| Revision as of 05:19, 25 January 2009 editDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 edits →Consensus check: grammer← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:55, 31 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,087 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:John Roberts/Archive 5) (bot |
| (495 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheaderlong}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|importance=|politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Indiana|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Roberts, John G.|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=}} |
|
<center><div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: none; padding: 5px; width: 220px;">For older discussion, see '''archives: ], ], ], ]'''</div></center> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States courts and judges|importance=Top}} |
|
<br> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|IN=yes|IN-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Abortion|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 800K |
|
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:John Roberts/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2015-09-29|oldid1=683267097}} |
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{Old moves|from1=John Glover Roberts, Jr.|destination1=John G. Roberts|date1=January 7, 2008|link1=Talk:John_Roberts/Archive_4#Requested_move|result1=Moved|from2=John G. Roberts|destination2=John Roberts|date2=October 11, 2010|link2=Special:Diff/390201955|result2=Moved unilaterally|from3=John Roberts|destination3=John Roberts (judge)|date3=October 11, 2013|link3=Talk:John_Roberts/Archive_5#Requested_move|result3=Not moved, request withdrawn}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== new opinion! == |
|
== Top of the class == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] I would just add that graduating at the top of your class can surely mean either you are ranked first (i.e., with the Fay Diploma), or in the top decile. You are right — there is no source saying that Roberts was ranked first, and no source I've found has specified what exact rank he was. But the source verifies that he was "at the top of his class," and its an accurate reflection to stick to it. I would say that "near the top" also implies that he wasn't "at the top" (i.e., the top decile), and that would be untrue. ] (]) 21:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
if you can get a newly elected president to stutter and fumble on his oath, maybe you can put a curse on his entire prsidency. aaaaaa, I guess no one else really minded too much. I think there's some serious ]-] discord signalled by the very not call-and-response feel to that oath moment. I guess we'll see. ] (]) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:That was hilarious. It was definitely Robert's fault, though. If you watch the Youtube video, he cut Obama off during the first line, and then said "faithfully" at the end instead of the beginning. I don't think he was supposed to say the words "So help me God" either. --] (]) 18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Surely the easiest solution would be to reword to something like "graduated as one of the top students in his class" or "was one of the top students in his class". <small><b><span style="border:1px solid;background:#030303"> ]</span></b></small> 03:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
] ] (]) 18:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lede discussion == |
|
== Administration of Oath of Office to Barack H. Obama == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly we're going to have to a discussion about this so I'm preëmpting it by kicking this off. I believe ]'s reversion of the lede is misguided at best and leans too heavily on precedent as a determining factor. |
|
I object to the characterization of Roberts as having "mangled" the administration of the oath of office. What I saw was that Roberts gave Obama fairly long lines of the oath, apparently believing that Obama knew the oath. That is not the same as mangling the administration. Rather, Roberts could be characterized as overestimating Obama's grasp of the oath. Whoever wrote the statement in the article was showing bias, and the sentence should be recast. ] (]) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Both Roberts and Obama were clearly nervous. Fact of the matter is that Roberts did mix up the order of words. Then again, it shouldn't be in the leading paragraph of the article. ] (]) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is fundamentally incorrect to describe Roberts broadly as an institutionalist anymore—the decisions in ] and ] make such an idea fallacious at best. Further, to revert changes that reflect Roberts' new positions on executive, judicial, and federal-enforcement power due to "some perceptions of one term" is ignorant of the fact that the most recent Supreme Court term was unprecedented in and of itself. |
|
No Obama was NOT nervous. Clearly the CJ was doing it deliberately since, then, Senator Obama had voted for not appointing him as CJ.] (]) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propose reverting the final two sentences of the lede to: |
|
:Congratulations on being able to read minds and motives. ] (]) 18:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
'''Once regarded as a ],<ref>{{Cite news |title=Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left |url=https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/05/04/chief-justice-roberts-leans-to-the-left |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200727151821/https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/05/04/chief-justice-roberts-leans-to-the-left |archive-date=July 27, 2020 |access-date=2018-10-06 |newspaper=] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Barnes |first=Robert |date=2018-06-28 |title='If it wasn't the Roberts court already, it is the Roberts court now' |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/if-it-wasnt-the-roberts-court-already-it-is-the-roberts-court-now/2018/06/28/089a6742-7ad1-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181006114631/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/if-it-wasnt-the-roberts-court-already-it-is-the-roberts-court-now/2018/06/28/089a6742-7ad1-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html |archive-date=October 6, 2018 |access-date=2018-10-06 |language=en |newspaper=]}}</ref> Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-27 |title=7 in 10 Americans think Supreme Court justices put ideology over impartiality: poll |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/06/27/7-in-10-americans-think-supreme-court-justices-put-ideology-over-impartiality-ap-norc-poll/ |access-date=2024-07-01 |website=The Oakland Press |language=en-US}}</ref> ''' ] (]) 15:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left? ] (]) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: Whoever's fault it was, the entire matter is such a non-issue that it surely does not merit mention in an encyclopedia. ] ] 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I genuinely cannot tell if you're trolling. Do you have a point? ] (]) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I can't make the changes you asked for without a reliable source. Does the source you provided ("Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left", a 2018 article from the Economist) say that Roberts was "once regarded as a swing vote"? ] (]) 17:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Fair enough, and apologies for coming in hot—I was pulling the direct language from the original edit so I didn't check the sourcing as closely as I should have. The below links more closely align with the sentence: |
