Talk:John Roberts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Roberts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Gay Rumors?

I'm wondering if a section needs to be added about rumors pertaining to John Roberts' sexuality? I don't know if you've followed this guy's life, but he was never really "into women" until about 6 or 7 years ago. Interviews of his "college friends" et al are quite lispy if you get my drift.


[edit] Liberal Bloc

The wording "Kennedy, O'Connor, and the liberal bloc ... conservatives Scalia and Thomas" seems... a little flagrant. While it is certainly important to note the effects of political philosophy on a court, grouping four justices together as the "liberal bloc" is a bit unnecessary... Plus, wouldn't it be more appropriate here to simply list the names of the justices and save political discussion of the general court for a more appropriate place, such as the "Current Membership:Political leanings" subsection at the Supreme Court page? I'm not entirely sure why his first decision is particularly noteworthy anyway... I changed it. EB0und 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Democratic Party's growing partisanship...

I just took out the line that article which said how the vote to confirm Roberts was a symbol of the Democrats making this a political event, which it is not supposed to be. That is, by far, one of the most outrageous things I have ever read, and the person who wrote it should not be allowed to edit any political articles. So, the Republican party gave ALL votes to Robers, he is a republican judicial figurehead, nominated by a Republican figure, yet, the Democrats are turning this into a Partisanship debate? Are you KIDDING ME? This is how the Supreme Court hs always been handled. It is not supposed to be based on partisanship or politics, but is usually is, whether we want to admit it or not. Suggesting that one political party is doing more than the other to force partisanship on the supreme court is outrageous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.208.56 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] This is an extremely detailed article

This article is really a testament to what being in the public spotlight will do for an article. Is the article going to maintain this level of detail as Roberts' term goes on? If not, it will become extremely biased towards his pre-Court activities and views. If it does maintain this level of detail, it will become extremely long. Is this going to become JohnRobertsWatch.com?

Well, he just doesn't have a record on the court yet. An encyclopedia article always has to deal with the relevant information about the person at the time it is written. In a couple years, I think most of what is presently on this page will be gone. -- WikiAce 22:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most votes for chief justice?

"John Roberts received more Senate votes supporting his nomination than any other nominee for Chief Justice in American history."

