Talk:Amy Coney Barrett

Active discussions


@KrakatoaKatie:, @Safiel:, @Bjhillis:, @Marquardtika:: Okay, I understand the logic of the suppression, but given that it's part of her public questionnaire (released by the judiciary committee and accessed by the general public); what was the specific objection? So is there not supposed to be an infobox regarding her at all? What about the other sources regarding the announcement of her nomination, why were those entries deleted?

Clarification would be helpful, thanks. Snickers2686 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the article contacted OTRS and requested that the birth date be removed. The questionnaire to which you refer is a primary source, and per WP:DOB we suppressed the information. The issue isn't the infobox – that's a content issue that should be decided here. Katietalk 11:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie: Given the OTRS history here, do you think this newly-added source—
—is sufficient for citing Ms. Barrett's full birth date? Even without the OTRS background, my sense is that a (signed, copy-edited) blog post by an advocacy project isn't enough to show that someone's birth date has been "widely published by reliable sources" (BLPPRIVACY), but my interpretation of that policy may be overly strict. Rebbing 13:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The subject emailed Oversight requesting redaction of her birthdate. Please leave it out. Katietalk 14:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; I removed it. Rebbing 16:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Mind the precedent. DOB, once published, is public information. --bender235 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Your previous attempt to have the policy removed was not successful: it's not precedent. The policy—which you are not at liberty to dismiss—is very clear in mandating that the full birth date of a subject may only be included if it has been "widely published in reliable sources" and if the subject does not object. Neither condition is met here. If you wish to change the policy, you know where to make that proposal. Rebbing 23:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The precedent was about people objecting the inclusion of their birthdate even though it has been published elsewhere already. From WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." That's the policy. If DOB is published in any reliable source, Wikipedia includes it. The subject's objection is irrelevant; the "and" you emphasized is false. You cannot allow your DOB to be published in Who's Who but veto its publication on Wikipedia citing privacy concerns. That's the point I tried to make. --bender235 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
You omitted the key sentence that follows: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth . . . err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." Read together, these two sentences plainly indicate: "We include the full date only when it has been widely published (or the subject published it in a way that makes clear he does not object). Even so, if the subject complains, only include the year." So your argument is contradicted by the policy. Your conclusion that, if a subject's birth date "is published in any reliable source, Wikipedia includes it" is wrong both for this reason and because BLPPRIVACY requires far more than VERIFY (published in any reliable source): it must be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" (emphasis added). If you would like BLPPRIVACY to say something else, develop consensus for the change at WT:BLP. Rebbing 00:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
"Err on the side of caution" is enough for me. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:DOB was added to Wikipedia policies in 2006 unilaterally by a single user, without ever being discussed in the community. I guess it is indeed time to determine consensus on this issue. And by the way, "widely published" is one of the most moronic terms ever used in a Wikipedia policy. What is that supposed to mean in the age of the internet? "Published" means "made accessible to the public." What is the qualifier "widely" referring to? The number of mirrors a website has? The size of its audience? --bender235 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, it would be moronic if it didn't include the following "in reliable sources". O3000 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
"Reliable sources" has a clear and unambiguous meaning; "widely published" does not. By the way: I would appreciate everyone's comments here. --bender235 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Consensus can be implicit. See, e.g., WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. That the policy has stood for more than a decade in a fairly prominent location speaks volumes to its authenticity. "Widely published" means published by a multitude of sources: not only in one reliable book or a single reliable newspaper article. Rebbing 20:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
So what. Aren't there enough privacy issues these days. If it's borderline, leave it out. Why does her exact birth date matter, other than material for astrologers. O3000 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Surely a United States official government website document is a reliable source and is in the public domain since her date of birth is listed here. [1] The document is under "Chronology of Judges in the Seventh Circuit" She is the 56th Judge in the list. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 06:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the diligence in requiring that the birthdate be validated according to usual standards. However, I am nonplussed. Everybody knows she's young for a Supreme. Why does anybody care about whether her birthdate is published? What's the rule regarding eye color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CB81:3770:C513:7C87:E86:DB7B (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Protecting birthdates is a matter of WP:BLP, She holds public office, her birthdate seems to be public knowledge, I imagine it would hard to find any evidence of her wanting to have that information kept private and not published. I have also found that birthdates arent that notable, so nobody really publishes it in mainstream WP:RS & WP:V media sources, its usually on primary sources. So I say if it stood for awhile, then I agree its WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS add it back. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality violated by quotesEdit

New here, so I didn't edit it. This sentence is a non-neutral opinion interjected as a factual quote. The opinion is debatable since many feel that recusal is exactly the response to provide an unbiased hearing before a court when the judge feels it is necessary. If the judge were to say "I have deeply held beliefs that may bias my judgement, but I will not recuse." then many others would object. It is irrelevant to the article what someone else's opinion of it is. Leaving it biases the article. Removing it eliminates an opinion; the very definition of evidence of a biased POV.

Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said Barrett's law review article's contention that judges could simply recuse themselves from a case if they have a religious concern constitutes, “...the very definition of putting faith ahead of one’s duties as a judge.”[16]
This entire topic is a Catch-22 for neutrality because it difficult to report it in the article without taking a side, even implicitly. I would like additional opinions also. If you post again, you can sign with for squiggle marks in a row.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Well keep in mind Wikipedia is not a WP:TABLOID. editors aren't suppose to report opinions, we only report on facts, thats why WP:RS and WP:V are so important here, so if you are worried removing it will eliminate an opinion, unless it a very notable opinion,(which should be documented and backed up with sources and reasoning) needs to go, especially if leaving it biases the article, which conflicts with another pillar of Wiki , WP:NPOV. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Membership in People of PraiseEdit

The following RS content on her religious affiliation is not included in the article:

In September 2017, The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise.[1] According to The New York Times, "There are some indications that both Ms. Barrett and the People of Praise may have tried to obscure Ms. Barrett’s membership in the group."[1] Members of this religious group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and commit to be accountable to a personal advisor (either referred to as a "head" or a "handmaid").[1] The heads and handmaids instruct the member on important life decisions.[1] Legal scholars say that such an oath raises legitimate questions about the ability to serve as an independent and impartial judge.[1]

The content should be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I added a version of this to the article but I'm not sure about the legal scholars phrasing, I think this could be worded differently. I'd like to have another source but so far most I've found are commentaries on the NY Times finding. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The names of personal advisors "head" and "handmaid" is way too much detail that has no immediate relevance to the article subject and should be removed. Without context, this is just insinuating something sinister about the group. If you go to the People of Praise article, there is sufficient context about the group's views of gender roles. If you want to write something to summarize that I think it's fine but what we have here is undue. --2605:A601:ADE6:5C00:3CBB:ADA3:E0CD:AFAE (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to omit this information. If we just say this a Catholic group, then that fails to inform readers that the group has practices that are unconventional and which many readers don't typically link to Catholicism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's fine to highlight what's controversial about the group, and I left the bit about supporting one another's spiritual well-being, which is what I think people find weird. The People of Praise article says "The most controversial aspect of the People of Praise is the practice of headship or pastoral leadership, which, according to anthropologist Thomas Csordas, is where "individual members are supervised in their daily lives by a person regarded as more 'spiritually mature.'"" I think we could include something like that. The egregious thing is the term "handmaid" with no context, which has connotations that are different from the group's intention, which is why they changed it. I don't see the reason to include the term "head" either but that's not as problematic. --2605:A601:ADE6:5C00:3CBB:ADA3:E0CD:AFAE (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with others that the inclusion of her membership in People of Praise might be too lengthy or unnecessary altogether. I edited the section to include more than just a single source: a NYTimes article that my research strongly suggests to be hostile and perhaps unfair to the organization in question. To clarify, People of Praise has not used the expression "Handmaid" for years, probably decades having replaced it with "woman leader" or simply "leader." Regardless, People of Praise does not assign married women female "leaders" now or in the past, believing her spiritual mentor should be her husband. However, the author of Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood, has long been on record that People of Praise is one of the groups whose conservative position on gender roles inspired her to write the novel and that the title specifically is drawn from its use by People of Praise in the 1980s. OgamD218 (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that the section regarding her membership in People of Praise should either be moved into the one below Personal Life where it is now or given its own? It an issue that is only gonna continue to be constantly revised with info about the group itself that has nothing definitive to do with her personal life or what is usually contained in that section of a living person's bio.OgamD218 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

To consider the merit of including this article, look at compatible US politicians who were members of Skull and Bones on List of Skull and Bones members. People of Praise, being a similarly controversial and secret society, merits as much mention as Skull and Bones does on the typical pages of Skull and Bones members.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
It does have significant press coverage as of now, so inclusion isnt a question of notability, it falls more into a WP:BLP concern, so just be very careful how you present it and word inclusion. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lambda Legal, comment about "overblown"Edit

