Talk:Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates

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

Scotusblog mentions[edit]

I'm skeptical that the single mentions in SCOTUSblog constitute "frequent" mention. bd2412 T 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, I think the SCOTUSblog names have been mentioned by more than one source and I will try to add them later. The main exceptions are the district court judges and state supreme court justices. Just to be on the safe side, I have dropped the word "frequently" so as not to be misleading. BoBo (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the background sources - after all, anybody on a U.S. Court of Appeals or a State Supreme Court could reasonably be tapped for SCOTUS. I would hope to have a specific credible source for each name we include (like an article in a major newspaper, or the opinion of an identified Court expert). bd2412 T 18:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, any Democratic Senator of Governor with a decent law degree could reasonable by tapped as well. I'd really like to see at least one super-reputable source like a national newspaper, or at least two other sources. With respect to the names for which SCOTUSblog is the only source, I don't think those should be included. bd2412 T 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the list of potential Obama Supreme Court nominees is probably "evolving" now both within the press and among Obama's advisors themselves, I think eliminating any of the SCOTUSblog names from the current list would be premature at this point. Within the next 6-8 months (especially toward the end of the present Supreme Court term in late spring), I think the number of articles discussing nominees will increase. Only then, once some consensus has been reached, do I think it can be said that any of the SCOTUSblog names are fallacious. BoBo (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eliot Spitzer is on the SCOTUSblog list. Obviously, that's not happening. bd2412 T 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously right about that one. LOL. Still, unless there are equally disqualifying controversies involving the other nominees that haven't been exposed yet, it would seem that the rest of the list is still viable. BoBo (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically true, but I think the list is a bit far-fetched in the first place. The last thing I'd like to see is some kind of feedback loop where lazy journalists surreptitiously consult Wikipedia to determine which names are out there and end up throwing out even the dubious names that we list. As an aside, I think that there's a possibility for Biden himself to get appointed to the court, if Obama is interested in changing up the ticket for 2012. bd2412 T 04:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "far-fetched". Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog specifically laid out in the introductory post to his list that he used several clear criteria in choosing which people he thought a Democratic president would choose:

First, I drew an ideological line. Nominees are obviously likely to be of the same party as the President. On the other hand, I tried to set realistic ideological boundaries. Some brilliant and accomplished lawyers were left out because their previous writings identified them as too liberal or controversial to be reasonably confirmable.

Second, I identified a relevant body of previous experience. I assume that the next nominees will come from the federal bench, a state supreme court, Congress, a Governorship, a previous senior Justice Department position, or the Deanship of a major law school. Roughly 500 Democratic candidates fit that bill. (I sought to include in the final list multiple candidates from each category of experience.)

I did not include any of the many individuals (e.g., Teresa Roseborough) who could be considered serious candidates after even brief seasoning on the federal bench but who don’t yet have a sufficient body of experience. I focused instead on potential nominees for openings in the very immediate wake of the 2008 elections.

Third, I gave priority to demographics. I believe that the next President will feel an extraordinary pressure (and for some potential Presidents, a genuine desire) to name another woman to the Court, likely in a first appointment. In addition, I think that the next nominee will be non-white, and most likely Hispanic. In terms of gender, the final list includes 12 women. In terms of race, 12 candidates are African American, 6 are Hispanic, and 1 is Asian American.

Finally, I employed an age cutoff. The appointments of the Chief Justice, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas indicate that Republicans are serious about naming members who will have the opportunity to serve for many decades. I expect that Republicans will continue in that approach and that Democrats will seek to emulate it.

Goldstein's reasoning seems pretty sound to me, especially since he is a prominent Supreme Court litigator who is also a Democrat. BoBo (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable criteria, perhaps, but I still find it a stretch to include six District Court judges. I suspect that if Obama intends to appoint any of them to the Supreme Court, he will route them through a Court of Appeals (as prior presidents have done). bd2412 T 06:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUSblog is not a notable or reliable source for anything. DreamGuy (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rather blanket and arbitrary statement, DreamGuy (talk), would you like to back it up with some sources of your own? BoBo (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think SCOTUSblog is notable enough and plenty reliable (given the Court experts who write it), but I think the particular list put forth is more a list of "possible" nominees, rather than "probable" nominees, i.e. people who meet the political and experiential requirements without necessarily being likely to be nominated. I don't dispute that it is worth mentioning in the article, but I do not think we should list anyone as a possible nominee for whom SCOTUSblog is the only source (there are only a few of those, in any event). bd2412 T 23:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind editors that only blogs affiliated with reliable news organizations can be used as reliable sources. There are far too many references to blogs (DailyKos, SCOTUSblog, Prawfblog, etc.) Please remove these and keep them out. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a two-mentions rule.[edit]

