Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

Section: Law Clerks

Currently, in this section, it reads, "Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh served under Kennedy during the same term. Gorsuch is the first justice to serve alongside a justice for whom he or she clerked." This seems to be grammatically incorrect. If both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedyd during the same term, Gorusch is the first justice to serve alongside a justice with whom or she clerked, not "for whom." Does anyone else agree with this? Using "for whom," implies, at least to me, that Gorsuch clerked for Kavanaugh, opposed to alongside under Kennedy. ~~Fromnyc2socal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.155.189.33 (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting that clause. Gorsuch is the first justice to serve with a justice for whom he clerked because Gorsuch served for one term with Kennedy (not because he is serving with Kavanaugh). But I'll clarify a bit. Magidin (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Size of the court

Do we need to add a sentence or two to this section regarding modern calls to expand/pack the Supreme Court? These calls have been renewed lately.[1] StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we do not need to, as, for now and in the near term, is mere chatter. If and when the chatter becomes a concrete push for change or when (presumably) Democratic politicians begin publicly calling for such a change during the upcoming SCOTUS nomination fight, then it would be apropos for us to add a paragraph. Drdpw (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, sure. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Photos

I find the use of photos in this article wanting. They all wallow in architecture and history, completely ignoring the actual court today and it's central role in society. The first photo/drawing, of the Royal Exchange, is particularly dreadful. A quick stroll through commons turned up the following photo, which shows a typical scene of a press conference in front of the building. It includes people, hinting at the idea that this is not an article on architecture.

Unfortunately, the article starts with a history section, and I'm not entirely sure where this might be placed. If anyone has an idea, and/or slightly bolder than me, maybe give it a try. Otherwise, I'll do so at some point unless people object. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree because what you are talking about is something that is merely relevant to the topic but is not the primary topic of the article. That kind of tangential use of photographs is more appropriate in textbooks, and Wikipedia is not a textbook (Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK). From my perspective, the photos currently in the article are entirely appropriate and appear to have been selected and placed with great care. The most important things to illustrate first are the court itself in terms of its actual physical home and the people who make up the court, and the article does that very well. I do agree, however, that there should be at least one photo in the article of a large press conference in the plaza to illustrate the impact of the court on society. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I actually came to this talk page because I had the exact opposite reaction. I was surprised to find the first and only photo of the building a third of the way through the article. Of the 22 photos in the article, five are not of people. The Royal Exchange drawing seems appropriate to me. Most of the subjects covered in the article would be difficult to illustrate with a photo. I think it would be good to have a photo to illustrate the Law Clerks section. There have been some great photos in the news recently of the Clerks on the court steps after Ginsburg's death but I can't find with an appropriate license. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Judicial interference in political disputes

I always get suspicious when I see excessive citations. It's usually a sign of WP:OR. This statement: "The Bush v. Gore decision, in which the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election and effectively chose George W. Bush over Al Gore, has been criticized extensively, particularly by liberals." is supported by six citations, four of them with quotes. One of them is a letter to a newspaper editor, and I will remove that one. None of the quotes support the statement. They are all criticisms of the decision. Two of them say that the decision has been criticized, by "beat reporters and academics" and by "many critics." None of them say that the decision has been criticized extensively, or that the criticism has been made particularly by liberals. Someone has drawn that conclusion by drawing on these sources. We shouldn't be drawing this conclusion, we should simply by summarizing what the reliable sources say. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

Can we make a table or graph that shows the Supreme Court justices over time? It could be something like 9 (or less, in the distant past) bars running down the page with names added at the various points that new justices were nominated. The only thing is that the bar's positions will be kind of arbitrary, but it would still be good to see. Nate Hooper (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You are talking about a "graph" with about 120 entries. It would probably be too large to be informative in any sense. Magidin (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A table depicting the progression of the justices already exists. See the graphical timeline at List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States#Timeline of justices. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Thanks! Nate Hooper (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lede

It is also an arm of the republican political party. it's main duty is to protect the interests of corporations. The supreme court is also a religious institution interpreting law according to religious views. Majority of the court has been appointed by presidents who have lost the popular vote. A third of the court has been chosen by an impeached president. 2 justices are seen as illegitimate as they got the nomination through dubious means at the direction of Mitch mcconnell. Ultimately the supreme has lost credibility to a majority of the population and is seen as a hindrance to progress.

I do not believe this addition is worthy of being in the lede as added by Sven7975 in [Supreme Court of the United States this edit].--intelati^talk 16:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted this vandalism. StAnselm (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ordering of Justices in /*Jurisdiction*/

Currently, the final paragraph of /*Jurisdiction*/ mentions the Justices that serve as circuit justice for the circuit they had been members of in order of circuit number. Should we standardize this to be in order of seniority, as seems to be the default? Should there be / is there an official standard of ordering all lists of the justices by seniority?