Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

I'm not sure how to parse this text from Supreme Court of the United States#Outdated and an outlier, stating

... the court has declined in relevance in other constitutional courts ...

This was introduced in this edit of 18 March 2024. Fabrickator (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Needs rewording; what it is meant to say is that constitutional courts in other countries used to look at decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court as guidance, and used to often follow it. But more recently, this influence/relevance has declined, and constitutional courts in other countries are no longer doing so. From the article cited:

Judges around the world have long looked to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court for guidance, citing and often following them in hundreds of their own rulings since the Second World War.

But now American legal influence is waning. Even as a debate continues in the court over whether its decisions should ever cite foreign law, a diminishing number of foreign courts seem to pay attention to the writings of American justices.

“One of our great exports used to be constitutional law,” said Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. “We are losing one of the greatest bully pulpits we have ever had.”

From 1990 through 2002, for instance, the Canadian Supreme Court cited decisions of the United States Supreme Court about a dozen times a year, an analysis by The New York Times found. In the six years since, the annual citation rate has fallen by half, to about six. Australian state supreme courts cited American decisions 208 times in 1995, according to a recent study by Russell Smyth, an Australian economist. By 2005, the number had fallen to 72.

So it is trying to say that the court's relevance for other constitutional courts has declined. Magidin (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The “Criticism and Controversies” section could not be considered neutral. It looks, to me, to be ripped straight from a news article(s) that doesn’t like the conservative majority or the rulings they’ve made in the past couple years RestCivil (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It strikes me that the recent edit adding a wikilink to Supreme Court is more of a distraction than a useful link. If I need to rationalize this (going against the general rule of wikilinking whatever you can), when you're already on the "Supreme Court of the United States" article, this is exactly what is implied by the words "supreme court", i.e. a court for which there is no superior court, such a wikilink is superfluous.

Then there's the edit stating that today there are nine justices ... If it's really necessary to clarify that it hasn't always consisted of nine justices, "today" is the wrong word to describe this, but I think it was quite satisfactory to just say there are nine justices, otherwise we should find it appropriate to qualify every statement of fact that is not eternally true. Fabrickator (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did you know that the Supreme Court of the State of New York is the trial level court of general jurisdiction in New York? So, no, the words "supreme court" do not, by themselves, indicate that there is no court above it. Magidin (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm aware that "supreme court" is used in what seem to be very misleading ways. But even for those who live in New York, "Supreme Court of the United States" refers to the highest court of the U.S., not some lower-level New York State court. The wikilink to Supreme Court does not elucidate upon the meaning of the "U.S. Supreme Court", it is what I would characterize as an unhelpful distraction. Fabrickator (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand what "even to those who live in New York" might be supposed to be arguing. If you are saying that those already familiar with the Supreme Court of the United States know that there is no court above it, then that seems both tautological and irrelevant: the article is not aimed at those who already know that "Supreme Court of the United States" is the highest court. The argument against the link appeared to be that there is no need to expand on what "Supreme Court" means because the words themeselves already tell you that it is a court with no court above it... which is patently not the case, as you admit. Now, if the argument is that there is no point to wikilink to "Supreme Court" when two paragraphs above it there is already a wikilink to that page under Highest court... that I agree with, but we could have started there instead of an incorrect assertion that the words "supreme court" already and necessarily convey what they in fact do not. Magidin (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Editor User:Magidin suggested the following addition to the article: "It is a fact that the changes in mandatory appellate jurisdiction come mostly from the Judge's Bill from of 1925, not from 1988. I just finished reading Vladek's book, to which I directed you, which has an entire chapter discussing these changes, made mostly at the behest of Chief Justice Taft. You can also see the following quote in the page for the Judiciary Act of 1925: Congress chose to pass the act in 1925. This action rendered the majority of the Supreme Court's workload discretionary by removing the possibility of direct appeal to the court in most circumstances. Henceforth, pursuant to §237(b) of the act, appellants would file petitions for writs of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which would be accepted at the discretion of four of the nine Justices. You seem to believe otherwise but provide no citations; the page for the 1998 Act quotes Section 1257 before the changes as providing that the Supreme Court may review certain judgements, not that it must review them." - Walter Tau believes, that something like this but briefier (you know what it means) should be in the very first paragraph.

I personally think, that it is highly desirable to compare SCOTUS with analogous courts in other countries, which have a separate Constitutional Court and a separate Highest Court of Appeals. I can write this section and provide numerous book references, but I want to get an agreement on where to place this section first. Walter Tau (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, first, I did not "suggest" such an addition. I replied, in my talk page to you saying "we can discuss further, whether the legislative act 1988 , or an actual earlier date, or both should be mentioned there" with the above, and nowhere did I say I wanted to add that. So please don't say that I proposed an "addition" that I did not propose. I did no such thing, and nothing I wrote there suggests that I am proposing that paragraph as an addition.

Second, I continue to think that such a mention does not belong in the lede. There are plenty of substantive differences between the US Supreme Court and other courts (such as a lack of retirement age), and having any one of them in the lede, or "the very first paragraph", is unwarranted as giving it unwarranted weight, and listing them all is out of place in the lede.

