Talk:Merrick Garland/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Merrick Garland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Merrick B. Garland was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-established that page as a redirect page to this article. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Merrick B. Garland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion?

Since MBG is oft-mentioned as a replacement for Justice Stevens, I am curious if anyone has a source to corroborate the assertion in this ABA Journal article that he is Jewish. Obviously, "diversity" of the Justices is now a topic of great interest. -- Y not? 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's Jewish, see CNN or LA Times. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does his religion even have to be mentioned? Is religion for each judge in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.223.132 (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is relevant because it is highly predictive of voting patterns on social issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:DB00:6860:C9BB:40FC:3F5F (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's satisfactory to have his religion mentioned in the article's infobox, with a cite, as is now the situation. If that became a major point of discussion, then it would be relevant to add it directly to the body of the article, perhaps in the "Personal life" section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Can the phrase "as a Jew" be changed? "Raised Jewish" is a much better phrase.Maebyitsme (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just change it. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected article

It will be a busy day for this article, but I wanted to note I semi-protected the article after a blitz of anonymous editing added incorrect info. It is set to expire after a week. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Is a request required to extend the protection past one week? An onslaught of anonymous editing is inevitable. Buster Seven Talk 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

He prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, right? That's lead-worthy stuff right there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Second semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

This edit request to Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in an unprecedented move, issued an categorical vow not to consider any nominee put forth by President Obama, saying that the decision as to a Scalia replacement should be left to the next President.

S/B in a precedent move as set by Senator Joe Biden in 1992, when he declared that any SCOTUS opening during an election year should be left open for the next POTUS. Cnhbradley (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First off, there's no specific edit you're suggesting. But if you want to talk about Joe Biden's 1992 comments, it's best to consider them in their entirety, rather than take the snippet that fits Republican Party talking points.[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Text from Senator Joe Biden on the Senate Floor in 1992:

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.

And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I’m sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnhbradley (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I request that the text be changed to indicate WHO has called it "unprecedented" (which is easy to find, since pretty much every Democrat has done so.) --Outdowands (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Democrats like Lindsey Graham? We follow reliable sources, and plenty of them (like this one) clearly state that this has never happened before. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. The so-called Thurmond rule is a myth, and many, many sources (including the one we cite) accurately characterize the refusal to even consider a president's appointee as unprecedented. Neutrality^talk 16:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu yes, either of those should work just fine. --Outdowands (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll add it then. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Outdowands (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Appointment to the D.C. Circuit section 11 Seats or 12 Seats

The Section titled Appointment to the D.C. Circuit makes references to a need to fill a 12th seat in one paragraph and then an 11th in the next which number is correct and is there a corroborating source? 174.96.14.12 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"consensus nominee"

Under "Supreme Court Nomination," the reference given in first paragraph for Hatch's 2010 description of Garland as a "consensus nominee" (Shear, Michael, New York Times, March 16, 2016) does not mention Hatch's quote. I am supplying a reference to Salt Lake Tribune that does. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've improved the source, by citing the 2010 Reuters article directly, which does include that phrase. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

I think stating that the NYTimes "reported" that Obama is daring Republicans makes it sound like there was an actual "dare" made by the president to Senate Republicans. After reading the article, it sounds more like the NYTimes is framing the nomination as a dare but not that Obama has made an actual dare. Perhaps the term "reported" can be changed to "framed" or "interpreted."

Good point; I have copy edited a bit to hopefully make that more clear. Neutrality^talk 18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court nomination

How about someone fixing the erroneous statement that is currently on this page about Mitch McConnel and the House Republicans vow to not vote on any nominee as "unprecedented"?!?! As it is no way unprecedented! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayliver78 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is, because even past times when Democrats said that, votes were still held. That said, this is not the forum to debate that. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the talk page IS the correct forum to discuss that. And the earlier comment is correct; calling it "unprecedented" is opinion. The statement should be sourced to explain WHO has called it that. --Outdowands (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is unprecendented. See Anthony Kennedy's 1988 confirmation, when a Democratic Senate overwhelmingly confirmed him in Reagan's final year. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"In the latest battle in the war for ideological control of the Federal courts, the Democrats who control the Senate have begun to delay confirming some of President Bush's nominees for major judgeships to preserve the vacancies for Gov. Bill Clinton to fill if he is elected President." http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/01/us/waiting-for-clinton-democrats-hold-up-court-confirmations.html?smid=tw-share

A judgeship is a judgeship at any level. The democrats did holdup an appointment for Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnhbradley (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And the Republicans have confirmed so few Obama judicial nominees that there are judicial emergencies on "over two dozen" federal courts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu please stop pushing original research. I do not wish to debate with you as to whether the move is unprecedented or not. I am merely pointing out that the statement is disputed -- by roughly half the US population. I suggest that the article text be changed to indicate who has called it unprecedented. --Outdowands (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia's job to push accurate data. At the point where this specific situation - a Congress vowing to stop even hearing nominees with an entire year left in a president's term - has never happened before, unprecedented is accurate. "In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks." - http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/ Mt xing (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Precedent is inherently a matter of interpretation. Roughly half the US population disagrees with calling it "unprecedented" -- this is a textbook example of original research. I am deliberately avoiding expressing any opinion on whether or not the move is unprecedented. My point is that we need to correctly attribute that statement, or remove it entirely. I think it's relevant to include, so I would suggest we add attribution rather than remove it. --Outdowands (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Attribution seems fair. Does anyone here have edit capabilities right now? Mt xing (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No. This is an issue of historical fact, not political interpretation. The neutral, third-party sources are clear that the so-called Thurmond rule is a myth (see this report from the Brookings Institution), and that the move to deny the president's nominate a confirmation hearing is unprecedented (e.g., CNN: "In an unprecedented move"); see open letter from scholars, law professors, and presidential historians, describing move as "unprecedented breach of norms")

Because this is not a seriously contested assertion among scholars or journalists, we can (and should) state it in our own voice, giving the usual endnote, with no need for in-text attribution. Neutrality^talk 16:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it still appropriate to cite historical facts, though? Mt xing (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality the issue isn't whether the statement is true or not, it's a matter of finding a reliable source that clearly states that claim. Please see WP:SYNTH for many such examples of (somewhat obviously) true statements that nonetheless require attribution. --Outdowands (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly not synth, since the sources (the Brookings link excepted) discuss the unprecedented nature of the refusal to consider a nomination to this particular vacancy.

As for citation, of course it is necessary to cite historical facts. But these are cited in the footnotes section (not in-text attribution).

Out of curiosity, Mt xing and Outdowands - are you the same user? Neutrality^talk 17:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Also note that one of the primary ways in which people use Wikipedia is as a way to find references for various facts. I for one don't pay much attention to the specific claims made in our articles, particularly political articles, because I know that the content of our articles is dictated largely by the political views of whichever group of editors is camped out on a particular page. The references are far more useful. --Outdowands (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality as a general rule of thumb, if you find a significant number of other editors disagreeing with a fact, then that's a clear indication that the statement should be properly attributed. Adding sources to statements in no way detracts from their veracity -- quite the opposite, in fact. And no, I'm not Mt xing, I'm just me. :) --Outdowands (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement is properly attributed, multiple times, in the footnotes. As for in-text attribution, the question is not whether a given fact is disagreed with by random wiki editors. It is whether it is not seriously contested among relevant authorities: i.e., scholars and journalists. Here, it is not. This is very simple. Neutrality^talk 17:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your opposition to adding attribution. It's useful to readers, and helps to defuse the debate here (and prevent edit-warring) and does not detract from the truth of the statement. It is not appropriate to argue about facts here; merely add a reliable source and move on. Why are you so opposed to having the attribution? --Outdowands (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is attributed, in the footnotes. I explained why in-text attribution is unnecessary and uncalled for above. If you're not going to get that, there is little reason to continue this back-and-forth. Neutrality^talk 17:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Not to cast aspersions toward any editor but to keep the talk clean, I too thought that recent editors that have contributed to this talk page were all surprisingly new or recently activated and had only a few minor contributions. What I'm saying is that Neutrality's question about sockpuppets was not an isolated observance. Buster Seven Talk 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality I think you misunderstand what I was asking for, and I apologize for any way in which my phrasing contributed to that. I was not arguing that the statement itself be changed, but rather that additional footnotes be added. Some of those to which you refer were in fact added at my request (and with the help of Muboshgu) and that's all I was suggesting. I do think perhaps the ones more directly relevant to the "unprecedented" claim should be relocated to be adjacent to the word (so that it's clear that's what's being referenced) but I wasn't asking for a watering-down of the language, which I think is maybe what you thought, and why you were so opposed? Also, regarding Buster7's concerns regarding sockpuppetry, I can understand that and don't take offense. I create new accounts every time the "keep me logged in" on my previous one expires, because to be perfectly honest I've always found the community on Wikipedia to be highly toxic and would rather not have an ongoing history with it. I have a tendency to get involved with (and even seek out) talk page disputes because I am sometimes able to help smooth things over (which is something I feel good about doing, whenever I can) but not always... --Outdowands (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We could relocate the citations to be directly after the word "unprecedented" rather than at the end of the sentence, but many of the cites support the entire sentence (i.e., the unprecedented part but also everything else). Neutrality^talk 18:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Two of them were added (by Muboshgu -- thanks!) at my request specifically to support the "unprecedented" so I think it would be okay to move them. The way I use Wikipedia is to look up articles in order to find reliable sources for things, so if I came to the article trying to find support for the position that the GOP position was unprecedented, it would make that task a lot easier if the references were right there. I am also sensitive to the fact that too many references mid-sentence can be visually cluttering, so I'm not THAT strongly attached to the idea. But since the "unprecedented" claim seems to be particularly controversial to some, I think making the connection as clear as possible would go a long way to defusing arguments from the other side. --Outdowands (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not "unprecedented" for senators to vow to not consider nominations.

I draw your attention to page 9-10 in the following PDF (page 6-7 by page-number in footer), under the heading "Opposition to the President".

There is clearly precedent for senators to proactively disapprove supreme court nominations by a president that is soon to leave office. Though it has never been a senate majority leader, that doesn't make it "unprecedented". Whether an event has precedent is not dependent on the degree of the prior precedent, but the existence of it.

