Talk:Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination

Proposed edits

I propose to make the edits that were attempted here: [1] [2]

The reasoning to remove the Scalia section is because it's mostly not relevant to Barrett's nomination, as Scalia's seat was filled by Gorsuch (and Obama had nominated Garland to the seat). Barrett was nominated to Ginsburg's seat, so it's a different seat entirely. The media had attempted to equate those 2 nominations, but just bc the media reports something doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia.

The reasoning to remove the Ginsburg wish section is because there is no norm, precedent, tradition, or anything whatsoever for an outgoing Justice to get what they wish regarding their seat. The Constitution clearly gives that power to the President and Senate. Including Ginsburg's wish may cause those who are unfamiliar with US government to believe that it was a legitimate factor in determining Ginsburg's successor.

14:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Also, keep in mind that the WP:BURDEN is on editors that want to add or restore content, not on editors that want to remove content. 20:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Sources reporting something is precisely what defines it as noteworthy for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, though I don't know that an entire separate section is needed for the Scalia content. With respect to Ginsburg's wish, it is an historical fact that she was reported to have said what she said, and that her statement was in connection with the nomination to fill her seat. If there is a reliable source stating that there is no norm, precedent, or tradition for an outgoing Justice to have such a request fulfilled, then certainly we can add that to the article (although, historically, there have been instances of Justices successfully recommending their successors). BD2412 T 17:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Justices that got the successors they want, were smart enough to resign when the political conditions in the Presidency and Senate were favorable to actually get those successors. Ginsburg instead tried to serve as long as she could while still attempting to make demands about her successor. 18:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

I would think that would be all the more reason to explain why it didn't work this time, but perhaps we should have an RfC on the topic. BD2412 T 20:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• No. Just... no. Sources no doubt exist that explicitly say the death of Scalia, the nomination of Merrick Garland, and the Republican unilateral shutdown of said nomination pending a possible election of a Republican president a year later are not relevant to the discussion of the death of a left-leaning justice and nomination of a replacement by a Republican president (and her speedy confirmation by a Republican senate) scarcely a month before an election said president was likely to lose (and did lose), but such sources are not reliable, and more likely than not are hard-right in their editorial slant. The vast majority of reliable sources almost certainly support our making this connection. The one change I might consider supporting would be changing Death of Antonin Scalia to 2016 Republican citation of the Biden rule (and an explanation of what a Biden rule is) or some such. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the reinsertion of this material has again been reverted on the grounds of WP:ONUS, I would like to invite User:Neutrality, who is particularly well-versed in this policy, to weigh in. BD2412 T 03:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  I see nothing in this discussion that rises above the level of partisan acrimony.

  If there is a reason why the death of Justice Scalia (whose replacement was Merrick Garland) should be detailed in an article about the confirmation of Justice Barrett, then that idea needs to be promulgated in some sort of NPOV context. Nothing like that appears on this page, and it's frankly weird to have OBVIOUSLY IRRELEVANT, off-topic material appearing in an encyclopedic article. If there is a compelling argument for its inclusion here, then someone should make it. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This content provides historical context to the event, which is part of a series of events occurring in the longer thread of history. I am rather reflexively inclined to oppose the removal of well-sourced content that may be useful for a reader to understand the full context of an event. This would be no different if the political parties involved were reversed. Reference to the Garland nomination has been in this article since User:Arglebargle79 created it. BD2412 T 18:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Why include number of days before election in lead?

This—"The 35 days between the nomination and the 2020 presidential election marked the shortest period of time between a nomination to the Supreme Court and an election in U.S. history"—seems like an unimportant statistic and factoid that clutters up the lead.

Many presidents have made lame-duck nominations, even after losing, which were subsequently confirmed—indeed, of nine nominations made after Election Day, eight were confirmed.

And in terms of speed, this was no record-breaker: on December 14, 1880, a vacancy opened up on the court. Lame-duck President Rutherford B. Hayes (who hadn't run for reelection) nominated William Burnham Woods the next day, and he was confirmed on the 21st—6 days later. Hayes went on to make another nomination, which was confirmed on his last day in office.

In short, there's nothing particularly historically unique or even unusual about the timing of Barrett's nomination—and, accordingly, unless there's any compelling reason to include it, I'll remove it. If anyone finds it particularly noteworthy, perhaps there's a place in the main article where it could be included.

Thanks! ElleTheBelle 20:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism protection

Just had to revert some obvious vandalism to the header and public opinion sections. Can someone with authority protect the page? 96.241.206.101 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories

I have added this article to Category:2020 in women's history as Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination is in Category:2022 in women's history so it would same to make sense for this to follow its lead. Dunarc (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)