Talk:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Provocative claim removed

I have removed the following unsourced text from the article:

Some observers believe that an Anti-Protestant intellectual bias has formed against mainline WASP protestants who are perceived as too liberal, and against evangelical protestants who are perceived as too conservative, and thus Protestant judges are not getting on the court.

Please provide a source for the claim that "some observers" believe this. BD2412 T 21:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Statistics

These statistics should be distributed to the appropriate sections of the article, not lumped together under ethnicity. Also, they reflect the current composition, but not historical under-representation. BD2412 T 21:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Gender:

• Men (49% of population, 89% of court)
• Women (51% of population, 11% of court)
• Men have 8.4 times greater per capita representation than women

Religious affiliation/heritage:

• Catholic (24% of population, 56% of court)
• Jewish (2% of population, 22% of court)
• Protestant (61% of population, 22% of court)
• Religious minorities have 8.3 times greater per capita representation than the religious majority

Ethnicity:

• WASP/ethnic European (71% of population, 89% of court)
• African-Am (14% of population, 11% of court)
• Hispanic (15% of population, 0% of court)
• Ethnic majority has 3.3 times lesser per capital representation on court than ethnic minorities.

-- o.k. to remove statistics for later footnote sourcing

Religious affiliation/heritage statistics from U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005, Tables 67 and 69, for population at large:

• Catholic (Table 67: 50,873,000 of 207,980,000 = 24.5%);
• Jewish (Table 69: 2.2% of population);
• Protestant, no denomination supplied (Table 67: 4,647,000 of 207,980,000 = 2.2%);
• Episcopal (Table 67: 3,451,000 of 207,980,000 = 1.7%);
• Total Protestant (Table 67: (159,506,000 Total Christian - 50,873,000 Catholic - 645,000 Orthodox = ) 107,988,000 Total Protestant / 207,980,000 = 51.9%.

Per the above discussion about Jewish statistics including both secular and religious Jews, I used the Table 69 figure of 2.2%, rather than the 1.4% (2,831,000 / 207,980,000) constituting religious Jews alone that would come from Table 67.

Table 69 presents an upper bound of 47.4% for "Christian adherents," suggesting that the true number of Protestants should be strictly less than 47.4%; however, the 51.9% from Table 67 is more in keeping with conventional wisdom that Protestants are still a majority of Americans.

As per adherents.com, I count Stevens as a Protestant declining to state a denomination. jp2 07:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankfurter

My understanding is that he was a secular Jew, being agnostic or atheist philosophically. Anyone have any contrary information? Currently the article just describes him as Jewish under the religious section, and I'm thinking this was a hasty categorization based on his ethnicity alone. Postdlf 22:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Good point! Being Jewish is both a cultural and religious state, and yes, Frankfurter was secular (apparently Breyer is as well). Probably a good deal could be written on the relative religiosity of the Justices, some of whom were pious believers and others having been functional athiests or agnostics presenting a religious face to the public. I'd really like to know if any of the early Justices were deists, like many among the founding fathers. BD2412 T 22:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Republican-nominated Justices

"...four of the last five Republican nominated Justices either were Catholics or have since become Catholic (excepting Miers, who was evangelical and not confirmed)."

I removed the Miers reference: the one out of five exception is actually David Souter, an Episcopalian. The statistic refers to confirmed Justices, not nominees.

Though if/when Alito is confirmed, it would be much more interesting to note that Bush 43 put two Catholics on the Court, Clinton put two Jews, and Bush 41 put two Episcopalians (except that Thomas has since converted back to Catholicism).

IEdML 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I should note that the statistic doesn't even include Alito. The five are Roberts, Souter, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia.

If we were counting Alito and Miers, Bork would also be between Kennedy and Scalia -- and Bork was Protestant at the time. He converted to Catholicism in 2003, but that's not terribly relevant since he's not on the Court.

IEdML 17:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure this fits the discussion, but...

A hopefully interesting tidbit anyway on religious demographics of governments.

There has also never been a Mormon, Pentecostal, Muslim, or Eastern Orthodox President. To cover all the branches of government Lutherans and Muslims are likely the most underrepresented. There has never been a Lutheran President. As of 2005 Lutherans are underrepresented among governors, The Legislative branch, and after William Rehnquist died they've been absent from the Supreme Court. Added to that Rehnquist was the only Lutheran ever to be in the Supreme Court. Episcopalians are historically(and still currently) overrepresented in the Executive Branch, Legislative,Judicial, and the governorships.