The wording should either change to "unprecedented degree", which I will concede is a fair middle-ground, or should be removed entirely. I would prefer the latter-- Democratic Party leaders have been relaying this questionable claim over the past few weeks since Scalia's death and I think it's a mistake to relay that onto this site without sources to back it up. Until there is an article about this topic where it can be judged for accuracy, the neutral action is to not talk about it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.199.68 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to argue proceedure, this seems to be a minor change, so it's

Done. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, guess it is, knock yourselves out. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is unprecedented for the Senate to refuse to even consider a president's nominee. This is an issue of historical fact, not political interpretation. The neutral, third-party sources are clear that the move to deny the president's nominee a confirmation hearing is unprecedented, see, e.g\,

CNN: "In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks. The historic move..."

open letter from scholars of American history and law: "We express our dismay at the unprecedented breach of norms by the Senate majority. In fact it is standard practice when a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court to have a president, whatever the stage in his term, to nominate a successor and have the Senate consider it."

Huffington Post: "One of the Republican Party's most candid senators, Lindsey Graham (S.C.), admitted Thursday a stark fact that the rest of his colleagues have tried their best to avoid: that their blockade of any Supreme Court nominee by President Barack Obama is unprecedented. ... "We are setting a precedent here today ... "We're headed to changing the rules, probably in a permanent fashion."

In what way is whitehouse.gov a "third-party" source, or HuffingtonPost "neutral"? All three of these links are editorials. My source is the Federation of American Scientists, a non-profit organization, and the piece was written in 2010 prior to any politicizing of this topic. Sources are abundant. 98.100.199.68 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The letter is published on the White House's website, but it is not produced by the White House. It is from a group of scholars from outside government, including Norman J. Ornstein (of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank), Erwin Chemerinsky (dean of the UC Irvine Law School and probably one of the leading constitutional law profs living), Doris Kearns Goodwin (a famous historian), Geoffrey R. Stone (well-known constitutional law professor), etc. Neutrality^talk 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

U.S. politics is frequently a reality distortion field, but here at Wikipedia we're supposed to follow the sources. Neutrality^talk 17:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is the word "vow" that makes this proposed Senate non-action unprecedented. Buster Seven Talk 17:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The PDF says, "Nineteen Senators issued a statement indicating that, on [the basis that LBJ was in a lame duck year], they would oppose any nomination by President Johnson." As far as I'm concerned, this directly opposes what's being said in the newer revision of the page-- I think that "oppose any nomination" is definitely a "categorical vow". 98.100.199.68 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First, 19 senators taking a position is different from the Senate majority leader and the majority caucus taking a position. Second, the Senate did consider the Abe Fortas nomination. In fact: "the Senate held swift confirmation hearings for Fortas]." As the sources indicate, refusing to even consider a nominee is unprecedented.

In any case, that PDF report is from 2010. Reading the tea leaves from it in order to come at our own conclusion—one at odds with the more recent sources directly addressing the 2016 vacancy—is pure synthesis. Neutrality^talk 17:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not they eventually considered the Abe Fortas nomination is irrelevant-- Republicans today might still hold a confirmation hearing on Garland, too. As the current wording in the article paints it, the "unprecedented" action is not the actualized denial of a hearing, but the issuing of a declaration to do so-- the "vow" is what is described as unprecedented, and I have provided a very good source saying that it is not.

I think it's disingenuous to call this synthesis. I'm not pulling a bunch of random sources together in an attempt to paint a certain picture; the source directly talks directly about the question at hand. It is completely backwards to penalize this article because it's from 2010-- if anything, newer articles should be called into question. The idea that historical interpretation can somehow become better with increased relevance is tenuous. 98.100.199.68 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As it sources reflect, the Senate Republican Caucus has vowed not to hold a confirmation hearing or otherwise consider Garland. Hypothetically, they could backtrack, and we could update the article at that time to reflect that. But I don't get your suggested "actualized denial" vs. "declaration" distinction - both are unprecedented when taken by the majority caucus of the Senate. The PDF report says nothing to the contrary. Neutrality^talk 18:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the content consideration, the current wording that says Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in an unprecedented degree, issued an categorical vow not to consider any nominee put forth by President Obama is simply very awkward and verging on ungrammatical. You don't issue a vow in a degree in English. Things are done "to a degree", if anything, but not vows anyway. The move seems unprecedented enough to me, and there are sources to state it without WP:SYNTHing ones that were written before these events, but even if not, let's at least try to make this encyclopedia readable. LjL (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding to User:98.100.199.68---"oppose" is not a solemn promise to act in a certain way. "Vow" implies a solid, stern, unrelenting commitment to act in a certain way. Buster Seven Talk 18:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

See my response above with regards to synthesis. As for the grammar point, I agree. I am arguing more for the idea than some exact phrasing. (New to wikipedia) 98.100.199.68 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's productive to argue here over whether or not the GOP position is unprecedented. It has now been attributed to particular sources making that claim, which I think is sufficient. Interpreting precedent is a matter of opinion, and the sources for the prevailing opinion (including a Republican) have been specified. --Outdowands (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Third semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

This edit request to Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change

Since 2003, Garland has been a member of the board of overseers for Howard University.[12]

to

From 2003-2010, Garland was a member of the board of overseers for Harvard University.

because: Although the source [12] does mention Howard, this would appear to be an error. Garland was elected to Board of Overseers of Harvard in 2003 [3] and was elected president for his final year, 2009-2010 [4]

Rhoow (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, it's been fixed. Pretty-big goof for the Congressional Directory to mix up Howard and Harvard - they are usually quite reliable. Neutrality^talk 19:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Fourth semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

This edit request to Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a typo in the 3rd paragraph of the section "Service on the D.C. Circuit, reputation, and judicial philosophy." In that 3rd paragraph's first sentence, there is a word missing between "... Garland" and "that his most-admired...". The word might be "noted" or "stated".

2602:30A:2EFE:95F0:F876:B2EA:88E1:7DD8 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Neutrality^talk 20:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Already done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Russian Ancesty

I heard on the news tonight that his parents are Russian émigrés and yet I see no mention of it given here. Did someone adjudge that information to be irrelevant or has nobody yet realized this about his ancestral background?

His parents were born in the U.S. Three of his grandparents were immigrants, and his maternal grandmother was born in Illinois, to immigrant parents. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV: removal of death penalty

The fact he participated to the decision to seek death penalty for OK bombing prosecution has been dropped of the article. This is an important information, as SCOTUS deals a lot with death penalty. Removal diff were [5]. Please note the neutrality issue to replace raw facts by a cherry-pick of only a praise. --Dereckson (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have restored that text; I don't think there was any basis in policy for the deletion. Neutrality^talk 00:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The basis in policy is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I do not feel that having such a high level of detail about Garlands activities regarding the OK bombing prosecution is encyclopedic. The specifics of what he did or did not do aren't important. The important thing is that he was deeply and personally involved. As for the capital punishment detail, if this is important because it reveals something about his views on capital punishment, then it belongs in a "Political views" section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a biography article. The Oklahoma City prosecution, as all the sources reflect, was a major, formative moment in Garland's professional life. All the biographical summaries of him mention this moment. And when we say that he was deeply and personally involved, the readers appreciate some examples. Show, not tell. Neutrality^talk 14:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Show don't tell" doesn't apply to encyclopedia entries. In any case, we evidently have a difference of opinion about the prominence of these specific details. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is a general principle of good writing. For example, in Henry II of England, we not only explain what ("Henry's reign saw significant legal changes, particularly in England and Normandy") but why and how ("He cracked down on crime, seizing the belongings of thieves and fugitives, and travelling justices were dispatched to the north and the Midlands...). Neutrality^talk 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not an example of "show don't tell"; it's an example of "show and tell." In any case, this really comes down to editorial discretion as to what the appropriate level of detail is, and I certainly understand that reasonable minds can disagree here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Deal Making

Radio stations are beginning to report negotiations between concerned parties that, should Mrs. Clinton be the Democratic nominee, several high-ranking Republicans would be willing to favor approving Judge Garland in the two months preceding the election due to fears that Clintons choice would be more liberal. Any legs as an article mention? Buster Seven Talk 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be some sources mentioning this, so I'm fine with including a sentence on it. Probably anything much more than that could go in the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination article. Neutrality^talk 21:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

On second thought; if there is deal making its probably going on as we "speak" and will ebb and flow. The comment I make at "GA nomination" about bread rising holds true with these type of rumors. The dynamic possibilities of the next few months will dictate how the article will proceed. No need to raise red flags if none really exist. Time will tell. Buster Seven Talk 21:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No mention of him being a jurist?

I've seen the word Jurist mentioned for this person in several articles. This is significant information which should be included here, because a Jurist is something which is unique and relevant to law. Can someone please include this information? Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In the United States "jurist" is just a fancy synonym for "judge." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

or a scholar of Law. Buster Seven Talk 05:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That is generally not how the term is used in the U.S. In any case, we'd have to look at the specific source to see what it means. I highly doubt a source from anywhere in the world would use the term to imply something other than what's already included in our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Black's Law Dictionary's Free Online Legal Dictionary states; One who is versed or skilled in law. One who is skilled in the civil law or law of nations. The term is now usually applied to those who have distinguished themselves by their writings on legal subjects. No mention of judge. Buster Seven Talk 10:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that Garland is not a "jurist" in the scholarly sense. His publications outside of opinion writing appear to be minimal. bd2412 T 14:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I would presume most judges are "versed or skilled in law." It's a term that I would say is applicable to Garland, but one that I don't think is completely necessary. If it fits in naturally, then great. I see no reason to rework the article just to fit the term jurist. Knope7 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"excessive unencyclopedic detail"

This diff removes "married at the Harvard Club in New York City on September 19, 1987" from the article with the claim of excessive unencyclopedic detail. I would like to here some editors comment about what is blatant removal of simple factual detail. It's as though the article was a skeleton and editors are not allowed to put some meat and muscle and sinew to it. Hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles contain the most inane and minuscule facts about their subject matter and this article is not allowed to mention that the Garland married in a rather prestigious place? I don't get it. I guess we could do an RfC but, for now, I'd just like to get an idea of how this article will be allowed to grow. Buster Seven Talk 06:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for putting meat and sinew on the bones, it's just that there's a limit to how deeply we should drill. The relevant policy explains that just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it should be included. Editorial discretion is required to decide what has encyclopedic value and what is trivial, un-encyclopedic detail. I understand that reasonable minds can differ on this. In the case of Garland, the news media is going over his life in excruciating detail because of the nomination. As Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we shouldn't be mimicking this level of detail. As for this particular case, I could certainly be wrong, but it just strikes me that not many readers care where Garland and his wife were married. You don't see that level of detail in most other articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV: Moderate/Centrist?

