Jump to content

Talk:Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Page Name

The title of this page is very vague and doesn't refer to the current vacancy. Does anyone else think that it should be renamed to 2020 Supreme Court of the United States vacancy? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Or "Supreme Court nomination to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely needs to be changed especially since it contains a relative time reference. I would support changing it to '2020 Supreme Court of the United States vacancy' and assume it will later be changed to 'Nomination of Jane Doe' 'Jane Doe Supreme Court nomination' after a justice is confirmed. Paisarepa 20:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
This article will undoubtedly end up as the "Supreme Court nomination of [whoever]" article once whoever that is is announced. It's a bit premature to have started the article outside of draft space already, but since there certainly will be such an article in the long term, it doesn't really matter. Nor does the title right now matter very much, since we know what it will be eventually. I would have no problem with "Supreme Court nomination to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.", though. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest 115th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court or similar, seems more succinct and lasting. ɱ (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The move just made is actually pretty good too, though. ɱ (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll add a retroactive "nothing wrong with it" support for the recent move as well. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I chose the new title per precedent from the similar Scalia/Garland set of events. There is no requirement that precedent dictate the title, but it's solid and fixes the issues in the original. Paisarepa 21:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the name can change once a nomination is made as has happened with previous pages when Supreme Court Vacancies occur.Wollers14 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

"Our Progress" vote tracker - yea or nay?

A link to a "vote tracker" page on the website ourprogress.org (most recent diff) has been repeatedly added (by one editor) and repeatedly removed (by several editors, including myself). For the record, does anyone other than the one editor believe this is a useful addition?

I oppose adding this link, because it's not a neutral source in general, and because it only seems to track one side of the vote, assuming that Democrats (and the two independents) will all vote against a nomination. Moreover, if one makes the same set of assumptions on both sides, Trump can currently count on 51 votes, not 45, so the non-neutral source is also giving a non-neutral presentation of the numbers. I don't oppose adding similar vote tracking from a better, neutral source if it's available, only this particular one. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate others' opinions, good or bad. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

They're not even a PAC, but even then, I have doubts to its reliability. The Washington Post has a whip count if we really need one, which I think would be better as a floated table. Incidentally, I think we can rely on all 47 senators in the Democratic caucus to vote against; the only sitting Dem senator to vote to confirm either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is Manchin, who has come out against confirming any nominee until after the election. Sceptre (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I've created a table below. Sceptre (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Whip count table

Washington Post's Republican whip count
Position Count Senators
Yes 21
List
Recently opposed 1 Grassley (IA)†
Unknown 29 to be filled
No 2
Needed for confirmation 50
Senators with a dagger (†) opposed Garland's nomination.
Senators with a lozenge (◊) are believed to be in close elections.

This looks good to me, and it's a much better source. The partisan tracker is obsolete at this point, I think. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC) |-

I can reach out to them to fix some of what you talked about Niles but the Washington Post whip count will also do. I added the feature since it's uncomfortable reading multiple paragraphs about multiple Senators and they've compiled all the data into one spot. I'll let y'all know if they respond to my inquiry. Is there any other features any editors on here would like them to add for the convenience of Wikipedia readers::
Suggestion: the “Read more” on each one on the WaPo page is a link to the statement that person made. Maybe you could have that be the page brought up when the user clicks on the name of people in the “yes” column, instead of a link to their Wikipedia page, if that could be done relatively painlessly. — Swood100 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that the ourprogress.org results are questionable. For some of them, such as Martha McSally, it links to the McSally tweet. For most of them it does not. Between ourprogress and the WaPo I would go with the latter and the differences are stark. — Swood100 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC) |-

The Progress Campaign response to me: "We just saw the WaPo whip count page and we'll be removing our version from the site over the next hour to divert the resources to other election data pages. The page was launched when no others were around and we're not as fast as the Washington Post. Thanks for reaching out and letting us know!". Issue is settled. Will be great to have the chart by Spectre up on the page so people can get an easier feel. :
Meh. WaPo has a paywall though. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Paywalled sources are allowed. I agree it's not ideal for readers who want to verify content they read in the article. However, the actual value of the better source outweighs this, I think. I will point out for editors who want to verify changes that the Post's paywall is actually pretty minimal. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I propose changing the link attached to each name to the link referenced on the WaPo site. For example, instead of Alexander we would have Alexander. — Swood100 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I would be willing to make these changes. — Swood100 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
If this is just meant to add direct attribution for the position of individual senators, it seems fine, but should probably just be a normal reference link. Material that gets sourced from the Post should still get an attribution to the Post, though, even if we also link their sources. Plus the wikilinks for individual senators' articles do add value, so I don't know that a link to sources should replace that. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Are we limiting this table to what WaPo is showing? For example, they still show Sen. Kennedy as Unknown/unclear but according to this source he is committed to voting on Trump's nominee. — Swood100 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The table needs a source not only for individual items, but for the arrangement of those items. Otherwise it risks being a matter of editors' interpretation of statements in 54 individual cases. The article should stick to a single good source for the counts, even if they become slightly out of date. I agree that your source looks like support for a vote, but I don't think it's worth introducing separate criteria. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Normally we don’t give “super source” status to any one reliable source, especially for simply failing to report something. I agree that we should stick to WaPo if the alternative requires disputable interpretation, but now we have at least four sources for Kennedy being a ‘yes’: Nola, Kennedy’s twitter, Wall Street Journal, and the Kennedy interview on YouTube. If we have solid sources, including Kennedy himself on YouTube, I don’t see the argument for ignoring them, especially if we link Kennedy’s name in the list to a reliable source. — Swood100 (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • note - See these comments from:
  1. today's nytimes[1] - ". . All 51 other Republicans so far appear to be content with the nominee, and given their eagerness to fill the vacancy with a conservative and the tight timetable, they are going to be hesitant to break with their party leaders. . ."
  2. today's washingtonpost[2] - ". . Republicans have 51 senators in favor of at least proceeding with the nomination process and holding a confirmation vote before the Nov. 3 election. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
  • Reviewed: Prince Bride Reunion
  • Comment: Article likely to be moved if Trump makes a nomination before this hook runs, so I've created a second hook to reflect that. In the event that the nomination is actioned upon before the article runs on DYK, I've put in both tenses. Because it's the political hot potato to end all hot potatoes, I don't feel comfortable nominating any hook that touches upon Merrick Garland (or any Senator), though the closeness of the vacancy would make for an interesting hook nevertheless. As RBG only died on Friday, the timing criteria for DYK nominations is obviously satisfied.

Created by Arglebargle79 (talk). Expanded by Sceptre (talk) and nominated at 22:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC).