This sounds like a pretty misleading statistic. There are far more senators now than there were in, say, 1800. -- WikiAce 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat like saying Bush received the most votes ever in a Presidential election. He did, but John Kerry received the second most ever. I'm going to go and see if I can't find some numbers for other justices and see if perhaps Roberts received the largest percentage or something. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence from the article. Looking at this page from senate.gov Supreme Court Nominations, Roberts did receive the most votes, but he is only 5th in terms of percentage majority. Burger, Waite, Stanton, Ellesworth all received greater than 80% support, whereas Roberts was 78%. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't you find it interesting that 32 senators abstained for the Burger vote? 24.250.136.236 08:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The sentence stood as follows when it was removed:
"John Roberts received more Senate votes supporting his nomination than any other nominee for Chief Justice in American history (though it should be noted that the number of Senators has grown over time as more states have entered the Union)."
Since the sentence qualifies itself and explains how the statistic could be misleading so that no one will be mislead, there is no reason that it need be removed. I'm adding it back in. —Lowellian (reply) 10:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Since it is notable that Roberts got the most Senate votes (remember the number of Senators has been the same for almost a century) I noted the actual reason that others had higher percentages but fewer votes. In this nomination, every single opponent wanted to register their opposition to prove a political point. In the past, those opposing often didn't wish to go on record against someone who would be invested in an independent branch of government. In short, politics. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
"Since the sentence qualifies itself and explains how the statistic could be misleading so that no one will be mislead, there is no reason that it need be removed" Certainly there is a reason. It's trivia, and as the immediate arguing about how it might be misleading proves, there is no reason for it to be in the article. 1) it was added to show what a fine fellow Roberts is, and 2) it was attacked and 'explained' to point out that, no he isn't such a fine fellow. It is just like the petty arguing about the Bush/Kerry 2004 election results, and adds absolutely nothing of value to this article. I'm removing it again. --Paul 15:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
But your own analogy is an argument in favor of inclusion! After all, Wikipedia discusses the Bush/Kerry 2004 election results in extreme detail (see 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities). If Wikipedia contains that much about the election results, this article can contain one paragraph about an important fact related to Roberts's confirmation. —Lowellian (reply) 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Very good point. I recommend, therefore, moving this information to the most appropriate place: the article regarding Roberts's confirmation: John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings. --Markles 12:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the consensus is for removing it all! Perhaps you would look at it and rewrite it based on this discussion. Dominick 15:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Prior discussion was about the statement's accuracy, not it's relevance. It's not a simple fact like 78-22, it is closer to editorializing as the need for a lot of extraneous explaining shows. The article is cleaner and tighter without the statement, and does not suffer from its omission. --Paul 15:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think the sentence doesn't give the full picture, try rewriting it. But you shouldn't just be removing a fact. If the statement gives both aspects of the fact, then it is NPOV, perfectly acceptable, and furthermore, adds more to the knowledge of the reader. —Lowellian (reply) 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's unnecessary clutter. Also, all of the qualifiers make it clear that It can be misleading (ergo, opinionating). It's a slightly interesting bit of trivia, but it's unimpressive because it requires all of the qualifiers. "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."      --Markles 04:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Put it this way: News articles have made mention of this fact. When news articles have mentioned this fact, Wikipedia should also mention it, and elaborate on it. —Lowellian (reply) 07:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
As for the "unnecessary clutter" argument, that might have applied had this sentence been in the article's introduction, but now the sentence is in the body, which is exactly where such details at this should be given. A complete article is better than one that tries to avoid a major fact. —Lowellian (reply) 07:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
We have had 100 (or 98) senators for how long? Since 1913. This trivia is very germane, but it's typical that the chronic deletists want it removed. 24.250.136.236 08:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's always been 2 per state, so we've had 100 (or 98) since 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union. --Elliskev 16:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
We have had 100 (or 98) senators for how long? Since 1913. Really? When do you think Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the union? Trivia is never germain in an encyclopedia article. Remember, "Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information." Just because it is in a news article does not mean it should be in an encyclopedia article. If the Wikipedia community left every "fact" in most articles here, they would quickly become so big and boring that no one who wanted to use them for gleaning real facts and information could ever wade through them. Editing an article is a matter of discrimination, not piling on. That is the difference between a newspaper article and an encyclopedia article. Any "trivia" that requires five times the words to explain as it does to state is clutter and should be removed. --Paul 20:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Other external links ?

Was this on purpose, or does it need reversion? --Elliskev 16:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

no longer relvant. BTW, I've been watching thi article for a while and I have to say it's excellent. --Elliskev 00:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] $$$

DC Circuit Court of Appeals, he reported in a financial disclosure filing in 2005 that he earned a salary of $1,044,399 Is that his salary or his net worth? Because if Circuit Court judges make a million a year, I gotta get me a piece of that. jengod 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd guess total income. He was a lawyer in private practice long enough to be making hundreds of thousands on his investments a year. Pakaran 02:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Most Federal judges could make more money in private practice, something that irked the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist[1]. You can rest assured that Roberts' salary while on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 was more like $171,800[2]. While that isn't $1,044,399 (total earnings, like Pakaran said), I wouldn't mind seeing it written on my paycheck. -Parallel or Together? 09:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beer and Whiskey Wholesalers?

Is this the same John Roberts who was issuing Amici curae on behalf of the Beer and Whiskey Wholesalers?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=203 Sonofabird 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] honorable title

Should the first line of the article read.. The Honorable John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is the seventeenth and current Chief Justice of the United States. (add The Honorable before his name).. Just as with articles on people who are "The Right Honourable", etc.

I'm not going to change it because I'm not sure if it would be proper, but I just figured I'd bring up the point since judges in the United States are refered to as "Your Honor" and "The Honorable".

Ryan Pugatch 02:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roberts' Son

The Robertses adopted two infants in 2000: Josephine ("Josie") and Jack Roberts. Jack's dancing during Bush's White House introduction of his father brought the four-year-old international media attention.

Anybody else see the rather obvious logical inconsistency with the above statement? New Progressive 16:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he was born in mid or late 2000, and hadn't reached his fifth birthday yet. It's not obviously inconsistent. --Paul 01:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federalism

I think the last phrase of the statement below is maybe a little overboard. Roberts is certainly not like a cabinet member doing as Bush says. He will also be around long after Bush leaves.

"a question which seemed to many observers to foreshadow his willingness to use his authority to assert the principle of Federalism, challenging and overturning any State laws which legalize medical procedures of which the Bush administration does not approve."