The article unquestioningly asserts that Garland is "considered" a centrist, as if that's some sort of consensus opinion, simply because two news articles assert he is. While the article details any Republican support, praise or contact, right down to mentioning he once heard Pres. Nixon speak live, it doesn't provide any support for his alleged centrism. No conservative or even center-right mentors, opinions, or positions are expressed. Instead, this seems simply like the decades-old and much-maligned public relations point of labeling every liberal as a centrist to make opposition seem unreasonable. A space alien reading sources like the New York Times and Washington Post without access to a translation would conclude that the opposite of "conservative" was "moderate." Neutrality 96.95.24.246 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)>

The mainstream sources overwhelmingly refer to him as a centrist. And there are far more than two of these. There is Reuters ("centrist"), SCOTUSblog ("quite centrist"); Time ("widely viewed as a centrist"); Huffington Post ("a centrist candidate"); Politico ("moderate"); The Atlantic ("judicial centrism"). Neutrality^talk 21:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

By and large, US democrat politicians are mostly centrists, not leftists. It is a common misconception that people such as Obama and Hillary Clinton are viewed as progressives, when they're just moderates. US politics in general is skewed to the right when compared to countries with clear leftist politics (See the nordic countries, UK, Germany, Portugal, much of europe really). Anyway, it is not correct to label Garland as a leftist when the vast majority of articles call him for having centrist stances. The only article I saw which calls him a liberal is one which was published after he was put front and center by Obama. --Shiriu (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible photos suggested for use in the article

Possible photos suggested for use in the article:

Profile photos

Merrick Garland profile by The White House
Merrick Garland profile by The White House
Merrick Garland at podium on Supreme Court nomination at The White House

Supreme Court nomination process

March 9, 2016: President Obama meets with Judge Merrick Garland in Oval Office
March 16, 2016: Merrick Garland in Oval Office before nomination to US Supreme Court
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden applaud Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland during a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House announcing Chief Judge Garland as President Obama’s nominee to the United States Supreme Court, March 16, 2016
March 16, 2016: Merrick Garland speaks at his Supreme Court nomination with President Obama
Merrick Garland walking to Oval Office after nomination by President Obama
March 17, 2016: Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland meets with Senatory Patrick Leahy
March 17, 2016: Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland meets with Senatory Patrick Leahy
March 17, 2016: Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland meets with Senatory Patrick Leahy
March 17, 2016: Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland meets with Senatory Patrick Leahy
March 17, 2016: Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland meets with Senator Harry Reid
March 17, 2016: Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland meets with Senator Harry Reid
March 17, 2016: Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland meets with Senator Harry Reid

The profile photo currently used in the infobox is up for deletion at Commons. link

Suggest swapping it out with one of the free-use-licensed profile photos, above.

Also the other images could be possible suggested photos for use in the article.

More pictures and free-use-licensed media at commons:Merrick Garland and commons:Category:Merrick Garland.

I wish everyone best of luck and collegiality in the editing process,

— Cirt (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Thanks to research by Joe Decker (talk · contribs) at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Merrick Garland.jpg, the infobox profile photo will likely not be deleted. So I leave it up to the Wikipedia community about how to use the other images mentioned, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"...in finding that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin."

...that's not what was decided in that case, is it? It was decided that marijuana should remain schedule I, which doesn't necessarily mean it's as dangerous as any other schedule I substance, but only that like the other schedule I substances, it has no legally recognized medical use. It's not phrased like that in the article, and it reads like a bit of cannabis-lobby snark. If this weren't such a contentious article, I'd have removed it already. Twin Bird (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. I have rephrased. Neutrality^talk 01:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

White House video

A video expressly promoting Garland has been included and re-included in the article. The video is non-neutral as it has a nakedly promotional tone; more importantly, its inclusion in our article is blatantly non-neutral as it implicitly signals to readers that we are taking the White House's "side" on his nomination, and, by logical extension, on Garland himself. As informative as the video is there is no way we can include it in our article. (I posted this same issue at Talk:Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination#White House video.)--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we just change the caption to "White House promotional video" or "White House video promoting Garland"? That way, the reader will know that it is a non-neutral presentation. Has the White House ever put together a video like this for a Supreme Court nominee before? bd2412 T 17:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I have boldly changed the caption to read White House video produced to promote Garland's Supreme Court nomination. Feel free to revert if necessary. With regards to the policy aspect of this, the relevant section is WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements. Biased/non-neutral statements of opinion can be presented as long as it has an in-text attribution. The issue I think DrFlieschman is seeing is WP:WEIGHT. If we are to include such a biased statement, we need to give other statements fair representation as well. Mz7 (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with the "to promote" language if it will resolve the issue. (I don't think it's strictly necessary, but neither do I object.) The video itself is biographical in nature; it does not include many statements of seriously contested fact, so I'm not sure what needs to be balanced out. If someone has something to the contrary, of course, they are free to add it subject to proper weight and BLP. Neutrality^talk 19:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If it is properly attributed (to the White House), the ordinary reader will know its origin, and can credit or discount the video as he or she sees fit. In no way does it signal we are taking anyone's "side" in the matter. It is similar to a video of a floor statement of, say, Senator McConnell. We could include that in an article, properly attributed, and there would be no problem. Neutrality^talk 17:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality, I'm not quite clear on what you're saying. Are you suggesting including a video of a floor statement from McConnell? If so, I'm not a fan of dueling non-neutral videos from a stylistic perspective, but I think it would alleviate the neutrality problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I would include a statement from McConnell on the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination page (since it directly bears on the nomination) but not on this biographical page (because McConnell's floor statement does not address Garland as a person). I would include the White House video—properly attributed—in both articles (because it is both biographical in nature (focusing on Garland the man) and also bears directly on his nomination to the Court (it illustrates the White House's rollout of Garland, Garland's thoughts on his own nomination, etc., all of which belong in the nomination page).

(I note that C-SPAN footage is public domain so hopefully we could acquire it somehow).

Also, courtesy tag to @Smallbones: who originally added this content and may want to weigh in. Neutrality^talk 19:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot support having the White House video on the Garland page without having a balancing video. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

i'm sure a hit piece video could be produced, but who would produce it? the worst people say is: "i do not dislike him". Duckduckstop (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Having viewed the video, I'm not sure what a "balancing video" would be. I don't think there's anyone out there making videos that say that Merrick Garland is a bad guy, a bad judge, not a real family man. The political question at issue is whether a nominee, irrespective of qualifications or character, should be disregarded at this point in a president's term. If this video was an argument that the Senate should consider or approve a nominee despite the timing, then a counter-video taking the opposite view would be appropriate (or perhaps neither would be appropriate for this page, but both would be appropriate for the page on the nomination). However, if there is no contention that any of the biographical details in this video are inaccurate, then I think the current caption is sufficient. bd2412 T 20:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that this is an openly promotional video. I also disagree that WP:NPOV would prevent us from including a promotional video.

The video shows that Garland walks, talks, does not have two heads, has a wife and two kids, and a mother and had a father, some personal history, and his very basic judicial philosophy. If that is promotional, we'd have to exclude most media, including most videos. Sure almost all media has a POV - consider a photo of the Statue of Liberty taken on a beautiful sunny day - but it is impossible in most cases not to include some sort of POV that could be removed if we were just including words rather than images. But we don't exclude images and other media for that reason.

Also consider an autobiographical quote. It would be difficult to ensure that these quotes are all "perfectly neutral", but we do not exclude autobiographical quotes.

What WP:NPOV is about is making sure that all significant POVs are represented in the article. It is not about making each individual piece of the article neutral - it almost requires that some pieces are not totally neutral. (This assumes of course that we can't write a complete article where every word and sentence is perfectly and blandly neutral.)

So readers should know that the video comes from the White House. If there is another video that deserves equal weight that shows, e.g. that he has two heads, that should be included. What's the problem?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the video and see no reason to search for balance. The video is as neutral a view into a persons life as possible. What would the balance that some are requesting look like? That Garland got a jay-walking ticket in 1980? That he is not a very big tipper in restuarants? Let teh video stay as a service to our reader. It is as bland as can be. Buster Seven Talk 20:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The video is inherently promotional in both tone and purpose. If the White House was not intending to promote Garland and paint him in a positive light then they would not have published the video in the first place. By re-publishing this video, we are effectively endorsing the White House's agenda and actively assisting them. This is not about balancing all significant POVs. It's about not being a mouthpiece for the government, as reasonable/neutral/bland as its position may be. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

On this subject, there's a little bit of precedent to look at: in the article Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, the law which instituted same-sex marriage in England and Wales, we include two images that were produced as promotional material by the British government (and thus appropriately licensed under the Open Government License). In the case of the marriage law, there's really not much to illustrate it otherwise. Generic pictures of people getting married are a dull cliché. Nobody seems to have complained about the presence of the promotional images there.