@: Let's not edit war. You removed some material from NBC news. I reverted. It's now time to discuss. So please revert and we can discuss. The is this NBC news piece: [2]. The piece is from 2018, and discusses Trump's list of potential nominees at the time, which included Barrett and others. It says that Lambda Legal and others criticize the list as extreme on LGBT issues. It also quotes Carrie Severino as saying the criticisms of LL and others are overblown. You want to include LL's opinion but not Severino's. That seems to me a biased way to cherry pick from the NBC news story. We need to include both perspectives, following the NBC news source. I don't understand your argument against this perspective. Can you please self-revert and explain here? Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Judicial Crisis Network is a partisan group that exists for the sole purpose of pushing for conservative judges on the courts. The group's rhetoric, which is spin intended to do PR for its preferred nominees, on where conservative judges stand on LGBT rights is of no value whatsoever to readers. Lambda Legal appears to be a LGBT rights advocacy group. It's entirely within the group's purview to comment on where judicial nominees stand on LGBT rights issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
NBC news apparently disagrees with you since they reported the opinion of JCN in the story. We go with them, not you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
How does NBC News disagree with me? RS have reported on what a large number of partisan actors have said about Amy Coney Barrett. There is no encyclopedic value in adding every random spin by partisan actors. It is of zero value to readers to hear what a PR organization for conservative court picks says about this court pick. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about what RS have reported. I'm talking about this specific source, which frames the whole story the way that it does, with the Severino comment, to give context and balance and a sense that there is more than one view about these issues. We should do likewise, following NBC. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
To include the rhetoric of a PR organization (which will spin everything in favor of the cause) to rebut a LGBT rights group about a candidate's position on LGBT rights is false balance. The intent seems to be to obfuscate the issue and mislead readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Please stop commenting on my motivations; I've repeatedly asked you to focus on content. I am simply stating that it is NBC with whom you are arguing. You obviously feel that they should not have included the perspective of this organization, which you call a "PR organization", in their story. I'm sorry you feel that way, and I sympathize--I often do not like how NBC covers things. But they did include it, and Wikipedia policy is to follow them, not you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is absolutely not to mention every single thing that is mentioned in every RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Never said otherwise. We are talking about a single NBC news story here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Your argument appears to be "One source mentioned a thing, therefore it must be included," which is obviously not Wikipedia policy. If that is not your argument, you need to write more clearly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
No, my argument was: the one source we are currently using sees fit to offer the Severino remark to provide balance and show that there is more than one view possible on these issues. We should defer to their judgment on that and follow their lead. Your retort seems to be: you disagree with NBC's decision here. Nice, but irrelevant. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not Wikipedia policy to include every single thing mentioned in any source that is cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, but we should try to follow their attempt to present the issues in an even-handed and factual way, and that's what I'm recommending. Instead of arguing with NBC, why not try to find another source that presents the issue differently? If there are five reports that present the LL letter, but only the NBC report provides balance of this sort, then that would be a good argument that NBC is out of step with the other sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
As stated so well: "To include the rhetoric of a PR organization (which will spin everything in favor of the cause) to rebut a LGBT rights group about a candidate's position on LGBT rights is false balance. The intent seems to be to obfuscate the issue and mislead readers." There are no good cited remarks against the honest and reputable criticisms of Barrett by LL et al. ɱ (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, if you think the NBC source erred in reporting the statement from Severino, then let's drop the NBC source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but do you understand news agency deadlines? News articles are generally written quickly, and reviewed quickly, with nothing like this level of collaboration and analysis. The writer isn't looking to be 100% eloquent, balanced, and informative to the degree we are now, and that's why generally we use multiple sources, and more than just news articles. The ridiculous notion of discrediting an NBC article over one simple dumb statement is silly, and seems like your objective, so there would be no RS left about Barrett's rampant anti-LGBT rights statements and actions. ɱ (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like you think this was a hastily written, weak source that included quotes in error from unreliable people. I think I agree. Let's maybe find a good source before reintroducing the content? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Again failing to read properly - I am saying that all news is written this way. You cannot expect perfection from any source, and you keep at your tactic of berating RS repeatedly - there is no perfect source for anything, anywhere. ɱ (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Please strike this personal attack. I'm not sure if I agree that all news stories contain errors and imperfections; some are pretty darn good. But I do agree that the one source we're using here is imperfect, which is not to say that it should play no role. Rather, I'm suggesting, along the lines of what you suggested above, that we should balance out the errors of this one NBC news piece with additional sources. I thought you agreed that this was the way to mitigate error in imperfect sources. So what other sources might we use? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I will for a minute, but it should be very clear. Here's the initial context: the NBC article was written in 2018, when Barrett was being considered as a SCOTUS judge to replace Anthony Kennedy. Severino was generally criticizing LGBT groups' efforts to criticize Barrett at the time.
  1. No, this has no place in the section "Federal judicial service#Nomination and confirmation", because this section is about Barrett's 2017 nomination process to an appeals court, it is not about the 2018 SCOTUS nomination. Severino's 2018 criticism of 2018 SCOTUS nomination attacks is entirely irrelevant here.
  2. This has no place in a paragraph about the 2017 Lamda Legal letter. If you read the NBC article, Severino's criticism is given in response to 2018 SCOTUS-related comments by many people, one of whom happens to be a Lamda Legal director, but it it not given in response to the 2017 Lamda Legal letter, which was about the wholly separate (appeals court) nomination, only covered later in the article, with NBC offering no criticism of that 2017 letter/issue.
  3. (EC) and yes, like Snooganssnoogans said, the reputation of the two organizations is vastly different, and the message by the first is factual, reported widely, and relevant, while the message by the second is vague and useless, not really a counterargument whatsoever. --ɱ (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Stop posting so much so quickly! Can't even get my reply in! ɱ (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, all very fast. It has been hard to keep up. I appreciate your willingness to engage, so thanks.
We agree that (per the source) the LL letter was from 2017 and in response to her nomination to the 7th circuit. We agree that (per the source) Severino subsequently, in 2018, said that (as the source puts it) the warnings from LGBTQ advocacy groups have been “very much overblown” and called them “mostly scare tactics.” I do not see how we are supposed to conclude that Severino's 2018 comment about overblown warnings was specific to 2018 warnings and was not intended to apply to the warnings in the earlier 2017 letter. It seems to me that Severino meant it to apply to all such prior claims made by activists. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Did you read the entire article, top to bottom? The Severino comment was about the SCOTUS nomination remarks, so not relevant in this section. Again, the LL letter only is mentioned later in the news article, with no retort from conservatives. Sure, it's not easy to see who Severino is targeting with this unspecified remark against unspecified people, and I find no other reporting on this off-hand comment. It really shows this shouldn't even be debated, nonetheless placed in this SCOTUS nominee's article. But regardless, the news article makes it clear that both it and Severino's statement are regarding comments surrounding Barrett's candidacy to SCOTUS in 2018. ɱ (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I read the article. I don't agree that it makes it clear that Severino's remark does not apply to the LL letter. I would be fine with adding the dates to make the context clearer, just as NBC News does, leaving it up to the reader to interpret. But I think it's obvious that Severino meant her remark to encompass the letter from LL from only a few months before. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I simply can't allow this without further consensus. There is no evidence from the article, and I have no idea where you got this idea from. It was tacked onto this paragraph in a weak attempt at balancing it out, but it is a vague statement against unspecified groups, with 0 proven relevance to the appeals court nomination and 0 proven relevance to the Lamda Legal letter. ɱ (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The text removed was, "Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network later said that warnings from LGBT advocacy groups about shortlisted nominees to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, including Barrett, were "very much overblown" and called them "mostly scare tactics.""[3] The average reader would wonder who is Carrie Severino? what is the Judicial Crisis Network? It doesn't tell us anything about where the opinion is coming from or how credible it is. TFD (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It sounds like you have a problem with NBC, who reported that Severino had said this in the source we're currently using for this paragraph. Perhaps we should remove the whole paragraph? Or perhaps you should find different sources to demonstrate that the NBC source is misreporting on this? I don't know. But you're not arguing with me; you're arguing with NBC News. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight:, I'll break it down for you, a little clearer. I wrote for a newspaper for a bit, so it helps me understand news article structure. Take a look at this quick visual breakdown:

  1. First section is intro - the article was released because Kennedy retired and Barrett was seen as a possible SCOTUS replacement
  2. Second section - some concerns by legal/LGBT individuals
  3. Third section - rebuttal by Severino
  4. Fourth section - some background on Barrett, past issues and controversies, appeals court nomination, and only way down at the end, almost off-screen, is the Lamda Legal letter, further evidence given of opposition based on LGBT rights history. And no rebuttals given of that. ɱ (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but we just disagree. First, news articles are normally structured in a way that front-loads the most newsworthy information, with more detail filled in later. You can't infer much from order of presentation, then, about how the various pieces of info presented are related to one another. And anyway such judgments are OR it seems to me. What is clear is that we have a 2017 letter against Barrett, and, just a few months later, a statement from a conservative group saying that complaints like that letter are overblown. I think you are not justified in interpreting the later conservative statement as excluding the letter, which to my mind was obviously part of what the conservative's statement was referring to. And I still think Snoogans is incorrect (as a matter of WP policy) in regarding NBC as having erred in reporting the conservative statement. If the source is not to be followed, then find another source. I looked and couldn't find one, which also casts doubt on whether this information is due at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia editors make judgments when choosing whether or not to include content. Results of original research is not allowed in articles, but it does not at all mean we cannot use our own best judgments in talk page discussions. Anyhow, the editor who added this factoid even wrote in that it was over the SCOTUS candidates, and it appears that way right now, so I don't see why you're the only one to insist somehow it could be even remotely related to a then-old and well-over issue, only presented well later in the article. ɱ (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
And your analysis of the article structure is not accurate, and oversimplified. Sure, yes, news articles sometimes go into more detail later, but the article is about SCOTUS candidates, just read the heading. It really clearly bunches concerns followed by counter concerns, and then clearly has her name in bold, indicating that this is where you will be able to read more about the background of the candidate, like the appeals court issues. So would you also like to randomly tack that Severino criticism onto discussion of her law clerk job as well, which is also mentioned toward the bottom? ɱ (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Again you have failed to provide any evidence this vague Severino statement is in any way related to the appeals court nomination or Lamda Legal letter (simply because it's not related and there's nothing there to find). ɱ (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence! I'm happy to include what's in the source, which is that LL wrote the letter about LGBT concerns in late 2017 and Severino said a few months later that complaints about Trump's SC list with regard to LGBT concerns have been overblown. Or we could find a source you like, since you clearly don't like this one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
No, for the last time, Correlation does not imply causation. Just because two things happen to be in the same long article does not make them relevant at all. I give up, this is a WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:Randy in Boise situation, you don't seem to know enough about journalism or courts to understand the topic at hand. ɱ (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
FOC please, and please strike your PAs about my knowledge or ability to understand. I'm not the issue, and remarks about me are inappropriate. As for our discussion on the actual issue, it's important to distinguish between sincere disagreement--which is what we have here--and failure to comprehend. I understand your argument, I just find it unpersuasive. But anyway, by your own account, this source contains a dumb statement and errs in including the remarks of the conservative activist. Also, by your own account, we should use multiple sources to balance out these sorts of errors. That's my view too. So what are the other sources we might use here? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to articleEdit

This "paragraph" is brief and relatively uninformative:

From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C.

To add to this article: what type of legal work did she do while employed by this firm? Did she mainly work to defend working people, or did she represent corporate interests? (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  1. SCOTUSblog [4] - ". . After leaving her Supreme Court clerkship, she spent a year practicing law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, a prestigious Washington, D.C., litigation boutique that also claims as alumni former U.S. solicitor general Seth Waxman, former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, and John Elwood, the head of Arnold & Porter’s appellate practice and a regular contributor to SCOTUSblog. In 2001, Miller Cassidy merged with Baker Botts, a larger, Texas-based firm, and Barrett spent another year there before leaving for academia. To the chagrin of Democratic senators during her confirmation process for the 7th Circuit, Barrett was able to recall only a few of the cases on which she worked, and she indicated that she never argued any appeals while in private practice. . ."
  2. American Lawyer [5]

    ". . While in private practice, she has said, she worked on mostly civil matters, writing briefs and memoranda and conducting depositions and research. She told members of the U.S. Senate that she no longer had records of many of the cases she worked on but that she provided research and briefing work for Baker Botts’ representation of George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore after the 2000 presidential election. Barrett, as an associate, was on location in Florida for a week, working with Stuart Levey, a former Baker Botts partner who became chief legal officer at HSBC. Barrett, a longtime Notre Dame Law School professor, also pointed to cases in which she represented criminal defendants who had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud federal agencies, and one in which she provided research and briefing in the representation of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which argued its designation as a “foreign terrorist organization” by the State Department violated due process. She was also second chair in a civil trial, representing a plaintiff drywall construction company seeking a verdict for accounting malpractice. . ."

