Humanities desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 15

Hillary Clinton and the Merrick Garland supreme court nomination

Has Hillary Clinton expressed any plans or views as the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme court? Has she said whether, if she wins the Presidency, she intends to stick with the nomination? Surely some media interviewer would have asked her the question at some stage, given that the issue will inevitably end up in her presidency's lap (barring an unlikely Trump victory, or the almost equally unlikely event of congress actually acting on Obama's nomination of Garland)?

If she's been silent or noncommittal on the issue, have any analysts of note expressed any opinions as to whether she will once again nominate Garland, or will she nominate someone else? And if the answer is the latter, whom do they think are the most likely candidates? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The speculation in the press (I heard an NPR discussion to this effect) has been that Obama nominated him because he is somewhat moderate, and in this way he hoped to get a hearing. Hillary, on the other hand, could elect somebody more liberal, with the confidence that Republicans, even if they still have a majority, won't block a nominee for another 4 or perhaps 8 years. Republicans might see this coming if Hillary wins, and quickly approve Garland before Hillary gets in. However, if they don't do this and do refuse to consider any Hillary nominee, we could have a Constitutional crisis, where neither party will consider a nominee from the other party, so that no Supreme Court judges can be replaced until Congress and the President are of the same party. I suppose the Court could continue to function until it drops to 1 justice, but not with 0 (however, it seems to function better with an odd number of Justices, as then there can't be any ties). StuRat (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Title 28 of the United States Code, a quorum of 6 is required for the US Supreme Court to hear a case. -- ToE 17:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I wonder if Congress and the President would strike that down, in the event that they couldn't agree on replacements. Or you could have the bizarre situation where it is struck down by the Supreme court as unconstitutional, if it has the effect of dissolving the Court. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has the constitutionality of the quorum position ever been seriously tested? As a co-equal branch of government, I have had the impression that the Supreme Court took a dim view of the other branches telling them how to conduct their business. Dragons flight (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lee explains why the GOP will block Garland even if Clinton wins ^{WaPo, 13 Oct. 2016}

Clinton has carefully avoided committing to renominate Garland, and it seems likely that she would appoint someone who is younger and has a more progressive track record. Indeed, many activists on the left would go apoplectic if she stuck with the chief judge from the D.C. Circuit. There is a widespread feeling on the left that Obama squandered a big political opportunity by going with someone who he thought could get confirmed in the lame-duck session.

Not mentioned in that article is that the Republicans might be more inclined to approve Garland if the Democrats also win control of the Senate, as now seems somewhat more likely than not. Here is FiveThirtyEight's senate control forecast. -- ToE 20:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the nomination survive into the new presidency?

The bit of the Constitution where it talks about nominating Supreme Court justices says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" them. Is it obvious whether or not a nomination by one president can lead to an appointment by another? I don't think it's obvious. Assume that nothing happens until after the elections; is the new Senate required to vote on Garland's nomination before the new president can consider nominating someone else? If so, could they accept Garland at that time even if the new president would rather cancel the nomination? Is there any sort of case law on this point? (The same wording applies several other offices besides the Supreme Court; perhaps there has been a case regarding those other offices.) --69.159.61.230 (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See What happens to Merrick Garland’s nomination in December?.^{WaPo, 6 Oct. 2016} The nomination will expire when congress adjourns -- likely in December, but necessarily before noon on 3 January. President Obama could then renominate Judge Garland sometime before he leaves office on 20 January, and this nomination would survive into the next presidency, though the next president could withdraw the nomination. -- ToE 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that covers everything except the question of whether there's case law. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect U.S. courts would regard the internal procedures of the Senate as a political question not reviewable by the courts. Congress's procedures for conducting its own business aren't laws. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States ruled that the judicial branch has no power to review impeachments. (Note that case didn't involve Richard Nixon, but a completely different person who happened to have the same last name.) You are correct in observing that the Constitution is silent on the exact mechanics of a nomination, which is really why things are in the situation they are in. Technically there ain't no law that says the Senate must hear a Supreme Court nomination, so the Senate Republicans are pushing at the limits of precedent to placate their far-right base that thinks Obama is an evil dictator. This is the kind of thing that leads to constitutional crises. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Forbes decorations

Can anyone identify the decorations worn by Archibald Forbes, the war correspondent, in this picture of him? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top row is allegedly Order of St. Stanislas from Russia; the Iron Cross 2nd Class for Non-Combatants; the civil class of the Pour Le Mérite; and the French Legion of Honor. [1] --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And others have walked this way before: Archibald Forbes: Medal ID Exercise and this article. With some judgement, that might account for 12 or so of them. It would be interesting to complete the matrix on this page ... and I note that the forum age seems to disagree with the cigarette card page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you, will have a close read of those and see if I can sort them out. DuncanHill (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this kind of fallacy?