As for this article, I don't think there should be any blanket rule on whether to include such material: so long as it is appropriately marked as being material produced by the government, that the article has appropriate balance and overall NPOV is in the article, including the material is something that mostly benefits the reader. Nobody is going to be in any doubt as to its origin. I don't buy the argument that the inclusion of the video is an endorsement of it, any more than if we had, say, the videos associated with the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth or the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, Wikipedia would be endorsing the positions expressed in them by including them in the articles. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not a direct response to Tom, but a more general argument to those who favor the inclusion of this video. At a bare minimum the video must be described as a promotion, rather than as a presentation as Buster7 prefers. This is hardly the White House neutrally laying up the nomination for debate between the two parties. As NPR notes, this is a "feel-good" video that is part of a "PR campaign" designed to "humanize" Garland. (Do we really routinely include videos here that are put out during PR campaigns? I have a hard time believing that when the videos themselves are not especially noteworthy.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

So back to the raised question about balance...since this video "humanizes" him are you saying that a video that "demonizes" him would provide balance. The video presents facts about his life. Just because they happen to be grand ("he was valedictorianin high school and college, he prosecuted the Okla. bombers, etc.") doesn't make them a promotion. Facts are presented, not promoted. No jingle accompanies them. No flowery adjectives are used to pump up the splendor of the candidate. Anyone that is put forth as a candidate for the Supreme Court is going to be special, superior, better than most. NPR can call it what the like but it is not PR. The video is a synopsis of a man placed in consideration for the highest federal court in the US. Other video have been offered. which one would you suggest as a match without the White House "hook"? Buster Seven Talk 06:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So NPR calls the video part of a PR campaign, and your response is, "NPR can call it what the like but it is not PR?" Is this a discussion forum or are we building an encyclopedia based on reliable sources? Here are some other descriptors used by reliable sources for the video: "sentimental" (Law Newz), "gauzy" (NY Times), "designed to promote his nomination" (ABC), ... need I go on? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep we aren't bound by the equal time rule and the video isn't promotional --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that reliable sources say it is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: File nominated for deletion

Update: Providing notice here as it is directly relevant to all parties discussing the file itself:

File page on Commons: File:Meet Merrick Garland, President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee.webm
Deletion discussion on Commons: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meet Merrick Garland, President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee.webm

Please also see subsection, below, with suggestions of additional and/or alternative free-use licensed files.

Additional free-use-licensed video files include:

Further research at commons:Merrick Garland and commons:Category:Merrick Garland.

I wish you all the best of luck in having a civil discussion and with the editing process,

— Cirt (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Synagogue

The article currently identifies the synagogue that Garland attends, based on this Jewish Journal source. Should we really be including this content? I'm not sure:

WP:NOTEVERYTHING: This seems like excessive non-encyclopedic trivia to me. Just because a data point is verifiable doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia article. I doubt many of our articles identify specifically where their subjects pray (except for those about pastors of course).
WP:BLP: BLP subjects are entitled to a certain level of privacy. This is especially true for judges, who regularly receive death threats. Garland is especially in the crosshairs for groups opposed to his nomination (during these politically volatile times no less). We would be partially responsible if Garland were attacked at his synagogue by someone who learned of its location through our article (which has much greater visibility than the Jewish Journal source).

In an abundance of caution I am removing this content. I suggest we come to a consensus before re-including it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In an effort to achieve consensus I offer a few other articles for individuals that are newsworthy today in the US as examples of mention of religious affiliation and marriage detail:

From Donald Trump; Trump told a 2015 South Carolina campaign audience he attends Marble Collegiate Church, where he married his first wife Ivana in 1977.
From Chuck Grassley; Grassley married Barbara Ann Speicher in September 1954; ....... Grassley is a member of The Family, the organization that organizes the National Prayer Breakfast.
From Mitt Romney; The couple married on March 21, 1969, in a civil ceremony in Bloomfield Hills. The following day, they flew to Utah for a Mormon wedding ceremony at the Salt Lake Temple (Ann had converted to the faith while he was away).

It seems to me that these other individuals have their specific church membership and small details of their marriage ceremonies included in their articles but Judge Garland is not offered the same opportunity. BTW, I think it is extremely insensitive, out of order and beyond reason to even hint at an assassination attempt and then to assume that we would be, even in the slightest bit, culpable. Your mention of him being in the crosshairs sounds so weirdly like Sarah Palins mention of crosshairs and the subsequent shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in 2011. I've heard a lot of reasons given to exclude facts from articles but this "takes the cake". Buster Seven Talk 06:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The more I think about this "crosshairs" comment the more bothered I become. Where does this come from? Why would such a meek and mild-mannered man be in someones "crosshairs"? Has this possibility of extreme violence even been mentioned somewhere, anywhere, or is this just some wild speculation? Has any shooter in the long history of shooters gotten his victims whereabouts from Wikipedia?

Strong Keep - Buster Seven Talk

Strong keep. This really should have been addressed before the content was edited. See the discussion about synagogue attendance for Justice Elena Kagan. Yes, not everything belongs in a Wikipedia entry, but this is relevant and of interest to readership. If you want to exert "an abundance of caution" discuss here BEFORE you make the cursory deletion. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove. I appreciate the caution in removing the content pending consensus. As stated, judges are frequently the target of threats. I checked Justice Kagan's page and it mentions the synagogue she attended in her youth, not one she currently attends. There is a huge difference. I think the fact that he attends a synagogue and possibly a characterization of the synagogue (conservative, reform, etc.) would be a way to inform readers while maintaining some degree of privacy for the subject. As of right now, his synagogue attendance or religious affiliations are not really a matter of public debate, so for me the reasons for removing the information outweigh the reasons for keeping it.Knope7 (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Its not just one source. His attendance at Temple Sinai has been widely reported, see Jewish Telegraphic Agency, National Catholic Reporter, Religion News Service, Jewish Weekly, among other sources. I don't know on what basis you're assuming this is a security risk. Have there been attacks on judge-affiliated synagogues? Are you a security expert who has done a risk analysis? Has Garland or anyone affiliated with him suggested this information is sensitive? The answer to all these questions (I think) is no. The information is relevant and of wide interest, to the mainstream and wikipedia readership. The sysnagogue may welcome the publicity. It belongs and needs to be restored. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

My opinion has nothing to do with the reliability of the source. I don't think the information adds anything of value, particularly since we can still include that he regularly attends a synagogue without naming the specific institution. The specific name of the synagogue is just not important in the context of thisarticle. Not every verifiable piece of information needs to be added. I will also point out all of the sources you mentioned appear to be geared towards writing about religion, so it's not surprising that they would place greater importance on naming his place of worship than an encyclopedia would. As for the security risk, unfortunately judges are frequently the targets of threats, some serious and some not. Even if it's a small likelihood of a threat, the potential gravity of a real world threat gives weight to removing the information along with privacy concerns. It's not a particularly valuable piece of information anyway. Wikipedia is not designed provide publicity for organizations. So in summary, I think the very specific piece of information is of little value as the essential point that he regularly attends a synagogue can be conveyed without naming the exact synagogue, and there is a potential risk to safety and or privacy, I would err on the side of leaving it out.Knope7 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This drumming of the "It's a Threat" drum is ridiculous. The likelihood is not small--it doesn't exist---except in your imagination. I slightly see value in just the mention that he attends synagogue without the specific but not because I fear for the well-being of Judge Garland. It's more just to be agreeable and to move on. Still ~~Keep~~. Buster Seven Talk 01:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly I assure you that threats against judges are common whether you are aware of them or not. Please don't speak for me or presume what I know, and kindly keep your disagreement with me to the article. Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Some sources for these threats would help to convince me. Buster Seven Talk 11:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Buster7, I've been traveling and have had limited bandwidth. Here's a good source discussing the frequency that judges and prosecutors receive threats of violence. 1,370 threats were reported against federal judges in 2012 alone. Here's another source from HuffPo. Here's something from WaPo, and here's something from the AZ Republic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"OK Doc. Point made. I didn't mean to be churlish. I shift to Neutral. Buster Seven Talk 11:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Strong Keep - It's pretty likely that he will be confirmed to the Supreme Court eventually, perhaps after the election, when Republicans understand that he is better than anyone they are likely to get under "President Trump" or "President Clinton". Or perhaps he would be re-appointed under "President Clinton". If he doesn't make it to the Supreme Court, he'll likely be at least as well-known as Robert Bork, who had a similar situation. I haven't done it yet, but please check the level of detail in Bork's article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Bork's article doesn't say where he prays, perhaps partly because he's dead. Hence no safety or privacy issues. From a policy perspective his article isn't a BLP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: I have no particularly strong BLP concerns, since really, once something has been reported by several widely-known sources, withholding it from Wikipedia for "safety reasons" just seems silly and an excuse for censorship. But... WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I don't know if in certain places there is a strong tendency to identify (famous?) people by the place of worship they attend, but where I live, that's a really trivial piece of information that would raise eyebrows if found as part of an encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

His parents were both Jewish

People shouldn't add this weird claim that his father was Protestant, which today was stated in a few Jewish papers. His father was the son of Max Garland and Rose Kaplan, both of whom were Jewish immigrants. Max was the brother of Louis Garland, who was Iowa Governor Terry Branstad's maternal grandfather (Branstad's mother was Jewish). Garland's father was buried in a Jewish cemetery, as you can see here. Again, totally false claim, we shouldn't spread it even further by repeating it here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. Many publications rush to publish stuff without doing proper fact-checking, it seems. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty typical stuff for a big news event. Lots of nonsense in the early hours and days, but it will sort itself eventually. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Garland lived in Lincolnwood, IL and attended High School in Skokie, IL at a time when the whole Skokie/Lincolnwood/Morton Grove area had a high Jewish presence. Buster Seven Talk 20:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This is fascinating original research, but where is the reliable sourcing indicating that his father was Jewish? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And the JTA has corrected its articles across the board (i.e. here and here). Not before the New York Times repeated the claim, though. As to your question, I no longer care about reliable sources. They make too many errors. That's their problem, not ours. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's ours too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If the New York Times makes such glaring errors, then it's obviously not a reliable source. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A bit silly to suggest the NY Times isn't reliable (what newspaper is, then?) but very odd they might have gotten this wrong. I'd go with the JTA source on this since it's more specific with information about his father. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times isn't a reliable source. They just posted a correction, too. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It concerns me you have so many edits on WP but think the NY Times isn't a reliable source. I hope you are not removing the NYT as a source throughout Wikipedia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Any news organization staffed primarily by humans is not a reliable source. Which is why I long ago learned to ignore WP:V. BTW, why are you still answering to this? I was proven totally correct and approximately 30 articles have printed corrections on themselves. I've been totally correct on every such issue I've contested in my eight years on Wikipedia. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your days on this project are numbered if you think you can just ignore one of our central policies --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggest replace profile photo currently nominated for deletion on Commons

Suggestion: The profile photo in the infobox is currently nominated for deletion on Commons at: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Merrick Garland.jpg.

