Talk:Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amici[edit]

I think amici rarely merit mention in WP entries of this sort. Most -- not all -- are PR exercises of little use to the courts. I saw an interview with Justice Ginsburg once where she was asked if amici were useful and her answer was something like: I shouldn't say never.....but no. Yet I bet she filed a few back in the day and Boudin in his recent Gill decision thanked amici for their briefs. In this instance, the participation of many businesses is, I think noteworthy, that of the cities and law firms less so, those of House Democrats and Senate Republicans not at all. For 2 former AGs to speak up adds something to the reader's understanding of the politicization of the DOJ. Etc. I just hope we don't start adding them without stopping to ask whether each is new or noteworthy.

See, for example, the list of amici on behalf of the plaintiffs in Gill here. Many are identical to those filing now in Golinski and what they file has hardly changed from a few months ago.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]