Talk:Amy Coney Barrett/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Lydia Barrett" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lydia Barrett. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#Lydia Barrett until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Please change "On September 26, 2020, Trump announced his intention to nominate Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States." to On September 29, 2020, Trump nominated Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States." 69.116.73.107 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

But the earlier date is the one that the public associates with the nomination, with the later date being a technicality. It seems to me that the earlier date is the appropriate one. — Swood100 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

References

look at other justices, it says nominated not announced intent to nominate, reason being intent to nominate means nothing only actual nomination. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe reason being that the nominees you looked at all were announced and nominated on the same day. Do you know of any others who were announced and nominated on different days? — Swood100 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

So what, the actual nomination is the thing, an announcement of an intent means and does nothing, so it should say he nominated her not announced his intention to. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I added the nomination date. Is this adequate? — Swood100 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Year of confirmation in para is incorrect

It says she was confirmed October 31, 2017. It should be 2020:

Trump nominated Barrett to the Seventh Circuit, and the US Senate confirmed her on October 31, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taneesh Khera (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede

As other justices (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch) have their ledes as, "[so and so] is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court...", I'd like to suggest the same for this article. Thoughts? Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Move to Amy Barrett

Since most articles do not contain middle names in the title the title should be moved to Amy Barrett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

She appears to use all three names herself, so that is how Reliable Sources refer to her. Think of her as John Quincy Adams, or William Howard Taft. We refer to people the way they refer to themselves. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

SHe has made homophobic remarks. 2600:1700:36C0:E3E0:7CD9:DD0C:B0B:202 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing and the exact text for any edits you'd like to have made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation #10 cannot be verified, likely is political hearsay

We do not know for sure if RBG declared that she wished that her vacancy only be filled after the presidential election. Coming from the New York Times, renowned for being politically biased leaning left on the spectrum, this cannot be verified. It is as a matter of fact hearsay.

Village Magician (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The NYT is considered a reliable source even if you don’t choose to believe it. JTRH (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, but it is admissible here. I ton't see anything left-wing about this fact.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The source used by the NYTimes (and countless other outlets), was a statement Ginsburg dictated to her Granddaughter and was witnessed by her own Doctor and several others present. I'm not sure how bias plays in. Also, to be clear, Village Magician , Jack Upland as a "Dying Declaration", Ginsburg statement would in fact be legally admissible hearsay evidence. OgamD218 (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

More of an FYI: this is not how the "dying declaration" hearsay exception works (at least, as stated in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(2)). A dying declaration is a statement made about the declarant's apparent cause of death. I don't think a court would say that Ginsburg would have thought her wish regarding her vacancy on the Supreme Court was a cause of her death. Thus, it would be inadmissible as a "dying declaration".Mdifranco (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So long, and thanks for the cutlets.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This topic belongs in the nomination article but I lean toward seeing it removed this one due to the scope being more about Barrett than about the nomination.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

In the Early oral argument participation section, please change the tense from present to past in the Fulton v. City of Philadelphia paragraph, as that case has now been decided. The paragraph should read:

On November 4, the Court heard Fulton v. Philadelphia, in which the plaintiff, Catholic Social Services, sued the city of Philadelphia after being denied a new contract under the city's Fair Practices Ordinance, which barred discrimination in in public accommodations. The Archdiocese-affiliated CSS said that for religious reasons it could not properly vet potential foster parents who were gay couples. CSS argued that under relevant precedent, the Court should find that CSS as a faith-based charity was unfairly singled out, given that the city allowed race- and disability-based exceptions within foster-care placements. CSS further claimed the law was shown not to be neutral as required by the Court's 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, which allowed the government to enforce neutral and generally applicable laws without having to make exceptions for individual religions, because the city labeled CSS's motives "discrimination that occurs under the guise of religious freedom." According to the New York Times, Barrett's questions during oral arguments were "evenhanded and did not reveal her position."

2001:BB6:4713:4858:C900:3058:315E:DAB6 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Please check it to make sure it looks right. I think I caught everything, but can't just copy the text over because of citations. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, thanks. One more thing: "given that the city allows race- and disability-based exceptions within foster-care placements" should be followed by a period, not a comma. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:C900:3058:315E:DAB6 (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Caption

I added the caption "Official portrait, 2021" to the infobox of the article [1], which was reverted by User:KidAd with summary "No" [2]. I readded it which was then reverted again by KidAd saying "This is Amy Coney Barrett, not “official portrait”" [3]. The caption parameter here is used to provide additional infomation around the portrait. We already have the "Amy Coney Barrett" at the top of the infobox. I think it is useful to have one here establishing the fact it is an official portrait and the year.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPLENGTH, Infoboxes for things that change over time can mention the year of the image briefly, e.g. "Cosby in 2010" Bill Cosby Please understand the difference between Cosby in 2010 and Official portrait, 2021. KidAd • SPEAK 06:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@KidAd: So what part of the caption are you refuting? Is it the fact it says "Official portrait, 2021" instead of "Barrett in 2021"? Or it because you deem the caption entirely unnecessary in this case? For reference every other current US Supereme Court Justice has a caption along the lines of "Official portrait, [YEAR]". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@KidAd: Do you have anything to add regarding my response about a caption? If not I propose an RfC. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not support "Official portrait, 2021" because it fails WP:CAPLENGTH. KidAd • SPEAK 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@KidAd: Could you be more specific in regards to CAPLENGTH? Are you suggesting it is redundant to have "Official portrait, 2021" as that is already the current year? Or is "Barret in 2021" something that is preferrred. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

Changing the following (first link)

Every Republican senator except Susan Collins voted to confirm her, whereas every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted in opposition.

to the following

Every Republican senator except Susan Collins voted to confirm her, whereas every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted in opposition.

The Senate roll call list is currently for the 2017 confirmation for the 7th Circuit, when it should be for the 2020 confirmation for Supreme Court. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:C4D8:B196:361A:FDB6 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog9002 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

"while forbidding his attorney from speaking" should read "while forbidding his attorney to speak." 184.55.80.160 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Both are correct and one is not necessarily better than the other. Trivial change. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

Would it not be better to replace "The next month, the United States Senate voted 52–48 to confirm her nomination, with Democrats unanimous in opposition." with something along the lines of "The next month, the United States Senate voted 52–48 to confirm her nomination, with every senate Democrat as well as Susan Collins opposing the nomination.", or something similar (if that wording is too awkward) which makes reference to the only non-Democrat who voted against? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 01:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ser!: I agree with this suggestion. Admittedly I'm not sure though how to make it sound less awkward, maybe "with Susan Collins (R-ME) joining every Democrat in the senate in opposing her confirmation"?

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

I found a full photo of Amy Coney Barrett on The Supreme Court Historical Society website.

Where I found it: [[4]]

Can someone use it? Please. 2600:6C48:427F:F84E:F104:A423:741:2600 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

That website clearly asserts copyright. Acroterion (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The website asserts copyright, but the photo is from the Collection of the Supreme Court. Many of those photos are public domain. This one is take by the same man who took this photo File:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_-_Roberts_Court_2018.jpg; it appears to be an official photograph. This indicates he was paid by the federal government to take the photo in question; the photo itself is public domain even though it is on a copyrighted website. There is still a restriction on it; you can't use it to indicate a personal approval or some product sponsorship; if you sell black robes, you couldn't use Justice Barrett as your model.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing bulk of nomination controversy from lead

While Justice Barrett's nomination was bitterly contested, it was for political reasons and had little to do with her as a jurist—and now that she's sitting on the court, I question whether such a large section of the lead should be devoted to her nomination and confirmation. Of course the nomination all worthy of inclusion in the article, where it has a large section, but the number of days between her and Garland's nominations and the elections, as well as the bit about "Ginsburg's own wish for her replacement not to be chosen 'until a new president is installed'" (which is neither properly cited nor in the body of the article), seem unnecessarily wordy. I think cutting her nomination down to a sentence or two would be preferable in the lead—but I'd like to get consensus first, and to that end, I'd propose something along the lines of:

On September 26, 2020, Trump nominated Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States. Senate Democrats unanimously opposed the nomination, comparing the situation to Republican Senators refusing to hold hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016. On October 30, she was confirmed by a 52-48 vote.