Suggest replacement with another suitable free-use-licensed photo such as:

Other photos and free-use-licensed media files may be seen at:

I wish you all the best of luck in the editing process,

— Cirt (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The profile photo can stay, the above linked deletion discussion was later closed as Keep. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

not sufficiently important for lead

Judge Garland's 2009-2010 consideration for SCOTUS was just removed because it was not sufficiently important for (the)lead. The thought struck me, "In the long history of the Supreme Court, how many candidates have risen to the pinnacle of their profession and been considered for appointment to the Court?". Two hundred? Three hundred? Certainly a select and small group of individuals when compared to the hundreds of thousands of equally competent and qualified individuals over that span of time. But that major event in Garlands life has been removed from the lead. I think it IS sufficiently important to be considered and should be included in the lead. Per Wp:Lead, the lead should be a concise overview of the article's topic. It should explain why the topic is notable and briefly summarize the most important and prominment points. Lets re-consider. Buster Seven Talk 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that Garland's consideration may have been sufficiently important for inclusion in the lead--perhaps--until he was actually nominated, and then it became relatively unimportant. This might sound a bit esoteric, but the standard for inclusion in the lead isn't what's most "inherently" important or what's most important relative to facts in other articles, but what's most important relative to other facts in that article. So, for example, we don't see in Elena Kagan's lead section that she was considered in 2009 for Souter's seat, which ended up getting filled by Sotomayor. (Kagan was nominated a year later to fill Stevens' seat.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"broader view"

Re this diff: a "compared to?" tag has been added to this sentence: According to Goldstein, Garland has "tended to take a broader view" of First Amendment rights.

If you look at the source (the Golstein post from 2010), the term is used as a general descriptor; it's not meant to be a comparison. I don't find the phrase to be garbled or unclear at all. Neutrality^talk 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. I think "Broader than what?" would be the natural reaction of most readers. My reading of the source is that Goldstein is using "broader" to refer back to the preceding paragraph. If he's not, then I don't understand what the source is trying to say. I've never heard of the comparative term "broader" used as what you call a "general descriptor." What do you mean by that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I read the post as Goldstein trying to place Garland on a rough spectrum ("tended to take a broader view" = "inclined to"), rather than comparing him directly to another individual, like another judge. I didn't read the "broader" as reflecting a comparison with the preceding paragraph, on Bismullah. The sources quoting the 2010 Goldstein post reflect this, e.g.: ABA Journal: "On First Amendment issues, he took 'a broader view' of free-speech rights..." Neutrality^talk 20:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the preceding paragraph talks about Garland making decisions on narrow grounds in other areas of law, which is why I read "broader" to be referring to that. I suppose the source is ambiguous, and therefore probably shouldn't be used for the "broader" sentence. Do you know if there are other sources describing Garland's First Amendment jurisprudence? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree it can be read either way. I'll see if I can find some other source. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 20:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW I think we're relying too much on Goldstein. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

We do rely quite a bit on the Goldstein 2010 post, but I think that is because it's a very good source (high quality and gives a good overview). I do agree that we should try to branch out, to the extent possible. (Especially given that there has been notable cases decided in the intervening six years).

A good source to look at for notable cases is the Almanac of the American Judiciary, which gives a nice summary of important decisions up until 2012 or so. Neutrality^talk 20:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination

i'm going to nominate for GA, since the revscore indicates that level. [6]. i trust User:Neutrality has that in hand. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that this is a good idea. GA articles need to be stable and this is not likely to be until after the confirmation process concludes, or dies without starting. That being said, this article is so vastly improved from where it was before Obama announced the selection, it should go to GAN at some point. Good job everyone! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Give it a few days to make sure it becomes stabilized. Then IMHO we could nominate it for DYK. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The article hasn't been expanded nearly enough to be DYK eligible. DYK requires a five-fold expansion. This has been more than doubled, but less than tripled. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering the appointment was only made yesterday, it is too early to go to GA or DYK. Give it time...let the yeast rise before we put it in the oven. Buster Seven Talk 21:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Somebody already sent it to GA (see top of page) btw DYK eligibility says

"g) Articles designated as Good articles within the past seven days, regardless of whether they were expanded, are also eligible."

But do please let it settle for awhile. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It is typical for GA nominations, if made by someone who has not worked on the article, to be made only after consulting with the active editors, not before said consultation. Based on the comments above from Muboshgu, Smallbones, and Buster Seven, consensus seems to be that the article is either not ready or insufficiently stable to be a GAN at the present time. (It appears to me that the article has still not settled, and would almost certainly fail the stability criterion for good articles.) As Smallbones points out, should it become a GA, it will then be eligible for DYK. If you believe I've misunderstood the consensus, let me know; otherwise, I plan to remove the GAN for the present. Thanks. I think you guys will have a good idea when it's ultimately ready for a GA nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Since all three commenters have been editing but have not disagreed with my conclusions here, I have now removed the GA nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Democrat

Can anyone find a reliable source saying that Garland is a Democrat? It seems obvious at first, but reliable sources say he's a centrist and a moderate, so maybe he doesn't identify with either major party. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see the mention of a political affiliation ("Democrat") gone. There is no online record of Garland being a member of the Democratic Party. There is no online record of him stating his ideological preferences, either. -The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Judicial Crisis Network video

I've removed an external link to a anti-Garland video produced by a conservative activist group, the Judicial Crisis Network.

It is completely inappropriate under WP:ELBLP ("In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline") and WP:ELPOV ("avoid providing links too great in ... weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority view"). Neutrality^talk 01:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I added the JCN video to balance the White House video, which is equally non-neutral. Neither are reliable sources. (The White House video was described by reliable sources as a "feel-good" video, part of a "PR campaign,", "sentimental", "gauzy", and "designed to promote" Garland's nomination.) If we remove the JCN video then the White House video must go too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The White House video is an official video and is biographical in nature. It is not remotely comparable to an outside "hit piece." Neutrality^talk 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree; the White House video is basically a government document. If there were, for example, an official Senate Judiciary Committee video on the subject, that would be of comparable reliability. bd2412 T 16:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

BD2412, sorry I was unclear. The issue we're talking about is neutrality of the External Links section, not reliability of the linked sources. The WH video is verifiably promotional in nature and was made and published for the very purpose of promoting Garland's nomination. It should therefore should not be included in the external links unless we include something equally promotional in nature that was made and published to oppose Garland's nomination. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The concepts of neutrality and reliability are not independent of each other. It is not "neutral" to present a reliable source and an unreliable source as if both were reliable. Let's take an example of this from an extreme view. If the article on Child abuse links to a government agency video that provides reasons why child abuse is bad, does "neutrality" require that we link to a video that argues that child abuse is good? Given the breadth of views on the internet, I would not be surprised to find that somewhere out there a video has been posted making exactly that case, perhaps by a "Child Abuse Crisis Network". In that circumstance, what would it take, in terms of the origins and authorship of the video to make a convincing case that such a video presents a reliable viewpoint? bd2412 T 20:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a poor analogy, since the government agency would be publishing the child abuse video for educational or informational purposes, not to push an overt partisan agenda. Another difference is that those who support child abuse are a tiny fringe, whereas those who oppose Garland's nomination are hardly fringe. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

While there is some support for the argument that no nomination should be considered in an election year, the view that this particular nominee is ideologically extreme or otherwise unqualified for the position is indeed a fringe view. Not as fringe, of course, as arguing in favor of child abuse, but then we'd just be arguing over how fringe it is. bd2412 T 18:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. The ad doesn't say Garland is ideologically extreme or otherwise unqualified. It is a pretty standard attack ad opposing Garland's nomination. Moreover, you're confusing "fringe" with "minority." According to the polls a majority of Republicans oppose Garland's nomination. That's hardly fringe. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"It is a pretty standard attack ad." Perhaps that's true, although I am old enough to remember when attack ads were not "pretty standard" for a Supreme Court nomination, by which I mean I wasn't born yesterday. But can you find another biography for a judge where we include this kind of "standard" attack piece? Jonathunder (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Jonathunder, you're missing the point: there isn't another biography for a judge where we include a link to a video make by the White House as part of a PR campaign promoting the judge's nomination to the Supreme Court. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all BD2412 said above. The "Judicial Crisis Network" video is a fringe attack piece (on a living person, no less), and has no biographical value. By contrast, the official White House video contains an extensive interview with Garland and is biographical in character. There is no comparison between the two. Neutrality^talk 18:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether an external link has biographical value is a separate analysis than whether the inclusion of the link makes the External Links section non-neutral. We need to meet all of the requirements of WP:EL rather than cherry-picking some to the exclusion of others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is both that the video lacks of biographical value and that the video is a wildly distorted "attack ad." I view these problems as related, but it really doesn't matter whether one views them as separate or related, because they are both problems. Neutrality^talk 19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough... but by removing the attack ad we create a neutrality problem. The only solution I see is to remove the WH video. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We have already discussed this matter, and established a fairly clear consensus in favor of including the White House video. That consensus was not contingent upon the presentation of any kind of opposing view. If you wish to remove the White House video at this point, you will have to establish a new consensus in favor of its removal. (For the record, the previous discussion is at Talk:Merrick Garland/Archive 1#White House video, and editors favoring inclusion of the video in that discussion include myself, Neutrality, User:Smallbones, User:Buster7, User:Tom Morris, and User:In actu). bd2412 T 19:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no mechanism for a President to "withdraw" a Supreme Court nomination

