Talk:Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts

Bush's 2nd Term Total

The summary of the circuits currently has Bush's appointments at 6. By my count this is not accurate; it should be 7 (Owen, Brown, Pryor, Griffin, McKeague, Griffith, and Chagares). This is not counting Susan Bieke Nielson, who died shortly after appointment. Now the Bush second term total is incorrect, but does that mean the total appointed by Republicans is wrong as well as the number of vacancies? Looking forward to making sure we're correctly up to date.--Smashingworth 02:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Although not a permanent appointment at the time, Pryor started his service during Bush's first term. For the same reason, Roger Gregory is included under Clinton's 2nd term, though permanently confirmed in Bush's first term. We could add a footnote if you think it is necessary. NoSeptember ^talk 02:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Might be useful. I have already updated Gregory's info on the Fourth Circuit page with such a footnote, and I'm sure the Eleventh Circuit reflects the same for Pryor. That way we can keep track of how we're counting these appointments.--Smashingworth 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is my hope not to clutter this article with footnotes since it basically repeats information that people can look up in the individual circuit court articles. For example, to find out who the 6 GWB2 appointments are, a user could scan the charts of the 13 circuits here to see where they are, and then look at the individual circuit court articles to see who they are. If necessary to keep track, maybe we could create a worksheet here on the talk page to track the confirmations and the new vacancies that have occured in the current term. NoSeptember ^talk 03:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very good at creating the tables and worksheets, but I do know that new vacancies and nominees are expected soon. For instance, Bruce Selya of the 1st Circuit will soon take senior status, and so will Franklin Van Antwerpen of the 3rd Circuit. Rumor is the nominee for the vacancy on the Federal Circuit has already been chosen.--Smashingworth 03:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Milan Smith is scheduled to be confirmed by the Senate on Tuesday the 16th. We'll have to update this monster page all over again. Ugh.--Smashingworth 03:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad there's no spreadsheet style automated totals. Is that ever going to be part of wikipedia?--Scotchex 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

District Judges

This is a very useful page. Is there a page like it that tracks district judge appointments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.199.78 (talk • contribs)

Not yet, but it could be useful at some point if someone wants to start such a page. However, I think adding a list of judges (current and past) to each district court article would probably be the first step, before creating a summary article. I started doing this, but only did the districts in the 1st and 2nd circuits so far (and not very neatly yet either). In fact some districts don't even have articles yet (see Template:USDistCourts for the links) NoSeptember 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, the amount of work that would take is daunting. I find it so hard to work with the templates sometimes. Otherwise, this would be up my alley.--Smashingworth 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points. 1) We don't have to update it every time there is a change, once a year would do, or whenever someone wanted to do it. 2) Unlike circuit courts where they put together panels for each appeal, and the partisan mix can be a big factor, district judges work pretty much on their own, so what the mix is in each district is no more relevant than what the mix is nationwide (unless you have a case pending in that district ;-). In fact, just knowing the mix on a national level may be enough to satisfy the curious. So the district court summary page will be fine when we have enough people interested and willing to maintain it, but that may be a while... but then, wikipedia is always growing. NoSeptember 03:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I like to update it for every change, so I can keep straight all the numbers without getting confused. And I like it to be accurate. I think we'll get the two Ninth Circuit judges confirmed this summer, but that's it. Maybe Wallace and the Tenth Circuit, and Fed Cir nominees just before Senate adjournment. There's so little time left.--Smashingworth 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to update every time if you like. I'm just saying that being a bit out of date won't throw off the basic trend analysis that this article was intended to show. It all comes down to how much work you are willing to do - do as much as you like :-). NoSeptember 13:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The page now has District Court (and Court of International Trade) judges as well as Supreme and Circuit Court judges--i.e., it has all the Article 3 judges. :-) AaronCanton (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Bush's First Term Total

The chart says he appointed 35 total, 33 of whom are still serving. Perhaps I'm misreading what "33" means because by my count there are at least three from his first term who are gone: Chertoff, Roberts, and Pickering. Am I missing something? Thanks.--Smashingworth 05:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer can always be found when you look into the individual circuit detail which will add up to the totals. In this case, the 5th circuit shows no new vacancy since 2004. The data on the chart represents a snapshot of where we stand at the end of each term. and a reccess appointment does not carry over to a new term. Pickering left just before the "snapshot" was taken and is not included in the 2004 5th circuit figure since he came and left within a single term. This was true in a few other cases too, Susan Nielson will not show up here having died in the same term as appointment, Clarence Thomas on the DC circuit and Souter on the 1st circuit also don't show up from the GHWB term.