  • This article is well-written and certain to be widely read in the days ahead. Because the NY Times article is behind a paywall, not all readers will be able to read the cited reference for themselves. If, as is expected, Because the President announced his nomination on Sept. 26,

Alt1 is the preferred hook, to say: "... that the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy is the closest to a presidential election since 1864?  JGHowes  talk 01:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (updated 26 Sept 2020)

  • @JGHowes: the hook wording is the closest is very unclear. It makes it sound like the nomination is the closest to being like an election. Yoninah (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: see new Alt3, also pinging Arglebargle79 and Sceptre, who nominated/expanded this DYK:
  • @Yoninah: I have pinged Sceptre and also left a msg on their Talk page, as I'd prefer deferring to them as the nom for further parsing of the hook. Alt3 is a paraphrase from the article Lead. As to why I'm calling it 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy, that's the way the Template is listed, and any change (such as on Sceptre's Talk page) breaks the DYK link.  JGHowes  talk 18:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
How about ALT4: ... that the date of Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination – September 26, 2020 – is the nearest to a presidential election in US history?" Sceptre (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, Sceptre's reworded hook looks good to me, as Alt4.  JGHowes  talk 13:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, XTools credits Feoffer with the most contribution by text for the second article. Sceptre (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:DYKR splits the reviewing process between reviewing the article and the hook. Evrik reviewed the article I nominated. I reviewed the ALT8 hook, which I did not suggest. My review solely concerns the ALT8 hook, and not the article (which has already been approved). But sure, I won't mind if another editor comes to rubber-stamp this. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 14:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a "yes" check: {{y}}. What you used is an approval tick. Yoninah (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I see what you are referring to. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 02:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute, here. I originally reviewed/approved this DYK nom on Sept. 21 (which met my QPQ review requirement for a DYK in upcoming Queue 3), with the hook pertaining to the proximity of the nomination to the election. Now, we have 3 different approval ticks and a different DYK co-nom. Who gets "credit" for what in this matrix?  JGHowes  talk 04:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

JGHowes, I added the article White House COVID-19 outbreak to this nomination because I thought it would be timely and relevant. Because White House COVID-19 outbreak is not part of the original nomination, it needs to be reviewed again. Three additional hooks have been proposed; they include both Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination and White House COVID-19 outbreak. Long story short, the ALT8 hook has not received a proper review yet, thus another editor (this can be you) needs to review the ALT8 hook for it to be promoted. feminist (talk) wear a mask, you stupid bastards 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT8 seems to meet requirements, but I won't approve it because 1. the election is less than a month away, a hook about the vacancy does not need to be tied to such a controversial current matter, and 2. the NPOV of it relies on the single word "may", which could be overlooked. There's too much misinformation surrounding this for me to be comfortable with that statement on the main page. I'll be happy to review other hook suggestions with one or both articles. Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We need to get Amy Coney Barrett on the main page before her nomination is approved. I say go with ALT4 and make a separate hook for the White House COVID-19 outbreak. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I have reopened this nomination as there appears to be consensus at WT:DYK that it shouldn't be run until after the election. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Quotes in background section

The quotes in the 'background' section as of this version [3] have a serious NPV problem. To illustrate, suppose that this article had this in a quote box:

  • “There’s no unwritten law that says that [Supreme Court confirmations] can only be done on off years — that’s not in the constitutional text.” -- President Obama

Equally factual and accurate as the prior quotes added to the article and definitely relevant to this page, but would give the article a tone that is very different than it currently has and would certainly not be neutral. Quote boxes can add a lot of value to an article. They are also highly prominent, which makes it challenging to adhere to NPOV since a single quote in a quote box can drastically change the tone of an article. Please keep this prominence and WP:NPOV in mind when using quote boxes here. Paisarepa 04:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been meaning to bring this up. Several editors here are engaged in a round-robin addition and removal of quotes meant to establish who is a hypocrite and who is allowed to be described as a hypocrite. The underlying political reality aside (both sides are simply pursuing naked political advantage, just as they were in the Garland/Gorsuch matter, and both sides are trying to pretend that they are not and were not then), the edit warring over quote series is no good, and the existence of those quote boxes acts as an attractive nuisance to make the edit warring worse. No pull quotes is better than warring over pull quotes. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Consider these two quotes:

  • In 2016, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, in opposing Garland's nomination, said that the Republicans were creating a new precedent going forward and said if the situation arose again, he wanted his opponents to "use [his] words against [him]" to argue that such a nomination should be delayed until after the election.
  • In 2016 Joe Biden argued strongly that the Senate should consider a Supreme Court nomination in the midst of an election season.

According to @Sceptre: the first is OK but the second is “textbook SYNTH, i.e., use of two sources to make an implication that isn't supported by sources (that they changed their mind, implicitly for partisan purposes, and while I agree there is a partisan element to it, the important thing is that it's not in reliable sources).” But here is the actual rule from WP:SYNTH:

“If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.”

The thing that is forbidden is a statement in the article that “therefore C.” There is no such statement in this article. There would be if the article said “Biden said X in 2016 but now he says Y.” It is not WP:SYNTH to simply report “Biden said X in 2016,” assuming it is properly sourced. If it is, then it is equally improper to report that "Graham said X in 2016."

Here is another example from this article:

  • Prior to her death, she dictated in a statement through her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
  • In 2016 when she was asked during the Garland nomination process whether the Senate should act upon the nomination Justice Ginsburg had this answer: "That's their job," she said. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

