Talk:Rose Bird

Untitled

This really should be marked as a partisan article. Terms like "egregious" do not belong in neutral articles, which is what the Wikipedia ought to be!

"Egregious" is neutral in that it is being used in this article to mean "outstanding" or "prominent." Yes, it can also mean "infamous," but I don't think that's the proper meaning when it's read in context. --Coolcaesar 06:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That may have been the author's intent, but "egregious" is widely interpreted to mean "conspicuously bad." As soon as I hit the word "egregious," I shrugged off the entire article as biased, even though I was sympathetic to Rose Bird. Why not just say "outstanding" or "prominent," then? Good authors avoid ambiguous words when better words are available.

Fine, then, I'll change it to prominent. --Coolcaesar 06:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a political conservative, by any stretch of the imagination, but the whole thing about the overturning over Royal Globe reads to me as being put in there only to add a pro-liberal bias to the article. It might go properly in an article about Lucas or Mosk, but not Bird. Mwelch 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the foregoing comments. This article has a quite clear pro-liberal bias. And for the benefit of context, I'm a lawyer at a California based firm that is well-known as one of the most liberal and politically active in the nation.

Is it Morrison & Foerster LLP? That's the only big firm in California that fits that description. --Coolcaesar 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, no it's not. Think about a firm that has had or currently has as partners senior level cabinet members or other high level officials for democrat administrations (big hints - e.g., a secretary of state, chief of staff for a VP, a solicitor general). Also, anyone know if the bias/opinion problems with the article are going to be addressed - e.g., I cannot comprehend why it's necessary to include part of a dissenting opinion that was not even written by Bird (except as part of viewpoint expression). Heck, and this an issue that goes more to the completeness of the article, it doesn't even say what her educational credentials were. Just trying to make that point that, if you're going to have an article about an individual, stick to facts relevant to the individual instead of treading into political opinion and viewpoints.

Referenced in the Orange County Register

Brown not cut out for top cop Orange County Register - June 4 By Steven Greenhut

In terms of law enforcement, his main "accomplishment" was appointing Rose Bird to the California Supreme Court, where she used her power to overturn every death penalty conviction ­ 61, according to Wikipedia ­ that came before her.

If anyone wants to add the regular template for such a reference please do so. I've never done it before :/

"Recluse"

This is a POV term and doesn't really belong in an NPOV encyclopedia. Additionally, it is apparently contradicted by the next line. Acting is hardly a profession for the reclusive. Rlquall 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a gradual thing, not all at once, so that's why she was doing stuff in 1987 at first. By 1994 she was definitely a recluse (especially as her cancer kept coming back and no one would hire her). I will have to go look for some sources on this the next time I am in the public library. But I am really busy this week and next, so this will take a while. --Coolcaesar 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

Is there a picture of her in the public domain or otherwise available for use here? 66.234.222.96 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Poorly Organized Article, missing bio info

I don't have any problem with the article seeming biased one way or the other. But I do have a problem with the way it is organized. It lacks a straightforward narrative that simply reports the relevant biographical facts. For example, there is not even a declarative sentence explaining when and how she joined the court. Nor does the article explain how many recalls she faced, nor some of the specific cases and issues that led to her recall. Also missing are the names of the other judges who were recalled with her, and an explaination of how many justices are on the California Supreme Court, so that one can understand the impact of the recall. Davidlew9 (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article is a mess. BTW, the court has had seven justices throughout the 20th century (it started in 1850 with 3, then went to 5 and then 7), so having three ultraliberal justices replaced by three ultraconservative justices (e.g. David Eagleson) was a wrenching shift which is reflected in dozens of opinions of the Lucas court modifying or reversing opinions of the Bird and Traynor courts (Thing v. LaChusa and Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund are particularly well-known Lucas court decisions). --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. It's a very poor accounting of someone who played a major role in California judicial history. Among the other things missing is something very basic: Exactly when did her term as chief justice begin? She was on the court for 10 years, and she was voted off in 1986, so we're left to guess she was named to the court sometime in 1976, or was it 1975 or 1977? 10 years is actually a vague number open to interpretation. The fact that Jerry Brown appointed her deserves more prominence than as a clause in a sentence about her prior experience. Wlegro (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Victim Count?

Several people have been murdered by death penalty candidates whose sentences were commuted by Bird's court. A compilation of the victims of Bird's activism would be appropriate in her biography. If someone has access to the information, please add it.

It is unreasonable to assign responsibility for a judge for the acts of individuals who are released. It would be as reasonable to hold police responsible for the acts of arrestees after release if they failed obtain the necessary evidence to convict or, for instance, bungled a search. --Esp123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.166.227 (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above statement is false. There is a distinct difference between anyone who makes a mistake ("bungled a search") vs. someone who clearly chose to release convicted murderers to again prey on society. The heart of the reason that Chief Justice Bird is reviled is for ignoring the law and personally giving "rights" to barbarians which obviously were never given to their victims. To leave out the detrimental impact of the Bird court on both Law Enforcement and California society is to make this article meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.165.79 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement is, indeed, false. An example of what can happen when convited murderers are released after conviction by anyone in the chain of authroity can be found by looking up Willie Horton. He is a convicted murderer who was released on a furlough program, didn't return, and then went on to commit several vile felonies before being convicted again, but in a different state that knows how to keep them locked up. His recidivism should have been anticipated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasterist (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is completely OT. It also isn't supported by anything currently in the article. The article only discusses her commuting or overturning the death penalty, not releasing people who were on the death penalty. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Where's the Evidence?

“Governor George Deukmejian was able to elevate Justice Malcolm Lucas to Chief Justice and appoint three new associate justices that more closely matched his generally conservative political convictions, and in turn, the Lucas court moved toward a more business-friendly and pro-law enforcement judicial philosophy.”

There appears to be some bias here. Is there any evidence that the new judges displayed political convictions such as being business friendly and pro law and order rather than just being politically neutral and interpreting cases as current law required.

If none can be found then it would appear the writer of the above paragraph is using the “fallacy of the false dichotomy” argument. Ie. Rose Bird was left wing and she was replaced. Therefore she must have been replaced by someone who was right wing. Edward Carson (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a bad attempt at logic. The fact the a left wing judge was replaced for being left wing, does not mean that judge was replaced with the "opposite" right wing judge. A left wing judge can be replaced by a centrist judge or even by a less left wing judge, or even by and extreme left wing judge who will follow the law. Bird was not removed for being left wing, but for being an idiot with an agenda...one that ultimately cost more people their lives Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Go have a look at the references on Cruz Reynoso, particularly those surrounding the campaign and its aftermath. There's little doubt that Deukmejian saw that Bird was highly vulnerable, and that she and two other liberal justices were up for reconfirmation at the same time and could all be painted with the "soft on crime" brush thanks to their death-penalty record—which, according to lawyers, was largely due to the poor quality of the death penalty statute, not judicial activism. After three liberal justices were ousted, Deukmejian was able to pack the court with conservatives, radically changing the composition of the court. Of course, that could be better sourced in this article... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I just completed a heavy rewrite on Cruz Reynoso, an associate justice who was ousted along with Bird. In doing so, I came across a large number of references for the ouster campaign and its lasting impact. An editor interested in this page might want to pilfer them. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rose Bird/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This usage in this article seems to be very one-sided, in support of bird/against conservative government. == Poorly organized article == I don't have any problem with the article seeming biased on way or the other. But I do have a problem with the way it is organized. It lacks a straightforward narrative that simply reports the relevant biographical facts. For example, there is not even a declarative sentence explaining when and how she joined the court. Nor does the article explain how many recalls she faced, nor some of the specific cases and issues that led to her recall. Also missing are the names of the other judges who were recalled with her, and an explaination of how many justices are on the California Supreme Court, so that one can understand the impact of the recall. Davidlew9 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the current article pushes POV slightly, sometimes against Rose Bird, and sometimes for her in the section "Confirmation Loss". Too many facts in that section are in wikivoice, which is problematic with controversial assertions. One good way to avoid that where reasonable disagreement between sources is to quote the two or three most prominent sources for controversial statements on any one point of fact. The quote of Bird's fellow justice Stanley Mosk is a great example of how to handle controversial statements of fact. It largely depends on how controversial the point of fact is. loupgarous (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

How many is "many"? More than one, I'd think...

The first paragraph of the "Reconfirmation loss" section ends with the assertion that "[e]ven many Democrats later conceded that the remarks backfired on her and other members of the court appointed by Governor Brown." The sentence (and, arguably, the full paragraph itself) is then supported with a footnoted link to an LA Times article. Given that the article was published on November 24th, 1985--nearly a year prior to the election in which voters opted not to reconfirm Rose Bird--and that the article quotes one individual critical of Bird who self-identified as a "moderate Democrat," it can hardly serve as support for the notion that many Democrats later did anything at all, per the laws of both time and counting.

I'm inclined to remove the sentence, but, it wouldn't shock me to learn that data representative of Democratic voters in California (gathered, naturally, after the election in question) did feel that then Chief Justice Bird's public comments did much to further doom the reconfirmation chances of herself and the two associated associate justices who lost their spot on CA's high court in the same election.

If anyone has, or is interested in finding, such proper support let me know (or, better yet, just add it). Otherwise the sentence should probably go as it contributes to an overall disreputable sense of bias that pervades this article.

Apostmodernist (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Her particular vulnerable point

I'm not sure that the article clearly explains that Rose Bird's greatest political weakness was that she did not explicitly say in her decisions that the death penalty was simply unconstitutional, but instead found various specific problems with every single death-penalty case that came before the court, thereby creating an overall impression of dishonesty in the eyes of many (or at least disingenuousness). It was this taint of dishonesty which the political opposition was able to most effectively exploit. AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)