|
|
::'''Once regarded as a ],<ref>{{Cite news |title=Roberts Is The New Swing Justice. That Doesn’t Mean He’s Becoming More Liberal. |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/roberts-is-the-new-swing-justice-that-doesnt-mean-hes-becoming-more-liberal/ |url-status=live |date=2020-07-16 |access-date=2024-07-18 |last1=Thomson-Devaux |first1=Amelia |last2=Bronner |first2=Laura |last3=Mejia |first3=Elena |publisher=]}}</ref> Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Supreme Court's Power Grab |url=https://www.nybooks.com/online/2024/07/06/the-supreme-courts-power-grab/ |date=2024-07-06 |access-date=2024-07-18 |last=Cole |first=David |publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-27 |title=7 in 10 Americans think Supreme Court justices put ideology over impartiality: poll |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/06/27/7-in-10-americans-think-supreme-court-justices-put-ideology-over-impartiality-ap-norc-poll/ |access-date=2024-07-01 |website=The Oakland Press |language=en-US}}</ref> ''' ] (]) 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I haven't replied because I wasn't able to access your sources. I was hoping someone else would weigh in. Could you quote the sources here? Two of them I couldn't access. ] (]) 19:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think the portion after the comma is good, but being the median or "swing justice" does not mean the same thing as being a ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I went ahead and added the proposed edit to the lede leaving out the part before the comma and adding an improved citation. ] (]) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This change was reverted by {{ping|GuardianH}} who explained the removal in an edit summary but did not participate in the discussion. Removing the content without replacing it was not my understanding of this proposal when I supported it so I'm restoring the longstanding version. Discussions on other articles suggest a lack of consensus that significant changes should be made based on the most recent news reports. ] (]) 08:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Obviously this matter should be the center stage of this dumbass' wikipedia page. He just messed up the only thing he was there to do...twice! Even my dog can recite better. Seriously, he will be known for ever as the idiot that messed up the oath of the first Afro-American President. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Based on court decisions and his leadership of the court, there is no factual reason to refer to Roberts as a current swing voter willing to work with the liberal bloc. He is a conservative who has acted to protect former President Trump, as revealed in memos published recently in the NYTimes regarding ''Trump v Anderson''. In decision after decision in the last 4 years, Roberts has been leading the push for his aggressive interpretation of the law, not for cross-ideological collaboration. The legal analysts who once described him as an "institutionalist" have recanted, saying "we were wrong." I would support @]'s proposed text: '''Once regarded as a ], Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions.''' ] (]) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
The chief justice did indeed mix up the words of the oath (twice) and then interrupted Obama when he should have let him speak. It was a very strange incident that must be mentioned in Misplaced Pages. Since it is rare that people see a chief justice perform in public, this incident is revealing. He was appointed by George W. Bush, so it is part of his legacy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
::It's a problem. The "swing voter willing to work with the liberal bloc" should be rewritten. It's terrible and everyone who reads it probably has a poor impression of Misplaced Pages. But this proposed text does not work and has been reverted multiple times. The existing text already says he is conservative, so that's a start. ] (]) 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'd be happy to remove any mention of swing voting altogether for consensus and brevity. '''"Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions."''' ] (]) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You make some good points in the above discussion to rework the lede. I generally support removing the content about Roberts being a swing vote since he now falls somewhere to the left of the median justice. |
|
|
::::I'm not seeing institutionalist as very problematic or urgent. I doubt if the Slate article meets Misplaced Pages's BLP standards. ] (]) 13:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
==Presidential Oath Flub== |
|
|
ROBERTS: Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?<br /> |
|
|
OBAMA: I am.<br /> |
|
|
ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...<br /> |
|
|
OBAMA: I, Barack...<br /> |
|
|
ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...<br /> |
|
|
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...<br /> |
|
|
ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully...<br /> |
|
|
OBAMA: ... that I will execute...<br /> |
|
|
ROBERTS: ... the off ... faithfully the Pres ... the office of President of the United States...<br /> |
|
|
OBAMA: ... the office of President of the United States faithfully...<br /> |
|
|
ROBERTS: ... and will to the best of my ability...<br /> |
|
|
OBAMA: ... and will to the best of my ability...<br /> |
|
|
ROBERTS: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.<br /> |
|
|
OBAMA: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.<br /> |
|
|
ROBERTS: So help you God?<br /> |
|
|
OBAMA: So help me God.<br /> |
|
|
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.<br /> |
|
|
{{unsigned|207.224.214.122}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Stone/Biskupic == |
|
*Yes, and? So what? Not worth mentioning. ] ] 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::It's very much worth mentioning. I predict a cascade of readers coming in during the next few days wondering what the heck happened there. And it's going to be mentioned in plenty of press articles soon enough.--] (]) 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
{{ping|GuardianH}} Stone changes "parochial" to "pedestrian". Biskupic originally wrote: "Roberts was not going to follow the pattern...and attend a parochial high school". You can find out more at ] where it is explained that the school is an independent (non-parochial) school. ] (]) 20:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Because La Lumiere eased its affiliation. At its founding, and when Roberts attended it, it was a Catholic parochial school. This is clear in Biskupic (in a later section, when describing the school's religious affiliation) and other sources. ] explains in '':'' |
|
::: No, it's not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia as no one will mention it a week from now. That's great that you think it is a water cooler discussion topic right now, but in the long run, it's meaningless. People just tripping on their tongue. |
|
|
|
::{{tq2|Jackie, as he was known, was educated at Catholic schools, and graduated from La Lumiere, at the time an all-boys parochial boarding school in LaPorte.}} |
|
|
:Tatiana Morales in : |
|
|