  3. thefederalistsociety[6] - ". . As an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The most significant litigation is described in some detail here, pages 25-28.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC) National Law Journal [7] - ". . After her clerkships, Barrett joined what was then Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in 1999 as an associate. The firm subsequently merged with Baker Botts in 2001. The bulk of her work was civil, according to her appellate court Senate questionnaire, and included writing briefs, motions and research memos. Ninety percent of her work was in federal courts, she said, and she was associate counsel in one case tried to verdict. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Terminology: People of Praise "member"(?)Edit

Whether Barrett has committed (covenanted) with PoP is unknown (a thing, by its nature, kept confidential by the extra-denominational fellowship) however the Barretts are well known for their ongoing affiliation with the religious group. See, for example, this article in American Magazine [8] (quote: ". . I have met with People of Praise members. I have attended their prayer meetings in South Bend. At the last one I attended, Amy Barrett was present with her family, and we extended our hands in prayer over them. . ." ).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Life beginning at conceptionEdit

Thanks for your recent helpful edits on this page. I wanted to let you know that I reverted this edit because it appeared to be nearly a direct quote, not directly attributed to the LA Times. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. I can't read the article because I'm not a subscriber. Could you either rephrase the quote or say something like "As the Los Angeles Times stated …" at the beginning? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Thank you for explaining the revert. The WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE policy states that "facts are not subject to copyright", that copyright law does not protect "short phrases or expressions", and that close paraphrasing is permitted when "there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing".
The sentence "She has written and spoken frequently about her belief that life begins at conception," is a short expression of facts, with a limited number of ways to say it.
In-text attribution of facts reported by reliable sources can mislead readers into thinking that they are opinions by biased POVs, as is illustrated by application of the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy.
For these reasons, the edit should be reinstated.
This thread has been copied from my talk page so the issue can be subject to consensus. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank YouEdit

I am not sure if this is the place to include this but I wanted to thank all of you. I did know/was confused by some of the policies regarding the neutrality of a wiki page and you guys laid it out quite nicely. I will make sure to adhere to everything I read here if or when I decide to add, edit, or delete something. Sevvy413 (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


I think readers are aware that this person is involved in a current event, I don't see a reason to keep a tag on the article. "May not reflect latest info" applies to every single article here. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The news coverage has died down. I support removing it; but one could add it again during the days her hearings are held and when/if she is confirmed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion of the usefulness of the tag itself should be in template talk:current person. News coverage is ongoing, (google "Barrett"). KinkyLipids (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it, because I don't see what purpose it is currently serving. I've never seen this tag on an article for so long. Usually you'll see it within the first 24 hours of when someone dies or there is a major news event. But we shouldn't just leave it up indefinitely. Maybe we should put it up again during confirmation hearings, but I don't think we need it right now. Marquardtika (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Hello me and User:Sdkb had similar issues disputing over the use of the problem as well as the use over the corrent Template. He did say that no template use is necessary as of now. In fact he informed me that the template below is of no necessary value. Personisgaming (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The one below appears to have necessary value but I have not consulted him yet.

She chose to keep her babyEdit

It is pointless to explain that Barrett's youngest was found with Down Syndrome in a prenatal test if we do not mention that Barrett chose to keep the baby: that is, she made a decision against abortion for her disabled child. A large percentage of Down Syndrome babies are aborted (all of them are, in Iceland) and so it does not "go without saying" that she kept the baby, it is remarkable and WP:DUE that she kept the baby, especially if we consider the issues at hand for Barrett as she proceeds through confirmation. Elizium23 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

He is now a nationally known person thanks to the C-SPAN video of him dancing to Stars and Stripes Forever on the way out. If someone reads the article to him it would be offensive to say that she chose. It sounds crass. Some things are better implicitly said. An analogy: your brother chose not to murder you in your sleep when you were 10 years old. Technically true (if you had a brother), but it sounds crass. Some things are better left unsaid.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Epiphyllumlover, this is not better left implicitly said, because if 92% of mothers are murdering their children, it is notable that 8% don't.
Also, the passage does not mention the child's name or sex at all, how are we supposed to know he is famous? Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Do RS make a point of her choosing to give birth to the child? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, yes. Elizium23 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
You could certainly find reliable sources that lack goodness. There even articles on this website in which cynical minded people have squeezed the goodness out of them. You feel yucky after reading it. Saying she chose makes a sensitive person feel yucky, like that his mom was seriously thinking about it and maybe should have decided the other way. He probably is sensitive, and will feel it when it is read or played to him (an audio version of this article is on Youtube already and is likely to be re-recorded by someone, somewhere).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you could include the 92% statistic and leave the rest to the reader's imagination? The cynical reader will understand, the innocent reader will not feel yucky inside, and both get what they deserve.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it is of interest to readers with either common view of abortion. I don't agree that it goes without saying, because in some cases she may not have been the one (or only one) choosing (e.g. if medical problems were severe enough, or if the father or family had some say in the decision). This makes it clear she alone made the choice, and that she was presented with a choice. ɱ (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The account that she chose to keep her child was related by U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz and paraphrased by a journalist. I have not seen any statement from Barrett or her husband to that effect. Conservative religious mothers typically don't speak that way; it reflects Hegelian epistemology that they typically do not utilize when reasoning about life and death (in contrast to, say, choosing "Coke or Pepsi" where Hegelian epistemology may be employed). Sure, some may wear an "I chose life" slogan button, but that is a general statement. With respect to individual circumstances, a choice in this context would be a form of narcissistic control. Rather they "accept" what God, fate, or nature offers. To avoid misstating what actually transpired when she was pregnant for the last time, an alternative would be to substitute something like, "She did not abort her child" or "She continued her pregnancy and gave birth" or "She accepted the diagnosis and gave birth".--Epiphyllumlover (talk)
I would go further and state that we would need quite extraordinary sourcing to imply, whether with "she chose not to" or "she did not" or "she continued her pregnancy," that she considered abortion. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I now support this requirement for extraordinary sourcing, against my previous comments.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A prenatal test for Down syndrome would’ve been standard considering Barrett’s age at the time of the pregnancy; as stated above, 92% of women in her position in the US choose to abort, that stat on top of the fact Judge Schiltz is a Barrett family friend with a distinguished reputation should be enough to substantiate the claim-it was also originally printed in NYT. I think it’s asking too much of the Barretts for they themselves to weigh in on such topic. OgamD218 (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't know exactly what Schiltz said, he could have said something like "They received a positive test for Down Synodrome and followed God's will by not aborting the child" and the journalist could have rewritten it to reflect Hegelian epistemology with respect to choices. BLP rules apply to her son too, not just her. If written wrongly this besmirches his reputation in the eyes of his classmates at school--some who are definitely going to be reading this article or maybe already have.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What in the world is going on in this debate? She had the choice to abort the child or not, and she didn't. What is this talk of "murder" and "goodness" and "sensitive" and "epistemology"? Wikipedia is meant to deal in facts. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:8175:6187:72EA:ED53 (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The article cited for Schiltz comment refers to a New York Times article [9] which doesn't contain that info, and he/it needs removal.Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Found a better source and re-added the comment the way it was prior to removal due to the defective source.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Elizium23, I noticed you just removed it; I don't think it is completely pointless. For example, on the photos of her family on this article, the youngest son is missing. Stating about the Down syndrome helps the reader infer why there is one missing child in the pictures. Also, on the C-SPAN video of the procession into and out of the Rose Garden, he has both hands held on either side and dances on the way out. Mentioning his Down syndrome in the article helps the viewer understand.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Epiphyllumlover, it is nonsensical to say he was diagnosed with Down Syndrome in the womb, with a prenatal test, without the abortion story going with that diagnosis. The sole purpose of such a prenatal test is to decide on when to abort the pregnancy. If you want to say that a born child lives with Down Syndrome, then that is how you say it, not that he was the subject of a prenatal test. You know my personal feelings on the inclusion of this information, and we already have a source for that version of the article, but apparently there is opposition for Wikipedia explaining that Barrett practices what she preaches and does not abort her unborn children. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Scientifically, the only purpose of the test is for a possible abortion. A large number of women getting the this test would never consider abortion none-the-less. They accept the test the same way they did the pap smears when they were virgins. It is more about showing you trust your doctor and value your relationship with him or her than that you really desire the results of the test. Another aspect is that some OBs (and nurses that serve them) show prejudice against religious women. If you do not like conflict you may just go along with the tests to avoid it--a wise choice when their opinion of your mental health may influence whether a social services report will be made shortly after birth (and being in labor isn't the greatest thing for appearing mentally stable). There is a reason that this website has an article titled Abuse during childbirth because it happens. Labor is a time when a woman is very vulnerable and it is easy for nurses and doctors to emotionally exploit them, typically without consequences. Due to these factors it makes sense to value your relationship with your OB more than you value the avoidance of extra tests. I thought it was weird to discuss the prenatal test too. I would rather just say that he has Down syndrome. Because many people with Down syndrome do not have the extra chromosome in all of their cells, the degree of mental retardation can vary considerably. Of course he must learn to accept that he has Down syndrome; that is an unavoidable burden. The "you should have been aborted" thing is an avoidable burden that does not need to be placed on him. He very well may be able to understand the article in considerable nuance--and because Wikipedia is ubiquitous it is likely he will come across it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Is a 1,700 member tightly-knit religious community "small"?Edit

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not, and the large international gathering that the wider organization held with Pope Francis recently underscores this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the group’s leader they have 350 members in their South Bend Chapter, the one Barrett belongs too, idk is that “small”? Overall stats for them seem to vary, some estimates go as high as ~4,000 members, but I agree, calling almost 2K people ‘a small group’ seems a little off. OgamD218 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Source: OgamD218 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of birth date and middle nameEdit

As discussed previously, our BLPPRIVACY policy requires that Ms. Barrett's full birth date not be included for two independently adequate reasons: the date has not been "widely published by reliable sources" (i.e., reliable secondary sources), and, according to KrakatoaKatie—an administrator, oversighter, and OTIS volunteer—the subject requested that it not be included.