I'd like to propose that any name listed in the article under "names mentioned" should have at least two sources. bd2412 T 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not necessarily disagree with the idea that the more times a particular person's name appears in discussion the more likely that person might actually be considered by Obama as a nominee, but I don't know how to establish guidelines concerning the matter without being arbitrary. What if someone is mentioned once by SCOTUSblog (a major Supreme Court blog with insider Washington D.C. connections) while another is mentioned two times by local small-town Arizona newspapers? Shouldn't the quality of the sources also be examined if we are going to make guidelines? My own feeling is that the reader should be allowed to evaluate the number and quality of sources supporting each candidate on his or her own. Maybe a disclaimer of sorts could be placed on the list: something to the effect of "Candidates whose name have been mentioned by more than one source may have a more realistic chance of nomination"? BoBo (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about two sources, one of which must be a national publication? bd2412 T 17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do online publications like Salon.com or Slate.com, not to mention more specialized blogs like The Volokh Conspiracy or SCOTUSblog, fit into your definition of "national publication"? BoBo (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't count any blog as a national publication. No matter how revered the author, blogs are expressions of personal opinion and are generally not subject to editorial review. Salon.com and Slate.com are, and each is both published for national consumption and read nationwide. bd2412 T 00:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon your definitions, I take it then that you would like to remove the following people from the list: Robert A. Katzmann, M. Margaret McKeown, Sidney Runyan Thomas, Charles R. Wilson, Joseph Greenaway, Adalberto Jordan, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, Richard W. Roberts, Martha Vázquez, Robert D. Rucker, Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Christine Gregoire, Ken Salazar, Robert Barnett, Teresa Wynn Roseborough, Virginia A. Seitz and Richard A. Revesz? I am a little hesitant about the removal of some of the names on that list. I think it is highly likely several of those names will be nominated as United States Court of Appeals judges, after which they most certainly will re-enter the list of potential nominees. I am especially concerned about the removal of Teresa Wynn Roseborough's name. She and Leah Ward Sears seem the prime choices at the moment if Obama wants to name the first African-American female to the Supreme Court. BoBo (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would think there should be a second reference to Sears and/or Roseborough by some court-watcher somewhere. If their nomination to a Court of Appeals occurs and raises their stock in this manner, then that second source will probably present itself and their names can be restored to the list. bd2412 T 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite unsure about the removal of most of the names on the current list. If you are suggesting the removal of the two main African-American females from the list, I really must disagree. As I said before, why can't the individual reader make the decision as to the quality of the sources and how many should be in place to make a nomination more likely? It is not as if any of the names are undocumented. Each is documented by at least one source researchable by any reader. BoBo (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why isn't Peggy Quince mentioned somewhere? Seriously, though, you and I have seen a lot of pundits talk about the pressures on Obama to name a Hispanic and a woman (or a Hispanic woman). I have not seen it said that there is anyone suggest any pressure whatsoever for him to name an African-American woman, and politically I'm not sure why he would be inclined to do so. bd2412 T 23:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are talking about is conventional wisdom, which may or may not play out. Yes, most pundits now are discussing a need on the Supreme Court for a female nominee, preferably Hispanic. That leads most to announce Sonia Sotomayor as the most likely candidate to be nominated, but does that mean she will be? I don't know. Several presidents in the recent past have tried to think "outside the box" in terms of making a Supreme Court nomination. Richard Nixon wanted to nominate Mildred Lillie to the Supreme Court. Bill Clinton wanted at various times to nominate Mario Cuomo, his wife Hillary Clinton, and Bruce Babbitt (see Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates). George W. Bush also tried to think "outside the box" with Harriet Miers. To ignore Leah Ward Sears and Teresa Wynn Roseborough because conventional wisdom appears at the moment to be against them appears short-sighted to me. BoBo (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if Obama is truly thinking outside the box, then there's no particular reason why Sears and Roseborough are any likelier a choice than someone like John Edwards or Lani Guinier (or Peggy Quince, who I mentioned above). Seems to me a real "outside the box" candidate would be one that no one had thought of. Which makes it useless to throw names out just because they are indeed not subject to substantial speculation. bd2412 T 04:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Branch officials[edit]

