Talk:George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies

Please add a section on the Manny Miranda hack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:8200:E346:E9:1F0D:BFF:9BBF (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Title

In keeping with Wikipedia format style, the title of this article should be bolded. To do this the first sentence will need to be restructured. Clerks. (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole series of articles is misnamed. We don't need "President" in the title (we never do that), nor do we need an apostrophe-s. bd2412 T 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Roberts' nomination to SCOTUS

Should we list John Roberts' nomination for Associate Justice as "failed" nomination? I would say not (he was renominated for Chief Justice) but I am not really sure.BjoernZ (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

John Roberts' nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor and then subsequently William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court was not impeded. However, his nomination in 2001 to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was impeded. His nomination was stalled in committee on purpose in the 107th Congress by Patrick Leahy and the Senate Democrats. He was not allowed to be confirmed as a judge on the D.C. Circuit until 2003 during the Republican-controlled 108th Congress. BoBo (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Miers' nomination to SCOTUS

As I understand it, the series on judicial appointment controversies was originally meant to showcase the blockade of Clinton nominees by Republicans and Bush nominees by Democrats. As such, I do not think the nomination of Harriet Miers should be included in this article. Her nomination was scuttled by conservative Republicans and not Democrats. BoBo (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Balance and neutral point of view issues

This article lacks balance and neutrality, therefore, I have tagged it. Although the blocking of judicial nominees can be a purely partisan matter, there can also be other concerns as to the qualification of a nominee, and none of these concerns are discussed in the article. In additon, no mention is made of the nominees who were approved when the democrats had control of the Senate. W E Hill (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The tag needs to be removed. This article is a part of series of articles on judicial controversies and is no more biased than any of the previous articles. Please check all the articles in the series ( Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies,George H. W. Bush judicial appointment controversies, Ronald Reagan judicial appointment controversies, etc.) to establish context. It is important to note for example that the Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush articles also do not distinguish between partisan and qualification-based objections to nominees.

In our political world today, it almost nigh-high impossible to distinguish between valid concerns over qualifications and partisan concerns over jurisprudence. The point of these articles is merely to summarize the controversies, not to analyze the controversies in depth. The controversial pro and cons of each individual nomination can be explained in detail in the separate article about each nominee. BoBo (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As concerns the statement that no mention is made of the George W. Bush nominees who were allowed to be confirmed by the Democrats, it should also noted that the Bill Clinton article (which has the exact same format) does not note the Clinton nominees who were allowed to confirmed by the Republicans when they controlled the Senate. Why this information is necessary is not apparent to me. BoBo (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any need for the tag, the article (as all the other articles in the series) is by definition only on CONTROVERSIES and contains all the information to be expected. Therefore, the tag should be removed.BjoernZ (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Removing the tag, per this discussion. bd2412 T 04:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

slur? I think not

I changed Hipocrite's "Democratically-controlled" to "Democratic-controlled" on the grounds that the adverb was clearly absurd usage <g> which is now changed by Hipocrite to just "Democratic" on the grounds that "Democratic-controlled" is a "slur." I would note this "slur" is found in about a hundred Wikipedia article, and is the proper term according to the New York Times. And basically every MoS out there, as well as just about every newspaper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Do these edits (removing more than half the article) remove properly sourced information germane to the article?

[1] represents a BOLD removal of a great deal of reliably sourced content.

[2] shows a contiguous removal of a great deal of reliably sourced content.

[3] shows a further removal of content - including claims based on such sources as the New York Times etc.

Is the consensus here that this material did indeed meet the edit summary of Unsourced list created by original research, Another unsourced list created by OR and Rewrite lede to avoid OR by lists, remove claim not in article where the claims are directly supported by the sources (in the case of the one I added, the exact quote from the New York Times is removed as "claim not in article" which is a very remarkable claim, indeed, where a direct quote is used.

Awaiting responses by third parties. Collect (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no sourced information that was removed. What sourced information was removed, exactly? Wikipedian complied lists of nominees? That's a violation of WP:OR by WP:SYNTH, and you know it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa - you also edited on George W. Bush where a paragraph on this topic was extensively edited by you, removing fairly well sourced information. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This was resolved two years ago - we do not compile "lists" of controversies unless such lists were compiled externally. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813153034/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081006-5.html to http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081006-5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)