WP:NOTFORUM

There is apparently a widespread misconception that a President (i.e. Obama) can "withdraw" a nomination for person on the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't describe such a thing. There are certainly references in history that say a nomination was "withdrawn". Sure, a President can declare that he "withdraws" a nomination, but it is far from certain that this would have the effect of making the Senate unable to later confirm him, despite the apparent wishes of the President. Usually, and perhaps always in history, when a President is said to have "withdrawn" a nomination, that confirmation wasn't going to happen, making it a mere formality. One argument for voting to confirm Garland now is that if Hillary Clinton is elected, she would nominate somebody worse than Garland. Possible, but this doesn't mean that a still-Republican-majority Senate couldn't confirm Garland even if Obama "withdraws" the nomination, or for that matter even after Clinton takes office on January 2017. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User Jonathunder attempted to remove this paragraph, above, claiming "this is not a forum". I reverted his rude action, pointing out "This is not your property". Merrick Garland has been nominated to the Supreme Court, therefore commentary about that event is relevant here too. My point, above, in fact counters various information observations and opinions that we occasionally find on articles, referring to "withdrawing" that nomination for strategic reasons. Jonathunder has not provided any reason that my comment is somehow off-topic, or irrelevant to the specific function of this article. Most likely, he simply doesn't like my observation that Garland's nomination can't be "withdrawn" in a way binding on the U.S. Senate: They can confirm Garland whenever they wish. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to explain that I want to put references into the article where media sources refer to the strategic idea of "withdrawing" Garland's nomination, presumably after a Clinton win in November 2016, yet before any Republican Senate control is lost, depending on those same elections. Such references assume that a President can "withdraw" a nomination, but not only that, can by doing so somehow block the Senate from confirming that "withdrawn" nomination. This discussion is obviously relevant in the Talk page, as it will be on the main page once the appropriate edits include well-sourced media references. Editors like "Jonathunder" and "Neutrality" should be embarrassed that they try to manipulate the editing process here, simply for the purpose of concealing from the public the observation I am referring to. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello 75.175.105.188. Although I think deletion of your comments might have been a little heavy-handed, Jonathunder and Neutrality are correct that your comments do not belong here. Please review our policy WP:NOTFORUM: Article talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the subjects of articles, they are for discussion of the articles themselves. Your original comment appeared to have nothing to do with our article. If you want to discuss content or sources you want included in the article, then by all means discuss it by writing something like, "What do people think about adding X to the article?" Of course, we need to adhere to other policies and guidelines, such as WP:V and WP:AGF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to wait for me to include material in the main article. I don't recall seeing such a rude and manipulative set of stunts being performed to keep a well-meaning editor's material from the article. Can you explain it? 75.175.105.188 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

withdrawal of Garland nomination

please restrict to User talk or WP:VPP

Bully editor LjL tried to back up bully editors Jonathunder and bully editor Neutrality by claiming: "There is no mechanism for a President to "withdraw" a Supreme Court nomination: The word "withdraw" doesn't appear even once in THE ARTICLE. This is a talk page about THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, not about what the media say or do not say. WP:NOTFORUM)" [end of quote] Bully editor LjL pretends to ignore the fact that I am in the process of selecting for inclusion media references to withdrawing Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination. I decided that the best way to do the edits on the article was to lay the groundwork by FIRST making comments on the Talk page, and only then editing the main article. It is completely illogical, therefore, for rude person LjL to justify the revert/deletion of my Talk page comments, merely on the ground that the article itself DIDN'T YET mention "withdraw". There is not defined method for a person to proceed with edits: Main article first? Or Talk page first? My position is that neither is necessarily "right" nor "wrong". An editor may need to make changes BOTH in the main article and ALSO the Talk page. Bully LjL simply seems to be enforcing some fictitious 'law' that he knows simply does not exist, for the purpose of obstructing development of article edits that refer to media references to "withdrawing" Subsequently, I will be adding these comments to the Merrick Garland Supreme Court Nomination main article and Talk page. But that doesn't make these thugs' actions proper here. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of an article in which game-playing in regards to withdrawing Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination by Obama is proposed and considered. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/17/how-obama-could-get-last-laugh-in-supreme-court-fight/ The bully-editors of WP should stop pretending that it is not a proper subject for discussion in this article, nor Talk page. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That is an unreliable opinion piece by Greg Sargent and cannot be cited for fact. It can be used to describe Greg Sargent's opinion if there's consensus to do so. I don't think it belongs here as it's not biographical in nature and probably violates WP:CBALL. Perhaps it could be incorporated at Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fleischman, I have to laugh! That article is quite reliable...as a statement of his opinion. Opinions are not prohibited in WP. Here, I am clearly showing that "reliable sources" (who says that the Washington Post isn't "reliable"?!?) are describing the opinions of this person, and that his opinions are considered valuable enough to publish. How much of YOUR stuff does the Washington Post publish? And no, I didn't refer to it for the purposes of placing it in the article on Merrick Garland. My purpose was to show that other editors were clearly acting in a biased and thuggish fashion, trying to keep me from posting material clearly relevant. Yes, I will put this material at Merrick Garland Supreme Court Nomination, but I decided to do that long before you made this suggestion. And by obstructing the material above, you are clearly trying to prevent criticisms of thuggish nature of other editors to be displayed. How's that for bias, Joel? 75.175.105.188 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I find this to be an interesting and novel question. I don't think there has ever been a situation before where the Senate has attempted to confirm a nominee whom the President no longer wishes to nominate. However, I think it's correct to say that it is premature to discuss in this article. Until such a situation becomes more than merely speculative, I think that the appropriate place to address it would be Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States#Confirmation (which currently says that a President can withdraw a nominee, citing to precedents but not to sources). bd2412 T 03:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Without opinion on where on-wiki this discussion should happen, the bottom line is there's no question that the President can withdraw a nomination. For that matter, at least in theory, the President could refuse to proceed with an appointment even after the Senate confirms a nomination. The President appoints Justices (and other appointees) by and with the consent of the Senate. The sequence of events is as follows: (1) the President submits the nomination to the Senate; (2) the Senate votes to confirm (i.e. "consent to") the nomination; and then (3) the President makes the formal appointment and signs the commission. I don't know of any cases where it happens, but there's nothing that says that (3) is automatic after (2).

Separately, if not confirmed or explicitly rejected, the Garland nomination (and any other pending nominations) will automatically lapse upon the sine die adjournment of the current Senate session no later than January 3, 2017. See Rule XXXI, section 6 of the Standing Rules of the Senate. In fact, even an intrasession recess of the Senate for more than 30 days triggers the automatic return of all pending nominations to the White House unless there is unanimous consent otherwise, although that won't be relevant in the current Congress because the Senate will hold regular pro forma sessions during recess periods in order to prevent recess appointments under the Noel Canning precedent.

To the 75... IP, I appreciate your interest in contribution to Wikipedia, but we value civility in interactions, so please don't refer to your fellow editors as "bullies" or "thugs" any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Although there is a relevant thread in this discussion, it is very thin and this has gotten quite forum-y. I suggest we set a good example for our newest contributor by focusing exclusively on article content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: can you add that information to the appointment and confirmation article? Cheers! bd2412 T 19:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Unwillingness

In the lead section, Markwothe changed "the unwillingness of Senate Republicans to consider the nomination" to "the decision by Senate Republicans not to consider the nomination." This change was reverted by Neutrality. I prefer Markwothe's more neutral version, since "unwillingness" implies obstructionism and reflects negatively on Senate Republicans without encyclopedic benefit. We should avoid these sorts of implications. If we have reliable sourcing that the Republicans are engaging in obstructionism then our article should say that explicitly, not implicitly. See WP:WTW and WP:SYNTH. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Merriam Webster defines "unwillingness" as "the quality or state of being unwilling to do something; reluctance." That is certainly a fair, accurate, and neutral word to use. (If anything, it is quite soft: "refusal to consider" would be equally supportable—and is used in news stories by, for example, the NY Times and the Washington Post—yet sounds harsher).

The word "unwilling" and "unwillingness" are used by other sources as well, e.g., The Guardian ("McConnell concluded, saying he was 100% unwilling to take a hearing on any nominee"); Roll Call ("Frustrated by the GOP's unwillingness to fill the high court vacancy..."), the Des Moines Register ("Grassley’s unwillingness to hold a hearing"). Neutrality^talk 19:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually more comfortable with "refusal," which is used by both the NY Times and the Washington Post, than I am with "unwillingness." Are you ok with this? I was starting to write a long diatribe about how the other three sources' use of "unwillingness" is different from ours, but if we can agree on "refusal" then it may not be necessary to go there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with replacing "unwillingness" with "refusal" in the lead section. I'm not sure if some other third editor might want to weigh in. Neutrality^talk 20:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Paternal grandfather

I am against including genealogical information about the ethnicity of Garland's paternal grandfather on WP:BLP and WP:TRIVIA grounds. This information is not encyclopedic because it adds no biographical value about Garland himself. Garland's father was Jewish and Garland himself was raised Jewish. That's all we need to know. The source is a new (launched in 2009) Jewish online magazine of limited public interest. As it indicates, the sole reason why people looked into Garland's genealogy was because they were curious why a Jew would have an un-Jewish name. That's trivia. If this story gets picked up by the mainstream media then I could see changing my mind on this, but I highly suspect that won't happen.

This is not equivalent to the current content about Garland's maternal grandparents, which demonstrates that Garland is a 3rd generation political refugee. (Even that may be a bit of a stretch, but that's another matter.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a person's ancestry can be trivia in certain circumstances – the more distant it is, the more likely it is to be trivial, and thus not suitable for inclusion. However, I think the country of origin of a person's grandparents is both (a) important/relevant to their life and (b) something our readers will be interested in. To me, the publication of an article on Garland's ancestry, even in a relatively niche publication, suggests that there is public interest in the topic, and it is thus suitable for inclusion here. Wikipedia policy states that we should use reliable sources, not that we should only use mainstream ones. Also, I'm not really sure in what way you believe WP:BLP is relevant here; it would be good if you could expand on that.

Our articles on the current Supreme Court justices (and the majority of public figures) almost all cover ancestry to some degree. Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer are the most detailed, going back further than my edit proposed (i.e. to great-grandparents and beyond). Others are either unspecific (John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy) or go back only one generation (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor). Elena Kagan is the only article that contains no ancestral/genealogical information, and that may be simply because it isn't available. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP applies in at least two ways. First, religion is especially protected by the policy; e.g. WP:BLPCAT, articles shouldn't be categorized by religious views unless the subject has publicly self-identified and the views are relevant to their public life or notability. Garland has self-identified as Jewish but has only disclosed his religious background on one side of his family. Seocnd, there is WP:BLPFAMILY, which I personally have no experience applying but I think it applies to Garland's grandparents.

Regarding your argument that a reliable source has published Garland's grandparents' ancestry, therefore we should too, that is directly contradicted by WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which expressly states that just because content is verifiable doesn't mean it is should be included. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let alone a niche magazine, and we don't decide what's encyclopedic solely based on what's published in newspapers or niche magazines.

