Talk:Clement Haynsworth

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States courts and judges

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Confusion

Some editors object to notes such as the one i have added:

(Haynsworth is occasionally confused with G. Harrold Carswell, who was unsuccessfully nominated the next year for the same vacancy.)

I have observed just such confusion, among professionals: on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", in discussing Harriet Miers, one panelist described the "mediocre" quote as targeted at Haynsworth; another was erudite enuf to identify Roman Hruska as having made the statement, without revealing any sign of recalling that Carswell, not Haynsworth, was the subject.

In any case, this could perhaps be better treated using a Haynsworth and Carswell article, analogous to The two boxers Davey Moore, that would compare and contrast them, and to which both Clement Haynsworth & Harold Carswell would lk, e.g. thus:

He was one of two nominees nominated unsuccessfully for the same vacancy.

--Jerzy•t 19:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any real confusion here, more than people making the usual percentage of mistakes they make about any subject. I've removed the note. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post criticism.

The sentence regarding the Washington Post endorsement relevant in that it is a major newspaper considered by many to be liberal. However, the sentence should be cited with a generally accepted source that states the WP was liberal at that time. This should not be hard to do as media studies have looked at the politics of newspapers for decades.

I deleted the comment saying that the WP is a conservative paper for two reasons. First, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If no source can be found for the liberal sentence, than that sentence should be deleted. Second, on many other pages it has been decided that as it is an advocacy organization, Media Matters is not a valid sources. (The same would be true for Accuracy in Media.) If MM is citing a study from a peer reviewed journal or something like that, then the origional source should be cited. Ericsean (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Here is an image of Haynsworth that can be uploaded:http://www.history.com/news/a-brief-history-of-supreme-court-battles Blue Director (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another good link to it: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.dXHNdaT9VynMuoRaHE288QHaHY%26pid%3DApi&f=1 Blue Director (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]