Roger Gregory and Pryor are the anomalies here, because I kept Gregory under Clinton and Pryor under GWB1, since it seemed appropriate to list them under the orginal appointing president as we carry them forward until retirement. I try to accurately show the trend of judges by who originally appointed them and how many remain as each term ends. If they decide against being reappointed, as Pickering did, then it is correct to just show him as not there when term GWB1 ended, which is what happened. Had he been reappointed and approved I would have shown him being there at the end of GWB1 as with Pryor and Gregory. (Not a perfect solution, but one consistent with the purpose of this article) NoSeptember 05:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As the lead suggests, chalking up federal court appointees to a particular party can be utter nonsense. If (in the case of Bush), Democratic senators from a particular state nominate a short list (done by the senators first not by the president under an informal system which is rigid nonetheless), the president may pick the one least obnoxious to him and nominate him, or may (at his peril) ignore the senators nominees. In which case, they may, together with other senators of like mind, ignore his nominees! So the judge from a Democratic state is almost always going to be Democratic; those from Republican states, usually Republican. I agree this changes for the Supreme Court where the president chooses whom he wants. The lead should read "seldom represents the presidents first choice for judgeship" or some disclaimer.Student7 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tables not charts

A chart could be a table, illustration, diagram, or graph based on OED. However, OED goes on to contradict its own definition by listing examples that distinguish between charts ands tables. If it is a table call it a table, otherwise it's a chart. OECD examples: o "This ... dry data, presented in charts and tables, intelligible only to specialists, links unremarkable urban events with the movement of the stars." o "...neatly laid out charts, tables and graphs in bright colours, illustrating the statistical information, making it easier to spot the main trends." I changed the description at the beginning of the article to read "table."Danleywolfe (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts. 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/20090923161905/http://www.uscourts.gov/judicialvac.cfm to http://www.uscourts.gov/judicialvac.cfm

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) 21:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Mistake in 9th Circuit table - can someone correct?

Hi, I've just noticed that the total for the 2012 row adds up to 30 (including the vacancy) when there were only 29 seats. It appears that the number recorded as having been appointed by Democrats totals 20 though the table says the total should be 19 - so where is the error? Can someone fix? Lin4671again (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

District Court tables

What is the long-term goal here? Are we planning to eventually have tables for each district showing the change in composition over time (as we do for the Courts of Appeals)? Because if not, having separate one-line tables for each district seems like a really cumbersome way to present this information. If the intention is only to include the current make-up of each district court, then why not create tables for each Circuit, which show, on the separate lines, the composition of each district within the circuit and then the total for all the districts in the circuit at the bottom? That would seem to be a much more efficient and less visually bewildering approach. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• STRONG AGREE. Phil (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pmaccabe: Okay, so I went ahead and tried it for the First Circuit so we could look at it. Since nobody else wants to participate in this conversation apparently. What do you think? Should we go ahead and do it for the other circuits as well? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is much better. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Looks like you are already chugging away at them, but I consider it a huge improvement. Phil (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I kinda got excited and did a few more, but I'm glad that the two of you came along and commented favorably. I'll work on the rest of them now, not all at once, but over the next few days. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pmaccabe: @Coemgenus: Okay, it's all done. I think it's good; I tried to double check the numbers in each table, but if one of you wants to look it over. Also, I changed the links in the table that summarizes all of the district courts to go to the section for the district courts in each circuit instead of linking to the articles about each circuit court which really have nothing to do with the districts. Does that make sense? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Original research concerns

This article cites no sources for the data it presents. As a result, it most likely violates Wikipedia's policy prohibiting original research. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've added a links to some per President summary info for a very meager start I think more can be sourced. Phil (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This is silly, counting numbers of who appointed whom from List of current United States Circuit Judges, etc. is not original research. Challenge facts if you want (good luck!) but this certainly does not introduce opinion, bias, or POV. Everything is easily attributable without forming conclusions, certainly falling under WP:CALC. Reywas92^Talk 07:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Reywas92. Judges should, of course, be properly sourced on the pages of their respective courts and/or the presidents who appointed them. This page, however, just counts up the number of judges appointed by each president in each court. And simply counting the judges, calculating percentages, etc. isn't original research, as per WP:CALC. AaronCanton (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The circuits tables are getting very wide with the addition of the JRB column

It looks like if the court of appeals tables were to be split after 1992, several president columns would drop. This would make the tables less wide. Although at this time they would be lop-sided with one table have far more years than the other table as I’m not suggested doing more research to add more years. I’m just seeking consensus to split each of the appeals tables to 1992 through current on top and 1980 through 1988 on bottom. Please let me know what everyone thinks.Dlambe3 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Years

So I was working on expanding the "summary of the district courts" table and in my research I realized that some judges didn't receive their commission under the outgoing presidential term until that January. Since the years chosen in the article are supposed to be benchmarks for the end of a term, it seems like they should instead all be one greater. We already have the presidential term timeframes at the bottom of the page so should we just change the years on the charts to match them, or should we also make it somehow more clear further up the page when in the year we are measuring by? ChartsAreFun (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and changed the years and put the acronym chart up at the top of the page. Anyone who has some alternate ideas feel free to post. ChartsAreFun (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Number of Judges

Hello, the number of District Court judges currently listed (138 for JRB) are the total number of Dist Court Judges nominated by Biden and confirmed, including the three that are no longer serving as Dist Court Judges: Ana de Alba, Florence Pan, and Sarah Merriam. Therefore this number should be 135. 98.97.58.124 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The total number of district court judges as it stands right now on the page adds up to 679 when there is 680 judgeships. The numbers must be off currently. Dancer2025!! (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)