Can we please remove this section? Yes, they are sourced, but every one of them was before they were nominated to the Cabinet. There is no way he will nominate someone to his Cabinet and then turn around and nominate this unexperienced person to the Supreme Court. This section is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Reywas92Talk 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation, because we are not reporting on who we think he will nominate to the Court, but rather on names that professional court observers (by and large) have raised. In other words, the speculation is the subject of the article. Second, history does not support the contention that a Cabinet appointee is therefore disqualified from a Supreme Court appointment. The Cabinet appointees named (like other Senators and Governors who have been named but did not end up in the Cabinet) have been mentioned because they were thought to already be qualified for the Court before and irrespective of Cabinet appointments. Historically, there have been numerous examples of a President naming someone to the Cabinet, and then after only a short time putting them on the Supreme Court when an opening came up (look at Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example). Cheers! bd2412 T 04:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been widely reported (e.g. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-05-26-sotomayor-finalists_N.htm?csp=34 ) that the four finalists were Sonia Sotomayor (nominated), Diane Wood, Elena Kagan, and Janet Napolitano. Both of the last two are current members of the executive branch. Personally, I would argue that neither of them should be nominated to the Supreme Court, but apparently President Obama disagrees. Mdfst13 (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed[edit]

While there's a fair amount of speculation in this area, it's still important to include citations for factual statements, even the background ones. Without them, the speculation, etc., is just nattering (and I'm sure we don't want to do that).--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article reeks of Speculation. I would vote to have a speedy delete.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is, in fact, an article about speculation. The speculation itself is notable and is thoroughly cited to reliable sources. bd2412 T 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but its OK this time? Am I understanding this correctly?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing that Wikipedia should not have an article on speculation? There is no crystal balling about it, we are reporting on past events. It would be a crystal ball violation to predict that next week or next month Nina Totenberg or Jeffrey Rosen will discuss the people they believe to be likely Obama nominees, or that articles will run in the National Journal, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, or the Washington Post on this question. It is hardly a crystal ball violation to point out, with appropriate sourcing, that these court watchers and media outlets have in fact already discussed the people they believe to be likely Obama nominees. bd2412 T 03:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you may be confused about what speculation is. The citations themselves are speculating about future events that may never take place. Since the nomination of judges to the SCOTUS means that someone must die or resign, we cannot speculate if and when that may ever happen, at least in the next four years anyway. Let me cite the first condition of the policy on speculation: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Although notable, There is no condition that currently excists that would make these nominations almost certain to take place.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the nominations, it is about the speculation. Even if Obama never appoints a single Justice to the Court, pundits will have identified the judges they believe to be likely Obama nominees, which is itself as notable as The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (even though it will likely never be filmed). bd2412 T 04:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with bd2412 T. This article, as long as the speculation is verifiable with citations, is both newsworthy and encyclopedic in nature. At this point, the article's main purpose is to chronicle the evolving thought within the legal and political communities of the day concerning possible Supreme Court nominees. It doesn't matter if any of the mentioned nominees is actually ever nominated. BoBo (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually divided at this point. Not because I think that the article is not a willing candidate for a speedy delete, but because the creator of the article has put much effort and hard work into it. The way that I see it is that we must ask ourselves one question: If Obama never gets the chance to nominate a Supreme Court Candidate would this article still be prudent. My answer would be no. If an article can't stand the test of time, then it should not excist. If the time comes when an opening comes available on the SCOTUS, then bring this article back.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to agree, except for the fact that it's generally assumed Barack Obama will get to nominate at least one candidate to the Supreme Court during the next four years. Given that John Paul Stevens is 88 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had health problems, it seems pretty certain that one or both of them will step down between now and 2012. While it's possible that Obama might never get to nominate anyone, at the moment that seems sufficiently unlikely that the existence of this article is justified. (For comparison, note that George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates was first created in November 2004, when William Rehnquist was known to be ill, but before there was an actual opening on the Court.) Terraxos (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still way too many assumptions going on here. We assume that someone will step down or pass away. We assume that Obama will serve out a full term, and we assume that he will pick any one of the people in this article. Obama will pick whomever he wishes when the time comes, but lets not put the cart before the horse.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, we don't assume anything. If Obama were to resign tomorrow, the list would still accurately reflect the people that political/judicial experts considered the most likely appointees. It's sort of like a list of the Papabile. bd2412 T 19:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Obama were to resign, then the title would be wrong.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Clinton is no longer President, but no one has suggested that we retitle Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates. bd2412 T 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are pulling on straws. Clinton DID appoint judges. How is it the same?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment for WP:OBAMA[edit]