Finally, regarding our Thomas and Breyer articles... Thomas's grandparents are critical because he grew up with them and they had a major influence on him. He has spoken about them at length. The sentence on Breyer's great-grandfather is excessive detail in my view and should be removed. In any case neither of these articles mention their subjects' grandparents' ethnicities or religions, which is what's at issue here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Including archive links

Hi @DrFleischman:, I added the archiveurls to the citations to prevent link rot, not to address dead links. I don't think information should be taken out of a citation just because it looks cluttered in the markup format, because these links prevent linkrot. See the web archive section for info on how this is used for prevention and not necessarily dead links. I'm going to revert your reversion, but I'm not going to start an edit war, so if you decide to remove the archiveurls once again, I won't stop you. Please consider, however, that archiveurls strengthen the encyclopedia and that the markup isn't necessarily designed to be read but rather to act as the guts of the page, so being easy to read shouldn't be a priority. Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, not a big deal, but as you're doing this on a regular basis I suggest you seek consensus first, probably in some central place like WP:VPM or WT:CITE. It's certainly not common practice. I think references are an extremely important aspect of Wikipedia--I use them all the time for non-wiki research, personally--and improving their readability and usability is important in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Icebob99, it looks like WP:DEADREF supports this practice. I stand corrected. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

DrFleischman, thanks for the comment about consensus-- I'm pretty new and I've never actually tried to build consensus before (Wikipedia has a huge learning curve!). Will try to look for opportunities to do that. Icebob99 (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

DrFleischman you're not correct. I'm surprised you haven't seen InternetArchiveBot, which has added thousands of archive URLs to many pages. There's no harm in adding them - there's a reason it's an included parameter in citations, and it's not a requirement that the link be dead when it's added . Please continue adding them Icebo99, it's helpful. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I stand corrected. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Party affiliation

Hi, I recently reverted an IP edit that put Garland's party affiliation as Democratic [7]. I don't think he's a registered Democrat, and a quick scan of reputable sources puts him as a moderate, so I think I was correct in this revert, but if anyone knows something I don't about his party, I would appreciate it if I heard it here. Icebob99 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

POV-check

As I was reading this article today, I became more concerned that this article suffers from a number of POV issues. Some (by no means a comprehensive list) areas of concern include the following statements: 1. "with some Americans saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen"." - use of weasel words to imply POV without attribution 2. The "Notable cases" section reads more as a cheering section for Merrick Garland, presenting only viewpoints and quotes that speak positively of him in overly flowery or idealized language 3. In the "Administrative and Environmental Law" section, the statement "Then-Circuit Judge John Roberts dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, writing that Congress's interstate commerce power cannot reach "a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California" has little to nothing to do with Merrick Garland. Rather, it appears to push a politic agenda to convince Republicans to support Garland by pairing him with John Roberts, someone Republicans generally see favorably 4. The above can be said in the "Criminal law and whistleblower protection" section. The author of this section is using verbal gymnastics in order to use John Roberts to portray Merrick Garland in a positive light. If the statements are made by John Roberts, and not Merrick Garland, the connection to this topic is vague. 5. In "Second Amendment" - "Goldstein commented, "Garland did not take a formal position on the merits of the case" and "even if he had concluded that the statute was constitutional, that view of the case would have conformed" to widespread views under then-existing Supreme Court precedent.[23] Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute nonetheless wrote that libertarians and conservatives should be concerned about Garland's stance on gun rights.[62]" frames the section argumentatively. Rather than describing his viewpoints on the Second Amendment, the author is rather scant on facts and long on opinion masquerading as documented fact through an overabundance of citation. 6. The author appears to rely heavily on Tom Goldstein (citation 23), especially when making some of their more non-neutral statements 7. "Scalia vacancy and 2016 nomination" - the entire section frames the debate as an "us vs. them". It has considerable editorializing and make no attempt whatsoever to honestly present the opposition to Merrick Garland's opposition.

These are a few of the concerns that I have been able to note. Quite frankly, it appears that the NPOV issues are pervasive in this article. Short of a rewrite, I don't see how to root out all of the various bias and weasel words.Smit8678 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I have restored the previous, longstanding form of the second paragraph of the lead section. I did not find the most recent changes to be helpful. If folks have wording changes to propose to this section, I think it would be a good idea to discuss them here and obtain consensus before implementing. Neutrality^talk 19:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you did not find the most recent changes to be helpful does not mean that they are not helpful. Nor does "longstanding" equate "correct." The tone of the paragraph as "restored" is far from neutral--"unduly sly" would be a better characterization--as it contains weasel words ("controversial"--word with a negative connotation, "refuse"--also word with a negative connotation). In the spirit of objectivity and neutrality, this paragraph should be given a neutrally-sounding shape, and I cannot imagine that anyone could, in good faith, object to replacing these terms with more neutrally-sounding words, thus avoiding sneers and guile. The perfidy of the current phrasing is that while it could conceivably be construed as "objective and neutral," this is not how the casual reader will, but will most certainly read it as "the bad guys are the Republicans." The latter is also a very possible reading, despite that it is not the job of Wikipedia to offer value judgments. (Now, I should note that I am not that naive to think that the sneering tone of the "longstanding form" is accidental, but I will continue to treat its proponents as if they were acting in good faith, be it out of curiosity as to how far the pretense of objectivity and neutrality might go, if nothing else.) As for "senate majority" replacing "republican majority," note that there is no such thing as a "republican majority": it is not as if, at the same time, there was also a "republican minority." From a logical point of view, "majority" is not an attribute of a set of Republicans, but an attribute of a set of senate members. As such, despite the fact that "Republican majority" is a commonly encountered phrase in the media nowadays (hence "gospel"), the logically correct (and more neutral) phrasing is "senate majority." Finally, the "unprecedented refusal" was "controversial" in liberal circles; it was not controversial in conservative circles, but this is something impossible to notice by someone whose worldview is confined to the former. As such, I saw it proper to remove this bias, hence I included a reference to conservatives as well. The "unprecedented" adjective is also a weasel word, carrying a definite negative connotation, as opposed to merely stating that it would be a first (what?) in the history of US parliamentary democracy, though at this time I cannot see what it can be replaced with without being accused of being "verbose." Aqualung (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is filled with inaccuracies and overstatements ("perfidy"? wow), but to take two: "Republican majority" is a well-understood phrase in normal English, and the refusal to grant Garland a hearing or to otherwise consider the nomination was controversial in many circles (legal, academic, etc.), not just "liberal circles." Neutrality^talk 01:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

1. If you do not like "perfidy," feel free to go with "duplicity" and/or "deceitfulness." The fact remains that the paragraph (in its "longstanding form") was not written in good faith, and has a snarky and sneering tone, which I have been trying to get rid of by giving it a neutral, anodyne, and equitable feel. There is no question that my proposal is more neutral and bland, and that the only thing it leaves behind is the "longstanding form's" otherwise carefully dissimulated snide--snide that should not "adorn" the pages of an encyclopedia to begin with. (Sadly though, it looks like the absence of snide is precisely the problem.) 2. If you read my comment above carefully, you'll see that I agree that, unfortunately, "Republican majority" is, indeed "well-understood," though that does not constitute a good reason to not replace it with "senate majority," especially since "Republican majority" is accompanied by "refusal" in a clearly accusatory fashion (which, again, Wikipedia should not promote: it is not Wikipedia's job to proffer accusations.). Hence no inaccuracy here. 3. Yes, "controversial in many circles," all of which are widely known as harboring a leftist/liberal bent (most of them unabashedly so). Regardless, how is the phrase "Senate majority's declining to consider the nomination was criticized by liberal circles, and applauded by conservatives" an "inaccuracy"? What is "inaccurate" about it? (Please be very specific.) How is this more "inaccurate" than your "refusal [...] was highly controversial"? 4. To conclude, none of the "inaccuracies" you have pointed out are actual inaccuracies. Nevertheless, you may have spotted others, so please reply with what hopefully are actual inaccuracies, and please be very specific. I am hoping that I have made my case that your remarks so far have no factual basis.Aqualung (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

I figure I allowed for enough time to receive an answer to my questions vis-a-vis the attempt to remove the sneering and accusatory tone of the lead paragraph. I am thus interpreting the lack of answer as "no contest"/"consensus achieved"; as such, I will proceed at reinstating my modifications which, again, should remove the accusatory tone of the lead paragraph, and give it a neutral tone.

For reference, I am reproducing my (now archived) comments here: "1. ... The fact remains that the paragraph (in its "longstanding form") was not written in good faith, and has a snarky and sneering tone, which I have been trying to get rid of by giving it a neutral, anodyne, and equitable feel. There is no question that my proposal is more neutral and bland, and that the only thing it leaves behind is the "longstanding form's" otherwise carefully dissimulated snide--snide that should not "adorn" the pages of an encyclopedia to begin with. (Sadly though, it looks like the absence of snide is precisely the problem.) 2. If you read my comment above carefully, you'll see that I agree that, unfortunately, "Republican majority" is, indeed "well-understood," though that does not constitute a good reason to not replace it with "senate majority," especially since "Republican majority" is accompanied by "refusal" in a clearly accusatory fashion (which, again, Wikipedia should not promote: it is not Wikipedia's job to proffer accusations.). Hence no inaccuracy here. 3. Yes, "controversial in many circles," all of which are widely known as harboring a leftist/liberal bent (most of them unabashedly so). Regardless, how is the phrase "Senate majority's declining to consider the nomination was criticized by liberal circles, and applauded by conservatives" an "inaccuracy"? What is "inaccurate" about it? (Please be very specific.) How is this more "inaccurate" than your "refusal [...] was highly controversial"? 4. To conclude, none of the "inaccuracies" you have pointed out are actual inaccuracies. Nevertheless, you may have spotted others, so please reply with what hopefully are actual inaccuracies, and please be very specific. I am hoping that I have made my case that your remarks so far have no factual basis." Aqualung (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing any discussion following from that, nor does the change appear to conform with the citations and note following. In any case, there is no reason to reduce the amount of information conveyed by removing reference to the party holding the majority. bd2412 T 00:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with BD2412 - there is absolutely zero consensus for any of these changes, which would be clearly not an improvement. The current language is clear, concise, and supported by the sources. Neutrality^talk 04:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Better sourcing needed; identify lone sources, or political leanings.

This article is extremely important -- not so much because of Garland, himself, but because of the pivotal event of his Supreme Court nomination, and the outcomes -- and their exceptionally frequent public, political and media reference point as precedent (or not) for future (and current) Supreme Court nominations. The Garland nomination-and-rejection remain one of the most intense U.S. judicial and political controversies of this century, regardless of which side you're on.