What is the name of the fallacy type that works like this:
Thing A has characteristic B
PS: More than one stuff stuff can share same word/name, and so some words can have multiple meanings. B is one example of that and the definition used for B was C.
Thing D apply to everything that has characteristic B.
PS:Now, the definition of B on this new case is E.
So D must apply to A.
201.18.142.36 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivocation is the technical term. The example from our article is:

A feather is light.

What is light cannot be dark.

Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Tevildo (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Your question is a bit hard to parse for me. The general scheme

B(a)\wedge \forall X:(B(X)\Rightarrow D(X))\vdash D(a)

is sound - indeed, the classical example for this syllogism is "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal". Do you want to suggest that the "B" is different in both cases? As in "All stars are giant balls of hydrogen. Patrick Steward is a star. Therefore Patrick Steward is a giant ball of hydrogen"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tevildo , Equivocation is the one. Yes your patrick exemple would be one example of what I was thinking.201.18.142.36 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if we miss out the B term and go straight from C to E, we get the quaternio terminorum fallacy - to adapt an example from above:

Hitler was a National Socialist.

Socialists are left-wing.

Hitler was left-wing.

The conclusion may (or may not) be true, but the logic is invalid. Tevildo (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That particular case would also be caused by an underlying etymological fallacy which leads to the equivocation which leads to the quaternio terminorum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one I remember was "Nothing is better than everlasting love. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than everlasting love". 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joint dormitories for men and women in army

Not long ago I heard that a certain army, possibly the Belgian Armed Forces, once faced issues of sexual harassment of female soldiers and decided to resolve them by increasing the social interaction between males and females, particularly by creating joint dormitories, and that it worked. I'd like to check this claim and see how specifically it was implemented but I couldn't find any reference in Google. Has anyone here ever heard of it? Thanks, 84.108.121.108 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're thinking of the Belgian Armed Forces? I don't know if the Belgian Armed Forces have mixed/unisex dormitories but the Norwegian Armed Forces or at least the Norwegian Army seem well known for it including the finding it appeared to reduce sexual assaults & harassment, and also increase unit cohesiveness. [2] [3] [4] [5]. [6] is an English report of the study. See also [7] [8] [9] [10]. BTW the first four links were found with a search for 'armed forces reducing sexual harassment dormitory' after 'Belgian armed forces reducing sexual harassment dormitory' didn't find anything useful under the assumption that the country involved is something easy to misremember & perhaps the most likely thing of the details that you mentioned. In retrospect 'belgian armed forces unisex dormitory' or 'belgian armed forces mixed dormitory' both work. In fact even '"belgian" armed forces unisex dormitory' and '"belgian" armed forces mixed dormitory' find stuff about Norway. Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW 'belgian armed forces joint dormitory' and '"belgian" armed forces joint dormitory' don't work, although 'norwegian armed forces joint dormitory' does. If you try searching for 'joint dormitory' or '"joint dormitory"', you'll find it's not a very common term in English for what you're referring to. Also I probably should link to [11] and [12]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Mary Parades

http://specphotos.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Festival-of-the-Virgin-Mary3031.jpg

How do people call the parade platform and statute of Virgin Mary? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "statute" is just a statue. The platform could be called a type of litter, though "litter" normally means it carries a person rather than a statue. An Italian word is it:fercolo, which is specifically a platform for a saint's statue in a procession, but may be carried by people, animal, cart, or motor vehicle. More ornate ones are called it:cereo. jnestorius^(talk) 01:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Wiktionary:litter, definition number 1: "A platform mounted on two shafts, or a more elaborate construction, designed to be carried by two (or more) people to transport one (in luxury models sometimes more) third person(s) or (occasionally in the elaborate version) a cargo, such as a religious idol." Catholics would be offended by "idol" and may prefer "image" or "icon" although the latter is usually applied to paintings in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Our Aniconism in Christianity article has more details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage of this type of event is a bit slim, we have Marian devotions#Processions, which only mentions one example in Los Angeles. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian procession has more; it's any saint, not just Mary. commons:Category:Processions has subcats commons:Category:Processional carriages commons:Category:Processional litters and commons:Category:Processional canopies though all, especially litters, are underpopulated.
Here's a user on WordReference.com giving terms used in Spain.

jnestorius^(talk) 12:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added "see also|Procession#Christian processions" to the Marian devotions article. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the cult statue article doesn't mention processions with litters, nor have a section on the ancient Near East, where such processions were a standard part of religious life and features of major festivals like the Akitu. (See, for example, this Assyrian relief.) Ushumgal (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]