Sceptre states that the second is [WP:SYNTH] because it implies that Ginsburg changed her mind but no source has been supplied saying "Ginsburg changed her mind." If a person said 'A' at one point and 'not-A' at another point there is no Wikipedia policy that these cannot both be simply reported without any additional commentary. If there is, please cite it. The WP:SYNTH is the "therefore," or the connection between two things that is synthesized by the Wikipedia editor. Without it there is no synthesis. — Swood100 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not WP:SYNTH. SYNTH requires original research, not just juxtaposition. See WP:NOTSYNTH. Paisarepa 16:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it is absolutely, 100%, unequivocal, WP:SYNTH. The idea that you need to explicitly say "Therefore, C" to fail SYNTH is wrong; the policy says that merely an implication can fail SYNTH. Now, I totally agree that Biden and Ginsburg were thinking as partisanly towards this vacancy as Graham was, but the key thing is–at least when I checked last night–that implication isn't borne out by reliable sources. On the other hand, for Graham's change of mind regarding this vacancy, we're spoilt for choice for RS coverage of that. Note that
Secondly, I think we're in danger of false balance here in a strive to be "neutral". Even in reality, neutrality isn't just, as Dara O'Briain once said, the BBC holding a debate on oral health between a dentist and "an eejit who removes teeth with a piece of string and a door". On Wikipedia, we have a helpful way of determining if neutrality or false balance: the balance of coverage in reliable sources. Again, the overwhelming coverage of reliable sources is on Republican senators; it's almost a fait accompli that a) all 47 senators in the Democratic caucus will vote against a Trump nominee and b) Democrats are united on the "Republicans should follow the Garland precedent" line. We don't need to belabour that point. Truth be told? I'd otherwise remove the Markey quote from "political responses" and just have it focus on Republican leadership responses vs Democratic leadership responses, but the pickup on court packing by the Democratic leadership makes that moot.
In any case, I'm going to list this on WP:NPOVN to see if we can get uninvolved editors to weigh in. Sceptre (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sceptre and Paisarepa:
I'm sorry, but it is absolutely, 100%, unequivocal, WP:SYNTH. The idea that you need to explicitly say "Therefore, C" to fail SYNTH is wrong; the policy says that merely an implication can fail SYNTH. Now, I totally agree that Biden and Ginsburg were thinking as partisanly towards this vacancy as Graham was, but the key thing is–at least when I checked last night–that implication isn't borne out by reliable sources. On the other hand, for Graham's change of mind regarding this vacancy, we're spoilt for choice for RS coverage of that. Note that
Please explain how the Biden quote listed above is WP:SYNTH but the Graham quote is not. Please explain what the synthesis is when the person’s current position is not even mentioned, and how that can create an implication. If “person A said X” how does this synthesize an implication that X is different from what he said at some other time?
Furthermore, the title of the source article that was cited was “Biden’s 2016 Arguments Support GOP Vote on New Supreme Court Justice.” So I assume we could fix this issue in your view if we changed the sentence to add a final clause: “In 2016 Joe Biden argued strongly that the Senate should consider a Supreme Court nomination in the midst of an election season, a position that supports the current GOP view that a vote should be held on Trump’s nominee.” I’ll be happy to do that.
Please explain how the first and second Ginsburg quotes even imply an inconsistency. Can’t she say that it is the Senate’s job to act upon nominations, that the president doesn’t stop being president in his last year, and that her wish is that they take a long time doing this and not complete it until a new president is installed? What is the synthesized implication of the two Ginsburg quotes?
Now, I totally agree that Biden and Ginsburg were thinking as partisanly towards this vacancy as Graham was, but the key thing is–at least when I checked last night–that implication isn't borne out by reliable sources. On the other hand, for Graham's change of mind regarding this vacancy, we're spoilt for choice for RS coverage of that. Note that
What does partisanship have to do with this question? How does it affect the Biden or the Ginsburg quotes?
Secondly, I think we're in danger of false balance here in a strive to be "neutral".
Does false balance have anything to do with the Biden or Ginsburg quotes? If you are not referring to this what are you referring to? Just the Markey quote? What is the false balance there? Hasn’t Democrat leadership said the same thing? Where is the balance problem? What ‘neutrality’ are we striving to maintain? — Swood100 (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
In regards to the SYNTH problem, imagine yourself reading this article like you knew nothing about the American political system. Reading something that, to wit, says "In 2016 Ginsburg said the Scalia seat should be filled.[1] In 2020, she didn't want her own seat to be filled.[2]" invites a reading that Ginsburg was not being consistent (for whatever reason) with her views on Supreme Court vacancies. The problem is, however, there's no reliable source in the article that has made that reading. The way you use connectives doesn't change that; look at the UN example given on the NOR policy page. For Democratic politicians, though, that's not a problem; we have RSes talking about how they've changed their mind on filling vacancies in an election year and the reason why (i.e. "we're just following McConnell's precedent from 2016").
With regards to the second Biden quote, though, I just think it's unnecessary; we already have the Biden speech to Georgetown Law responding to the Republicans' "Biden rule" argument–which is allowed under SYNTH as long as you word it carefully–and Biden saying Garland was deserving of hearings can go with the rest of that paragraph. As a side note, I think there's an implication in the Biden speech that Biden viewed Garland as the "moderate pick" (I believe McCain name-dropped Garland before Scalia died as a SCOTUS pick he could support), but again, that implication isn't in RSes.
On the subject of false balance, we don't want to be adding the opinions of everyone as if they carried equal weight, because that's not supported by reliable sources. For example, what Mitt Romney says about the nomination has much more coverage in reliable sources then, say, what Ben Sasse or Dick Durbin says. On the subject of pull-quotes, Graham's "use my words against me" speech has been quoted more than any other person's on the matter; I think only the Schumer quote of the McConnell quote was the only other statement that had its own notability, and even then, it was rather flash-in-the-pan. I personally think pull-quoting the Biden statement from 2016 is such a case of false balance. Sceptre (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Every quote you removed had a RS and none made a claim or pushed an implication not supported in the sources. They were not even in the ballpark of SYNTH. Remember that SYNTH is not an advocacy tool.
With regards to the RBG quote -- she first said "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year" and later said "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." Both are sourced and juxtaposing them is not SYNTH. Irrelevant to the question of SYNTH but important to your argument, note that the juxtaposition of the two quotes does not mean she changed her mind. To illustrate, a person might be pulled over by the police for speeding and acknowledge that the law has been broken and a ticket is deserved, but simultaneously hope that the officer doesn't give them a ticket. Same with RBG; the later quote is not a position that is mutually exclusive with the earlier quote. One is her opinion regarding the constitutional legality of the matter, the second is her personal desire. Paisarepa 15:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a note of caution here, there are those who question the "fervent wish" quote as attributed to RBG. I'm not trying to "gotcha" any one of you about this, I think I've made that clear; but despite the common attribution (which we have to follow unless directly contradicted somehow) you should be prepared to see others challenge it. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've seen some of the claims that she didn't actually say it, but coverage in reliable sources is very consistent that she did. If an editor wants to claim otherwise they're welcome to bring their reliable sources to the table. Paisarepa 21:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
QAnon also thought that Hillary Clinton was raping and/or eating children in the basement of a pizzeria, but we don't include that in the article about her because we don't treat fringe theories as having equal weight. This isn't the first conspiracy theory Trump has latched onto, but a conspiracy theory believed by the president is still a conspiracy theory. Sceptre (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
"RBG said X,[1] but in 2016 RBG said Y.[2]" is unequivocally SYNTH. Are you arguing that it was the lack of the word "but" that makes this not SYNTH? Because that would be wrong; look the plagiarism example. That it's not SYNTH because they're not directly contradictory is also wrong; look at the UN example. In that case, the UN hopes war doesn't break out, but it has broken out anyway/and has broken out less since 1945. The implication of the UN's effectiveness or lack thereof is SYNTH, even if it's not explicitly spelt out.
Wikipedia is not a place to imply gotchas and hypocrisy by Politicians We Don't Like; we just say what's been said in reliable sources, in a way that's weighted to its coverage in reliable sources. Thankfully, though, we can side-step this entire issue with careful writing and placement—and keeping the background section mostly chronological is probably the best idea—and the entire thing is probably moot now both quotes have got the recent RS coverage. I hope the current wording is a happy medium. Sceptre (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree regarding SYNTH, but I'm happy to agree to disagree as your most recent edits are a compromise I'm comfortable with and are a clear improvement to the article. Thanks for the re-work. Paisarepa 22:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sceptre: A USA Today fact check reported the following two statements by Ginsburg:
  1. In reality, she simply stated, "The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four."
    “Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be," she added.
  2. When it came to her own replacement, though, Ginsburg was clear about her wishes: She did not want Trump to choose her replacement.
    A few days before she died, she told her granddaughter, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," per NPR.
The statements are connected by a ‘though’. Perhaps we could resolve the Ginsburg disagreement by replacing the current text with this:
In 2016 when she was asked during the Garland nomination process whether the Senate should act upon the nomination Justice Ginsburg had this answer: "The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four." She added that “Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.” When it came to her own replacement, however, Ginsburg was clear about her wishes. Prior to her death, she dictated in a statement through her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
With respect to Biden, the text related to the Georgetown Law speech concerns Biden’s attempt to correct what he felt was a misinterpretation of his position in 1992. He explains his rationale. The text at the end of the following paragraph concerns his attitude concerning whether the Garland nomination should proceed through the Senate. In other words, this nomination fulfilled his criteria. These are two different things.
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs)
@Sceptre: Why do you oppose juxtaposing the two inconsistent Ginsburg quotes, as was done in the article? Why did you remove that Biden's 2016 argument is said to support the Senate holding a vote on President Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Ginsburg? — Swood100 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
"Why do you oppose juxtaposing the two inconsistent Ginsburg quotes?" That Ginsburg was "inconsistent" is the very implication that SYNTH disallows. Even though the fact of Ginsburg changing her view is now supported by reliable sources, when it comes to political issues, describing politicians with such terms leads to issues with NPOV which we can avoid with careful writing. Likewise, I wouldn't want to put Graham's views in October 2018 and his views now next to for the same reason. (as an aside, I personally think his reasons for changing his views are complete bullshit – he made the "I won't hold hearings in 2020" comments after the Blasey Ford hearing – but I wouldn't want to introduce that sort of editorialising to the article either even if a smattering of RSes start to pick it up.)
Secondly, "why did you remove that Biden's 2016 argument is said to…" – because it's frankly unnecessary and out of place. We already have the article saying that Biden said election-year nominations should still be considered, if not confirmed, by the Senate, we don't need the op-ed. Ordinarily, I'd argue against the use of primary sources, but given the nature of executive archival laws, we can take it as a true and reliable record of what Biden said.
In all cases, we want to avoid bad writing. Good writing is a brother-in-arms to neutral writing; one leads to another, and often the lack of one leads to the lack of the other. Don't lead the reader down garden paths to a conclusion, let them make their own. "It is said" is a classic weasel-word problem, and one should either seek to attribute the claim or try and figure out how to write it so we don't need to be dealing with op-eds. Sceptre (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Please note that ArbCom has placed discretionary sanctions on ALL topics relating to US politics. Keep it neutral. If you are unsure whether you should mention something: don’t. If someone is editing inappropriately, warn them ... and if they continue, report them to the administrator’s noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Calculus section

