Talk:Reed O'Connor

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States courts and judges Low‑importance

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

United States: Texas Low‑importance

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

Houston (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles

Conservatism Low‑importance

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2018

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

Change "He is conservative." by deleting this sentence. 67.41.84.13 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The seventh paragraph of the linked article states "O'Connor is a conservative judge". The source is The Washington Post, which, of course, is a reliable source. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:180B:B747:8C08:1D (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What experts?

"The ruling was deemed likely to be appealed, with both Republican and Democratic legal experts saying that the legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act was unlikely to succeed.[6]"

Excalibur26 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Excalibur26: The individuals in question are not further identified past "Republican and Democratic legal experts." The Hill deemed this information good enough for inclusion, and since that publication is considered a reliable source, it's also good enough for inclusion here. You should work on these identifications because as you now know, your rationale, which is apparently that the experts need to be identified to be mentioned here, is not sufficient. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:180B:B747:8C08:1D (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly that is BS. The Hill may be a "reliable source" but that does not mean the article has merits as they themselves refused to identify these alleged "experts" from both parties. It should be removed because it offers nothing of meaning. This isn't an article with sources wishing to remain anonymous. Excalibur26 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill is a RS. We don't have to identify every single expert who holds a view attributed to them in a RS, just as we wouldn't have to name every physician who believes cigarettes cause cancer or climate scientists who believes in climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think The Hill should be sufficient, but if you disagree, here are several specific sources that answer your objections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/opinion/republican-apparatchiks-deep-state.html Conservatism’s Monstrous Endgame
Apparatchiks are corroding the foundations of democracy.
Paul Krugman
New York Times
Dec. 17, 2018

But on Friday, Reed O’Connor, a partisan Republican judge known for “weaponizing” his judicial power, declared the A.C.A. as a whole — protection for pre-existing conditions, subsidies to help families afford coverage, and the Medicaid expansion — unconstitutional. Legal experts from both right and left ridiculed his reasoning and described his ruling as “raw political activism.” And that ruling probably won’t be sustained by higher courts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/opinion/an-obamacare-case-so-wrong-it-has-provoked-a-bipartisan-outcry.html
An Obamacare Case So Wrong It Has Provoked a Bipartisan Outcry
By Jonathan H. Adler and Abbe R. Gluck
New York Times
June 19, 2018

The legal and policy battles over the Affordable Care Act have divided the nation along predictable partisan lines. As legal academics, we were on opposite sides when the Supreme Court considered constitutional challenges to the so-called individual mandate and again when the court considered whether tax credits would be available in federally created health insurance exchanges.

The latest A.C.A. challenge, however, has brought us together — an unholy alliance that conveys an enormous amount about the weakness and dangerousness of the newest legal challenge to a statute that continues to be a political and legal flash point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/15/latest-aca-ruling-is-raw-judicial-activism-impossible-defend/
The latest ACA ruling is raw judicial activism and impossible to defend
By Nicholas Bagley
Washington Post
December 15, 2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/legal-experts-rip-judges-rationale-for-declaring-obamacare-law-invalid/2018/12/15/9cab3bb8-0088-11e9-83c0-b06139e540e5_story.html
Legal experts rip judge’s rationale for declaring Obamacare law invalid
By Devlin Barrett
Washington Post
December 15, 2018

Legal scholars who support the ACA quickly denounced the judge’s ruling; conservative lawyers also criticized it.

Ted Frank, a lawyer at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who is critical of the ACA, called the decision “embarrassingly bad” because “you’re twisting yourself into knots” to reach a particular conclusion.

Over the past two years, Frank said, he and other conservative lawyers have complained when district court judges did similar intellectual gymnastics to attack Trump administration initiatives. “It’s not appropriate in the other direction, either,” he said.

--Nbauman (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

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

"and is described as a conservative" should be removed from the intro. I looked at the ones for all the other judges on this North Texas court and none of their intros attempt to describe their ideologies, although surely some of them are "conservative" too (itself an imprecise term when applied to legal theory by the way). Don't overreact to recent headlines. 2600:1002:B100:4D:80D5:9527:EB66:8D97 (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you search Google for "Reed O'Connor conservative" you'll find all the WP:RSs you could want which specifically describe O'Connor as a "conservative." eg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-judge-in-texas-rules-obama-health-care-law-unconstitutional/2018/12/14/9e8bb5a2-fd63-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html "O’Connor is a conservative judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas."

One of the Wikipedia guidelines that applies is WP:WEIGHT. If all the WP:RSs call him a conservative, we call him a conservative. I think there are problems with a rule like that, but that's the Wikipedia rule and we have to follow it -- unless you can come up with a Wikipedia policy or guideline to overrule it. --Nbauman (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added that, because it earlier said "He is conservative," and I modified it so it wouldn't define him as conservative in Wikipedia's voice. I am OK with removing it entirely, and I will do so. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor has been identified as conservative by WaPo (see above), the LA Times[1], Dallas Morning News[2], and Fox News[3]. Bloomberg says he has a "history of favoring conservative positions on hot-button issues"[4]. That O'Connor is the "go-to favorite" judge for conservatives was the topic of an entire NY Times piece[5], and has been covered by NBC News and Business Insider as well[6][7]. The article must note that he's a conservative and that conservative judicial activists often send issues his way, because that's part of his notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so - but not in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]