::{{tq2|John Glover Roberts Jr. grew up in Indiana near the shores of Lake Michigan, attending parochial schools and serving as an altar boy.}} ] (]) 20:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's still Catholic. I don't think it was ever a parochial school. "At the time" probably refers to its being a co-educational school now. She says it was founded by businessmen. ] (]) 21:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"At the time" is referring to when Roberts attended it – its pretty clear this is what Toobin and others refer to. ] (]) 21:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Toobin is correct that it was an all-boys school. But it was not a parochial school. If you are satisfied with the factual error you have added to the article then leave it as it is. I don't know why you are arguing with me. I have absolutely no intention of reverting this. ] (]) 21:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Leading the most corrupt Supreme Court in history == |
|
::It's mentioned in every major news outlet that I've checked. The above transcript came from press articles. The fact that Obama, in the end, recited the oath differently than it is written in the Constitution I think is worth noting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“kicked precedent to the curb” and become “a tragedy” for civil rights and the rule of law. should be added in the beginning paragraph, since this "article" blocks editing. This statement comes directly from a high ranking judge, David Tatel, and is more sourced than any of the self-promoting garbage in the introductory paragraph that is backed by op-eds. Misplaced Pages is not a PR firm for the elite. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
::: It's completely non-notable. Even if you think it is, then at least put it somewhere else, not in the leading paragraph. ] (]) 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Okay, let's put this in perspective using Misplaced Pages rules: #1 this is not central to Robert's life or career and does ''not'' deserve to be in the lede; #2 I'm sure there are blogs all over this, but we need some ] to cite before it can go into the article; #3 if we '''do''' get those reliable sources it deserves, at most, a one-line mention further down in the article. This should '''not''' be in the opening paragraph of the article. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Is a YouTube video of the oath a reliable source? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
The above claim is ridiculous. It is so obvious that it should be in the first part. I had never ever heard about this person, and now from the other side of the earth I know who he is because of his errors. This should be the single definition of his wikipedia entry. He managed to make a remarkable thing to mess up 35 words. Wow! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'll note that all previous chief justices have on their articles mentions of the presidential oaths they administered, even if they happened without incident. The fact that you aren't interested isn't proof of non-notability.--] (]) 20:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:He's the Chief Justice of the ] of the United States. He's got a lot more notability from that than from a one-time screwup during the inauguration. Even if I find his screw-up hilarious as a fellow America. :) — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::All the other guys were also chief justices of the supreme court as well. Ultimately, it's not really up to us to judge. We just need to look at the press, and while his error is headlines everywhere, it deserves at least a mention. I suspect to most people right now, he's actually best known as 'that guy who messed up the inauguration'.--] (]) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Of course google is not proof, but let us note: |
|
|
::::John Roberts "appeals court" 118,000 |
|
|
::::John Roberts inauguration 317,000 |
|
|
::::John Roberts "district of columbia" 323,000 |
|
|
::::John Roberts obama 1,590,000 |
|
|
::::John Roberts "chief justice" 607,000 |
|
|
::::John Roberts "White House Counsel" 37,900 |
|
|
::::John Roberts oath obama 145,000 |
|
|
:::And this is within hours of the event. I suspect these numbers will grow. |
|
|
:::--] (]) 21:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] is not a valid indicator of notability. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::To clarify: I do think it deserves a place in the article, and the current version fits very nicely. I do not, however, think this is ''significant'' enough in Roberts' life to include in the lede. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Regarding the Google hits, digging a little deeper reveals that once you get past the first few pages, only a handful are about the flub. There are a lot of hits, for example, for the fairly well-publicized lawsuit to prohibit Roberts and Obama from concluding the oath with "So help me God" (the combination John Roberts oath obama atheist reports 170,000 hits, underscoring the unreliability of the measure). ] ] 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Which went nowhere, of course. Although Roberts gave him an out. He ''asked'', "So help you God?" and Obama could have said, "Nah, skip that part," but instead said, "So help me God." Given the state of things, Obama is not going to turn away any help. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yeah, but my personal position is that we should mention him administering the oath in the leader, and then talk about details like the flub and the two's history later on.--] (]) 23:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::It's worth a footnote at best. It was clear that the both of them were a little nervous. Roberts will likely get it right the next time. This was his first time doing this task. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Of course you have a WP:RS for that, correct? Otherwise this is just your opinion, which has no merit in this discussion. I found two reliable sources to back up my view on this ] (]) 06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
It would be more relevant if other such screwups could be covered for comparison. For example, on CBS it was mentioned that Taft messed it up when he was administering the oath, to Coolidge I think it was, and he got letters from kids telling him he got it wrong. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I haven't found any information that states that Taft messed up administering the oath to Coolidge, but that Coolidge's first succession was abrupt because of Harding's sudden death, and so at 2:47am Coolidge's father administered the oath to him. The following day Coolidge was re-sworn in by Justice Hoeling because of confusion over Coolidge's father having authority to administer the presidential oath. ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::It might have been Hoover. Taft was Chief Justice until 1930 or so. So it could have been Coolidge in 1925 after he was elected (not when he succeeded Harding), or Hoover in 1929, either of which could have been on the radio. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It was Taft swearing in Hoover, and he simply got one of the words wrong. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This needs to be in the lead paragraph, period. For 95% of Americans this will be their first experience with Roberts and this is going to go down in history. It will be Roberts' legacy. ] (]) 06:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:please cite a reliable source that says it's going to go down in history and will be robert's legacy. oh - wait - there's no reliable source. you're just stating your opinion that that will be the case. that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. but that's not what wikipedia is here for. and that's not what the lede of an article is for. and that's not how BLP's are written. come back in a month, and we'll see if this is still 'front page news' so to speak. then, you'll have no trouble finding a WP:RS that says what you believe the future holds. for now, it's a minor verbal gaffe, and not notable by any measure for this person's BLP. ] (]) 06:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:oh, and to clarify - it ''is'' described in detail in the body of the article. it's not hidden or obfuscated. however, it's simply not notable for the lede of a BLP. not yet. again, come back in a month. there's no hurry - ''particularly'' with BLPs. ] (]) 06:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::you are so wrong it isn't really worth my time to explain why. everything you just said is wrong. ] (]) 06:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Jay Leno and David Letterman will make fun of it for a few days and then it will be forgotten. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::unless this guy lights himself on fire on live television this article will get more traffic in the next month than it will for the rest of his career. so if there is any time for this to be in the first paragraph, this is it ] (]) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::that's not much of a rebuttal. everything i wrote is backed up by wikipedia policy. your earlier edit of the article said "While swearing in the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, Roberts made several errors and was widely mocked on blogs and internet message boards for being an asshat.". you expect to be taken seriously in this matter when posting obnoxious material to a public biography of a living person? you expect too much. ] (]) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::i agree with you that my first edit was better, but i could not find a WP:RS for that, so until i do, i am ok with the asshat part being left out. ] (]) 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I would also like to see a reliable source for why it even matters. Others have flubbed their lines, and technically anyone who inserts his own name (which is most of them) also violate the strict letter of the Constitution. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::DegenFarang, you're already beyond ]. please stop. i'm not going to revert you again, as then i'd be in violation of 3RR - but other interested editors are not so constrained. please stop pushing this point. the flub is mentioned in the body of the article, clearly referenced. it is not notable enough for the lede. drop it. ] (]) 06:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It is the most significant event that has occurred in his life to date, at least in terms of what the general public knows about and will remember...and in terms of what the average Misplaced Pages reader will be looking for. I have found a source and added it which states the reason Roberts did this may have been in retaliation for Obama voting against him in the Senate confirmation hearings. That shows the importance of this issue. So you drop it, I am clearly right. ] (]) 06:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::this is absurd. your most recent edit claims that it was in "retaliation" for voting against him; but you're synthesizing that, because the source '''does not'' say that. so now you're posting intentionally defamatory claims in the lede of a BLP. which is a shame, since you apparently got all worked up about defamatory statements being added to ] a while back, but i guess there's an unsurprising double standard here. i'll be reporting you on the BLP noticeboard. note that reverting defamatory/libelous material from a BLP is not restricted by the 3RR rule. ] (]) 06:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Ok well then re-word what I wrote so that it does not synthesize anything. I was trying to add relevance and sources. You keep saying to find a WP:RS so I found one. Re-word it you like, I just want some mention of this in the lead as it clearly belongs there ] (]) 07:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You can't possibly find a source that can prove anyone will care about this for more than a day or two. Crystal-balling is against the wikipedia rules. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You are the one crystal balling. You can't possibly find a source which says this is irrelevant in the history of the United States, John Roberts and Barack Obama. In reality it is a significant historical event to all three...to Roberts it has greater historical significance than anything he has ever done or will do. Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant, stop edit warring ] (]) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I don't have to. You're claiming it is relevant, therefore you must prove it. And you can't. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I did, with two sources. Stop edit warring, just knock it off.] (]) 07:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::No source you can cite can possibly prove such a prediction. Meanwhile, I predict you will be blocked for edit-warring, as you're at about 8RR at this point. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Ok I want you to prove to me that Barack Obama is a significant historical figure. No source you can find can prove such a prediction because Misplaced Pages is not for crystal balling. Your arguments are pathetic. You clearly vote Republican and simply don't want this included so as not to tarnish the reputation of John Roberts. Get over it, he screwed up and it is very significant. ] (]) 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Consensus is that U.S. Presidents are notable figures. That's why they get wikipedia articles. Even ], who typically ranks (so to speak) near the bottom of the list of Presidents, gets an article. That's consensus. And the last time I voted Republican was before your father was born. At 9RR, you'll be blocked soon, and maybe asking yourself how badly you want to work on wikipedia. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
(unindent)wow, not that you had any credibility to begin with, but now you're just ranting. i voted for mr. president barack obama, and i respect mr. chief justice of the supreme court, john roberts. it's possible to care about presenting this person's BLP without the ravings of a frothing partisan in the lede of this article while still not necessarily being some evil, pitchfork toting republican. roberts is well known and respected (to those who don't spend their lives immersed in online poker gaming) for his intellect and for his judgements on the supreme court. it's not ''our'' fault that you weren't aware of roberts before this; it's your shortcoming. perhaps you might consider actually reading this BLP to familiarize yourself with mr. chief justice. you know. use wikipedia to learn, rather than to defame. ] (]) 07:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to report DegenFarang for edit-warring. Of course, that will take about half an hour, due to the painstaking way that thing has to be constructed. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I posted the complaint. Farang is at about 6RR at this point. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Make that 7RR. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