Though the subject matter is speculative, the sourcing looks impressive, the structure is good, the use of maps and infoboxes is nice, and some effort appears to have been made to cover the subject comprehensively (though I wonder if more discussion of legal theory may be available). I think it qualifies for B-class, and is nearly ready to move on to WP:Good article review. I've been setting individual Obama appointments as importance Mid; since this may concern no more than one person I've set this article to the same. Mike Serfas (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two-mention rule (again)[edit]

Now that a vacancy has occurred, and speculation is starting to run across a broader spectrum, I'd like to propose again the "two-mention rule" that I proposed above - that is, no name should be listed unless two independent reliable sources have suggested that name as a likely nominee. bd2412 T 18:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to start separating the wheat from the chaff, as soon as possible. I don't know that the "two-mention rule" is an adequate long-term solution, but I strongly support using this rule of thumb until something more concrete can be developed. Ultimately, I'd recommend some kind of tier system:
  1. Candidates that have undergone vetting clearly belong, so a single reliable journalistic source that can establish that a candidate made it to the vetting stage should be enough. I would consider the "White House Formalizes Supreme Court Short List" piece by Jan Crawford Greenburg to be sufficient, by itself, to establish that Sotomayor, Wood, and Kagan are BHO Supreme Court candidates.
  2. Candidates that are being floated to the media by the White House almost certainly belong. Not all the names that are floated will undergo vetting, but names sent out as trial balloons are typically pretty serious candidates. A single reliable journalistic source that is reporting White House leaks is probably sufficient.
  3. Candidates consistently mentioned by pundits might belong. The "two-mention rule", or whatever threshold is deemed appropriate, would be applicable here. However, I think a lot of the references currently listed are questionable. Even if Tom Goldstein/SCOTUSBlog is considered a reliable source (and that's debatable), the three Goldstein references listed in the article are little more than navel gazing (to his credit, Goldstein concedes as much when he publishes his lists). Same goes for lists that are presented without explanation (e.g. "A look at potential Obama nominees to high court", from 4/30/2009), or that are presented as personal "best guesses" without any particular insight (e.g. "Does Souter's Replacement Have to Be a Woman?")
  4. Candidates that are being pushed by "special interests" (for lack of a better term) almost certainly don't belong at all, no matter how many references can be found. The recent addition of Dana Fabe (complete with three references) is a good example. Billyboy01 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goldstein is an expert on the Court, perhaps more so than some authors putting together pieces for mass media publication. However, I think the "two-mention" rule should apply in every case, and that multiple articles by the same author (i.e. the three Goldstein references) should count as a single reference for this purpose. I would be agreeable to every case requiring at least one mention being a hard news publication. bd2412 T 22:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if a name cannot satisfy the rules that you've laid out above, then it clearly does not belong on the list. However, I still think the rules are too lax, or at least require further clarification. Regarding the "hard news publication" requirement, is your view that any mention in a news publication counts towards establishing a person's candidacy? I'll go back to Dana Fabe as an example. An Alaskan senator is pushing an Alaskan judge for consideration. Not surprisingly, this has generated mention in at least two Alaskan publications. But the coverage doesn't establish that she's a meaningful candidate, only that Mark Begich has recommended her. I don't think this kind of self-serving news coverage should be considered valid reference material for this article, and I plan to remove them. Billyboy01 (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two angles to consider here, one being the type you've highlighted of a pol or pundit saying "I think Obama should consider 'X'", and the other of a presumably unbiased reporter/court expert/pundit saying "Obama is likely to consider 'X'". The former should go, the latter should stay, as the latter is intended to represent an informed opinion of who Obama is in fact likely to appoint. bd2412 T 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed a lot of commentary regarding my addition of Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice Dana Fabe to this list. While I knew in advance that the possibility she could actually get the nomination is pretty slim, I decided to include her on this list due to her being mentioned in three independent sources, one of them being far outside of Alaska, and I would not have included her if the sources were limited to Alaska only. With regard to the concern raised regarding the reccommendation of her appointment by Senator Mark Begich, it is fairly common for U.S. Senators, invoking the "advice and consent" provision of the U.S. Constitution, to reccomend candidates for executive and judicial branch appointments from their home states. With regard to the standards for inclusion on this list, I agree that multiple sources should be required, but I do not agree that home-state candidate reccomendations from U.S. Senators should be excluded as "self-serving", provided that multiple sources are cited, some of which must be from outside the proposed candidate's local area. For example, when I included Judge Fabe on this list, I cited three sources, two of them from Alaska and one from Ohio, where Judge Fabe previously lived over three decades, but far enought away from Alaska to show that her proposed nomination has some interest outside of Alaska.--TommyBoy (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But she is never mentioned as someone Obama is considering, or even would consider, just as someone who a particular Senator thinks Obama should consider. bd2412 T 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my previous coments, I realize that her changes of actually getting the nomination are pretty slim, but it is still possible that President Obama would consider possible candidates recommended to him by U.S. Senators who would play an important role in getting his nominee confirmed. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The home state recommendations are significant for nominations to the district courts and courts of appeals. For Supreme Court nominations, if Pat Leahy (the judiciary committee chairman), Jeff Sessions (the ranking committee member), Arlen Specter or Orrin Hatch (committee members that Obama has reached out to regarding the Souter vacancy) send Obama recommendations, then those names would probably qualify as candidates. But Begich is a freshman senator who doesn't even sit on the judiciary committee. The two Alaskan articles were reprints of the same Associated Press report that Begich had submitted a letter to Obama. The Cincy article is also based on the Begich letter. In effect, there is a single, not very compelling source that suggests Fabe might/should be a Supreme Court candidate--Mark Begich. The fact that his recommendation is really only getting coverage in places that can claim Fabe as a native daughter underscores the novelty factor associated with her "candidacy" (the Cincy article even mentions that Fabe doesn't appear on any short list). As a side note, this is a good example of why we should develop more stringent standards as to what links constitute valid references. Just because we can find three separate links to repeat a particular source does not make that source three times more credible. Billyboy01 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I agree with User:Billyboy01, that Begich's reccomendation is more likely to get Judge Fabe short-listed for consideration for a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Alaska or an Alaska seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On the issue of inclusion standards for this article, I would like to reiterate my agreement with other editors comments that multiple reliable sources should be cited, but having realized my error in quoting two sources which both reprinted an AP story, I think more caution should be used in ensuring that the sources are actually independent of each other, and not simply redundant reprints. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Names mentioned section[edit]