The subject's purported middle name has not been widely published in reliable secondary sources, so it should be omitted. It is true that it was once shown on Ms. Barrett's FJC profile, but it has since been removed; the Library of Congress catalog entry containing it is not a secondary source.

I am again removing both of these things, and I am claiming 3RR Exemption 7 (removal of "contentious material that is . . . unsourced[] or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy"). Per BLPREQUESTRESTORE, anyone wishing to restore either of these things bears the burden of developing consensus beforehand. (Pinging Dq209.) Rebbing 16:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and I respect and sorry for undoing your edits It was just that you did not prove the existence of the OTRS ticket at that time so I had undid the edits but will not do that again since you since proved the existance of the ticket Dq209 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
It's all good. Rebbing 19:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
A recent dif--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Her middle name is a matter of public record. JTRH (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The (primary) source only supports Vivian as part of her former name and not her current full name. BLP requires reliable secondary sources, not primary sources or original research. Public records such as address, home value, phone number, office location, office phone, federal salary, voter registration, political donations, full legal name, and birthdate require RS in a BLP. —KinkyLipids (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mention it for purposes of verifiability. I mentioned it to address the editor's concern that publishing it on Wikipedia is somehow a violation of her privacy, when it's already publicly available information (I found it in a five-second Google search). But I'm not sure how her middle name is such a subject of controversy that it would need to be documented and verified beyond a sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. JTRH (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
It truly shouldn't be. This feels like a huge overreaction over a middle name. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The original poster cited privacy for the birthdate, not for "Amy Vivian Coney Barrett", which, again, is not even actually her current full name according to your own source. Why insist on an incorrect combination of her former name and current name? —KinkyLipids (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The admonition against the "purported middle name" refers to the inclusion of Vivian in her current middle name, not as her maiden middle name. Or User:Rebbing can correct me if I am wrong.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Apparently, the request to omit her birthdate occurred three years ago, when she was nominated to the Court of Appeals. I think we're going to see very shortly that, given the level of media coverage she's about to receive, a nominee for the United States Supreme Court can't reasonably expect any level of privacy about something as trivial as when in 1972 she was born. I'm not advocating for taking steps to reinsert it, I'm saying I expect it to be a matter of the public record very soon if it isn't already. JTRH (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This document shows that Vivian is not part of her current full name 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Barrett's date of birth is now a matter of widely distributed public record: it has been reported on by the AP ("Snapshots of top contenders for Supreme Court vacancy") and by CNN ("Amy Coney Barrett Fast Facts"). Rebbing, given these sources, do you still have an objection to including Barrett's DOB? I'm trying to gauge whether an RfC is actually necessary here. Neutralitytalk 00:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't we have to obey the OTIS against it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have higher standards than the Associated Press?JTRH (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't consider us bound by a request from three years ago, when the subject was not well known and the coverage of the DOB was much thinner. While we of course must exercise caution, we are not obligated to follow a subject's unreasonable request to omit ordinary biographical data that is widely reported and typically included in encyclopedas. The subject is an extremely public figure, who holds public office, and whose DOB has now been reported in very prominent sources. And, of course, OTRS volunteers are exactly that; as the page notes, they "do not have any specific editorial control." But if either Rebbing or KrakatoaKatie feel that this needs to go to RFC or some other forum, I'm happy to do that. I just wanted to ascertain specifically whether any other user feels this is necessary. Neutralitytalk 00:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Neutrality: My involvement began and ended with the OTRS ticket. At the time, the only source was a judicial questionnaire for her appointment to the federal bench and there was no secondary coverage (I remember looking for it). If there are reliable secondary sources now, we should treat it as we do other information in the article. Personally, I think the cat is out of the bag. Katietalk 11:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I support her middle name (only as a former name) and full birthdate to be reinstated in the article. It's clearly reported widely enough now, so some unspecified OTRS ticket from three years ago, when she was barely a public figure/household name, should not play into it. ɱ (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I support her middle name in her maiden name being included. As for birthdate, could we table this discussion until after (if) she is confirmed? Restrictions made concerning personal information and judges typically are concerned with what bad actors will do with the information. She will have better security (I imagine) once on the Supreme Court. The rationale for restricting it could change.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The case for inclusion is clear. And I don't think we necessarily need to wait for Rebbing's permission here, especially given that her claim that "the date has not been 'widely published by reliable sources'" was already factually wrong when she opened this thread with it on September 29: The AP piece dates from 2018, and a cursory Google News search could also have turned up e.g. the Chicago Sun-Times (September 25) or Esquire (September 26) at that point.
To be clear, all these had not yet been published back in 2017 when KrakatoaKatie reported the OTRS (not "OTIS") request; so there was a better rationale for omitting the DOB back then. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the birthdate due to the Oversight and OTRS issues in 2017 but i am not sure about using the former middle name in the article at all although the current middle name can be kept as its well known but the article should be renamed to Amy Barrett instead as we do not usually use middle names in article names 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The birthdate is now a matter of public record, and the article title should reflect the name by which she is commonly known, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg rather than “Ruth Ginsburg”. JTRH (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
My understanding of the concern, correct me if I am wrong: The question was whether she retained "Vivian" as a middle name following marriage. "Coney" is not in question as to whether it can be kept or not. If the article is going to go against the OTRS ticket on her birthdate, that raises the question of the article will also go against the OTRS ticket which said not to include Vivian as her middle name. But most secondary sources omit Vivian, so it makes sense to follow their lead.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


From [10] but not mentioned in the article:

  • vice-president of the student body at St. Mary's Dominican High School
  • 1994 Rhodes English department's most outstanding student
  • Kiley Fellowship as student at Notre Dame
  • 1997 Hoynes Prize (this is identical to being top in her class when graduating, which is mentioned in the article)

There is also no mention in the article about her being a "visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia"--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fine, though I don't see where it says St. Mary's. —KinkyLipids (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
[11] states it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Added all but Hoynes Prize because her top in class status is mentioned elsewhere.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • news.ND[12] - ". . She has been selected as distinguished professor of the year by three of Notre Dame Law School's graduating classes. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Axios and "saving Ginsburg's seat"Edit

An awful lot of opinion sources being used in this article, for instance there is no need to link to an opinion blog praising Barrett to support that she is a practicing Catholic.

Ran across the "saving Ginsburg's seat" while removing some of these, it's originally from Axios and a little problematic, but mentioned in other opinion pieces such as this from The New York Times. I would be against using it but figure it needs some discussion. fiveby(zero) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

People of praise / coatrack?Edit

I'm opening this section here to talk about coatrack versus having details on this page about parts of People of Praise. Novellasyes (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I support the 18:58, 30 September 2020 edit by Novellasyes. There is currently a factual error about PoP in the article. It says it is a "lay-Christian" organization, when actually there are four Catholic priests in the group and there will probably be more ordained in the future. A strictly lay group wouldn't have priests. I do not know if they have Protestant clergy in the group too, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not sure if there is a good name for a mixed clergy/lay parachurch organization or if you should just call it a "mostly lay" organization. Or does "lay" signify something else besides who is in it, like polity?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I would go further and also remove "Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men." That's from the New York Times in 2017. There are lots of newer and updated sources. Mostly, it's difficult to adequately describe this group in just a few sentences. I think we should focus on building out People of Praise so that readers can click through and get the full picture there, rather than having a partial description of the groups beliefs/practices here. Marquardtika (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Epiphyllumlover, a lay Catholic group can have priests. The Knights of Columbus count deacons, priests and bishops among their ranks, but are a lay Catholic organization. A priestly order, on the other hand, would have no significant lay membership. Such as the Jesuits or the FSSP. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
However, the description "tightly knit" as found in the NYT is WP:POV and should be attributed. Elizium23 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I support the edit made on 21:41, 30 September 2020 by User:CharlesShirley to remove the "Members of the..." comment.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the section is a coatrack, but it heading that way. For example, some editor added a description of what some members of the People of Praise agree to do. The description does not apply to all of them and the NY Times article does not, in any way, say that she has agreed to the described action. There was nothing provided in that information that was tied to Barrett so it was off topic and undue weight given to the description of People of Praise. I guess I agree with Marquardtika's comment, those sentence was over the top. The section really has too much info about PoP, and we should trim it down. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I now count ten adjectives modifying "People of Praise" in the Personal Life section. That's atrocious grammar. Elizium23 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Views on abortion and Roe have been moved to "personal life" section?Edit

It's getting to be extremely tiresome how the page of a nominee, whose views on abortion are (i) covered as a key issue in all RS coverage about her, (ii) central to her being chosen by Trump, (iii) central to the support for her and (iv) central to the opposition to her, cannot touch the subject of abortion in any proper way. One editor has now pushed[13] all the content on her views on abortion and on abortion-related law/precedent to the "personal life" section, arguing that these have nothing to do without her judicial philosophy or her career as a judge, which is bonkers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, she has never ruled on abortion in her judicial career, and I was simply following the lead of the person before me who prefaced the whole paragraph with a disclaimer that these are her personal views alone. Should we not restrict her "Judicial philosophy" section to philosophies which she has actually embraced from the bench? Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The other editor was completely wrong to insert that it was solely her "personal view" and that it didn't inform her judicial view (we don't know that and RS did not say that – it was pure WP:OR from the user). The content you moved literally covered her views on abortion law, Supreme Court cases, and other legal cases related to abortion rights, so your rationale for moving it all does not make sense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans: I agree. Signing an open letter, speaking on public events on the law and jurisprudence, and making judicial rulings are all not "personal life" issues, so that material should of course not be in the "personal life" section. I think the first two points (open letter + 2013 speech) most closely fits the section on her time as a Notre Dame law professor, and anything about judicial rulings obviously belongs under the section on judicial tenure. Neutralitytalk 19:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
How about adding PP of Indiana and Kentucky v. Box and one or two others to "Selected Cases"? Then have a follow-up paragraph on her prior statements and leanings about abortion?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I've moved to the appropriate sections. Open to other suggestions, of course. Neutralitytalk 21:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I support your new section and also the merger you made with the First Amendment section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

For 2006 i just changed 'letter' to 'ad', but South Bend Tribune says: "signed an anti-abortion letter that accompanied a January 2006 ad". They are probably the best source. fiveby(zero) 23:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden the National Review article is probably not the best, see WP:RSNP#National_Review. fiveby(zero) 23:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality. Her views on that were widely published, and this is one of key issues related to her nomination. My very best wishes (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the article have a table of cases argued?Edit