DegenFarang, if you are going to revert or undo an edit, please do so with one edit, while explaining your reason in the summary. Do not change the article (after clicking undo) by adding citations and rewording—then saving; add your changes as a second edit for clarity, also with an summary explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
When you were combining the undo with the changes all in one edit, you did not give a summary explanation of the changes; only the auto undo message was displayed. ] (]) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please, everyone, calm down and assume good faith. This disagreement should not be an opinion poll on Justice Roberts.--] (]) 07:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::By the way folks. Roberts asking Obama '''So help you, God'''?, isn't original. Check out Chief Justice ]'s administering the oath to President ]. -- ] (]) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It may not be original, but it doesn't make much sense since the prompt begins in the first person, "I (name)", and the oath is to be repeated verbatim following the prompt.--] (]) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Truth is, Constitutionally, Obama didn't need ''anybody'' to swear him in. All he had to do is say the oath himself. The Constitution doesn't require anybody to administer the oath. ] (]) 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Presumably the swearing-in is based on custom and tradition. Presumably all he has to do is say it and/or sign something that says it, with witnesses. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
The Administering Presidential Oath of Office section presently concludes with "rather than concluding his prompts in the first person, Roberts concluded by asking Obama, "So help you God?" which the president answered with the traditional, "So help me God." The following evening, in the White House Map Room with reporters present, Roberts and Obama repeated the oath correctly." |
|
|
It should be noted that during the do-over Roberts again said "So help you God?" as a question. The audio is available on youtube. |
|
|
Roberts should be given due credit. It is completely original. CJ Warren did not say the "so help you God" as a question when swearing in JFK, nor did anyone else going back to 1949. Sometimes the second person was used, but no one else quizzed the president-elect. Youtube currently has every president being sworn in from Truman to Bush43, and I recommend them to everyone.] (]) 22:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think this can be characterized as a flub, however, because there is no official way to phrase it (or to include it at all). I would bet that its phrased as a question and in the second person precisely to avoid the appearance that it is part of the official oath, as this was the basis of the lawsuit against using the phrase in the oath. ] ] 22:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, especially since the fact Roberts did it twice indicates it was intentional. |
|
|
This heading appears to be where people are discussing the Oath of Office thing. Should I start a new topic for this? |
|
|
I am asking that people review the audio, come to a consensus, and correct the comment about the second swearing-in. |
|
|
The audio of the first swearing-in is on Roberts' page, why not post the second one as well? |
|
|
note: you need to crank the volume up to hear Roberts say the last phrase, because his voice trails off for some reason. |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gpeoZDmOgU |
|
|
] (]) 00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, everyone seems to be conflating saying the last phrase about God as a question and administering the oath in the second person. |
|
|
These are two distinctly different things. |
|
|
The second person was used for Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Nixon. Only Roberts has asked the president-elect a question as part of administering the oath.] (]) 00:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
One could say that slipping into the second person just for the last phrase is different than administering the entire oath in the second person, and that is why Roberts put a question mark at the end, when the CJs using the second person to swear in Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon didn't say "so help you God?" |
|
|
If he said the entire oath in the first person the second time (did he say "me" or "you"?), why did he still say the last phrase as a question?] (]) 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===DegenFarang factor=== |
|
|
{{Userlinks|DegenFarang}} |
|
|
|
|
|
For 12 hours, or roughly 1 hour per rule violation. Check out his unblock request. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's very arguable that Roberts' pause was unusually long and thus the cause of Obama's interruption. It seemed natural to me. And if you listen to previous swearing in ceremonies, Roberts pause sounds somewhere in the mid-range of pause length. I know that no one wants to criticize Obama for anything, but come on. It's alright to admit that Obama screwed up. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Smith, Austin, TX <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think the fact that Obama needed to be sworn in again and this has made worldwide headlines since the Inauguration proves that this should be in the lead. ] (]) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well let me ask you this: should it be in the lead in the ] article? If Obama was writing the article on Roberts, do you think ''he'' would want this in the lead? ] ] 17:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Q1, no, because people searching for information on Barack Obama right now are not going to be searching for information about this with a greater than 90% probability. However as far as popular culture and the average citizen are concerned, this event IS john g roberts. anybody looking for information on him right now is almost certainly after it because of this event. and this event is how most americans will remember him. Q2, i doubt it, obama probably doesn't want to be reminded of that silly event. however its inclusion is not up to them as they are the interested parties...we are supposed to decide as objective editors. this is the most significant and well known event for which jgr will ever be known for. so it should be in the lead. ] (]) 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Why? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::your opinion is noted, degenfarang (and welcome back from your multiple blocks for tendentious and disruptive editing). perhaps in a month we'll revisit the matter. wikipedia frequently suffers terribly from recentism, and this is a textbook case. in a month, we'll see just how relevant the world considers this matter, and at that time, perhaps it may be considered notable for inclusion in the lede. reliable sources provide excellent guidance in that regard. ] (]) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::'suffering from recintism' and keeping articles current are different. wikipedia is not your utopian ideal for how an enyclopedia should be...it serves a purpose and provides information for people who are searching for it. if you put 'john g roberts' into google i imagine this article is one of the top 2 entries. when people search that name right now, what do you think they are looking for? burying this information deep in the article is doing all of those people a huge disservice, because you think that 'recintism' is bad. ] (]) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok so it appears we have consensus. I will be adding this back to the lead soon. ] (]) 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:i'm going to have to assume you're joking; either that or you're interested in getting blocked again. clearly there's no consensus. please do not change the lede per your opinion of what is notable to john g. robert's lifetime. ] (]) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::"...the most significant and well known event for which jgr will ever be known for"??? That statement alone sounds like a sarcastic joke. The scary part is, I think he's serious. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Baseball Bugs, are you a gambler? I'll wager you any reasonable sum of money that in one year, if you poll twenty random american's age 18-50 what comes to their mind when they hear 'Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John G. Roberts', greater than 2/3rds of them will say that he 'flubbed' when swearing in Barack Obama. This will be his legacy, he will never live it down, ever. ] (]) 17:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I never bet on anything to do with future events. If he were to, for example, become instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade, I have a hunch that will be considered of greater importance than mis-stating the oath of office. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Important to who? I consider myself fairly knowledgeable of current events and US history and I can't name one Supreme Court members who was instrumental in ''any'' case in US history. Sarah Palin was nominated for VP and even she could not name one Supreme Court decision she does not agree with. The average American does not know or care what each Justice has to do with any decision...what they do care about his this guys screwing up the single most important historical event in the United States since 9/11 and arguably further back than that. This needs to be in the lead, especially now. How do we take this matter to some kind of dispute resolution because you two are obviously working as a team to silence me and I do not accept that 1:1 is a consensus. ] (]) 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Well, let's see... there was the Earl Warren court, that produced the ''Brown v. Board of Education'' decision. And I would argue that that case mattered a lot more to Obama than the Porky Pig-like swearing in thing was. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Thank you for proving my point. You are not objective and you should not be inserting your opinion into this discussion. You are clearly at least a hobby-supreme court buff, and that is all fine and dandy and i salute you. however you are going to be naturally biased on issues like this and have a hard time relating to the average wikipedia user, and that is who this page is for. this is not editorial masturbation, where you create a page that fits your particular wants and desires...this is a page for the millions of users who use and read wikipedia everyday. to them this issue is important and will forever be important. so it needs to be in the lead ] (]) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I am NOT a "Supreme Court buff", I simply paid attention in history class. Warren was a very famous Chief Justice, in part from the ''Brown v. Board of Education'' and in part for the Warren Commission investigation of the JFK assassination. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: According to the MSNBC article on the re-swearing in, Taft made a similar flub when swearing in Calvin Coolidge, but that apparently merits no mention in either article - in the context of history, such things are meaningless. ] ] 18:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The source I had seen said it was Taft and Hoover. The Coolidge deal was that he did it twice, because the first time it was his father, who wasn't an actual judge. Taft, though, might have been known for other things, having been President once. The most important thing he ever did as President, of course, was to start the tradition of the seventh-inning stretch. That was connected with the other important thing he was known for, his walking imitation of a dirigible. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Neither of them was black ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Nor is Judge Roberts, although he might have been ''red-faced''. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
(outdent) Jumpin' Junipers. I sure hope Chief Justice Roberts, doesn't mess up in 2013. Or we'll be going through this, all over again. ] (]) 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:If he has this same problem in 2013, maybe then you've got something worth including here. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Once again we have a consensus other than two people who are working as a team saying that this should not be included. If nobody else other than this team disagrees, I will be changing the article as per WP:SMD ] (]) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Consensus, including my opinion on the matter, is firmly against you. I wouldn't make another reversion against consensus if I were you, admins would not take too kindly to that coming off of your block for edit warring to do the exact same thing. ] (]) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I too, am against putting the ''oath blooper'' in the lead. To place it there, smack of recentism & besides, the blooper didn't cause a Constitutional crises. ] (]) 19:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===2013=== |
|
|
FWIW, if Roberts & Obama face each other at the 2013 Inauguration, they'll get to do the ''swearing-in'' twice again. This time 'privately' on January 20th (a Sunday), then 'publicly' on January 21st. ] (]) 02:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:They'll just keep doing it until they get it right. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Consensus check ==== |
|
|
] seems to believe that consensus exists that the Oath of Office flub should be in the lead. Just to clarify, I will ask editors to this page to state their position and rationale on the matter. Specifically, the proposal is that the Oath of Office flub should be in the lead. If you feel that the flub should be in the lead, please indicate '''Support'''. If you feel that it should ''not'' be in the lead, please indicate '''Oppose'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. The flub is a minor incident, and not important enough to mentioned in the lead. ] ] 20:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. The blooper, didn't cause a Constitutional crises. Adding it, would be recentism. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Minutia. Trivial incident. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Barely notable enough to be in the article, let alone the lede (see ] (the lede "should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points ")). ] (]) 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per BD2412. ] ] 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Even though consensus is not a vote, this should go a long way towards showing DF that consensus is and was against him. Trivial, no need for mention in lede. ] (]) 22:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' It is trivia. Not only should it not be in the lead, it shouldn't be in the article.