Talk:Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States courts and judges High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

Question

Are people thinking that either this article or the Clinton article will be deleted depending on who loses the election? Orser67 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. After all, it is a campaign issue, and Trump, at least, has gone far beyond the norm in actually naming names for potential nominees. bd2412 T 15:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This: "On February 23, 2016, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when Donald Trump takes office" sounds like Donald was already going to be president as of Feb 23, 2016. It would benefit from a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.146.72 (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Why are we sourcing the names of the candidates themselves from news articles which only present them in passing and incompletely (the article for the second batch of candidates fails to include Gorsuch at all), when we could simply source the names from the announcements on Trump's website? Surely for something like this Trump's website is in fact a better source (because it is a primary source) than a news account which is a secondary source (and which may not actually present all of the relevant data). 2601:883:8202:3530:F01D:B958:2E8C:A622 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia prefers to use secondary source documents over primary source documents, as the secondary sources will sort out what is important in the primary sources. bd2412 T 18:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to challenge Ted Cruz and Peter Thiel for the reason that they are not on the list of 21 nominees given by the Trump Campaign.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources exist for these individuals being potential Trump nominees, their absence from a list to which no one is legally bound is no reason to exclude them. bd2412 T 02:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald Trump 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216080820/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/09e55c6fbd6d41a28a03564f3202ef6b/scalias-death-office-rarity-modern-supreme-court to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/09e55c6fbd6d41a28a03564f3202ef6b/scalias-death-office-rarity-modern-supreme-court

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Napolitano

Speculation about the nomination of Andrew Napolitano was added to the article, and I reverted, because this appears to be self-promotion, whereas the whole article is based on officially-announced potential nominees. Opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 17:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree in principle. The article itself claims that it is based on the lists Trump released OR names mentioned in the media as likely. Other similar articles for other presidents have had to rely basically entirely on "media speculation," because previous presidents have not released lists of potential nominees, so it would be inconsistent to forswear all "media speculation" in this article. On the other hand, Trump did release lists of potential nominees (and even committed to sticking to his lists at least for the first vacancy), but he, perhaps more so than many of his predecessors, seems to have a predilection for announcing a position or policy and then changing his mind, so it would probably be unreasonable to insist on limiting the article to his own lists. I do think the article should make clear who appeared on which lists. But I also think that "media speculation" is completely appropriate, although I'm not a fan of "self-promotion." Also, when I asked months ago why the article did not cite directly to the lists released by the campaign, I was told that Wikipedia preferred news sources to the candidate's own announcements, which would seem to suggest that this article is not in principle particularly beholden to Trump's "officially-announced potential nominees" as such, until those names are filtered through the media. Those are my thoughts. 107.145.77.108 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thapar

Should we move him into the group of Circuit Court judges now since he's been confirmed to the Sixth Circuit? That would seem to make the most sense. Then we would need to indicate in some way that he was a District Judge at the time that Trump originally named him as a possible Supreme Court candidate before receiving a nomination to the Sixth Circuit. Thoughts? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald Trump 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170502205549/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-adds-to-list-of-potential-supreme-court-justice-picks to https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-adds-to-list-of-potential-supreme-court-justice-picks

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

With 4 list of candidates (3 Trump lists plus Paul Clement who is rumored to be in the mix) the current layout really doesn't work. Dividing according to the lists (First, Second, Third and Rumored) is much more logical compared to the current scheme. Also consideration should be given to taking out Clement's name altogether. Latex-yow (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to maintain structural consistency with other lists in the series (Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates, George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates, Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates, etc.). bd2412 T 02:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure structural consistency is warranted given how different Trump is on this issue compared to his predecessors. He publicized his list(s) of candidates before getting elected and now before there is even a vacancy. Latex-yow (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker: Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

Farrow, Ronan; Mayer, Jane (September 23, 2018), "Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh's College Years", The New Yorker, retrieved September 24, 2018

Sagecandor (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The † symbol

Hey. Quick little observation. In most cases the "†" symbol usually represents that an individual has died. This may not be the most suitable way to indicate the potential candidates are on a particular list or other. Could this symbol be switched to something else? doktorb _words^deeds 07:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vague phrase: "benefit the right"

I believe the phrase "benefit the right" is vague in the following sentence found on the first paragraph:

However, it is known that the Federalist Society has a history of recommending conservative Supreme Court nominees to Senate members that will benefit the right.

What does "the right" mean in this context? I suggest wikilinking the phrase to one of the following as appropriate:

Perhpaps changing the phrasing in the text itself to clarify that context would also be helpful. Open to suggestions. For now I have marked the phrase as " ^[vague] ". Please address.

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true but it doesn't belong as the second sentence of the article. Removed. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]