See John_Roberts#cite_ref-:1_7-1. Should this article have a table like it? It could be based on  the questionnaire, pages 25-28.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel that's necessary. Her litigation career was not all that remarkable. Plus, the questionaire is a primary source so we shouldn't rely on it. Tchouppy (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
With your input, I will not add it unless it starts becoming an issue in the secondary media. I haven't seen that yet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


WP:OVERLINK has become a real concern with the latest flurry of edits from @Epiphyllumlover: Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I have removed some overlinking. Neutralitytalk 15:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I ran the page through a difficult-word-finder and wikilinked the more rare and lengthy words.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I went through the ones de-wikilinked by User:Neutrality. I would like to re-wikilink "nexus" and "jusrists" on the basis that the typical reader either does not know the words or would confuse them (nexus as a smartphone and jurists as jury members). If you request I am willing to de-wikilink two other words to so that the total sum of wikilinks stays the same.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
"Nexus" and "jurist" don't seem too difficult or obscure to me. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I just used Excel's Conditional Formatting Tool to look for highlighted duplicate links in a list generated by feeding the article into the internal-link-analyzer. I found and removed about 16 or so duplicate wikilinks. I did not remove wikilinks where the duplicate occurred in the infobox or a template from the bottom of the article. I am going to go ahead and re-add the links to nexus and jurist because the removed links more than make up for the harm of burdening the page with two more wikilinks.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I support User:Williamgregory213's recent wikilinking. It is not excessive.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the date of birthEdit

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.
There is consensus that the date of birth should be included in the article (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Question: Shall Judge Barrett's date of birth be included in this article, cited to reliable secondary sources? Neutralitytalk 16:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


  • Yes. The background: back in 2017, the subject of the article contacted OTRS and requested that the birth date be removed (see discussion above). At that time, the only source for the DOB was a primary source judicial questionnaire that the subject filled out in connection with her nomination to the federal bench, and there was no secondary coverage. Since that time, the subject's full date of birth has been made public in various reliable, secondary sources, including CNN, the Associated Press, Esquire, the Chicago Sun-Times. The OTRS volunteer who handled the 2017 request does not object to inclusion at this time. There is no longer any reason to omit DOB, now that multiple, reliable sources (like the Associated Press and CNN) all report her DOB. We include standard information such as this in articles when well-sourced, and the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on federal judges include the DOB. The 2017 OTRS request no longer is binding, given the explosion of coverage in the last three years, and the OTRS volunteer who handled the matter has no objection to inclusion because "the cat is out of the bag." Neutralitytalk 16:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Note that her honor recently said she has "no illusions that the road ahead of [her] will be easy, either for the short term or the long haul." Well, she's right! And, if, prior to a few days ago, she'd wanted to stay quasi low-profile, I'm afraid such a hope has gone by the boards.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I consent to inclusion, with citations to the AP and Chicago Sun-Times articles. See my comment in Discussion. —KinkyLipids (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Truly mystifying to me. It's a well sourced matter of public record, reliably sourced. I don't know OTRS guidelines, but this level of confidentiality about a Supreme Court nominee when it's being sourced everywhere is doesn't make sense to me. we're not protecting the identity of crime victim or a minor or spouse who has no notability on their own. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: What happened in 2017 isn't relevant now. Her birth date is easily accessible and so privacy arguments aren't compelling. She is in line to become a Supreme Court justice and it would be truly unprecedented for Wikipedia to try to suppress the date of birth of such a public figure. I'm glad we're having this RFC because this seems like a silly dispute to be having at this point. Let's figure this out and move on with it. Marquardtika (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support based on the evidence Neutrality gave. ɱ (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I think the right of the public to know overrides Judge Barrett's request in this case, especially given her circumstances, and, moreover, the citations to reliable secondary sources. As such sources were not available during 2017, I can wholly sympathize and understand Judge Barrett's reluctance at the time; but circumstances have changed since then, and given her likely elevation to the Supreme Court, it would be rather inappropriate for her birth-date to be missing (see, by way of example, Merrick Garland, whose nomination failed but still has his date of birth displayed). Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, support the inclusion of her date of birth. DOBs are routinely included in an encyclopaedic article about a person and the same goes for media articles. There is nothing detrimental insinuated by such an inclusion. Certainly nothing that falls under the warnings of Wikipedia's relevant policy. -The Gnome (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, per Neutrality and Marquardtika. Here is yet another RS (Above the Law) publicizing the full DOB, actually several days before the discussion above began with an editor stridently and mistakenly claiming the absence of such RS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, her date of birth should be included. There are plenty of reliable sources and Wikipedia is not censored. – Anne drew 17:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, per Neutrality and Marquardtika. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No, to respect the OTRS ticket and Barretts wishes unless a Oversighter or other OTRS person supports this 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    @1.Ayana: OSers don't have any role in a content dispute like this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    The OTRS ticket was from years ago. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, If DOB is already publicly established by cited, reliable media organizations, it is totally inline with WP's BLP on DOBs, and more particularly, it is realistically unavoidable, considering she is a public figure, with the potential to be seated on the Supreme Court.Kerdooskis (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


  • I disagree - the background is useful for editors - but to allay any concerns I have moved the background section to my comment. The second part of the question ('cited to reliable secondary sources') is a key part of the RfC, so that remains. Neutralitytalk 17:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The second part is implied otherwise it is a BLP violation. So no, it is not a key part of the RFC, it is a key part of your personal argument from what I can tell. PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The OTRS correction only addressed the WP:BLPPRIMARY violation. Citation to AP and Chicago Sun-Times would not violate policy. —KinkyLipids (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems advisable to ping a bunch of oversighters involved in the OTRS system and ask how they feel about it. Rebbing is a start, maybe find a half-dozen others too. I don't know how their rules work or how flexible they are. They may be able to explain.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2020 (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.


See Amy_Coney_Barrett#Employment_discrimination. It is one-sided to only quote the dissenters and not the panel too. User:Neutrality reverted my addition, which left the section ending

"Diane Sykes wrote the majority opinion for the panel, which noted that a "purely lateral transfer" between positions dues not ordinarily result in liabilities under Title VII and faulted the EEOC for disclaiming "any interest in an opportunity to present such evidence" that could demonstrate harm to employee opportunity or status within AutoZone. refEEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 875 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2017)./ref Barrett, Sykes, and three other judges voted to deny rehearing, rendering the petition unsuccessful.ref name=Howe/"

If that is too long, I would like to add a shortened quote from the panel instead. I am also open to removing the quote from the panel so neither side has a quote.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Barrett only participate in the en banc proceedings, not the panel? Neutralitytalk 18:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
And the dissent was from the panel, not the en banc proceedings. So that seems like an argument against including either side. As a side note, this section was previously "fought" over by User: User:PeterTheFourth User:Tchouppy User:Mendaliv starting in July 2019. This list may not be comprehensive; I didn't check hard enough in the edit histories to be sure.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's right. The quoted matter is from the en banc dissent. Neutralitytalk 18:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It says "Because the panel's opinion, as I read it, endorses the erroneous view that "separate-but-equal" workplaces are consistent with Title VII, I respectfully dissent from denial of rehearing en banc." To put in criticism of the panel's opinion but forbid the panel opinion itself is strange. I suppose I could add clarification that Barrett never signed or joined onto the panel's opinion; that she only voted to deny.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
We already describe what the panel opinion held, then why the en banc dissenters disagreed with it. I don't think we need more text on it. Neutralitytalk 21:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It also read strangely by listing Sykes separately from the other three, especially since the dissenters were also a group of three. I "renumbered" the judges. You and others can review it. As for the amount of text, that is a side issue to it being strange to forbid one side but not the other.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bug on pageEdit

This analysis tool says there is one bug on the page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct number of written opinionsEdit

Amy_Coney_Barrett#Selected_cases says she wrote 79 majority opinions, four concurring opinions, and seven dissenting opinions. This is also what the Congressional Research Service document indicates if you count them out. But [14], citing the "Lexis Advance legal research database" says "Barrett has authored 81 majority opinions, 3 concurring opinions, and 7 dissenting opinions". So who is right, the article or Lexis Advance?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of equivalent Teaching and Scholarship topic sizesEdit

Thank you for taking the time to do this research. It's not clear, at least to me, exactly what the point was (or is). For example, John Roberts was never a professor, or, apparently, taught a class; the 166 words you mention are about an essay he wrote as a college sophomore, and his senior thesis, whereas Barrett was an professor for 15+ years.
Also, some of Barrett's writings (as a professor) appear in the "Judicial philosophy, political views, speeches, and writings" section, which I don't believe that you included in your word count. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to figure it out, too. I have limited understanding of their histories and am learning as I go. At the bare minimum I am trying to justify expansion of the section so it could look something like the Kavanaugh or Ginsburg articles. That people area framing the article around more ephemeral topics rather than a history of her career and description of her work is concerning to me. It hit me when I read the Congressional Research Service report that there is all sorts of heavy thinking involved that the article so far has been staying out of. Some of her journal articles may be paywalled; but it seems that enough of them are free.
For general conclusions: It seems that having been appointed pre-internet hobbles a justice's article with respect to pre-nomination scholarship. Also, it looks like some articles are written by people who really care about the justice in question--it comes out in the small things because the articles focus on the aspects which have the most value to the writers themselves. (That is, the writers collectively wrote the article for themselves because it gives them joy rather than the writers wrote for out-groups to read in order to accomplish some objective.) Other times articles are driven hither and thither as people are trying to score "points". The Scalia article is definitely one of the articles written with the highest value in mind. That gives me hope for this article.
As for the Judicial philosophy, political views, speeches, and writings section, I did not include that for any of the other justices, either. But because they already server (or are serving) those sections seem to have been made up of stuff from their current job.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding I am trying to justify expansion of the section, the danger is straying into [[WP:NOR}] territory. Picking and choosing the scholarly articles from which to extract information, and picking which specific points within articles to include in a Wikipedia article, is "original research". If you can find newspaper or journal articles that analyze what Barrett has written, that's a whole different matter.
As far as making the Barrett article resemble the Ginsberg article, the problem is that one person (Barrett) is mostly a professor (not notable) who has three years as a judge, versus someone (Ginsburg) who was on the Supreme Court for several decades. For the latter, there are going to be lots of analyses of judicial philosophy, and of what she wrote. Wikipedia is (and is supposed to be) a reflection of what reliable sources think is important about the world - and how important. So I think it's generally not a good idea to make an independent judgment about whether one aspect of one topic should be roughly equal to the same aspect in another article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Her articles have been cited a number of times by other academics--that is enough for our purposes to avoid original research. All it would take is someone with access to enough of the articles citing her articles and the willingness to do the heavy thinking.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly articles that could be discussedEdit

One of the articles citing it, on pdf page 55 of this article summarizes her position that detention and extraterritoriality issues can be resolved by amending statutes rather than being strictly constitutional issues
  • Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency - Many articles citing this are in Google Scholar
  • Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement - already in the article
  • Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals - Many articles citing this are in Google Scholar
  • Originalism and Stare Decisis - Many articles citing this are in Google Scholar
  • The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court - Many articles citing this are in Google Scholar
See this quote on page 53 of this article, full pdf linked to on Google Scholar
An interesting quote on pdf page 35 of this article, full pdf linked to on Google Scholar
This one has no substantive reviews except in National Review. It is based on a well known essay Scalia wrote with the same title. She decided to write her own version of the stuff that she is tired of hearing.
this one, on pages 3-4 of the pdf briefly discuss "process based" law scholarship and that Barrett is skeptical of it.
this one cites Barrett quite a bit over a variety of pages and presents her view that a closed set style canon of law can't be justified on page 40 of the pdf.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

2016 graduation addressEdit

User:Neutrality reverted this edit, which was right beneath where it talked about her children and their differences in the "Personal life" section:

At home, the quote "Comparison is the thief of joy" is framed on the wall in order to discourage family members from comparing themselves with each other.refWolk, Laura E.; McKeown, Megan L.; Alyson M., Farrah (September 27, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett was our professor. She'll serve America as well as she served her students". USA Today. Retrieved October 4, 2020./refrefBarrett, Amy Coney (May 14, 2016). "Diploma Ceremony Address". Commencement Programs. Paper 182. Retrieved October 4, 2020./ref

I propose re-adding it, possibly with this article instead of the USA Today article if it is a preferable source. The rationale for inclusion is that: 1. It explains her approach to diversity in her family (by ability and the biological/adopted aspect) 2. That the quote is about joy is suggestive of a utilitarian rather than deontological ethical approach to family life. People who read to understand will more-or-less grasp these nuances without explaining, so no original research is involved. I am looking for your support or opposition about re-adding this sentence to the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Doesn't seem noteworthy to me, but I'll see what other editors think. Neutralitytalk 02:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
cmt - Seems useful for inclusion toward encyclopedic coverage of subject's life. (note - Wiki's wp:Notability guidelines say they "only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list . .".)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, sure, but that doesn't mean we include everything that's sourced. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." This seems like a personal anecdote about her home life. Neutralitytalk 17:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Scalia described in some detail how his family life influenced his judicial philosophy. Readers are going to be looking for this sort of thing because they will expect it to influence judicial philosophy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The Deseret News article, just like the USA Today article, is also an op-ed. Moreover, we already discuss her judicial philosophy directly based on sources that actually address it. We don't need to include material about a sign in her kitchen. Neutralitytalk 18:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing that describes what sort of ethical system(s) she uses in the article. This would break new ground, sort of. As for "We don't need"--that is a valid rationale for deleting the whole of wikipedia because it is a just a website and not food and drink, clothing and shoes, or house and home.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hanging a sign in your home is not a description of an "ethical system." Neutralitytalk 22:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The sign posits joy as a desirable end, or even an end in itself. This is consistent with utilitarian ethics; and is counter-intuitive because textualists typically believe that Kantian Analyticity is possible, and Kantians in general are deontologicalists. It was the theme of her 2016 address, which was published by Notre Dame. That she chose to give an address on comparison and joy implies that she thought her graduating students needed to hear that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • drive-by comment - Well, IMHO the subject's parental philosophy is of importance and that it would seem unimportant to some, again IMHO, can only be due collective wp:Bias amongst us w rgd things associated w family & domesticity. That said, w rgd to the subject's overall ideological leanings, it's one thing if commentators have drawn certain enlightening conclusions in this regard; yet another, if it's only us lowly Wikipedians, within our own lights, who've done so, of course.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've removed this. No consensus for re-adding this challenged material has been developed, and it must stay out; please review WP:ONUS. If you want to start a proper RfC, then you're entitled to do so. Neutralitytalk 00:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hodgdon's wrote, "Seems useful for inclusion toward encyclopedic coverage of subject's life"--that makes it 2-1 in favor of keeping the comment. What sort of balance would it take for you to not remove it? 3-1? 4-1? 5-1? etc?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not a strictly numerical determination, but certainly what has been said is not sufficient to override the Wikipedia policy concerns here. Like I said, feel free to take it to an RfC if you really feel this material must be in. Neutralitytalk 01:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I intend to re-add the selection if the balance becomes 3-1.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, it's not about counting heads. Gaining consensus involves actually establishing good sources, due weight, and clear relevance, none of which have been established. Neutralitytalk 01:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
RBG's wall decoration was included Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#Personal_life. But I suppose the rules are different now that she died.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I've stricken my comments above, since they're apparently thought worth nothing. I believe I can now list this @wp:3O.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I interpreted your comments as supportive, which is why I attempted to re-add it when I did. So I think your comments were worthwhile. If you want to list for a third opinion, I support you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about whether a comment a blp subject made about her parental philosophy within a commencement address merits coverage.):
I read the entire discussion in this subsection. At first, my inclination was to agree to include this bit about "comparison is the thief of joy", it's a nice adage, and I happen to agree with the thrust behind the decorative sign in the person's household. However, then I decided to do my own research. I searched for a combination of search terms: "comparison is the thief of joy" and "Amy Coney Barrett" and found only the one source cited in this subsection, namely, USA Today. The other appears to be a primary source by the subject of this article itself. It seems like a nice bit of a factoid to include for readers. But perhaps we should wait until this particular fact has received coverage in other secondary sources. Therefore, per WP:WEIGHT, my WP:Third opinion for the time being would be to leave out this material. Right cite (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Right cite, there is one other secondary source for it from Thank you for coming to offer your third opinion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Any others? Right cite (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally I don't see how this is notable, but according to Wikipedia if something gets significant press coverage, then it is probably notable. But my vote is not notable, I don't see how this adds to the article in an encyclopedic way. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Role of auntEdit

"The couple has relied on in-home childcare by Jesse’s aunt for the past 17 years.": Could this go into the article with this source?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Of course, IMO with that big of a family and with the parents' busy schedule, if they don't have in-home childcare, something wd be amiss.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I will mention Jessie's aunt.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

McConnell's rationale for refusing to give a vote to Merrick GarlandEdit

The section titled “Supreme Court nomination” includes the following:

  • Democrats are angered by the move to fill the vacancy in a presidential election year.
  • They accuse Republicans of hypocrisy because they refused to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court nominee in 2016.
  • Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren described the nomination as an "illegitimate power grab" by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "to steal another Supreme Court seat."

I added this:

McConnell countered that the real issue concerning Merrick Garland had been one of divided government, and that since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.[1] “Everybody knew that neither side, had the shoe been on the other foot, would have filled it,” he said.[2]

@Snooganssnoogans: reverted this with the comment “this was not the rationale at the time.”

In the first place, this is in fact McConnell’s current response to the complaints by the Democrats. He is the Senate Majority Leader and controls the Senate. His response is relevant. We do not exclude relevant statements for any of these reasons:

  • a Wikipedia editor believes that the person’s current rationale is not the same as the rationale the person gave at some other time
  • a Wikipedia editor claims that the person in question previously made an inconsistent statement
  • a Wikipedia editor believes that the statement is false

Here is a list of quotes supplied by McConnell concerning what he said on this question during 2016. If you find a quote in which he only talks about the ‘Biden Rule’ does that negate these other statements he made during that time? I would like to see the source establishing this. The most that can be contended is that statements McConnell made about the ‘Biden Rule’ use a rationale different from the rationale of other statements he made during the same period. Therefore only the 'Biden Rule' statements are includable in Wikipedia?

Do we want to turn the little section about Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination into a battleground of sources arguing that McConnell’s position today does or does not differ from his position in 2016? Shall we also include the opinions given by Democrats in 2016 that contradict what they say today? I am thinking of Democrats who argued in 2016 that the Constitution required a vote on Garland but who today say that it doesn’t require a vote on Barrett.

The bottom line is that McConnell’s position today is relevant even if it could be established that it wasn’t his position in 2016, and I don’t see how that can be established. Furthermore, such things are not established via opinions of Wikipedia editors. — Swood100 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ McConnell, Mitch (September 18, 2020). "McConnell Statement on the Passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Senate Republican Leader. Archived from the original on September 19, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
  2. ^ "Meet the Press - April 2, 2017". NBC News. Archived from the original on August 9, 2020. Retrieved 2020-09-21.
Both sides should be relegated to the nomination article, with one sentence left in this one to summarize both your reverted edit and the "Democrats are angered..." stuff already there. The single sentence could wikilink to a section of the nomination article. WP does not have a Biden rule article, they name it after ol' Strom instead. Until the "Democrats are angered..." stuff is abridged to one sentence and combined with your edit's topic, I support unreverting your edit.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
If you want to add text about McConnell's flip-flop, then it needs to be described as such and it needs to be sourced to RS, such as this PolitiFact piece[15], which characterize his action as a flip-flop and contrasts his actions today with what he said back in 2016. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? PolitiFact has a piece concluding that McConnell's position now is not the position he had in 2016. How does that make my original edit unacceptable? — Swood100 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The text you added to the article did not say that McConnell had flip-flopped. The text you added was a disingenuous McConnell quote where he made it appear as if his rationale for blocking Garland is consistent with the rationale for shepherding Barrett's nomination through. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Did you read this? How does McConnell's position now differ from what he said in these quotes? — Swood100 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I would be inclined to leave out the rationalizations from McConnell's office. To the extent the argument is "now there is a Republican president and a Republican-majority Senate" (i.e., "we have more power now") that is already clear from text already in the article. Neutralitytalk 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
To the extent the argument is "now there is a Republican president and a Republican-majority Senate" (i.e., "we have more power now") that is already clear from text already in the article.
@Neutrality: The text already in the article says that the rationale McConnell gave in 2016 is inconsistent with his rationale today, and that this constitutes hypocrisy. I added McConnell’s response to that, which is that his rationale today is not different. This response is not already in the article and it deserves to be, for balance. Snooganssnoogans apparently believes that McConnell’s response cannot appear in this article if a source can be found that contradicts it, but this is not correct. The most he can say is that his source should also be included. But if his contradictory source is included then we must allow sources on the other side of the question and we find ourselves enmeshed in a debate that we really don’t want to be having here. A simple statement of the two sides should suffice, which is what I tried to add. — Swood100 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If there are no other comments I am going to go ahead and include this in the article. — Swood100 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Swood100: This cannot be added back to the article because there is no consensus for it and several other editors have objected, explaining why. Neutralitytalk 15:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality: Your objection was that it should not be added to the extent that the content is already included, but the content is not already included. The content is McConnell’s response that the issue has always been one of divided government. What would be the reason for excluding that? Do you have some other objection? If not, there are two in favor and one opposed. Snooganssnoogans declines to explain how the McConnell quotes from 2016 differ from what he is saying today. Do we want to have a battle in this little paragraph? We can include McConnell's current position. Then we can cite a source saying that McConnell is being inconsistent. Then we can cite a source saying that he is not. Would that be preferable? — Swood100 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My objection is that the proposal is undue weight and, relatedly, to the extent the “undivided Versus divided government” point is meaningful, it is already implicit in the existing text. You’re of course entitled to begin an RfC, but as of now consensus has not developed for what you propose. Regards, Neutralitytalk 16:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer an extremely brief mention of this, maybe one sentence with a wikilink to a section on another article discussing it. If this cannot be arranged, I support Swood100's proposal above on 8 October 2020 because the opposition to it rests on the judgments such as "rationalization" and "disingenuous" as being correct. They may be correct judgements, but this is circular reasoning--he is doing "rationalization" and is being "disingenuous" because he is inconsistent, and he is inconsistent because of the rationalizing and disingenuous behavior.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I use nclalegal as a source?Edit


However, one of her seven dissents, Schmidt v. Foster, a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case, resulted in rehearing en banc, with a majority of ten judges adopting the position she took in her original dissent. This example shows her ability to influence and even lead the direction of her circuit.

I would like to paraphrase the above in the article in the Selected Cases section, and also add the following:

In a journal article, "Suspension and Delegation",ref>Barrett, Amy Coney (2014). "Suspension and Delegation". Cornell Law Review. 99: 251–326./ref> Barrett noted that constitutionally, only Congress has the authority to decide when Habeas corpus may be legitimately suspended. ref>Huq, Aziz; Ginsburg, Tom (2018). "How to Lose Your Constitutional Democracy". UCLA Law Review: 111./ref> and continue to note her judgement about Congress in that..."it violated the Suspension Clause in every other case by enacting a suspension statute before an invasion or rebellion occurred, and in some instances, before one was even on the horizon" (quoted by /

I am looking for your support or opposition about using the source in this context.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  • NCLA is an advocacy group that takes a certain position, so I would not want to use it, unless we possibly gave in-text attribution and cited to countervailing publications. For example, this PFAW piece also describes Barrett's role in the exact same Schmidt case, with a very different conclusion (i.e., that Judge Barrett's position "made much more difficult the appropriate federal court review of improper state convictions" and "ignored reality in favor of a formalism that the [Supreme] Court has not adopted"). Neutralitytalk 14:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Tchouppy (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Instead of "Selected Cases" this could go along with a description of her position in Barrett, Amy Coney; Katyal, Neal K (2020). "The Suspension Clause". National Constitution Center. as a "Suspension" section within "Judicial philosophy, political views, speeches, and writings" The section could have four sources: her two writings, ncla, PFAW, and Huq & Ginsburg.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It's an opinion and would have to be presented as such, rather than fact. However, when presenting opinions, it is important to say who has expressed them and how widely they are supported. Saying that the NCLA thinks she is able to influence and lead the direction of the circuit court isn't helpful to readers who don't know who the NCLA is or how widely supported their opinion is. TFD (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
NCLA is an advocacy group, do they have journalistic integrity? Do they have a reputation for fact checking that would give cause for WP:RS & WP:V? As of now I don't see them on the Wikipedia Reliable sources/ Perennial sources thread linked here. This is an Encyclopedia, all editors are suppose to do is report facts, not opinions, then we walk the line of WP:TABLOID. So seems technically we shouldn't use NCLA. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


Part 1Edit

Identically as "squishy" as mentor w rgd overturning scotus precedents? or less so?

npr (Totenberg [17] [emphasis mine]) - ". . Judge Barrett's views on precedent, however, appear to be closer to those of Justice Clarence Thomas, who has little regard for precedent and has urged overturning many long-established decisions. Barrett's critics, for instance, point to her judicial writing in a major gun case. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun. But Justice Scalia, writing for the court, listed some exceptions, among them laws barring felons from owning guns. When one of those felon laws came before Judge Barrett, she dissented, maintaining that the Supreme Court didn't really mean to exclude gun ownership for felons who aren't dangerous. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"Amy Coney Barrett has independently argued that, given the effect of precedent on non-parties, considerations of due process may place constitutional constraints on the application of precedent. See Amy Coney Barrett, Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 1011 (2003)"[18], page 4 of the pdf pagination. Squishy may be an oversimplification. Maybe someone with a law background can explain the details.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Yet: See barrett's "Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement": Precedent "promotes doctrinal stability while still accommodating pluralism on the Court. Stare decisis purports to guide a justice's decision whether to reverse or tolerate error and sometimes it does that. Sometimes, however, it functions less to handle doctrinal missteps than to mediate intense disagreements between justices about the fundamental nature of the Constitution."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC) National Law Journal [19] - ". . On that topic [stare decisis], Barrett has written: 'Does the court act lawlessly—or at least questionably—when it overrules precedent? I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.' . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
If you understand the details of how she decides to respect vs. overrule precedent, please summarize them for me. I don't understand the mechanism, but think it might be interesting for the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
user:Epiphyllumlover: Personally? No clue. But a National Review writer does think he understands what her position on stare decisis is. And, he seems to be saying that she's aligned herself pretty much exactly with the position on it of her mentor (and they both are aligned with the position on stare decisis of the Supreme Court as a whole. That said, the NR commentator also hopes she overturns Roe, so---- ).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Are there any lawyers or paralegals reading this? Can you help with this?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This at BloombergLaw addresses the Q more clearly(?): ". . Barrett 'approaches stare decisis from a practical perspective' in her extensive academic writing on the topic, Saikrishna Prakash, law professor at the University of Virginia, said. 'She doesn’t ever say that the courts should be overturning a bunch of precedents,' Prakash said. 'She disagrees with those who want to revolutionize case law.' [Director of the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies Ilya] Shapiro puts her somewhere between Scalia and Thomas here. 'She’s a little more willing than he was to question precedent,' he said. 'Maybe not quite as far as Justice Thomas who hardly has any use at all for stare decisis but certainly more than Scalia.' . ."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
user:Epiphyllumlover: She's got some wiggle room. But many observers agree she seems a bit more open to overturning precedents than Scalia, perhaps(?)
  1. washingtonpost/ruthmarcus[20] - ".. no nominee has openly endorsed views as extreme as Barrett's on the doctrine of stare decisis . ."
  2. washingtonmonthly[21] - ". . She respects precedent less than Antonin Scalia . ."
  3. originalismblog[22] - ". . look for Barrett’s critics to obscure the fact that Barrett is defending the Court’s existing 'weak presumption' of stare decisis, not calling for a weaker version. . ." ". . Barrett explores Justice Scalia’s approach to precedent and the question whether stare decisis is compatible with originalism. She disputes the claim that originalism without stare decisis would produce chaos: 'This threat is vastly overstated, because no originalist Justice will have to choose between his principles and the kind of chaos critics predict.' In particular, a 'combination of rules—some constitutional, some statutory, and some judicially adopted—keep most challenges to precedent off the Court’s agenda.'"
  4. latimes[23] - ". . has been unusually frank in her support for overturning precedents that are not in line with the Constitution. . ."
  5. nymag[24] - ". . In Barrett, we can expect a justice who will decide cases from a conservative worldview, while being even less bound to precedent than her former boss and mentor. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I especially like your Saikrishna Prakash source because she taught at the University of Virginia and was admitted to the bar in Virginia. He probably knows her or multiple other people who do. I support you on the inclusion of a short quote or paraphrase of his observations in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Fairly recently she'd seemingly signalled an attitude of pragmatism?
apnews[25] - ". . 2017 article co-written by Barrett in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, arguing there often are pragmatic reasons not to attempt to overturn precedents even if a justice is convinced they were wrongly decided. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
yalejournalonregulation/Notice & Comment[26] - ". . Barrett didn’t take the position that erroneous precedents must be immediately overruled. She recognized that adherence to precedent can help judges reduce decision costs, error costs, and even legitimacy costs. As to decision costs, Barrett observed that because “justices do not all share the same interpretive methodology, they do not always have an agreed-upon standard for identifying ‘error,’” precedent can serve as a means of 'mediating intense jurisprudential disagreement' between those who deploy different interpretive methodologies. It can therefore make it easier for Justices to reach decisions than it would otherwise be. As to error costs, precedent can 'force . . . a justice to think carefully about whether she is sure enough about her rationale for overruling to pay the cost of upsetting institutional investment in the prior approach.' Precedent may therefore discourage overhasty votes to overrule that are themselves the product of interpretive error. Finally, as to legitimacy, Barrett noted that a “weak presumption of stare decisis” is particularly important in constitutional cases because it is 'both realistic about, and respectful of, pluralism'—it 'helps the Court navigate controversial areas by leaving space for reargument' by citizens who seek to 'push[] back against the proposition that the Constitution embodies the principles the Court says it does.' Barrett made plain that she 'agree[d] with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.' The preservation of erroneous precedents, after all, deprives people of the benefits of the rule of law set forth in the Constitution and perpetuates public misunderstanding of that law. But the qualification is important—the conflict must be clear, because there are costs to overruling as well as preserving erroneous precedents. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Shorthand Re barrett's scholarly take on precedents (from an AP writer):
apnews[27] - ". . Before becoming a judge, she discussed how court precedents provide welcome stability in the law. But she also seemed to leave the door open to the possibility of reversing ones about which there remained sharp disagreement. 'Once a precedent is deeply rooted,' a 2017 article in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, which Barrett co-wrote, said, 'the Court is no longer required to deal with the question of the precedent's correctness.' But it added: 'None of this is to say that a Justice cannot attempt to overturn long-established precedent. While institutional features may hinder that effort, a Justice is free to try.' . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement - NDLScholarship › cgi › [28] "Stare decisis is a many-faceted doctrine. It originated in common law courts and worked its way into federal courts over the course of the nineteenth century. By the twentieth century, the doctrine had become a fixture in the federal judicial system. 4 That is not to say that its shape was then or is now fixed." by AC Barrett - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 53