Vulnerable senators (Republicans) Collins & Gardner & (Democrat) Jones

Would seem NPOV to talk of not only real or possible GOP defections but also the single-most-likely (if most unlikely) Dem one.

  1. latimes[4] - ". . The court fight hurts Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama, the only Democrat up for reelection in a conservative state. . . The Supreme Court debate may have even more direct effect on Senate races than on the presidential contest. For senators, the issue is not hypothetical . . The cross-pressures on vulnerable senators such as Collins and Gardner is one of the reasons why McConnell (R-Ky.) is widely expected to put off voting on Trump's nominee until after the election. Gardner is considered one of the most endangered GOP incumbents . ."
  2. fivethirtyeight.com[5] - ". . Before we can make any firm conclusions about how the politics of this will play out, we’ll need to wait for Trump to make his pick and for more polling to come out, but out of the gate it seems as though Collins, Gardner and Jones have the most to lose in this process. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. usatoday[6] - ". . Jones, the Democrat facing the toughest race in November, has yet to weigh in publicly on how the Senate should handle the vacancy left by Ginsburg. He has said previously that he would fight to block such an appointment. But Jones accused McConnell and Trump of dishonoring Ginsburg's legacy by focusing so quickly on the battle to replace her. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Please more clearly specify to what your comment pertains. Eg Are you arguing that a goodly portion of the article at present be deleted, wherever it now covers how Senators, including those in what are considered close races, have signalled they will vote? Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Which Republicans, up for reelection, are currently polling behind or within some close percentage of their opponents is not a prediction. Nor is it a prediction which senators are named as "vulnerable" by reputable sources such as FiveThirtyEight, using published criteria concerning the closeness of the race. Being thirty points ahead versus one point behind in the polls is a significant distinction that changes the dynamics of a race. — Swood100 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
50 votes needed?
  • The "50 votes needed" line needs more framing. Eg If any [Edited: two] Senators (eg Collins?) were to abstain rather than vote Nay then only 49 Yea/Aye votes would then be necessary. Additionally: When and where, precisely, has Pence indicated he, as presumed, would break the tie vote? When and where, precisely, have all Democrats (including Jones) indicated they would vote Nay?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The important vote will on whether to vote on the nominee (the point at which a filibuster would take place). They need a majority to get past this point. According to a Collins tweet, she opposes voting on the nominee prior to the election. Murkowski is also characterized as opposing a vote, though the exact quote was “I would not support.” I assume they will both be voting ‘no’ as to whether the Senate should hold a vote, and I haven’t come across anybody suggesting otherwise. In 2016 Murkowski made a big deal out of not voting as a senatorial courtesy to balance a Democrat who couldn’t be in Washington to vote because of his daughter’s wedding. She said that “the same standards apply” so absent that kind of a situation it seems clear that she will vote against. — Swood100 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
note - [7] (diff) - For better framing, I've added a senators' "totals" entry into the chart within the section.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Two errors in my Murkowski story above. It was in 2018 (Kavanaugh) not 2016, and she withheld her vote in order to pair with a Republican who couldn't be there, not a Democrat. — Swood100 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Murkowski can't rule out voting for Trump nom
cmt - For what it's worth, if Romney's never specifically addressed his stance w rgd solely the preliminary vote, hypothetically his nuanced stance may well be identical with that of Murkoski's Re this aspect.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Romney’s position is that he has no objections to holding a vote but wants to see the nominee before affirming that he will vote for her. No doubt that is the same position as every other ‘yes’ vote, just that Romney wants to preen with a conspicuous public display of his righteousness. Murkowski on the other hand opposes moving forward with the nomination but recognizes that “this process is moving forward with or without me.” So it sounds like she will vote against or withhold her vote as to whether to proceed to the final vote, but when it finally gets there might vote yes. She supposes that different aspects of this position can be sold to opposite sides when she comes up for reelection. — Swood100 (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Barrett plus four others

  1. AP[8] - ". . . Barrett, thought to be at the top of his list of favorites. . ."
  2. nytimes[9] - ". . Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the leading contender . . The president appears intent on picking Judge Barrett...according to Republicans familiar with his conversations. . ."
  3. wsj (noonan)[10] - ". . expected to be Judge Amy Coney Barrett . ."
  4. cnn[11] - ". . has emerged as Trump's overwhelming favorite . ."
  5. foxnews[12] - ". . clearly the front-runner . ."
  6. washingtonexaminer[13] - "' . . pick the one who would excite the base and more than anything really upset Democrats,' said the source. . . In 2018, she [Barrett] was on the president's list of potential nominees when he replaced Anthony Kennedy after he retired from the court. But Trump reportedly had a different idea. 'I'm saving her for Ginsburg,' . ." [14] ". . a Republican Senate staffer told the Washington Examiner . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Plus a lot more, of course. She's always been the top subject of speculation. But the speculation will mostly be obsolete once Trump's pick is officially announced, so it seems pointless to expand on it. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
In fact, the New York Times now asserts that Barrett is a certainty: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html. Nonetheless, the article shouldn't rely on this, it should just wait for the announcement tomorrow - and then the sources speculating about Barrett's nomination will only be needed to show that there was speculation about her beforehand. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible merge or rename