PS: to say Barrett's "nomination was controversial" is both too passive and POV. The opposite political party's opposition to a president's nomination is better described as what it is—political opposition—than "controversy". It's worth noting that Wikipedia doesn't describe Garland's nomination as "controversial".

Thoughts? Thanks! ElleTheBelle 19:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

From the lead on Garland's page: "However, the Republican Senate majority refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination. The unprecedented refusal of a Senate majority to consider the nomination was highly controversial." - I would also argue that it went beyond generic political opposition, given that it was largely similar to and compared with Garland's SC nomination. In addition, Collins (R-ME) voted "No" to Barrett's nomination, so it wasn't solely along party lines. Cantgetusername (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ekpyros, I am of the opinion that for article splits, content which could fit in (or already is in) the split-off article should be removed first in order to bring down the article's size. The article is currently at 41 kB (6628 words) "readable prose size" and there is already a separate nomination article. As a result I support your idea of trimming some of the nomination content, both in the lead and in the article proper. Because 41kB is only a hair over the suggested size, size isn't a very pressing reason, but if you feel like doing the work I will support your efforts to remove nomination related content.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

"It confirmed her by a vote of 55–43 on October 31, with three Democrats—Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin—voting for her.[32]"

This is incorrect. The vote was 52 - 48 to confirm with no Democrats in support and one Republican, Susan Collins, voting against confirmation. 67.3.21.43 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is for the Circuit Court, not the Supreme Court. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2022

Under "Judicial philosophy, academic writings, speeches, and political views," subsection "Affordable Care Act," add: [, calling it an "assault" to religious liberty] (I have enclosed what is to be added in brackets) just after "… institutions pay for it" in the first paragraph. It is impossible to tell from the current text whether she thinks the religious institutions should have to pay for it themselves, or neither they nor the insurance companies should. (According to the source, it is the latter.) This change would help inform about her understanding of religious liberty issues. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Done, very good suggestion. The previous wording was unclear. Joe (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding Category Abortion

given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Undone. Please see Talk:Ketanji_Brown_Jackson#Adding_Category_Abortion for centralized discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC about referring to ACB as a center-right justice in the lede.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close due to lack of RFCBEFORE. ––FormalDude talk 23:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should the following be kept in the lede "Barrett is generally considered part of a conservative bloc but tends to be one of the more moderate justices of that group?" GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - It is asinine that we can call John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh moderate, but not Amy Coney Barrett. It's well established among our sources and just a cursory glance at the last term that Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barett have a notable moderate streak that is not shared with the remaining conservatives. After the new term, I added the Kavanaugh swing vote to his page and there was no controversy, I also edited Robert's page to emphasize his moderate nature, and again no controversy yet with ACB there appears to be an edit war occurring. To be clear, the arguments against my side have been an erroneous invocation WP:DATED as if new material introduced has somehow made ACB less moderate than she was a year ago when she sides with Brett and Roberts (who we have labeled as moderates) far more than she does with the three other conservatives who are not moderate. She sided with Gorsuch on that one native American case and sided with the liberals on a death penalty case that no other conservative joined. Claiming that calling her moderate is barred by WP:DATED is wrong and I re-affirm my argument that a source being a year old does not render that source wrong for Wikipedia. If that's the case, we would have to completely remove or delete ample sections of at least a super-majority of Wikipedia pages since many rely lightly or heavily on sources that are a year old.

As I said, the sources are already heavy on my side. They all agree with what I say (that ACB, Roberts, and Brett create a center-right majority that checks the far right of the court), all I request is a consensus so I can add that section one more time. Words game claiming that suggestion doesn't align with tend is not good enough to stop this much-needed edit. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Premature RfC - This needs to be discussed in a standard talk page before it's listed as an RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Change to Hometown

After "Amy Vivian Coney was born in 1972 in New Orleans, Louisiana" add "but grew up in Metairie"

Source: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a34173725/amy-coney-barrett-views-abortion-religion-guns-health-care/

72.204.159.99 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's already mentioned at the end of that paragraph: "Her family is devoutly Catholic, and her father is an ordained deacon at St. Catherine of Siena Parish in Metairie, Louisiana, where she grew up." Ptrnext (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)