Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Supreme Court of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Supreme Court of the United States

Previously nominated by another user (see here). This is a self-nomination. -- Emsworth 15:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. PedanticallySpeaking 15:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• [[[[[[[[Slight object]]]]]]]]--very good, but what's missing is any discussion of the court's current status, except for that little blurb at the end about how Thomas and Scalia make up the conservative wing et cetera. Shouldn't there be a discussion of the current balance of the court (see also next point)? Also, there's no discussion of ways people group the justices (originalist vs. living Constitution, conservative vs. liberal, etc.) or what these groupings mean. Well-sourced discussions of these topics would greatly enhance the article. Also, maybe a discussion of the most prominent issues the court has dealt with recently; a few well-placed mentions of federalism and culture war wouldn't go amiss. Meelar (talk) 16:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • As to the groupings of Justices: I think that this is a broader issue of constitutional interpretation. It can apply not just to Justices, but also to scholars, lower court judges, politicians, or anyone else, for that matter. So, I felt that a discussion of that was not really relevant, or warranted; it is, however, found in a "See Also" link. I'll see what I can do about the rest. -- Emsworth 17:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that I've addressed all except the grouping of Justices as originalists, "loose constructionists," etc. -- Emsworth 13:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough--I can see your point about it being a broader issue of interpretation. Support. Meelar (talk) 15:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Aww, another one of my "to-dos"/"to make FA-worthy" has been taken... :-) Anyways, support, as Emsworth has done a lot of great work. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• A few minor objections and comments. Support. Excellent article overall, as usual. A few things before I feel like I can support:
  • The article could be improved by adding something on test cases, sua sponte, and the nature of precedent.
  • You might mention court packing in the composition section, with the discussion about changes in size over time, to emphasize that there have been failed attempts to change it.
  • I wish there were in-line references, but I won't make an objection about it.
  • You might want to clarify how you came up with the number 12, i.e., does it include filibusters and Douglas Ginsburg.
  • The phrase "serves during 'good behavior,' or in other words, for life" can be improved. You might want to mention the whole clause of the constitution and/or how it has been interpreted to mean life.
  • Should "reporter of decisions" be capitalized?
  • Chisholm v. Georgia's description currently reads "it held that the federal judiciary could hear cases." Does that mean the courts couldn't hear cases before that? Is it an error?
  • You might want to mention incorporation immediately after Barron v. Baltimore, (just a few words) to prevent confusion
  • The history section is long and might be improved by splitting it somewhere, but that might not be possible.
  • Checks and Balances should probably mention Ex Parte Merryman, in which Lincoln essentially nullified a court decision by refusing to enforce it.
  • Can I ask why the history section is in the middle? It seems like the article would flow better if it were at the end.
• I sincerely look forward to supporting this when these issues are dealt with. Dave (talk) 17:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I've addressed most of these, but:
  • Could you clarify what you information you would suggest about sua sponte?
  • I'm not sure about whether it would be appropriate to mention Merryman, which was a decision of a lower court, not the Supreme Court.
  • How about putting the history section at the beginning? -
• -- Emsworth 19:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected on Merryman. As for sua sponte, I was thinking that it could be useful to mention that the Supreme Court, like most (all?) other courts are supposed to decide existing cases, rather than bring them up. If they want to rule on, say, segregation, they have to find a test case. I'm not sure what to do with the history section. I feel like anything after it may not get read because it's so long. Thanks for dealing with the other issues. Dave (talk) 19:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, in the article, you shouldn't put in a link to test case like I did above, because it links to an article about software, not law. Dave (talk) 19:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support
• I made an edit to the Procedure section to reflect the Supreme Court rules regarding petitions for certiorari, mandamus, certified questions, and motions to appear as amici curiae. All changes are in line with Supreme Court Rules 18-20. See Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2005 ed.) (pdf). TPB, Esq. (talk) 19:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support _{Unsigned post by Jdhowens90.}
• Support spellchecks fine also, position of history: TOC is good, not too bad scroll over, putting this section at the end doesn't seem right somehow, and it's not really big enough for a Main article yet either. Is anyone tempted to add the Current events tags to this and Chief Justice of the United States? Alf ^melmac 01:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)