Actually, the whole segment is awful, and should be scrapped or rewritten. The issue before the Court in Gonzales v. Oregon was not the scope of federal power. It was merely a case of statutory construction, and even Thomas sided with Roberts and Scalia.
Second, the term 'federalism,' in contemporary political usage, deals with the strengthening of state autonomy. It is not the opposite of "states' rights," and Roberts was certainly not "assailing" it in his confirmation hearings.
In a case that actually has something to do with the scope of federal power, Roberts came down on the side of state autonomy: Central Virginia Community College v. Katz. -- 69.19.2.36 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roberts Percentage

By the end of the term, I think it would be important to note the percentage of the times Roberts has voted with Scalia. This of course would be a fact that should be used to label him conservative, moderate or liberal...for now. As of March, he has voted with Justice Scalia 100% of the time.

This is not something to start an edit war about. Many Justices articles include the percentages of the times one voted with the other. See the Blackmun and Souter articles for example. If he is a conservative justice it should be stated, period, it's a matter of facts.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Chief Justice Roberts for the first time voted on the opposite group of Justice Scalia, o the 25th of april 2006 in the case Day v. McDonough. 136.145.174.85 15:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He voted against Scalia's side once again in Jones v. Flowers, 27 april.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In Day v. McDonough Scalia's dissent was joined by Breyer. Also, it's noteworthy that there have been a lot of unanimous opinions, especially in controversial cases such as Rumsfeld v. FAIR. But, it's not really relevant how often he votes with Scalia, since everyone knew he was a conservative and he's already on the Court.

[edit] Links to video?

I don't think the article (which is already one of the best I've seen) contains links to any video, notably President Bush's nomination of Roberts, or his swearing in. I know the White House site contains those videos. Is there a policy with providing that sort of link, or would that be a welcome addition to the page? Thanks!--Smashingworth 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

What is the ethnicity of John Roberts? 75.3.4.54 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Roberts is a devout Catholic from Buffalo, a city of many ethnicities. His mother is Polish. What is the father--Irish?? Rjensen 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly German father. 75.3.4.54 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source? Michael 08:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

roberts is a scottish name.

[edit] Jones v. Flowers and Ideology

Recently, a user made substantial additions to the page based upon Roberts vote in the Jones v. Flowers case. I deleted those additions. The user noted that Roberts joined with the "liberal" Justices to rule in favor of a homeowner who's house had been taken by the government and sold to pay taxes. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. Based upon this, the user concludes that this is evidence that Roberts will be a "swing" vote "like Kennedy" and not "ideological like Thomas."

There are three reasons why I deleted this material. First, it is not significantly NPOV. Why is Roberts not "ideological like Thomas" but not "ideological like Ginsburg or Souter or Breyer, etc.?" It's a dangerous road to go down. Second, I think Roberts' vote in ONE case is not enough to make a conclusion. Moreoever, evidence that he MIGHT develop into a swing vote is really not encyclopedic is it? Such a conclusion should be based upon an extensive record and present conclusion about what we know has happened, not predictions on what might happen. Third, the users conclusions about Roberts being a swing vote based on this single case just don't fly. It should be remembered that the Jones v. Flowers case only had 8 justices hearing it. Had Roberts not voted with the 4 liberals and sided with the conservative dissenters, there would have been a 4-4 split that would have affirmed the judgment below without making any precedent. There is a strong likelihood that Roberts was interested in avoiding that and so joined the majority and assigned the opinion to himself in order cause the least damage. Chief Justices do this all the time. This way they can have some control over who writes the majority opinion and can prevent it from being an opinion they more strongly disagree with. Nor is this case a typically liberal or conservative one from an ideological viewpoint. It's just about notice and what steps the state should take before repossesing the house. The sort of thing all sorts of justice might disagree on.