This section needs to be grossly condensed as it is currently an example/link farm. Rather than a speculative list, it needs to be repurposed to a descriptive account emphasizing those names that (apparently) originated within the White House with verifiable rationales for their inclusion. Current popular memes include appointing a woman, appointing a moderate, appointing a minority which have only been superficially discussed at this stage. In addition, several sources conspire to bloat this list (like SCOTUSblog and Politico) and insofar as these names have not also been suggested by reliable sources, should be removed as fringe theories. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that this is not just a list of possible replacements for Souter, but people that experts believe could be appointed by Obama at all (i.e. now or in the future). Also, blogs and other self-published sources can be considered reliable under WP:RS "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", which I think is a burden that should be carried by the person adding the material. That being said, I have noted above that I do think we should tamp the list down to people who have been mentioned by multiple independent sources, and preferably by actual news publications. bd2412 T 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:RS quote cited above is preceded by "...are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution...". One of the shortcomings of this article is that it relies heavily on this kind of material without any guidelines as to who qualifies as an expert or how many times they should be cited. Let's say Goldstein/SCOTUSblog truly qualifies as an expert and a reliable source. I don't think that justifies having this article cite him three times before Obama's first nomination is even announced. He's a prolific blogger; we could have twenty separate Goldstein references by the time the Obama administration ends. The 2007 Goldstein reference, for example, was written before the Democratic nominee was even known (and the link points to an undated pdf file with no byline). If we are going to continue to cite Goldstein, surely we can find one definitive and timely reference and get rid of the rest (with the understanding that additional speculative references from the same expert/pundit might be appropriate when circumstances change, such as if another vacancy occurs). Billyboy01 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

table[edit]