See the requested move discussion below, thus rendering this discussion moot. User:BD2412 also performed a round robin page move, eventually moving the fork page to Amy Barrett Supreme Court nomination (without "Coney"). Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now that Amy Coney Barrett's nomination has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources, I have removed the redirect at Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination. What do people think about a merge between this article and the nomination article? Should they remain separate? If this article remains separate, should it be renamed? KidAd talk 00:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That article simply represents a needless obstacle to moving this more well-developed one tomorrow when the nomination is actually confirmed by the only person whose opinion matters. It's an annoyance, not a merge target. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination is the target, so it will be up to others to sort through all the additional information that has been added to this page before it can be moved there. KidAd talk 00:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
KidAd, it was not helpful for you to remove the redirect there, since it's created a content fork. If you want that to be the title, propose a RM at this page instead. Another editor already restored the redirect from that page to here (which you reverted); I'm going to do so again. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Whoever created 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy created a content fork. I really don't care what the title is, but I expect it to follow precedent (see Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination, Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination, Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination, etc.) Sorry if my foresight was an inconvenience. \_(ツ)_/¯ KidAd talk 03:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Foresight??? Yeah, go look at Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination, and while you're there, notice what the original title was. Nobody created a content fork and then tried to get editors to manually move over all the content. Paisarepa 03:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Foresight!!! If you take a look at 2016 United States Supreme Court vacancy, you will see it redirects to Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination. So, doesn't it make sense that 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy should redirect to Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination? I know users on this page have had a fun time pretending they work for FiveThirtyEight, but it might be time to shift gears and edit the correct page. KidAd talk 03:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The difference in the previous 2016 example was that it was a straightforward page move. Now that you created a fork page before Trump's official announcement, we would likely now have to do a manual merging instead, where the page histories are now split up. You might not care about the technical differences between a page move and a merger, but those who previously edited this article, and 50.248.234.77, and User:Paisarepa (based on their previous comments above) might. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
A full-fledged manual merge is not actually needed since KidAd is the only substantial contributor to the duplicate article. One other editor formatted some dates correctly, and all the other edits are people reverting to the redirect. So long as KidAd is credited somewhere, the page history is not strictly needed; and in fact, if KidAd will merge his proposed changes over to this article, the page history won't be needed at all. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
David O. Johnson has restored Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination. This is correct. If it is decided that the page should be deleted so this page can be moved to a page of the same name, then someone can nominate it for deletion instead of blanking it without consensus or discussion. KidAd talk 06:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
KidAd, your dedication to creating a WP:CONTENTFORK is unnerving. Several editors have tried to explain to you why a requested page move is the proper procedure here. If you still genuinely don't understand, you need to read up on page moving and get with the program. If you're trying to circumvent the normal process just so that you can be listed as the original page creator, you need to stop.
@Paisarepa and Zzyzx11: I don't want to run up against 3RR, but please enforce the prevailing consensus here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
What consensus are you referring to? There is none, as of yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no consensus. It is his their WP:BOLD decision to blank the page without any form of discussion. KidAd talk 06:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the general consensus should be to wait until the official announcement is made by the White House. Wollers14 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 26 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page already moved by User:BD2412 (move log). The discussion is moot. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy → Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination – The "vacancy", also known as her death, has an article of its own. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns whether barrett 'able to set aside relig. views'

  1. theatlantic[15] - ". . 'The public should be absolutely concerned about whether a nominee for judicial office will be willing and able to set aside personal preferences,' she said during an interview with a former student of hers at Hillsdale College last year. 'That’s not a challenge just for religious people. That’s a challenge for everyone.' Barrett’s ability to set aside her religious views as a Catholic has been a matter of intense debate since she was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern,” Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said during Barrett’s confirmation hearing, questioning whether she would uphold the precedent of abortion rights set in Roe v. Wade. An ugly war has already begun over Barrett’s participation in a charismatic community in South Bend, Indiana, and whether that should be a factor in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. washingtonpost (John Garvey) [16] - ". . Anxiety about her confirmation instead seems driven by the fear that her religious belief is somehow incompatible with the impartiality demanded of a judge. Some have tried to attach a sinister significance to her association with the People of Praise, an ecumenical Christian organization started by Notre Dame students in the 1970s. People of Praise is part of the charismatic renewal movement, focused on community, fellowship and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Pope Francis has referred to the various groups in this movement as 'a current of grace in the Church and for the Church.' . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. wsj[17] - ". . Her strong religious faith has made her a favorite of social conservatives, who think she could give the Supreme Court a fifth vote to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent that established a constitutional right to end a pregnancy. For those same reasons, she has generated vocal opposition from abortion-rights supporters. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Mitch Mcconnell close re-election???

What is the source for marking Mitch Mcconnell as a close reelection race? Every prediction in the 2020 United States Senate elections article has his seat as either safe Republican or likely Republican. Does not at all seem close to me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It was in the Washington Post's whip count. I agree that it's not that close, but it's still a decent outside bet, and I think that's why WaPo rated it as close. Sceptre (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Obstruction

I placed an edit which had two parts:

  • First, it pointed out that Schumer has said that he will refuse to meet with Barrett because he believes that the process has been illegitimate. There are three other democrats who are also refusing to meet with Barrett.
  • Second, based on stories in Politico, CBS News, The Hill and elsewhere, it pointed out that Schumer has adopted the "two-hour rule" in order to obstruct the business of the Senate in response to the Barrett nomination. It discussed other obstruction possibilities as described in the sources.

This entire edit was reverted by WMSR on the grounds that it was WP:NPOV. He also advised me to refrain in the future from making unconstructive and disruptive edits.

How is it disruptive or WP:NPOV to report that four Democrats have announced that they will not meet with Barrett, and that Schumer has invoked the "two-hour rule"? He has invoked the rule for purposes of disruption. Are these not straightforward facts? What am I overlooking here? — Swood100 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, if there wasn’t was it because it was deemed inappropriate? What objection could there be to including the number of Senators who wouldn’t receive Garland, or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. As far as I know, the Republicans did not invoke the two-hour rule, because they had the majority and didn't need to go that route. In any event, I’m just describing straightforward facts. How is it WP:NPOV or disruptive? Do you also think it is inappropriate? If so, why? — Swood100 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Surely, per wp:Preserve, the material can't be inappropriately POV en toto.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
When it contains an epithet, I think a revert is absolutely warranted. --WMSR (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
My thoughts about this material: Firstly, any equivalence between the Garland article and this one is immaterial, because the latter article is written about an event that actually occurred in the past, and this one is mostly prospective. Nonetheless, editors who see a problem with the Garland article should fix that article, not demand two bad ones for balance. Secondly, it's perfectly fine for this article to report on procedural obstructionism. I added some such material myself, and it hasn't been objected to. Thirdly, an editor above refers to "an epithet", which I assume means the text Other Democrat senators who have announced that they will refuse to meet with her include [etc.] If this is the problem, I suggest rewording to avoid it, not premising a wholesale revert on one word. Lastly, Swood100, be mindful that one can and should report such things without editorializing. The particular prose in your addition is not great, because it expresses disapproval where others might approve, disapprove, or not care (I am in that last category). If it is retained, it ought to be rewritten. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@WMSR: I was not even aware that “Democrat” was considered an epithet. On the referenced page the following is found:
According to Oxford Dictionaries, the use of Democrat rather than the adjective Democratic "is in keeping with a longstanding tradition among Republicans of dropping the –ic in order to maintain a distinction from the broader, positive associations of the adjective democratic with democracy and egalitarianism."
Since this understanding is a possibility I would think that without evidence that an insult is intended, an objecting editor for whom maintaining civility is important would simply make the correction and adequately explain his or her action.
I see that the change has been made. I certainly have no objection, especially if there are those who find the word offensive. Was there any other objection? 50.248.234.77 made a reference to “editorializing” or “expressing disapproval.” Was it the above that you were referring to or was there something else? — Swood100 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
It's more than the one thing (which I didn't find to be a big problem), so I'll look at making a pass over the prose here sometime today. Then my edit can speak for itself. Unfortunately, I can't do so immediately. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Every once in a while the colloquialism slips by editors of the mainstream media also! :~)
  1. washingtonpost[18] - ". . These Democrat senators are not endorsing . ."
  2. wsj[19] - ". . Sen. Brian Schatz, (D., Hawaii) announced on Wednesday that he was joining with nine other Democrat senators . ."
  3. ntimes[20] - ". . legislation introduced on Tuesday by Republican and Democrat senators . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@WMSR: There is a plethora of such references, most apparently innocuously intended, if one googles “Democrat Senator” or “Democrat Representative”. — Swood100 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo

Currently, the entire English wikipedia is lacks any photos including Barrett's youngest son. I propose switching out the bottom photo with this File:Amy Coney Barrett family and Trump Rose Garden.jpg, which does. An added advantage is that it will help kepp this article from looking too similar the main Judge Barrett article. to I had previously added this photo, but Tobby72 switched it out. --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

'Textualistm' vs various broader type of interpretative '-isms'

  1. ricochet.com [21] barrett: ". . Sebelius might be explained by the fact that Chief Justice Roberts has not proven himself to be a textualist in matters of statutory interpretation. . ."
  2. nationalreview[22] - Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol 70 No. 4 Article 3 2020 [23] - 2019 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture: "Assorted Canards of Contemporary Legal Analysis: Redux" - Amy Coney Barrett -

    ". . Originalists, like textualists, care about what people understood words to mean at the time that the law was enacted because those people had the authority to make law. They did so through legitimate processes, which included writing down and fixing the law. So '[e]ach textual provision must necessarily bear the meaning attributed to it at the time of its own adoption.' And, as with statutes, the law can mean no more or less than that communicated by the language in which it is written. Just as 'when a precise statute seems over- or underinclusive in relation to its ultimate aims[,] . . . [a textualist] hews closely to the rules embedded in the enacted text, rather than adjusting that text to make it more consistent with its apparent purposes,' so too an originalist submits to the precise compromise reflected in the text of the Constitution. That is how judges approach legal text, and the Constitution is no exception. . ."

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Manchin?

Should we mention Joe Manchin under the Senate calculus question section? Before he came out against the Barrett nomination, he was believed to be a possible swing vote regarding this nomination, as he was the only Senate Democrat to approve of the Kavanaugh nomination. feminist (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be worth a brief mention since his vote would be critical if two more Republicans switched sides. — Swood100 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 at Rose Garden ceremony

ABC News and The Boston Globe reported that the Rose Garden ceremony featured few masks and little social distancing and that several attendees later tested positive for the coronavirus, including Trump, Melania Trump, Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Thom Tillis, and senior adviser Hope Hicks. I added an explanation of this information to the article.

The information was reverted with the comment saying that it "lacks proper neutraliity" and that it's made up of "analysis or conclusions not directly suppported by cited sources".

The information is significant, is likely to become more significant, and other editors are free to add any other significant reliably-sourced views. WP:NPOV says all significant views should be represented.

The analysis/conclusion of there being few masks and little social distancing is directly supported by The Boston Globe. The ABC News article also said that many were not wearing masks. There are many more reliable sources saying the same thing that are easy to find.

The rest of the information is made up of hard facts. All the named attendees did test positive. Because care was taken so that the edits properly complied with policies, this revert did not comply with WP:CANTFIX. Please reinstate the information. Thank you. —KinkyLipids (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the lack of other edits to this article/talk by the one who reverted, it appears to have been a drive-by revert. Also, recent edits to the article show a consensus for inclusion of this information. —KinkyLipids (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
As the one who performed the so-called "drive-by revert", I appreciate the chance to address my reasoning here. When a massive amount of new content is added with lttle or no explanation as to its' relevancy, it becomes almost impossible for me in assessing the changes based on the edit summary (or the lack thereof) to gauge whether or not such edits align with policy, and are supported by relevant sourcing. So when there are a series of those kinds of edits that clearly significantly change the volume and substance of the content, that's a red-flag issue for me as a casual observer. If I had had any way to tell what changes you were making as you made them, aside from scanning the altered content change-by-change, then there wouldn't have been anything on my radar that led to my reverting such massive changes. The actions I took in reverting those changes initially were consistent with policies relating to the absence of sufficient context on the changes through the edit summary. The reason the edit summary field exists is precisely for the purpose of allowing editors like me, who may have thousands of pages on their watchlist to monitor article content changes, to ensure that there is proper context and sound policy-based rationales for the added content. If I inadvertently offended you by such actions, I apologize. I am fully satisfied with your explanation here, and the play-by-play descriptions of changes to content you have added in reintroducing changes following my recent revert. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. I had added 44 words, with 17 words of explanation in my edit summaries, and 2 full citations linking to the articles that could then be searched through using the Find function (Ctrl+F) available on browsers. (The citations might have made the byte count appear massive. A massive positive byte count is a sign of well-cited content, not a red flag that something should be reverted.) After looking through all policies relating to edit summaries, I found no justification for a "casual" revert. I'm sorry for calling it a "drive-by" revert. Thank you for the apology. You did not offend anyone. —KinkyLipids (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence

User:Jgstokes, there were issues of overlinking and indeed verbosity in the sentence so I had to eliminate the overlink and the relative clause. The link to the Supreme Court of the United States should be linked in the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States article, no need to create a separate link to avoid blue links.

See, this is what really bothers me about this site: I have to have the consensus of these Wikipedians even if it just a simple grammar fix. If no contributor is in favour of my edit, so be it. I don't expect anything well-written in this website anyway... 112.201.174.89 (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I preferred the one championed by 112.201.174.89. I don’t see is as a question of grammar but one of why there need to be two references to the Supreme Court and another to Ginsburg’s main page. Also, I don’t think that “well written” could possibly be the goal. Coherence is the best we can hope for. — Swood100 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking this to the talk page as requested. Second, let me just clarify here (since apparently there is some doubt on this matter), that having read the explanation of the edits here, any concerns I have with them are resolved. But I feel as though I wouldn't have needed to be concerned if the intent and specifics of the edits in question had been explained along the way. I should also perhaps mention that I've been editing here on Wikipedia for almost 15 years, and within that time, when a large amount of content is changed in a short amount of time by an anonymous editor who fails to explain the edits (including what was done, and why it should stand), it's a red-flag issue. I've unfortunately seen far too many cases here where, in similar scearios, those editing without a user name have often used their anonymity to disrupt page content. I should also perhaps mention that I myself, while being a long-time general contributor here, am relatively new to articles covering political subjects, so there is a lot about these types of articles for which I'm still very much learning the ropes. I wish there was a way to compartmentalize my newness to such subjects away from my overall Wikipedia experience, but if there is one, I haven't found it yet. I do welcome all earnest contributors here, and if my actions were based on a lack of understanding your intentions and desire to contribute here, I hope it's understanod that, if the edits had been explained, I would not have been concerned and would have let the content stand as it was. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

The subsection titled "Amy Coney Barrett" seems constructed to be critical rather than informative. The first sentence is about her position on abortion rights, which cannot possibly be the single most notable fact about a SCOTUS nominee. Maybe for many liberals this is the most concerning fact, but I don't see an argument for it being the most important. Next it references a religious organization she is part of, which is only tangentially related to her nomination to the Supreme Court and only because liberals are using it as an attack against her. Though the end of this paragraph does include a positive quote, it is one from an anti-abortion organization, again bringing undue attention to her position on abortion.

