Talk:Stephen Reinhardt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Image

I am unsure if it is allowed to put up this picture. My friend got it from the Judge Profiles in the Ninth Circuit through their intra website. What do you all think should be done? Delete, keep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator1981 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing: if the photograph was produced by an employee of the federal government in the scope of their employment, it's public domain. However, if the Ninth Circuit hired a contractor to take the picture, the contractor may still own copyright on it. Until we know which situation applies, we have to assume that it's under copyright and can't be used.
— DLJessup (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law clerks

Marc S. Mayerson was added by an IP that has been known to vandalize. Is there a citation for this? - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Marc S. Mayerson was an actual law clerk. You can look at his firm profile online. Creator1981

[edit] Education and Practice

I deleted "He is also one of the most overturned judges in the history of the U.S. courts; the Supreme Court's reversals of his decisions are often unanimous." There is no citation, and there can be no citation because this is not factual, it's pushing ideology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.210.218.152 (talk • contribs) 17 October 2006.

I restored the information regarding Judge Reinhardt's status as a heavily-overturned judge, with appropriate citations. Contrary to what the anonymous poster wrote, this kind of information is very much factual, can be checked, and is not "pushing ideology", whatever that means. Arcas2000 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Leave it in if you want, but it doesn't make sense and I don't have time at this moment to make a proper entry. But the Supreme Court does not overrule Reinhardt as a judge. If the Supreme Court overrules a Ninth Circuit opinion, it is the NINTH CIRCUIT that is being overruled (Democratic-appointees and Republican-appointees just the same). Reinhardt is one judge. There are others that sit on the panel and participate in the decision. Even if Reinhardt writes the opinion of the court, it is still the majority opinion of the NINTH CIRCUIT; a majority of the court therefore had to sign on to the opinion. As such, it doesn't make sense to say the Supreme Court is overruling Reinhardt individually. Citing a Weekly Standard article that contains innuendo does not make the assertion any more factual. The other "citation" is equally dubious. If you want to edify, then you would explain what I have written here. If you want to simply enflame conservative passion, you will leave the article as is. Also: I apologize for posting anonymously, I'm sort of a wiki-rookie and am not sure how to "sign" a comment.

There seems to be a fair amount of biased and tangential (not to say impertinent) information in this section; some of the material here probably belongs in the article on the Ninth Circuit itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit#Controversy). Also, it wouldn't hurt the article editors to read or re-read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. I'm not going to edit the article now, but I will clean it up if no one else does.MaMaYoYo 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and edit out the contentious, irrelevant and tangential information about how many times Reinhardt was overruled, the partisan composition of the Ninth Circuit, the apparent perfidy of the the Weekly Standard, the fascinating and intriguing semantic question about whether the Supreme Court overrules the circuit courts of appeal as a whole, the panels who hear the appeal, the appellate majority or just the judges who write the decisions, etc. and keep it a straightforward biographical entry.MaMaYoYo 04:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, someone has re-added "He is widely recognized as a liberal judge whose opinions are frequently overturned by the United States Supreme Court," still without citation. - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted yet again a similar set of statements about his controversy that were unsupported by authority. HarcourtArms 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We've been plagiarized

We've been plagiarized. Just so no one thinks it's the other way around. I sent them a polite note asking for at least acknowledgment of their source. - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what's funny? The version of the article that they plagiarized said some unkind (though not necessarily untrue) things about Judge Reinhardt and they invited the guy for some kind of symposium at this Santa Clara place. Memo to self: please read the text before doing a cut-and-paste job.MaMaYoYo 20:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed. I found it when looking to see if there was a citable online source for the "liberal firebrand" remark, and possibly for the remarks about overturned decisions. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)