Why exactly shouldn't this page give some narrative account of why they're under consideration, as suggested by Madcoverboy above? The notion that anyone interested in the topic should have to read through a couple dozen Wikipeida articles and more references to get the four or five line information summary we can give here seems counterintuitive. - BanyanTree 01:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I don't have a particular objection to some degree of narrative (although it's pretty obvious from looking which judges are male or female, and their current position says a lot about their skillset). However, the table was an eyesore, and I'm glad it's gone. bd2412 T 01:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The constructive time to mention such an opinion is at the edit summary "table-ize first section to see how people like it", before an editor spends two hours completing the table when there is no response on either the article or talk page. I won't even mention what I think of comments that focus on pretty-ness versus utility. Good day to you. - BanyanTree 02:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What utility? When it was first introduced, I thought it was mildly problematic for its dissonance with the other sections, but really it was the lumping of all of those sections together into one table that bothered me. I'm talking about readability, not mere "prettyness". bd2412 T 03:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Ingalls Saufley[edit]

I have reverted the addition of this name because the lone reference was a Slate article which asks readers to pick their favorite potential justice but does not indicate that Saufley is on any short list, or is considered by experts to be a potential nominee. bd2412 T 21:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the page move[edit]

I disagree with the renaming of this article from Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates to Barack Obama's candidates to the Supreme Court. First, this does not match up with the long series of articles that has now been generated on the subject (going back to Truman, so far); second, this makes it sound like everyone discussed is someone that Obama himself considers a candidate for the Court, rather than the actual thrust of the article, which is people who are thought by pundits and court experts to be candidates that Barack is likely to choose from; third, it introduces an unnecessary possessive case into the title; and finally, shouldn't it be candidates for the Supreme Court rather than to the Supreme Court? Cheers! bd2412 T 00:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the page, As noted by User:BD2412, the title of this article should conform to other similarly-named articles.--TommyBoy (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagreement with page move. The grammar of the previous title accurately and succinctly described the focus of the article. Now, after the move, the picture has become muddled. In "Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates", "candidates" is the noun, and "Barack Obama" and "Supreme Court" are nouns-as-adjectives. The noun/subject is clearly candidates, with the adjectives further clarifying that they are candidates to the Supreme Court as shaped by Barack Obama. Now, with "Barack Obama's candidates to the Supreme Court", we have three nouns in the title. Why confuse things with the name change? Billyboy01 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, I am going to boldly move the page back. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empathy issue[edit]

From the lede:

A common theme to Obama's description of the type of judge he would appoint was empathy, and the ability to relate to the lives of people affected by judicial decisions.

I'm not sure this is entirely reflective of the full situation. My understanding of the issue is that Obama gave a whole laundry list of things he wanted in a Supreme Court nominee in his speeches, most of which were noncontroversial (intelligent, skilled in the law, etc.). It was more that the "empathy" line twigged off a much larger reaction among the media as this was thought to be code for "liberal judicial activist who will govern by outcomes to favor the sympathetic, not by the law." I think it's fair to report on said media reaction, but the lede seems to be implying that Obama himself made a huge fuss about "empathy." (Which might be true, I could have missed something, but then this statement should be referenced.) SnowFire (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is somewhat overblown - empathy is a fairly universal human characteristic (a person who lacks it is, by definition, a sociopath). It would seem to be appropriate to simply list in the lead all of the major characteristics which Obama has recited. bd2412 T 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reference for Obama explaining that empathy is the main characteristic by which he would choose one technically qualified (i.e. intelligent, skilled in law, etc.) candidate over another: http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedparenthoodaction It's a transcript (by Laura Echevarria) of a speech he gave to Planned Parenthood in 2007. It sounds to me like the lead is accurately reporting what Obama considers is a requirement for a good justice (rather than one who is simply qualified in legal handling, like Roberts). It's worth noting that Obama voted against confirmation of Roberts because he disagreed with Roberts' politics (not his legal qualifications). Mdfst13 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an absurd characteristic to weigh nominees by. Everyone has "empathy" (it's kind of like saying I will choose a candidate with kidneys), and it's really impossible to weigh one person's empathy against another. One need go no further than the opinions of Clarence Thomas in Virginia v. Black and City of Chicago v. Morales to see a wealth of empathy towards the people affected by cross-burning in the first case, and gang violence in the second. bd2412 T 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the redirect of the "Potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States" page[edit]