In Canada Episcopalians are also overrepresented among Prime Ministers while Lutherans are absent.[1]

Muslims have never served in high office in the US at all, AFAIK. Although Lutherans I think is more interesting because there were Lutherans even at the Constitutional Convention.--T. Anthony 09:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-Christian majority?

I don't know if this has a place on this page, which is why I'm asking.

There are a large segment of Christians who do not count Catholics as Christians. Once, someone knocked on my family's door and asked if we had accepted Jesus as our Savior. We said, yes, we're Catholic. They asked again. :) Later I learned that this wasn't an uncommon view. [2]

In the eyes of people who don't see Catholics as Christians, then, the court is currently a non-Christian majority (2 Jewish + 4 Catholic = 6 versus 3 Protestant). Is this worth writing about? Jacqui ^★ 05:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. For one if we do that we have to mention the view that this is the first time the court has been majority Christian as there are a few million Catholics in the world who would not consider Protestants to be real Christians. Even in the US there are some who would feel that way.--T. Anthony 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

...Can you source that, like I did with mine? Because I've honestly never heard that before. If you sourced it, you'd be teaching me something new. Thanks. Jacqui ^★ 04:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's actually a more common idea in Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't have a source for it at the moment, but it certainly is not something I made up. Papal Encyclicals to the twentieth century tended to be clear that Protestantism was to in least be seen as an invalid form of Christianity. SSPX essentially calls Protestants "the sects." Things like this aren't well covered online.--T. Anthony 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

(nods) okay. I can certainly understand why that wouldn't have good coverage online. I'll look it up in my local library. Thanks for the expanded explanation in any case, so I know what I'm looking for. (smiles) Jacqui ^★ 08:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In Catholicism this is more common before the 20th century. Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ, quoted favorably in SUMMO IUGITER STUDIO(which largely concerns Catholics marrying Protestants) by Pope Gregory XVI. I'll look for more later, I didn't really sleep well last night.--T. Anthony 10:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Germans and Scandinavians

One editor quite rightly noted in an edit summary that "We've been appointing Germans and Scandinavians for years - 'white' says it better than 'anglo-saxon'." I'd actually like to delve a bit into the ancestry of the 106 White Justices - were they predominately descended from Anglo Saxons? Irish? Scottish? French? How many were German? Scandinavian? Mediterranean? Were any of Eastern European ancestry? Have any had even a fraction of Native American ancestry? BD2412 T 01:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Lead

For example, the current nomination of a male, Italian Catholic means the court will remain overwhelmingly male and could become majority Catholic for the first time in its history.

This needs a wikilink and context, who is this mysterious male? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Representation"

Something about this article troubles me. The discussion in the section of member's religous beliefs talks in terms of "representation" and compares the demography of the court to the nation as a whole. The Supreme Court is not a representative body, and I see no good reason why it should even vaguely be relevant as to whether protestants are "under" represented or jews "over" represented. If the Court is doing its job right, the religious views of the members are incidental. I'm a WASP, which makes my cloest "representative" on the court Justice Souter. However, first, Justice Souter is about the furthest point in the sky from my view of law (closer would be a catholic Italian-American and a catholic african american), and second, it's unclear why I (or anyone else) would be due "representation." I don't like the use of identity politics in electing bodies which are supposed to be representative, and a fortiori, I hold it to be absolutley illegitimate in selecting nonrepresentative bodies such as the Courts. In any instance, I'm having trouble finding a way to say "this material is of purely academic interest" in NPOV language; can anyone suggest a reason why I'm wrong to be concerned, or a good choice of words? Simon Dodd 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Might be worthwhile just to say in the opening that the demographic composition of the Court, while often a matter of societal interest, is largely irrelevant to the function of the Court itself, as the views of individual Justices may have no connection with the views generally attributed to their demographic group. bd2412 T 16:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Disproportionate emphasis on religion

Does this article's emphasis on the religious affiliations of the justices do justice to this article's title? Here's wikipedia's introductory paragraph on demographics as of 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC):

Demographics is a shorthand term for 'population characteristics'. Demographics include age, income, mobility (in terms of travel time to work or number of vehicles available), educational attainment, home ownership, employment status, and even location. Distributions of values within a demographic variable, and across households, are both of interest, as well as trends over time. Demographics is used in marketing research, opinion research, political research, the study of consumer behaviour, as well as in straightforward marketing, which is the primary topic of this article.

