Talk:Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Range of certs granted

The lede had stated that the court grants "only 75-80" certs in a typical year. Editor Needforspeed888 changed that to "fewer than 100", with an edit summary stating the Court had been granting fewer cases (which the edit would have made less clear). After I reverted, it was changed to a larger range of "50-90". In any case, I went to the paper cited as a source, and the only reference I can find to the number of certs granted appears in page 67, Section 10.2, where it says "In a typical year, the Court grants certiorari in about 80 of the more than 7,000 cases in which Supreme Court review is requested." So this citation does not support a claim that the number has dropped off, and does not support a range of 50-90; it also did not really support the range of 75-80. Looking at the table in the [ https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/ SCOTUSBlog Stat page] (under "pace of grants"), looks like OT22 had about 60 grants, OT21 had about 67, OT20 about 71, OT19 about 61; but this is WP:Synthesis. We either need a better source, or the text needs to be changed to what the source actually states, which is "about 80". Magidin (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Court-Packing

I do not think this sentence is neutral: "The expansion of the conservative majority on the court during the presidency of Donald Trump sparked a liberal response in the form of calls for court-packing." Specifically, I question the milquetoast use of "expansion" versus the provocative expression of "court-packing".
The "expansion" was exceptional — three Justices — one-third of the Court. They are generally recognized as specifically selected to be substantially conservative, and young.

It began with one seat the Senate Leader had so deliberately left vacant for about a year, by refusing to act on a nomination in the preceding President Obama's term (so egregiously that the seat has often been called "stolen".) It ended with a third seat filled in a relative flash, within days from the end of the presidential term. For this the Senate Leader openly contradicted his own former justification of stalling to gain the first. He had averred that a seat vacated near the end of a presidential term should be filled by the next President, thus representing the interests of the popular vote. These actions by the Senate Leader are most properly identified as egregious "court packing."

Three justices were "stuffed" in one presidential term, which nobody denied were overtly selected for thoroughly strong conservative views. Furthermore, the sentiment was that these three appointments were explicitly selected to target a challenge to Roe v. Wade, with the expectation of overturning the 50-year precedent. Which then happened, followed by chaos in many states. And yet more long-time conservative goals. This is an exceptionally important part of U.S. history, and the conservative "court-packing" must not be glossed over.

By contrast the "liberal response" was strenuously not "court packing" but a wish to simply rebalance the deliberately engineered conservative political imbalance. In addition, "Democratic" is the specific term for the other end of the spectrum from "conservative". "Liberal" has frequently been used in propagandistic media as a term for disparagement. Democratic is historically the neutral term.

Having pointed out this lack of neutrality in the subject sentence, I leave it to someone with a thoroughly neutral disposition to clarify it. Furthermore, whatever Wikipedia article discusses the manipulation of the Supreme Court and its effect on Roe v. Wade should be linked.IGE (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources calling this expansion court-packing? You may have more success finding sources that say 'norm-breaking expansion' but it seems like a valid point depending on what reliable sources say Superb Owl (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@IGE I agree. I have edited that section to better reflect the context behind the move to increase the court's size, including the unprecedented change in the conservative majority from 5-4 to 6-3 under Trump. I hope this edit goes some way to address your concern. Best - Marincyclist (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Gibbons vs Ogden

This court decided that FEDERAL LAW OVERRIDES STATE LAW in the early 1800s. Can this be used? The reason I have asked is that STATE LAW PERMITS DRUG USE while FEDERAL LAW does NOT. This may become part of the current US ELECTION CYCLE, in which someone getting pot in a state could get arrested for it by the Feds. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Did NOT know I shared a bad resignation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.247.72.142 (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit Conflict with Bot: ? Was that do I share a bad designation No.#? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.247.72.142 (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)