Talk:Rice v. Cayetano

Hawaii High‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii 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.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Untitled

Starting a new version of the article on the temp page. KeithH 08:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temp page moved to main article. RedWolf 04:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word Indian

The article uses words such as "Indian" and "American Indian" in the history, petitioner's case, respondent's case, the majority and dissenting opinions, and the reaction to the opinions. Are those really the words used by the petitioner, respondent, justices, and people who are reacting in a legal fashion to this case? JohnWycliff (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on Petitioner's Argument

The article also comments on the Petitioner's Argument while discussing it; in particular to clarify its implicit intent. For instance, analogies to Nuremberg laws may evoke anti-Nazi sentiments but these may not have been the Petitioner's intent-- indeed, the intent may be simply to show that similar laws were not enacted in the United States, and the only popularly known Laws that did so were those by the Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.91.105 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations?

The article implies (without citations!) that the plaintiff was related to William Harrison Rice which would of course need to be verified. But there are a couple articles on them now. W Nowicki (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massively biased and poorly sourced

Come on, guys. A whole paragraph claiming to explain Hawaiian history without a single source? What is this? Sparksflame (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]