Does this article reflect this definition? Here's some evidence to the contrary:

• The second sentence of the introduction, one of only two above the TOC, chooses to emphasize gender and religious affiliation:

For example, the recent confirmation of a male, Italian Catholic means the Court will remain overwhelmingly male, while becoming majority Catholic for the first time in its history.

• After the below-the-TOC introduction, we have a section on religion that is roughly four times longer than the other sections, and that's after economic and educational backgrounds are lumped together.

These characteristics of the current article call into question the article's Neutral point of view, since undue weight) appears to be placed on religious affiliation.

Before I attempt to address this issue, I am curious as to the current views of editors actively involved in this article. Am I an overreacting member of a small minority about this? If not, does the answer have to be to expand the other sections, or could the religious section be tightened up (say cut in half) to better present the range of topics that "demographics" are meant to cover?

Just trying to take the temperature of this article's current community before I proceed. Thanks. 66.167.139.66 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

The article originated in an effort to get a particular editor to stop posting alarmist statements about the "Catholic majority" in a variety of other articles, so the initial focus has been heavy on religion. Also, there's more to say about religion than, say gender or ethnicity, because there has been more religious diversity than any other kind (not much more can be said about gender than the fact that we've had two Justices who are women). It's also much easier to get information on the religion of the Justices than on factors such as income, home ownership, travel time to work, etc. I would support the significant expansion of the underdeveloped sections on geographic origin, wealth, and education, but I would strongly object to any reduction of the valid, sourced information on religious affiliations. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think, as the article has evolved, this objection has been resolved. bd2412 T 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of Justices

The justices at the end seem to be in no order whatsoever. Is this customary?

• They are ordered by seniority - Roberts is at the top because he is Chief Justice, but the rest are by date of appointment to the Court. bd2412 T 23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Gender and sexual orientation

Gender and sexual orientation are as different (or as interdependent, if you like) as gender and ethnicity. I will separate these categories out. jp2 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To fend off complaints, I would make a separate gender identity section, too, if there were any content that seemed appropriate, but I know of no such content. jp2 (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the separate subheader for sexual orientation. I'm not aware of any suggestion, even, that any Supreme Court Justice or nominee had any issues that would fall under a heading of "gender identity". bd2412 T 05:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

My first impression was that the opening sentence ("The demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States have been raised as an issue in various contexts over the last century") should be a little more definitive of the topic itself rather than just referencing contexts in which it has been raised (and why over just the last century?) Otherwise, the article seems generally sound.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will be starting the GAN evaluation shortly. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded and hopefully clarified that a bit. Perhaps the "Introduction" should be recast as the opening section. bd2412 T 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question regarding a couple of the citations. They refer to: Andrew Kaufman, Cardozo (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000) at 89. What does "at 89" mean? Is it supposed to be part of the title, a page number, or something else? Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be page numbers, which I have now corrected (as well as the date). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. BTW, I have e-mailed you a related article I ran across in 2006 in The Economist. Please don't feel compelled to use it in the article; I sent it over merely as an enjoyable read. Majoreditor (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm close to completing my initial review. I'll post results no later than Saturday. (Sorry for the delay; I have some off-wiki developments.) Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit about the Thomas poverty claim - it's precious hard to find economic background on the other Justices, except to say their parents' occupations. bd2412 T 07:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Overall, the article is quite nice. You've taken an interesting topic and build a respectable article which is free of POV, well-structured and quite readable. Some sections are thin; that will be an issue should you want to develop this to FA-class.

I'm placing the nomination on hold to give you time to address some issues. Please see below for details.

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Passable, but the prose could be sharper, and the lead need to be expanded a bit more to provide a fuller summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. I've done some copyediting; I'll give the article a final look-over tomorrow to see if there's anything I missed.