--] (]) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. I reverted DegenFarang's first edit on this article for three reasons: addition of unreferenced controversial POV material to the lead of a living person's biography, his edit summary said "rvv", and the edit contained "asshat". Note: ] / ]. This was a very deceptive approach, since he did not revert anything—let alone vandalism; instead he was inserting biased material. He assumed our trust by stating that he was reverting vandalism (thereby protecting the article); when he was actually using this edit summary as a deception to insert his personal opinions. ] (]) 00:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' it ''is'' slightly notable, but only as trivia, and trivia is generally discouraged. it is not notable enough to john g roberts biography to be in the lede. what ''is'' genuinely notable is degenfarang multiple displays of contempt for the process here (resulting in multiple blocks), and for his fellow editors. ] (]) 05:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' This is the most significant event in his life and will remain so forever, this will be his legacy. I'm glad that you guys went an got all of your friends to say OPPOSE but consensus is not decided on a vote, I am clearly right and all of you are wrong, so I will be changing the article to reflect the consensus ] (]) 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**No, you won't. You said the same thing earlier and didn't make any such edit, and it's obvious now consensus is against you. What you're doing now is just disruption. Please accept there's no consensus for your opinion, and just leave it at that. ] (]) 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
***I am well within my rights to edit this article, see WP:SMD, there is a clear consensus...consensus is not decided by a vote ] (]) 06:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
****You are well aware that there is no "WP:SMD" policy. Consensus is against you. ] (]) 06:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*****SMD. An elusive acronym. Maybe stands for "Save My Dingaling". ] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment:''' I have warned DF about his usage of "WP:SMD", which does not represent policy and seems to be a juvenile personal attack. ] (]) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**(1)What are you talking about? He's the Chief Justice of the United States. He's done more notable things this ''month'' than inaugurating a President and you think that this is a ''lifetime significant'' moment? Because of a minor wording flub in the first of his many Presidential inaugurations? (2) What consensus? You're the only one who agrees with you. Whatever consensus is, it isn't that. (3)What is ]? There's no such thing. Do you mean ]? ] (]) 12:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
***I suspect that "SMD" stands for something rather vulgar (if you've ever seen ''G.I. Jane'', it was something of a motif in the cage-fight sequence). And that ] is trolling. In the earlier discussion, he claimed never to have heard of Roberts before the Oath, which would, at the very least, indicate a level of detachment from the news that would make him singularly unqualified to speak to the content of this article. ] ] 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
****What's the process for getting rid of him? I mean, if he's inerudite and disruptive, it seems insane to waste other editors' time micromanaging him.] (]) 13:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*****I have removed this article from my watch list and I will wander back to it in a month or more with several sources proving that all of you fail to recognize how important this is. For now, you can have your way. And Yes Simon Dodd I meant WP:BRD thank you for that clarification. See also ] ] (]) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
******A whole month? ] (not to mention common sense) envisions a somewhat longer timeframe. Bill Rehnquist, appointed at roughly the same age as Roberts (48, to Roberts' 50), served for 33 years. In view of that, it seems reasonable to assume that, ceteris paribus, Roberts will be on the court through at least 2037, meaning that he will give the oath of office seven more times to at least four Presidents, starting with Obama's successor in 2013. Meanwhile, the court will have decided, with Roberts' vote, somewhere in the vicinity of 2700-4000 cases. He will probably have written anywhere from five hundred to a thousand opinions of varying lengths. You need to listen to what other editors who understand this subject better than you do (by your own admission, as ] pointed out above) are saying: this event is trivial. It doesn't belong in the article, it certainly doesn't belong in the lede, and five years from now, it won't be in either.] (]) 14:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*******"starting with Obama's successor in 2013" LOL see a filthy partisan! and one who is obviously far more intelligent than the average wiki user. i'm just trying to argue for the masses, and the masses don't know half of the stuff you just claimed or anything about this guy other than this incident...however i concede to the mass of republicans here who don't want this included in the lead, so as i said, i've thrown in the towel. see WP:RNC ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 17:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
********It speaks volumes that you assume anyone disagreeing with you on this point must be a political opponent. Not so: of those who've voted '''oppose''' here, ] is a liberal, and so are ] and ], so far as I can see (going by their user pages). Moreover, even if you're right that people visiting this article don't know all this stuff - ''informing them about this stuff is why we're all here!'' Put another way, if your theory that this is the first time many people are meeting John Roberts, and they're coming to wikipedia to find out more: why is that an argument for inclusion? You don't need to tell visitors something they already know!] (]) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*********That is an interesting argument,..however if we should not include things in the lead which people already know, perhaps this should be removed from the lead of ]: "The first African American elected President". I'm fairly certain even the average Chinese factory worker knows that ] (]) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**********There's a very simple difference (although I admit that it turns on an unstated assumption of my previous comment): the point you suggest removing from Obama's article is of central relevance to Obama's article (wags could suggest it's the basis for ]), whereas the point you suggest inserting into Roberts' article is incidental minutia.] (]) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
***********Yes well, this unstated assumption is the reason we have this novel of a discussion in the first place, I think that will be the defining moment of his career, just as it may well be that BHO's career defining event will simply be that he is black, and was elected president. So when it is proven that I am right, I will expect this to be in the lead. ] (]) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
************Wonderful-- we have consensus, then! This will go in the lede when Roberts retires, if it is then determined that this was the most notable event of his career (a standard only slightly more restrictive than "when