Talk:Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

United States courts and judges Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Why do only a few presidents have the number rejected in parentheses next to their name? - 18 Oct 2005, Anonymous

Good question. I can fix that. :-) --Kralizec! 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think John Roberts counts as an unsuccessful nominee by any stretch. I also think the Harriet Miers section should be shorter (more like the Abe Fortas and Douglas H. Ginsburg sections), and link to the main article on her nomination. Comments? Rast 00:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on both points. Roberts cannot be considered a failed nomination just because they moved him to replace Rehnquist. Rcade 14:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly on both. Why on earth shold the Miers entry be so long when there are several other Wikipedia articles about her? El T 03:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first point about Roberts. As to your second point, it's not like it was a full screen—it was a single paragraph—and I'd rather see the separate Harriet Miers nomination article pared down and merged here, and every other failed nominee's section expanded to summarize why it failed. Postdlf 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where Roberts nomination might be considered a non-failed nomination, as his nomination was simply shifted to the Chief Justice position. However, by this criteria, we might also consider William Patterson to be a non-failed nomination, as he was renominated and approved 4 days later. The Senate list of Supreme Court nominations lists John Roberts twice, first for the O'Connor seat (withdrawn) and then for the Rehnquist seat (confirmed). --Cylar 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Paterson

So the William Paterson page says he was in fact an associate justice. Why is he listed under George Washington as unsuccessful? Superdosh 00:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look through the articles indicates that he was later re-nominated by Thomas Jefferson, and that time it was successful. But he still counts as an unsuccessful nomination. —Cleared as filed. 03:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up! -- Superdosh 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other pages do not agree. List of nominations to the SCOTUS clearly shows Paterson as having been renominated by Washington on March 4th, 1793, with the Senate confirming that same day. William Paterson lists his time as an Associate Justice as March 11, 1793 - September 9, 1806 (his death). He was not renominated by Thomas Jefferson, as Jefferson was not in office until 1801. --Cylar 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we note the ultimate outcome in each case?

I think that in each instance where a nomination failed, it would be a good practice to note which Justice had vacated the seat to be filled, and which Justice the seat ultimately went to. BD2412 ^talk 02:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin M. Stanton

According to the main article, he took the oath of office on his death bed the day he died, which would appear to make his nomination technically successful instead of unsuccessful. Jon 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete

List of failed nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States has now been merged into this one, and what was missing from the prose article that was in the list has been fleshed out with some borrowing of passages from a couple of other articles (noted in the summaries). I also cleaned some stuff up while I was in there, removing all the links from the headers and placing them in the text, and other tweaking as necessary. So there you are. It's not perfect by any means, but now we don't have redundant articles anymore. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table formatting suggestion

While reading, it became to me that the formatting of the table is unwiedly and difficult to read. Instead of having a multitude of footnotes for a very short table, I suggest that each footnote be merged into the "outcome" column, or perhaps placed into a new column of its own. 71.145.150.160 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss any proposed redirection of this title.

This page was recently converted, without discussion, to a redirect to a page lacking the contextual information provided here. This should be discussed before further efforts in this direction are made. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the revert; I agree that a simple redirect does not appear to be adequate here. Just because there is a sortable table that includes the names of the individuals does not, by itself, subsume the information in this page. Magidin (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]