2. Factually accurate?: Almost there. On hold, pending cleanup of {{fact}} tag

I have provided a citation for the remaining {{fact}} tag. bd2412 T 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: The article needs some additional work. You've ensured that the article touches upon all major demographic factors, and I like the way you've arranged the sections. However, the ethnic/racial and gender sections say little on public thoughts and reception regarding gender and ethnic/racial diversity.

I'll see what I can find to address this. bd2412 T 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues. You've done a good job with presenting the material in a NPOV.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Thank you for your work so far. Majoreditor (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I will drop a note as soon as I resolve the above issues - thanks! bd2412 T 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How's it coming along? Majoreditor (talk)

Haven't had time to do the research yet, but I will by the end of this week. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a few notes on public opinion derived from polls. bd2412 T 01:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice enhancements to the article.

I will be on vacation for a week starting tomorrow.

Just one other thought. While I think that the lead is a fairly good ecapsulation of the article, others may find it a tad bit brief. You may wish to enhance it. Majoreditor (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep on it. Thanks again. bd2412 T 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to pass this article. Most of the major issues raised above appear to have been dealt with. IMO, this article meets the GA criteria. Protonk (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

More about the religion section

The article rightly begins by pointing out that things like religion are not very important in this context. However, the section on religion contains the following paragraph:

Catholic Justices now constitute 56% (5 of 9) of the Supreme Court; about 25% of Americans are Catholic. Jewish Justices constitute 22% (2 of 9) of the Court; about 2% of Americans are Jewish. The sole Episcopal Justice represents 11% (1 of 9) of the Court; about 2% of Americans are Episcopalians. The sole Protestant Justice declining to specify a denomination represents 11% (1 of 9) of the Court; about 3% of Americans are Protestants who decline to specify a denomination. Grouping all Protestant denominations together, including Episcopalians, Protestant Justices constitute 22% (2 of 9) of the Court; 52% of Americans are Protestants, overall.

Such a section strongly suggests that each religion should be appropriately represented, which directly contradicts the lede. Indeed, these detailed statistics to me suggest something of an obsession with this subject. I think the entire paragraph should simply be removed, but wanted to discuss it first. Thoughts/objections? --KarlFrei (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings in favor of keeping the paragraph as written. Some conspiracy theory-types have put forth the idea that this is part of a conspiracy to affect the character of the Court, and I believe that's where that paragraph originates. bd2412 T 15:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Justice at Appointment

There seem to be three claimants: 1. Lurton, who was 65. 2. Hughes, who was 67 and not on the Court when he was appointed Chief Justice, but who had served earlier as an Associate Justice in his career. 3. Stone, who was 68 when he was appointed Chief Justice, but already on the Court. Lurton's claim seems to be bogus to me, but frankly, given that being "elevated" to the position of Chief Justice requires a new nomination, confirmation, and appointment, it seems to me like Stone obviously takes the cake here and it is simply irrelevant that he happened already to be serving on the Court at the time of his appointment. Compare this situation to the situation if McCain had won the election in November. Since McCain was 72 at the time (well, he still is) and thus older than Reagan in 1980 (69), McCain would have been the oldest man ever to assume the Office of President. However, because Reagan was 73 when he was reelected in 1984, Reagan would still have been the oldest man ever elected President. Similarly, the Stone situation may be unromantic, but he was indeed the oldest man ever to be appointed to the Supreme Court, it's just that he'd already been on it for some time when he received his second appointment. I think the article should be changed to reflect that Stone was the oldest appointed Justice. Thoughts? 216.156.120.62 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is on Demographics of the Supreme Court, not Demographics of the Chief Justices. Lurton was the oldest Justice to be walking into the Court for the first time. Stone was basically switched from one seat on the Court to another (the Chief Justice has no special power on the Court other than assigning opinion writers when he is in the majority). The Hughes situation is an anomaly, but there is no reason why we can not discuss and explain all three. bd2412 T 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point which is that an "elevation" to Chief Justice is actually a new appointment. What if we change the language of appointment to a language of "joining," which would make Lurton the oldest Justice to join the Court? 216.156.120.62 (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, but I also see no reason why we shouldn't mention all three situations. Each is, from a different perspective, an example of an appointment made when the subject is at a relatively advanced age, and thereafter had a relatively short stint on the Court. It may also be worth noting that more recently, Rehnquist was elevated to Chief Justice a week shy of his 64th birthday, and held that office for 19 years. bd2412 T 22:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)