In the end, I don't think this material belongs in an encyclopedic article, nor do I think the conclusions were based on sufficient evidence or even correct in the first place.--Smashingworth 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well said. I think anything along these lines should refer to Roberts' jurisprudence on certain issues (e.g., the Commerce Clause), rather than saying he's politically liberal or conservative. And it's far too early to write anything in that regard. Crazyale 22:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article status

When the current term ends in about a month, there will be a strong indication of what type of jurist and what type of decisions John Roberts will be producing for decades to come. And there will be a lot of outside readers coming to this article to learn more. This is a fresh and new topic that is not well covered in reference books. I think we should build this article up to featured article status. It is likely to get a lot of volume of readership for quite a while in the future, and there is no reason an article filled with controversies can't be a high quality one. So I ask, what do you all think we need to add to or improve about this article to bring it up to featured article status? NoSeptember talk 19:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age

I think that there is too much information about this and that judge; perhaps it could be condensed a bit to the same effect:

Roberts is the third-youngest man to have become Chief Justice (John Jay was appointed at age 44 in 1789 while John Marshall was appointed at age 45 in 1801). However, many Associate Justices, including Justices William Brennan and Antonin Scalia (both appointed at age 50, in 1956 and 1986 respectively), Clarence Thomas (appointed at age 43 in 1991) and William Douglas (appointed at age 41 in 1939), have joined the Court at a younger age than Roberts. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was 47 when he was appointed as an Associate Justice in 1972; on the present court, two other Justices were only slightly older when appointed, Justices David Souter (51 in 1990) and Anthony Kennedy (52 in 1988).

[edit] All this "Class" Nonsense?

What's with all the stuff in his early life: "affluent..town" and "upper middle-class"? Is this (a) necessary and (b) appropriate? Seems like Marxist clap-trap, to me. IMO, wikipedia is left leaning, overall. But if whomever is so gung-ho about including this on Roberts, why not do this to every member of the SCOTUS? Please go to their articles and identify their families' class and the SES of the towns they grew up in.

And should this be a new standard for every person in the wikipedia?

[edit] Should categories be alphabetized instead of sorted by "type" in the source code?

The category section in this article currently subdivides the categories by "type" in the source code. While that looks ok when editing the article, those subdivisions are invisible to actual readers. So to a reader looking at this article, the categories appear to be fairly jumbled.

I suggest that the categories instead be alphabetized. From what I've seen, alphabetization of categories is more common and is also I think easier for readers (as opposed to editors) to decipher.

One minor exception, though, is that I'd recommend placing Category:Living people immediately after the year-of-birth category. The reason is the "Living people" is acting as a replacement for a "year-of-death" category, so it seems reasonable to place the two next to each other in the list.

Obviously someone might disagree, so I didn't resort the categories myself. Just a suggestion, you guys can decide which way is better for the reader. Dugwiki 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first case to have been argued

"On January 17, 2006, the Roberts Court decided the first case to have been argued before it: Gonzales v. Oregon."

Does anyone else think the syntactic ambiguity of this sentence makes it sound like Gonzales v. Oregon was the first case to be argued before the Roberts Court?

That particular case was argued before the court on December 6, 2005. The first day of the 2005-2006 term, and Roberts' first day hearing oral arguments as a member of the Court, was October 3, 2005. Oral arguments were heard that day in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. [3] Seansz 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the sentence was quite ambiguous. I changed it, but it's now a bit confusing, although it no longer gives the impression that Gonzales was the first case argued before the Roberts Court. It'd be great if someone could devise a somewhat clearer, more elegant way to express the idea. SS451 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further examination, I decided to remove the following paragraph:

On January 17, 2006, the Roberts Court rendered its first decision in a case argued with Roberts presiding: Gonzales v. Oregon. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Oregon law permitting physician-assisted suicide did not conflict with the Controlled Substances Act. Departing with the informal tradition that a new "Chief's" first case be decided unanimously, the case was decided 6-3, the majority consisting of Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, and Stevens; Roberts dissented, joining Scalia and Thomas.

The first case argued before the Roberts court was indeed IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, as asserted earlier in this discussion. The case was decided on November 8, 2005 with Justice Stevens writing for a unanimous court. The Gonzales v. Oregon case was not decided until January 17, 2006, over two months after the Roberts court had issued an opinion in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez. It does stand, then, that the first case to be heard by the Roberts court was decided unanimously [4]. Seansz 02:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal finances?

This wouldn't be in a normal article of the chief justice of the supreme court. plus, if its trying to make him look bad, I think its not making him look all that bad, and I'm more liberal than him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.225.242.164 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Balance of article

Now that Roberts has been on the Supreme Court for close to two years, perhaps his Supreme Court jurisprudence deserves more attention than his two years on the DC Circuit? -- THF 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Roberts_cc28.html"