A mention of the changes in mandatory appellate jurisdiction is probably a good idea, but it belongs in the Appellate Jurisdiction subsection in the Jurisdiction section, not in the lede. The major change came with the Judge's Bill in 1925, some more tinkering happened in the 70s, and the 1998 Act finally removed all mandatory appellate jurisdiction except for certain cases that are brought directly to a 3-judge federal district court and which are appealed directly to the Supreme Court. This is discussed in Vladeck's book, as a possible source.

Third, there are already some mentions of how other countries have separate constitutional courts and appeal courts, which gives you an idea of where they can be placed. If the comparison is to be made to highlight shortcomings of the United States court, then it should be in the Criticism and Controversies section; it can be their own subsection. If it is simply to be a list of differences... then I am not at all sure it needs to be there. There are of course differences between courts in multiple countries, and a simple catalog of those differences seems both irrelevant and not particularly illuminating (and quite likely to give undue weight by only listing some differences and not others), even if you only compare countries that follow the same legal traditions. Magidin (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support all 3 suggestions by Magidin and currently I do not have a strong preference where to place them. As long as these 3 things are addressed somewhere in the article, interested readers should be able to find them. Shall we go ahead and write these additions? Walter Tau (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Why do you insist on claiming that you are supporting additions and suggestions by others when they did not make such suggestions? If you want to propose something, propose it under your own name instead of pretending you are just supporting what others said, especially when they did no such thing. This is getting tiresome.

I did not make "3 suggestions". At best, I made one: to mention the change in mandatory appellate jurisdiction in the Jurisdiction section. I did not suggest adding comparisons: I said that if comparisons are to be made (a hypothetical I do not support as it happens), then they would have to be in the Criticism and Controversies section and should not be a catalog of differences. That's at best two things. What three things? And, no, you should not "go ahead and add them" (whatever it is you imagine I am proposing to add). Magidin (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I propose adding a section to this article listing each justice's military service. I drafted the entry it, but a user reverted it as "synthetic." However, military service is a common biographical detail included in the biographies of every Supreme Court Justice and every other federal judge who has had military service. You can even find these entries by typing in any of their names on the Federal Judicial Center's database (e.g., https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/marshall-john). Since the Supreme Court was created, 44 of the 117 justices who have served on it had military service (i.e., 37.6%). Therefore, military service is a salient demographic that provides valuable context about the justice's life, career, judicial philosophy, and history of public service.

By including this information, we can provide a more complete picture of the subject's life and career. This is consistent with Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive and informative articles.

I believe this addition would be beneficial to readers and would improve the overall quality of the article. I am open to edits, suggestions, and feedback on this proposal. Looking for consensus; the list includes only 44 justices and is proposed as follows:

AnubisIbizu (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. Like I said in the edit summary, this seems to be a subtopic you have your own particular interest in, not one that's attracted sufficient coverage or analysis elsewhere. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source: by that metric, this is not important for people reading an encyclopedia article about the court. (See WP:UNDUE; WP:BALANCE). Adding dedicated material about it to the article would be undue, and possibly original research if any connective analysis is given that isn't verified in reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, if you're using ChatGPT to generate your talk page discussion here, I'll ask you to do right by your fellow editors and refrain from doing that in the future. It's rude. Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have expanded content on this subject under its own header at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Military service. I don't think that a complete list of this sort would work there either, but some additional content could be added delineating service by war, and noting those individuals who held relatively high ranks. BD2412 T 01:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adding the military service of Supreme Court Justices deserves careful consideration. Military service, for many justices, is not just a line on a résumé but a formative experience that shapes their understanding of law and duty. Historically, 44 out of 117 justices—approximately 37.6%—have served in the armed forces. This is not a mere footnote; it is a significant thread woven into the fabric of the Court's history.

Including such information aligns with Wikipedia's mission to provide comprehensive and verifiable information. Reliable sources, like the Federal Judicial Center's database, the Supreme Court Historical Society, and even USA Today offer ample material to substantiate this addition. The military experiences of justices often inform their perspectives on issues of federal power and individual rights—matters central to the Court's work.

Concerns about undue weight or original research are understandable but misplaced here. The inclusion of factual, well-sourced information about the justices' military backgrounds enriches the article without bias. It does not overshadow other content but rather complements it, providing readers with a fuller picture of the people who have shaped the nation's highest court.

As for the notion that articulately presenting this proposal is somehow inappropriate, I wonder if your real issue is distinguishing thoughtfully crafted human discourse from algorithmic outputs. Clarity and precision in communication should be embraced, not discouraged or, as you have done, insulted.

Adding the Justices' Military Service is a constructive step toward enhancing this article's depth and aligning with Wikipedia's standards of thoroughness and neutrality. It acknowledges an important aspect of the justices' lives and offers readers valuable context about those who have served both on the bench and in uniform.

All that said, I support BD2412's proposal to add the information to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Military service and will begin working on it. Appreciate the chat y'all! AnubisIbizu (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AnubisIbizu: Work on it, yes, but within reason. This information should not be disproportionate relative to content on the ethnic, religious, and professional backgrounds of the justices. BD2412 T 01:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a plan buddy! AnubisIbizu (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can repeat yourself all you'd like, but it's disrespectful to continue using an LLM to reword the same shallow arguments that haven't at all engaged with site policies like those I've linked. Remsense ‥ 论 01:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I get that you might feel frustrated when someone disagrees with you, but I'm just trying to contribute my thoughts to the article. Maybe we can both learn from this experience. Happy editing! AnubisIbizu (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unbelievable. Remsense ‥ 论 01:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply