I do not think that he will be questioned on birth control; only on abortion. Note that birth control explicitly differentiates abortion from birth control, and, AFAIK, birth control, in the sense which Misplaced Pages defines it, is not a seriously contended legal issue in the United States. Perhaps this is an allusion to RU486, but I do not believe that RU486 is considered to be birth control in that it actually terminates an existing pregnancy (but I could be wrong - could we get a professional opinion or two on this?). Anyway, abortion is clearly the neutral term here; POV'd terms include Right to Life and Right to Choose. So, the section should be titled either Abortion or Right to Life v. Right to Choose, and IMHO, Abortion is less awkward and is probably adequate. --Mm35173 02:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
How about just saying "Roe vs. Wade"; that's as neutral a term as we'll probably find. Bedford
- Sounds OK to me. — J M Rice 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Abortion and reproductive rights are two different things. Abortion is a subset of reproductive issues. Reproductive rights (or, "reproductive freedom" are neutral terms, no more POV than terms such as "voting rights," "free speech rights," or "property rights." If the discussion is limited to abortion, the label "abortion" is appropriate, but if we include discussion of his views on, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, "reproductive rights" is a more accurate term. -asx- 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Subheadings
Neutrality, how are the subheadings messing up your browser? And is it only in this article? What browser do you use? --pile0nades 02:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Playboy Channel
David Boies on MSNBC just said that he represented the Playboy Channel in a case. Can someone mention this in the article with the details? -Amit
BA in only three years
I added that he got his BA in only three years per MSNBCwhicky1978 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Roman Catholic
There is nothing in the article that indicates Roberts is Roman Catholic, yet it is one of the categories.whicky1978 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- But Roberts is a Roman Catholic... I heard it on CNN, must be a source somewhere. Interesting that this nom therefore preserves the non-Protestant majority on the Court. Cheers! -- BDAbramson 03:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Punctuation
Shouldn't this be moved to John G. Roberts, Jr.? Postdlf 02:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- It absolutely should! But the latter page already redirects here, so the redirect must be deleted first. -- BDAbramson 03:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yearbook photo
Does anyone agree that the yearbook photo doesn't belong? If we had baby pictures, would we upload them too? It doesn't seem to add anything to this article to see what he looked like 30 years ago. —Charles O'Rourke 03:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. The yearbook photo adds little to the article. Chip Unicorn 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Disagree. It's customary to include this kind of photo in a biographical sketch. I will bet you a dollar that photos of his childhood/young adulthood will be included with his write-ups in Newsweek and Time magazines next week. Besides which, photos simply make articles more interesting, automatically. -asx- 04:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Quotes from other people
Well, my quote from Sen. Kennedy got taken out while I was looking for a counterbalancing quote from the same source (his confirmation hearings in 2003). What's the policy on quotes -- are they allowed? Chip Unicorn 04:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Who Were His Interns?
One interesting way to get insight into Judge Roberts' judicial temperment might be looking at which schools he has drawn interns from. Anyone know how to find that out? -asx- 04:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Obvious Vandalism
"Beastiality" this looks like vandalism. This should probably be removed unless there is a source backing it up.
Why does the entry refer to the judge being "really stupid" and President Bush being a "Douchebag?" (page does not allow editing right now)
Lack of Neutrality re: Environment
Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.
Saying that this particular decision is AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION is like saying abortion rights groups are against babies. It's easily as much about the specifics of that case and about sueing the government.
This is not a list of his views, this is a list of reasons liberals won't like him, and should either be titled as such or reworked to be neutral.
--66.74.199.238 05:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- False dichotomy. You claim it is not a list of views, but reasons libersls don't like him. They are one and the same; given that he is a conservative, it only stands to reason that liberals would not agree with his views. Put another way: if you list the views of any conservative, it will be a list of reasons liberals disagree; likewise, if you list the views of any liberal, it will be a list of reasons conservatives disagree. Furthermore, you equate "babies" with "environmental regulation." The problem with that is that everyone universally agrees that babies are a good thing; not everyone agrees "environmental regulation" is a good thing. In fact, conservatives tend to oppose environmental regulation, while liberals tend to support it. The statement as it stands is an accurate representation of the views of this particular conservative, based on his body of work. -asx- 05:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is a very proper description of his beliefs. He has stated that, as part of his conservative government ideology, he does not think of the gov't as the enforcers of environmental laws. Therefore, he is Against Evironmental Regulation. --jonasaurus 08:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Wrong, this is a very proper description of his client's beliefs. If we're going to talk about his personal beliefs, we must use his rulings and his words, not his defenses as he states them for a specific client he's working for. The article handles it well, currently, but to say that it has to do with "his conservative government ideology," and is thus "against Environmental Regulation," cannot be divined via arguments made for his clients. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is a very proper description of his beliefs. He has stated that, as part of his conservative government ideology, he does not think of the gov't as the enforcers of environmental laws. Therefore, he is Against Evironmental Regulation. --jonasaurus 08:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Too Many Links
This article is drowning in blue hypertext. Many terms and dates are linked over and over again. Like "July 19," linked nearly a dozen times in one screenful of text. This drives users away and makes the actual content hard to read. Don't get me wrong: I think liberal use of links is a good thing. But not the same term over and over. This article currently has Supreme Court, George Bush, and other terms linked multiple times. -asx- 05:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Links should be linked so that the software knows they are dates and can change them to match the user preference. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, the article seems link heavy. Removing duplicates would porbably help. EDIT: I think I got most of the double links... Still alot of links. -Falcorian 05:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- What I meant to write above was that "Dates should be linked so that the software knows they are dates and can change them to match the user preference.". As such I have relinked the one date that was unlinked. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- That rationale applies only to the month and date, correct? I don't think there's any reason to keep linking "2005" over and over. Not wanting to tackle that chore, though, I've removed some of the other duplicate links, and tried to make the treatment of the Bushes consistent with policy (uses of full names and honorifics). JamesMLane 11:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- What I meant to write above was that "Dates should be linked so that the software knows they are dates and can change them to match the user preference.". As such I have relinked the one date that was unlinked. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, the article seems link heavy. Removing duplicates would porbably help. EDIT: I think I got most of the double links... Still alot of links. -Falcorian 05:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is a hot topic these days. Has anyone got anything on what this guy's position on that is? Since the whole FMA thing was about a feared conflict between the executive and judicial branches' positions on the issue in light of the recent events in Canada's courts, some mention of the stance taken by this nominee should be made here, even if it's just something he said in an interview and not in court. Dave
Speculation about the direction of the court
By its nature, a nomination of a SCOTUS justice is significantly about the impact that his confirmation to the court will have. Would a section such as the following be useful in this article?:
- ==Potential immediate impact of Roberts replacing O'Connor==
- One immediate impact of the Roberts replacement of O'Connor may be in close cases where O'Connor joined the liberal justices in the majority, where Roberts may have joined the conservative justices instead. Listed below are cases decided by a 5 to 4 vote, where O'Connor joined the liberal justices of the court in the majority:
- McCreary v. ACLU (2005)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Education (2005)
- Tennessee v. Lane (2004)
- Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004)
- McConnell v. FEC (2003)
- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
- Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
- Davis v. Monroe (1999)
Of course, specific details about these decisions would be added as well. If not a section of this article, we could create a daughter article on the speculation on the impact on the direction of the court. NoSeptember 13:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- IMHO, it's a bad idea. Unless and until he's on the court, we don't actually know how he's going to vote on any issue. (Remember Justice Souter.) We should focus on what he's actually said and done. Chip Unicorn 14:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Can these photos be used
Can the photos at this government link be used? Are they public domain? whicky1978 14:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC) white house link