Currently, Potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States redirects to this page. However, this is time sensitive. What happens in 2012 when a Republican runs against Obama? What happens in 2013 or 2017 when a new President takes office? It's absolutely reasonable to have such a page link to this page, but it doesn't make sense to me to have it be a redirect. Obviously this won't be a big deal for the next two years or so, but it seems like something that should have some policy in place. Mdfst13 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation overload[edit]

Citations are certainly important, but is it really necessary for Diane Wood to have a line of thirty-six citations following her name in the Names Mentioned section? Granted, her name came up a lot before Sotomayor was nominated for the Souter seat and is again being mentioned frequently for the Stevens seat, but even so, what's there now seems like overkill.John (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of mentions is itself a barometer of how widely it is considered that a particular person is a likely candidate for the position. Perhaps we can come up with a simpler scheme for indicating that a particular individual was broadly thought to be a likely candidate both in 2009 and in 2010. Clearly, there are some names that were raised in 2009 which are not coming up this time around. bd2412 T 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could just as easily be a barometer of how good a job a SPA, or someone with a conflict of interest is doing digging up and posting every mention they could find. Agree with the OP above – 36 is a bit of overkill.
Also, to the extent this speculation is at all appropriate matter for an encyclopedia, it seems our job would be to provide the names, and possibly brief descriptions, with links to their main articles. Serving as any sort of "barometer" starts to cross the line into POV and becoming a crystal ball. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no crystal ball problem in pointing out the breadth of sources naming a candidate as a potential nominee. bd2412 T 21:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six years later, I came here to complain about the same thing, but I see that I am not the first. Looks super ugly, and at least for my chosen resolution, the long line of citations breaks layout. -- Y not? 17:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single mention names[edit]

The following names on the list currently cite only one source supporting their inclusion. I believe we had agreed above that, absent a White House statement including someone on a short list, we would require two independent reliable sources to include someone, which means these names need to either be further sourced, or removed.

Cheers! bd2412 T 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of Elena Kagan in Supreme Court litigators[edit]

I think Kagan should remain under administration officials, rather than Supreme Court litigators. Although her job does have her litigating before the Supreme Court, she does so in the context of her position within the administration. The section for Supreme Court litigators should be limited to private practitioners for whom this is their primary claim to credibility. bd2412 T 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with bd2412, Kagan can only be considered a Supreme Court litigator in terms of the function of her job as Solicitor General. Prior to assuming that position, Kagan never actively appeared before any court, let alone the Supreme Court. Someone like Tom Goldstein is a Supreme Court litigator, while someone like Kagan is not. He regularly represents private clients before the Supreme Court, Kagan never has. The key here is private representation. A government official who argues for the U.S. or a state government in front of the Supreme Cout is not normally considered a Supreme Court litigator. BoBo (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no objection, then, I'm moving that one back. bd2412 T 02:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove Sheila Abdus-Salaam[edit]

The line for "Sheila Abdus-Salaam (born 1952) - Associate Judge, New York Court of Appeals" has never been supported by a citation. I have done a fairly deep search into Google hits mentioning this subject, and can find nothing at all from any reliable source suggesting that she has ever been considered a possible Obama Supreme Court candidate. The name was originally added by a Canadian IP, so it seems that it is at best someone's wishful thinking, and at worst an outright hoax. bd2412 T 12:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I reverted your edit last night, but that wasn't correct. I think the original addition was a misunderstanding - she was nominated to the Supreme Court....the New York State Supreme Court, long ago. Anastrophe (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Removed. bd2412 T 17:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects must be "mentioned in various news accounts as the most likely potential nominees".[edit]

The list of names on the page is defined as a list of persons "mentioned in various news accounts as the most likely potential nominees"; it is not a list of people who are not anywhere considered likely to be nominees, but are advocated for by individual essayists. Furthermore, we have a long established rule that individuals must be named in multiple sources to be on this list at all (i.e. various news accounts). bd2412 T 14:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the foregoing, I have removed the following single-sourced names from the list; in some cases, the source did not actually suggest that the subject was "likely" to be a nominee at all, but merely advocated for an unlikely person.

Cheers! bd2412 T 15:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates. 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) 20:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 November 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 10:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates → Barack Obama Supreme Court nominations – SCOTUS justices aren't elected, rather nominated. So Barack Obama Supreme Court nominations might be a better name, as it talks about the nominations mostly. Swil999 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Tagging @@BD2412:, is there a reason you think this would be controversial?[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_Supreme_Court_candidates&oldid=1204828377"