The next paragraph is devoted entirely to liberal attacks on her religious beliefs and even references evidence in Wikipedia's voice to support these arguments, including her Notre Dame commencement address, as if the purpose is convincing the reader of the correctness of these objections to her nomination rather than informing the reader about her nomination. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what aspects of her we should include in addition to or instead of her position on abortion? Ideally, provide sources we can cite for such content. Abortion is a wedge issue on both sides of the American political spectrum, so I won't say it's concerning only for liberals. Many social conservatives would find her position on abortion to be a plus. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 04:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
A simple description of her career, credentials, and overarching judicial philosophy would be more appropriate and encyclopedic. A final paragraph could provide a balanced account of any specific controversies surrounding her, such as her position on abortion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Bzweebl's assessment here. As I read it I think "why are we leading with abortion?" as there are many other things we could and should lead with, like "Amy Coney Barrett, a professor of law at Notre Dame and judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who is a textualist and orginalist..." Also the quote from the Susan B. Anthony List is bizarre. The Amy Coney Barrett article is good and getting better by the day with lots of eyes on it. We should probably just take text from there. Marquardtika (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks better now, thanks Marquardtika. I removed the tag. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  • cmt from the editor who'd contributed this stuff - No, I hadn't been trying to be a tool of Republicans (who the nytimes today reports "want to try to goad Democrats into questioning Judge Barrett’s impartiality based on her Catholic faith") but simply to encapsulate what ACB controversies were percolating in news reports (especially the nytimes piece I'd referenced).

    In any case, as the confirmation hearings progress over the next few days, I'm sure such point will be raised (to again quote today's nytimes) as that ACB's "academic and judicial writings have been skeptical of broad interpretations of abortion rights" in light of her scholarly analyses (thus, likely judicial approach) regarding original-public-meaning-of-U.S.-Constitution's-text vs. SCotUS precedent. (See such a quote of ACB in the Times piece: "The public response to controversial cases like Roe reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Current Event

As of right now what current event tag is necessary? Personisgaming (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say it's not. The documentation at Template:Current lays out specific criteria for when the tag should be used, and I would not say this article meets them currently. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Which of the Wikipedia:Current event templates is necessary? Personisgaming (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Legality of Senate Judiciary Committee vote now called into question

As two minority party members were not present, it violated the rules.InsulinRS (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

interesting article about her praise of republicans handling of ACB confirmation hearings

Thought this article was kind of interesting as it pertains to this article topic and seems to be notable, but wanted to see what other editors thought?Eruditess (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The story there is really about the decline in collegiality in the Senate, to the point that a minority senator will be “cancelled” for complimenting a majority senator for his fairness running a hearing if the constituents of the minority party opposed holding the hearing. It’s a continuation of the increasing partisanship of judicial nominations that began in the 1980s and really took off during the George W. Bush presidency. Maybe there’s an article more directly on this subject. It’s not something unique to Barrett. — Swood100 (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV problem?

The following stood out as possible NPOV problems:

  • "Senators with a dagger (†) opposed voting on Garland's nomination.
  • "Senators with a double dagger (‡) took office after Garland's nomination.

This assumes that there is something significant about opposing Garland and supporting Barrett. In theory, these senators could have looked at the evidence and concluded that one was qualified and the other not. (I say "in theory" because we all know that what really matters is whether you have a D or an R after your name.)

Even worse from a NPOV standpoint is that we are listing a bunch of Republicans who opposed Garland and support Barrett. but we do not list the many Democrats who supported Garland and oppose Barrett.

  • "Senators with a lozenge (◊) are believed to be in close races for re-election.

Again, while "everybody knows" that senators vote whichever way keeps them in power, they claim to make decisions based upon what is best for the country (which by an amazing coincidence matches what will keep them in power) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You make excellent points. I agree that these notations lean toward being POV. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, Garland is already mentioned 10 times in the article text. Once the confirmation vote has occurred, perhaps a sentence on voting stats could be added to the Floor Vote section. GoPats (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I removed the notations. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Update on Lisa Murkowski

Update on Lisa Murkowski: She has decided to vote "yes" to confirm Amy Coney Barrett. Article should be updated. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Right now the article is a confused mess regarding Murkowski.
  • Murkowski announced in a floor speech that she would be voting for Barrett's nomination
  • Two senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said the Senate should not vote on Barrett's nomination until after the presidential election.
  • On September 20, Collins and Murkowski both reiterated their earlier comments that they would not vote to confirm before Election Day ... Murkowski later said that she would vote to confirm Barrett.
  • As of September 25, 2020, 51 Republican senators reportedly support giving Barrett a hearing. Two senators, Collins and Murkowski, oppose.
I say we replace all of the above with a simple statement that Murkowski opposed but now supports.
While searching on "Murkowski" I found another problem.
  • Three Republican senators were believed to be possible swing votes against a Trump nomination or nominee: Susan Collins of Maine is facing a difficult re-election campaign in part due to her vote to confirm Kavanaugh in 2018; Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the only Republican senator to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination; and Mitt Romney of Utah was the only Republican senator to vote to convict Trump in his impeachment trial earlier in 2020.
Makes it sound like Murkowski might be expected to oppose Barrett like she opposed Kavanaugh, doesn't it?
But we find out in a different part of the article that Murkowski didn't actually add to the votes against Kavanaugh!
  • For example, during the vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination in 2018, Senator Murkowski, who had intended to vote 'no', instead voted 'present' so that Senator Steve Daines, who had intended to vote 'yes', could remain at his daughter's wedding instead of having to fly back to Washington to cast his vote.
Seriously? We can't find an example of vote swapping that doesn't involve Kavanaugh?
--Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I provided some clarification on Murkowski.
But we find out in a different part of the article that Murkowski didn't actually add to the votes against Kavanaugh!
If Murkowski and Daines had both voted the result would have been exactly the same as it was with both of them not voting: nomination confirmed by two votes. What difference does it make that the vote was 50-48 instead of 51-49?
Seriously? We can't find an example of vote swapping that doesn't involve Kavanaugh?
What’s wrong with the Kavanaugh vote? It provides an easy-to-understand example of pairing. — Swood100 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The word "Kavanaugh" is found in 16 places on the page. The words Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito, Roberts, Breyer, and Thomas are found zero times. If you want an example of vote swapping it should not involve a senator or a justice that are already being given undue weight. When I read a page about "Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination" I should see the names Barrett, Trump, Ginsburg, and perhaps McConnell again and again, not Kavanaugh.
"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else. The nominal subject is functioning as an unregarded coat-rack, obscured by one or more 'coats'. A similar effect can result when an article's original author writes too much about background and loses sight of the title. Either way, the existence of a 'hook' in a given article is not a good reason to 'hang' irrelevant, undue or biased material there." --Wikipedia:Coatrack articles
--Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
After the vote tomorrow there will probably be no reason to mention pairing. Until then I don't think anybody will object to a different example if you would like to supply one. — Swood100 (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Now that she has been confirmed, article can be updatedEruditess (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The availability of pairing still was part of the calculation for the Republicans, especially with Covid-19 felling senators. I don't object to the current example. I'm sure there are others out there. — Swood100 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the Merrick Garland precedent a fact or opinion?

Per WP:NPOV, we should Avoid stating facts as opinions.

The lead currently states Democrats rebuked Republicans for hypocrisy, claiming that they had violated the precedent they established in 2016 when they refused to consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland more than nine months before the end of Obama's term. Whether or not Republicans are hypocrites is an opinion, but I would argue that the existence of the precedent from 2016 is a fact, since Republicans articulated it very explicitly at the time, and the historical record of reliable sources establishes indisputably that they violated that precedent as they originally articulated it (recent attempts to muddy the waters notwithstanding). Therefore, we should be stating this in WP:WIKIVOICE, not using language that attributes it as an opinion of Democrats. I'm going to try changing the sentence to Democrats rebuked Republicans for violating the precedent they established in 2016 when they refused to consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland more than nine months before the end of Obama's term, accusing them of hypocrisy. I hope anyone who might be inclined to revert will consider the above and be willing to discuss here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

McConnell was in charge of the Senate in 2016. He claims that this is what he said in 2016. What justifies WP:WIKIVOICE to the contrary? — Swood100 (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Mitch McConnell's website does not overrule reliable sources, such as this CNN article (not opinion column), which includes the following: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a Friday night statement that President Donald Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg will get a vote in the Senate. Doing so would be a complete reversal of his position in 2016, when the GOP-led Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on then-President Barack Obama's nominee, saying it was too close to the election. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
In the first place, McConnell’s early 2016 remarks are not just found on his website but there are links to statements made in the news media. Second, nothing in the reference you supplied negates or even contradicts the fact that McConnell made these statements. Is it really saying that all Republicans were uniform in their reasons? Some senators said they opposed Garland on merit, including concern for gun rights. Some Republican senators simply said that the next president of the United States should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, which is completely consistent with the notion that confirmation will be withheld in an election year if the presidency and the senate are held by different parties. So what exactly is the “Republican precedent” that you think should be announced in WP:WIKIVOICE? — Swood100 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
As these are polarizing times and controversial matters, best to attribute specifically what is going on, therefore, to keep with the verbiage at the very top of this subsection. However, we should also keep in mind WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and avoid using "claim" to instead change to say "stated..." Right cite (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Right cite: Thanks for weighing in. I changed "claiming" to "stating" as suggested. Regarding wikivoice, the issue is certainly "controversial" in the colloquial sense of the word, but in the context of Wikipedia, "controversial" needs to refer to controversy among reliable sources, not the general public (otherwise we wouldn't include Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency in the lead of Donald Trump). I provided a RSP-greenlit source above stating that McConnell's actions violated the 2016 precedent, but no reliable source has yet been offered stating that McConnell's actions did not violate it. I would need to see such a source to be comfortable including the in-text attribution. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with you about the reliable source. Likely to cause more controversy here on Wikipedia itself with the 2nd presentation as opposed to the 1st. That's all I meant to say. Right cite (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Doing so would be a complete reversal of his position in 2016
OK, so you have CNN reporting the above as McConnell’s position in 2016. Then you have NBC’s “Meet the Press” reporting that McConnell, in March of 2016, said: “You have to go back to Grover Cleveland in 1888 to find the last time a presidential appointment was confirmed by a Senate of the opposite party when the vacancy occurred in a presidential year.” The two reports conflict. Under what theory are you going to announce the CNN version in WP:WIKIVOICE? — Swood100 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
McConnell mentioning the "opposite party" qualification in one interview in 2016 when making a historical comparison does not negate the many other times when he and his colleagues actually laid out the precedent they were setting and did not do so. Here's McConnell (who, as the majority leader, speaks on behalf of the GOP), writing in The Washington Post in February 2016: Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election [referring to 2014, since this is pre-Trump's victory], who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia. There is absolutely nothing in that piece about his view only applying when the opposing party has control of the Senate.
Muddying the waters may work fine for McConnell as a tactic for political rhetoric, but it didn't convince journalists, and therefore it's not going to fly on Wikipedia. Journalists have correctly looked at the historical record, and that is reflected in their reporting, such as what I cited from CNN above. That's a reliable secondary source stating in its own reportorial voice that McConnell reversed himself. You still have not matched that with any reliable secondary source stating in its own reportorial voice that he did not. Unless you can provide such a source, WP:NPOV compels us to go with what the reliable sources say, and to Avoid stating facts as opinions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
What McConnell pointed to in his op-ed was the fact that when the Democrats controlled the senate they asserted their right to refuse to confirm a nominee of a Republican president on purely political grounds. Schumer made a speech 18 months before the end of Bush’s term in which he declared that the Senate “should reverse the presumption of confirmation” and “not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.” Schumer said “Nowhere in [the constitution] does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote.” This is hardball politics, and McConnell is quoting this to show that these are the rules that prevail with respect to confirmations in the Senate. The majority calls the shots and does so in order to benefit itself politically.
Then McConnell said, “Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.” In other words, he is saying that hardball politics control, as they always do, and therefore instead of voting we are going to wait and see who wins the presidential election.
So what is the “precedent” that was established? Was it that (a) in a presidential election year the Senate will refuse to confirm the President’s nominee in all cases, or (b) in a presidential election year, hardball politics will determine whether or not the Senate votes on the president’s nominee? If you say (a), then what was the purpose of recounting what Schumer had said when he was in the majority? Furthermore, McConnell said, "It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia." Was that part of the “precedent”? If so, that part was not met since we did not have a “lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election.”
President Donald Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg will get a vote in the Senate. Doing so would be a complete reversal of his position in 2016
In one sense it was a complete reversal of his position: from not holding a vote to holding a vote. In another sense it was not a complete reversal, in that in each case the Senate majority took the action that was in its best interest politically.
when the GOP-led Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on then-President Barack Obama's nominee, saying it was too close to the election.
According to this source, the GOP senators did not refuse to hold a vote on the ground that it was too close to the election. They had many different reasons, most of them entirely consistent with the hardball politics explanation. Also, saying that the next president should fill the currently empty seat is not the same as saying that the next president in an election year should always fill a currently empty seat. So your source, which says that GOP senators all had the same rationale, or that their rationale was independent of hardball politics, is contradicted. Furthermore, this source quotes McConnell as declaring "again and again" in 2016, “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″ — Swood100 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Where, in either this reference or this reference, is McConnell quoted as saying: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president"? Also, I have restored the Scare quotes around "precedent" as in referenced source. The source put those quotes there to show that the word is being used in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense. For us to remove them would be to substitute a meaning different from the one intended by the article. If you believe that this is appropriate, then explain why. Do not edit war. — Swood100 (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Swood100, March 16, 2016 in the first one. I engaged with you in good faith above, but given your continued tendentious editing (and past history, evidenced by your talk page), I'm going to call WP:TURNIP at this point. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: OK, here is March 16, 2016:
March 16, 2016, with Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, McConnell stood his ground: It is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."
We are looking for the following, verbatim: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Please point it out. Also, please explain where MOS:SCAREQUOTES requires or suggests that scare quotes in the original should be removed. — Swood100 (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amy_Coney_Barrett_Supreme_Court_nomination/Archive_1&oldid=1203132926"