hell freezes over"). See you in thirty years.] (]) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
************ Also, referencing a fellow editor as a "filthy partisan" is a personal attack, even when the assertion is laughably untrue, and even when couched in language that makes it easy to retreat into saying you were just joking. If you are indeed proven right, and at the end of Robertson's career on the Supreme Court by death or resignation, this is at the top of the list of things for which he is remembered, I will gladly change my stance on this issue and support inclusion of this incident in the lead. However, it is specious to suggest that this discussion is itself proof of the importance of the incident, as there have been far lengthier discussions on Obama's page about whether various alleged flubs by Obama should be included at all, much less in the lead. Cheers! ] ] 20:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*************For the record, I assumed that the "filthy partisan" line was tongue in cheek. :) ] (]) 01:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**Out of curiosity, what other, more notable things has John G. Roberts done this month?--] (]) 13:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
***Feel free to research the matter. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
***I had in mind ], ], and most of all, his opinion for the court in ], which ] thinks is of "" (although I recognize that ] thinks otherwise ).] (]) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
****As I said earlier, this is not editorial masturbation. This article does not exist for the pleasure of those who follow the Supreme Court and all of its machinations. If you think those events are notable in any way to 99% of Americans, you are wrong. ] (]) 23:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*****(1) . (2) Widespread awareness among lay readers != notability. Whether the man on the street has heard of these cases is beside the point; said man on the street will rapidly discover just how notable and important those cases they are should they ever find themselves on the wrong side of a criminal prosecution.] (]) 23:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
****** Indeed. The decisions made by the Supreme Court affect the very meaning of the law, and although some are fairly rarified, there are probably 50-60 decisions handed down per year that directly bear on our lives. Can the government constitutionally force you to sell your house at the rate it deems "fair" and then turn it over to a developer to build a mall? Decided by the Supreme Court. Can you, as an individual, sue a corporation that dumps toxic waste in a river near where you live? Decided by the Supreme Court. Can consenting adults be jailed for sexual activities done in private? Decided by the Supreme Court. And in every instance, each Justice on the Court had an impact on the final outcome, not just on the yes/no, but the shape and reach of the decision. Cases have far more lasting impact than public pronouncements, flubbed or no (consider, by way of comparison, Obama's widely reported remark on people clinging to guns and religion, and compare that to the actual impact of Obama's policies). ] ] 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*******I never said he wasn't important. I said the average American wouldn't care about those things Senor Dodd mentioned. They would care about this flub, however, as will be proven in time. Also that You !=Some people thing was perfect, and illustrates exactly my point. The people on this talk page are not representative of the average Wiki user and the average people who will be looking for this article. You guys are knowledgeable about the supreme court and justice roberts (most people are not) and you care about these decision (most people do not). So: your views on the importance of this flub != 'most people'. Consensus has been met imo, most Americans would agree with me. Somebody please edit the article. ] (]) 04:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
********Your joke is wearing thin. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - DegenFarang appears to be the only one pushing this. Consensus is clearly against him. Notable enough to make the page, not the lede.--] (]) 06:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Seeing as consensus is for ''exclusion'' from the LEAD. I reckon we can move on, from this discussion. ] (]) 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:This event will go down in history. See where Joe Biden quips 'my memory isn't as good as Justice Roberts' when Obama tells him to swear in senior staff. Obama then squeezes his elbow and does not look too amused at the remark, while others in the room laugh and let out defiant 'oooohhhs'. Everybody knew exactly what he was talking about and this will further solidify this event in American history. . . . A Google News search of 'Obama Oath' returns ! Obama was required to take the oath a whether or not Obama was even President. This absolutely deserves to be in the lead. ] (]) 05:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Roberts court request for citations== |
|
|
The Roberts court section has a request for citations that is a year old. After a review of that section, I am having trouble finding the unverified claims that may be removed. There is no comment from the user who placed that tag here on the talk page of what exactly needs to be verified. Does the tag still have relevance? ] (]) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Have you asked the one who posted it? Is that user still active? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I can certainly see why the tag was added. It would be a bother to cite everything now; but that's what should have happened as the info was added. Shame. ] (]) 01:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== wrong information == |
|
|
|
|
|
i cannot edit the page b/c there is no edit tab at the top, but if you look at the source for "administering the oath of office" that was provided, the msnbc link reports that the oath of office was given a second time in the MAP ROOM, not the oval office. someone fix this please!!! |
|
|
] (]) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Done. ] (]) 03:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry, my mistake! ] ] 03:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
Clearly we're going to have to a discussion about this so I'm preëmpting it by kicking this off. I believe PoliticalWizard55's reversion of the lede is misguided at best and leans too heavily on precedent as a determining factor.
It is fundamentally incorrect to describe Roberts broadly as an institutionalist anymore—the decisions in Chevron and Trump v. US make such an idea fallacious at best. Further, to revert changes that reflect Roberts' new positions on executive, judicial, and federal-enforcement power due to "some perceptions of one term" is ignorant of the fact that the most recent Supreme Court term was unprecedented in and of itself.
“kicked precedent to the curb” and become “a tragedy” for civil rights and the rule of law. should be added in the beginning paragraph, since this "article" blocks editing. This statement comes directly from a high ranking judge, David Tatel, and is more sourced than any of the self-promoting garbage in the introductory paragraph that is backed by op-eds. Misplaced Pages is not a PR firm for the elite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.75.177 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