Consequently, this should not be a sloppy, poorly-sourced, article. MUCH better sourcing is urgently needed -- especially for some of the many single-sourced statements in the article. This is especially true for those sources that have a deliberate and well-established and pronounced political-editorial leaning (e.g.: The New Republic vs. National Review; Fox News vs. MSNBC; New York Times vs. Wall Street Journal; Washington Post vs. Los Angeles Times / Chicago Tribune; U.S. News vs. Newsweek; etc.).

Thus, for any statement, here -- if it could be the subject of controversy, or an important fact:

If the statement comes from a lone source (especially a minor or primary source),
- Identify the lone sources (not just in the reference citation, but in the sentence in the article), or...
- Include another substantial corroborating source

If the statement comes from a source, or sources, from only ONE side of the political spectrum -- then, reasonably, the text should either
- Identify the those one-sided sources (not just in the reference citation, but in the sentence in the article), or...
- Include another substantial corroborating source from the OTHER side of the political spectrum.

IMHO. Any corrections, to my assertion, from WP:RS?

~ Penlite (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Unprecedented" - Factual Error in Article

Article reads, "The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was deemed highly controversial." In reality this has happened at least once before in American history, with the refusal to consider the nomination of Pierce Butler by President Harding the first time the President nominated him. At the very least, the article could read that the move was unprecedented in recent history to better reflect reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.243.80 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Categories (Jewish heritage)

Please, add

Category:American Conservative Jews
Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent
Category:Jewish American attorneys

Thank you! - J.W.Pold (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

This edit request to Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In section titled Department of Justice and Private Practice, 3rd sentence now reads:

While at Arnold & Porter, the white shoe firm founded by Justice Abe Fortas, Garland mostly practiced corporate litigation.

This should be changed to read:

While at Arnold & Porter, the white shoe firm co-founded by Justice Abe Fortas, Garland mostly practiced corporate litigation.

As made clear in the Arnold & Porter entry, Justice Fortas co-founded the firm with Thurman Arnold. Fortas did not found the firm alone, as is suggested by the current wording. Gregoryla (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Done Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request - Link in Third Paragraph Change

In the third paragraph, the article mentions "President Obama, a Democrat", with the word "Democrat" linking to the list of all political parties worldwide that could be translated to having that name. Maybe it should link to the page for the US Democratic Party?108.54.184.110 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)jonahdichter

Done Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Unprecedented" discussion

The article's sentence "The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was deemed highly controversial." has itself been controversial in edits over the past month and presumably beyond. I attempted to make a talk page about it a month ago but got no reply. I think the current issue with the article as it stands is that the link given as a citation for this statement (as seen in the Edit page notes right beside the sentence in question) itself presents both sides of the case of the precedent for the decision by Senate Republicans to refuse to consider Garland's nomination and by no means presents one as the truth in the sort of way you'd think, for it to act as a citation for a claim. The article discusses the study calling the event unprecedented; it does not affirm it. Rather it presents an ongoing debate on the matter.

Whether or not the event was actually unprecedented was and obviously still is a controversial topic with academics on both sides making claims. I believe it would be best if the article reflects this rather than implicitly affirming one side by unconditionally referring to the event as unprecedented.

I'll second the above point. It appears to me that conservatives edit articles which inflames liberals who vandalize or the reverse with conservatives vandalizing liberal edits. This is not what wikipedia should be. Garland's page is riddled with biased wording and contains "factual statements" with no backing. Wikipedia should be the AP of resources, no bias, just plain verifiable204.89.153.87 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC) facts.

Nonsense. Academics are not divided on the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The legal and historical scholars say that the refusal even to grant a hearing to the nominee is unprecedented. That's what the RS say, so that's what we say. Neutrality^talk 20:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Merrick Garland's nomination was a "lapsed" nomination, meaning the Senate did not vote on the nomination before the Senate term expired. Senate hearings are a modern invention. The first Supreme Court nominee to even testify before the Senate didn't happen until 1925. As recently as JFK, Byron White's nomination to confirmation was only 8 days. There were not the kind of hearings we have now. Many SCOTUS nominees were confirmed the same day they were nominated. Since Garland is the eleventh lapsed nomination, it cannot be "unprecedented" and it is not. There is no debate about it.Scottca075 (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing of sentence in opening paragraph.

The article has the line "Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date by far[3]) and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress."

Does the use of parenthesis bother anyone else here? I didn't see anything in the wiki style guide saying not to write like that but it rubs me the wrong way. I'd turn it into a prepositional phrase or preferably just delete the aside since it's mentioned later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatZombies (talk • contribs) 13:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

This edit request to Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The parenthetical "(the longest to date by far,[3])" in the introduction (paragraph 3, 2nd to last sentence)

"Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date by far,[3]) and it expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress."

is incorrect. Additionally, the citation is to progressive political blog which appears highly biased (https://progresstexas.org/). The correct parenthetical is "(one of the longest in recent history)" with citation to Pew Research:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/

Thank you for your time and consideration. 73.96.160.164 (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done: That Pew article is tabulating lengths of supreme court vacancies, not the length of time it took for a supreme court nominee to be confirmed. For instance, it took John Tyler 437 days to fill the seat, but that was after six nominations. If you still think the sentence is wrong, feel free to re-open the request (change "answered=yes" to "answered=no" in the template) if you find a source. Volteer1 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Resignation as judge?

What's the source for claiming that he's already resigned as a federal judge? His bio is still live on the court's website: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+Judges+-+MBG His resignation doesn't automatically happen when the Senate confirms him as AG. Plainsong (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

His taking the oath of office tomorrow, Thursday, will be prima facie evidence that he has officially retired (not resigned) as a federal judge. When the news reports that he has taken the oath, that will constitute sufficient evidence that he has retired from the bench. FJC Bio should still be consulted in regards to the date, as it is quite possible he may retire today or tomorrow. Safiel (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Senate advice and consent (confirmation) is NOT equal to appointment

Folks, I have been through this many times. Senate advice and consent (confirmation) is not equal to appointment. The Senate is merely giving its required consent. Only the President appoints and he does so after the Senate consents. In this case, the White House has indicated that Garland will receive his commission (appointment) tomorrow and that he will take the Oath of Office (assume office) the same day. Until then, the article should indicate that he is the confirmed nominee, NOT incumbent in the office. Safiel (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Safiel: Thanks for clarifying this. I just switched it from "incumbent" back to "designate" yet again. Wallnot (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Safiel: Yes, thank you! Plainsong (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

This edit request to Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The department of Justice Civil Rights office did not "languish" under the Trump administration. There's no room for bias in Wikipedia! 2603:6081:4140:6200:DD23:D925:985E:FB4C (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Unprecedented

The word "unprecedented" in the intro is POV, but, more importantly, vague. How is it unprecedented? If it's that he wasn't considered before the end of the term, then that's not unprecedented, just something that hasn't been done since before the Civil War. If it's the length that lasted, then that duplicates NPOV information in the next sentence: "Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date by far)." If it's the length of time that it wasn't considered, then that's redundant with the length that it lasted. Clearly the longest nomination, if not considered, would be the longest that a nomination was not considered. If it's the timing - that he was nominated prior to the election and not voted on - then that's really not clear from the sentence, and, I believe, untrue. Edward A. Bradford was nominated in August 1852 and tabled. If it's the lack of a hearing plus a combination of the other factors... then that's way too complicated to infer from this little sentence.

The word adds nothing but ambiguity and would be best omitted or at the very least clarified so that people would know the meaning of the sentence it is in. One word cannot do the heavy lifting its author intended it to do. Calbaer (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's clear enough for the lead.

Kar & Mazzone 2017 at page 62: "A careful examination of the entire historical record shows that it is actually the Senate Republicans' plan not to consider any Obama nominee ... that is unprecedented in the history of Supreme Court appointments."

At p. 72: "There are ... no other cases in U.S. history in which the Senate has deliberately transferred one President’s Supreme Court appointment powers to a successor. Hence, the Senate Republican’s current plan is truly unprecedented."

At p. 79: "the Senate has never before refused a full up-or-down vote on all of the nominees from a particular President in order to divest that President of his Supreme Court appointment powers."

At p. 96: "the Senate has never before deliberately transferred an elected President’s Supreme Court appointment powers to an unknown successor when an actual vacancy on the Supreme Court existed."

Neutrality^talk 23:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Those quotes provide context that the intro lacks. Either the context should be provided or the word removed, reserved for the body where it can be explained. Calbaer (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Affiliation with the Federalist Society

Doesn't Garland have a long-standing affiliation with the Federalist Society? If so, why does the current version of this article not mention this? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Federalist Society

Why does a footnote mention the Federalist Society, yet this organization is mentioned nowhere in the text of the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Click the ^ (up-caret symbol) immediately after the reference-number to jump up to the position of the reference-tag in the Wikipedia article. DWIII (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

This edit request to Merrick Garland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{subst:trim|1=

Add below under Voting Rights:

On December 6, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, claiming that legislative maps adopted in recent weeks discriminate against Black and Latino voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also supply a reliable reference. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

External links modified

Religion?

Semi-protected article

Lead

Second semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

Appointment to the D.C. Circuit section 11 Seats or 12 Seats

"consensus nominee"

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

Supreme Court nomination

It is not "unprecedented" for senators to vow to not consider nominations.

Third semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

Fourth semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

Russian Ancesty

NPOV: removal of death penalty

Deal Making

No mention of him being a jurist?

"excessive unencyclopedic detail"

NPOV: Moderate/Centrist?

Possible photos suggested for use in the article

Profile photos

Supreme Court nomination process

"...in finding that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin."

White House video

Update: File nominated for deletion

Synagogue

His parents were both Jewish

Suggest replace profile photo currently nominated for deletion on Commons

Suggested sister-links for External links sect

not sufficiently important for lead

"broader view"

GA nomination

Democrat

Judicial Crisis Network video

There is no mechanism for a President to "withdraw" a Supreme Court nomination

withdrawal of Garland nomination

Unwillingness

Paternal grandfather

Including archive links

Party affiliation

POV-check

Lead paragraph

Lead Paragraph

Better sourcing needed; identify lone sources, or political leanings.

"Unprecedented" - Factual Error in Article

Categories (Jewish heritage)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Semi-Protected Edit Request - Link in Third Paragraph Change

"Unprecedented" discussion

Phrasing of sentence in opening paragraph.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

Resignation as judge?

Senate advice and consent (confirmation) is NOT equal to appointment

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

Unprecedented

Affiliation with the Federalist Society

Federalist Society

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2021