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. [29] - barrett: "Scholars have a range of views about how the Court should behave when deciding whether to overrule constitutional precedent. Those who favor weak stare decisis tend to do so because of their methodological commitments. Thus, some living constitutionalists have argued for freedom to overrule lest precedent hinder progress, and some originalists have argued for freedom to overrule lest doctrine trump the document."
  2. washingtonpost[30] - O. Carter Snead, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame: ". . Her past scholarship, including a 2017 law review article, makes clear that she appreciates the tensions between originalism and stare decisis. There she wrote that there is nothing in originalist jurisprudence that requires justices to seek the reversal of precedents on their own initiative. . . she would carefully analyze each case on its merits, respectful of the stakes for both the rule of law and the stability of our polity . ."
  3. wsj/opinion[31] ". . Our guess is that on overturning precedent she will fall in the Court’s middle—more willing than the Chief Justice but less than Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch . . "
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Part 2Edit

Scotus precedent
  1. today's wsj[32] - ". . As a nominee for an appeals court, she also had a ready answer to questions about whether she would respect Supreme Court precedents like Roe v. Wade. 'There would be no opportunity to be a no vote on Roe,” she said and noted that “for a court of appeals, all Supreme Court precedent is super-precedent.' A Supreme Court justice, however, has the option to reconsider past precedent if the court chooses to do so, and Democrats will again try to determine whether Judge Barrett would do so on the high court. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) in 2017 challenged Judge Barrett when she said that all judicial nominees agree that their feelings about a precedent shouldn’t bear on how they would decide cases. 'We hear that from a lot of nominees. And then, in all frankness, inevitably personal beliefs enter into judicial decisions.' - 'I’ve conducted myself as a professional my whole career and would continue to do so if I were confirmed,' she said."

    I'm going to add (1) At her 2017 8th Circ. bench nom hearings, she'd committed to abiding by Scotus precedents (2) if I can find it, at least: some quote of her holding forth how at Scotus level, precedents aren't suchhard&fastof lines. <oh no! as Robert Bork did within his academic legal writings! (Just kidding: I think the stance is pretty universally held(?)) Anyway, this is from the History Channel:

    [33]: ". . Bork rejected what he saw as the Court’s liberal judicial activism, including key precedents like the 'one person, one vote' principle of legislative representation, civil rights legislation and cases involving privacy rights. . ."

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. LibertyPen - At about 2:35 or so Bork says, "In Constitutional Law precedent is less important than anywhere else." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Note: She is said to have favorably cited Michael Gerhardt. Gerhardt seems to believe the following about Scotus precedent:

    [34] The Power of Precedent
    Michael J. Gerhardt
    In this book Professor Michael Gerhardt provides the first comprehensive effort to use both social science methods and conventional legal analysis to explain the role of precedent in constitutional law. His analysis demonstrates how precedent influences more than social scientists claim, but less than most scholars claim. He further shows how precedent, broadly understood, performs multiple significant but underappreciated functions in constitutional decision making both inside courts and outside of them. Last, but not least, his analysis explains a fundamental tension in constitutional adjudication in which precedent is generally respected as an abstract principle but particular precedents rarely constrain the decisions of courts and nonjudicial actors.

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. bloomberg[35] - conservative legal scholar and former federal judge Michael McConnell in the Washington Post: Roe "the Road Runner of all precedents. Wile E. Coyote just never catches up" ; - Trump to Biden at 1st debate: "You don’t know her view on Roe v. Wade."
  5. nyreviewofbooks/Noah Feldman [36] [37] - ". . Judges speak in praise of stare decisis when they want to uphold precedent. They speak about the limits of precedent when they want to make new law. . ."
  6. bloomberg/noahfeldman[38] [39] - ". . Roberts, the justice who cares most about precedent right now, might be the swing vote who could save Roe — not because he thinks it’s correct, but because it’s been settled law for nearly half a century. By sticking to Roberts’s side, Kagan made sure the current decision didn’t feature all the liberals on the same side while the conservatives split. More importantly, she made sure that at least one liberal was standing up for precedent even in a case where liberals would ordinarily favor the opposite result. That’s exactly the stance that she and other liberals will want Roberts to take when the court’s other conservatives make their increasingly inevitable push to overturn Roe. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I support your intention to add to the article on this topic.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
For a rough sample:

In various of her academic writings overall <reference specifically>, Barrett has analyzed the role of precedent within Constitutional law. <maybe throw in here that academics in general observe how precedents are hewed to/overturned at Scotus level per ideological understanding of right vs. wrong more so than simply 'cause /x/, /y/, or /z/ are precedents and, so, have to be followed by succeeding supreme courts> In light of these writings and in view of Barrett's personal ideological leanings, commentators including <say which ones> speculate that Barrett would be more inclined to overturn liberal precedents of the Supreme Court than would its sitting chief justice, John Roberts. These same are in disagreement with each other as to whether she'd be identically inclined or less so than would Clarence Thomas (blah blah known to not have so much regard for them).

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
maybe throw in here that academics in general observe how precedents are hewed to/overturned at Scotus level per ideological understanding of right vs. wrong more so than simply 'cause /x/, /y/, or /z/ are precedents and, so, have to be followed by succeeding supreme courts
Do you have a source for this?
in view of Barrett's personal ideological leanings
What are Barrett's personal ideological leanings and what are your sources for that?
commentators including <say which ones> speculate that Barrett would be more inclined to overturn liberal precedents of the Supreme Court than would its sitting chief justice, John Roberts.
Part of this concerns Roberts’ desire to avoid the appearance that the court is politicized. Is that an ideological leaning? Do commentators really have enough to go on with respect to Barrett’s ideological leanings, such that their speculations are more substantive than mere guesses? Also, political ideology seems to pervade this area. Those on the left who want to undermine her nomination seem more likely to speculate that her inclination to overturn precedents is alarming. Those on the right take the opposite view. Even some very learned commentators seem to be influenced in this way (e.g. Laurence Tribe). Is it proper to introduce this phenomenon into this article? What precedents a nominee is inclined to overrule is the 64 thousand dollar question that opposing senators use great ingenuity in trying to ferret out and seem to always fail. Can we really give some guidance on this issue that is more accurate than what the weather is going to be like a month from today? — Swood100 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
>>>>>Can we [Wiki] really give some guidance on this issue [What precedents a nominee is inclined to overrule] that is more accurate than what the weather is going to be like a month from today?<<<<<
Ahh well no. (But we can encapsulate others' speculations of this type, despite this endeavor's ultimate uselessness. Eg we cover what opinion polls show. Nothing stopped Wiki from having an article based on RSes concerning speculations Re who was gonna to be nominated by Trump to fill Ginsburg's seat.)
>>>>>What are Barrett's personal ideological leanings[...]?<<<<<
Well, without beating around the bush, at the tip of her "personal" ideological leanings' top tier (at least according to the political commentary I've read) might be Barrett's personal opposition to abortion.Liptak, Adam (October 1, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's Supreme Court Pick, Signed Anti-Abortion Ad". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2020. Colby Itkowitz (2020). "Who is Amy Coney Barrett, the judge at the top of Trump's list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg?". The Washington Post. is fervently antiabortion Otherwise (per my vague impression garnered from news reports), I believe she may be something of a so-called Constitutional conservative.Refs needed. (By the way, do note that if it turns out she's really a "closet" quasi liberal of some flavor (Think: Cardinal Bergoglio), for my own part I'd be quite pleasantly surprised.)
>>>>>Do you have a source for [precedents are hewed to/overturned at Scotus level per ideological understanding of right vs. wrong]?<<<<<
Noah Feldman @nyreviewofbooks[40] - ". . as Kavanaugh's example were intended to emphasize, liberals have cared little for the value of precedent when it comes to the high-profile moral issues . ." ". . "liberals have justified these deviations from precedent on the ground that the original decision was immoral when it was made. This kind of argument is easily adopted by contemporary conservatives, who consider Roe v. Wade wrong not only as a matter of constitutional philosophy but as a matter of morals. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Ahh well no. (But we can encapsulate others' speculations of this type, despite this endeavor's ultimate uselessness. Eg we cover what opinion polls show. Nothing stopped Wiki from having an article based on RSes concerning speculations Re who was gonna to be nominated by Trump to fill Ginsburg's seat.)
Speculation about who Trump is going to nominate involves sheer guessing, and everybody understands that. We can’t present sheer guesses as if those guessing have some special way of knowing, if this is not the case. I don’t oppose predictions that are grounded, such as that she will use textualism. And I think that comments she had made about past rulings which were not textually-based give us some insight into some valid predictions. But predictions untethered to something that can be demonstrated, especially dire predictions of apocalypse by someone who opposes her nomination, are problematic.
Well, without beating around the bush, at the tip of her "personal" ideological leanings' top tier (at least according to the political commentary I've read) might be Barrett's personal opposition to abortion.
Is there a general rule, safe to follow by default, that all judges are likely to rule in favor of their personal ideological leanings. If a judge says “my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge” what weight do we give that? Do we need any evidence to the contrary or are we safe in simply assuming that the statement is false?
Otherwise (per my vague impression garnered from news reports), I believe she may be something of a so-called Constitutional conservative.
Do you mean that there is evidence that she personally holds “Paleoconservative” beliefs or that there is evidence that such beliefs will influence the way she rules as a justice?
Dpminicans as a whole may have a tendency to Paleo-conservative paleoconservative belief, in that the Dominicans are an Aristotelian tradition. Because modern life involves a stronger role for cause-and-effect and time & space than Aristotle had use for, if you attempt to be an Aristotelian today you will likely end up as a Kantian. Paleoconservatives as a general rule are Kantians, and if they Hegelianize they become neo-conservatives. The time period of the Constitution and the Declaration was well before Hegel--but at a time when Kant was trendy. He incorporated contemporary ideas from others like Locke into his system, which adds to its compatibility with the founding fathers. In today's postmodern background, originalists and textualists are dependent on Kant's concept of analyticity.
The evidence against Barrett being a strict Kantian can be seen in her writings about the suspension of Habeas Corpus. She believes that it is Congress's role and not the Executive's role to define when a suspension is justified. A strict Kantian would place this power with the executive branch instead (as Kant would have given his writings on governance in general), or at least not exclude the executive branch completely. That she believes this has been repeatedly violated over the years is telling that she disagrees with other conservatives on this. What we know about her take on immigration does not put her with the paleo-conservatives either. And her address about comparison being the thief of joy is exactly how I'd expect a non-Kantian to attempt to gently prod a group of Kantians (given that Notre Dame is Dominican) to improve themselves. Another utilitarian aspect is her evaluation of precedent as being useful in mediating disagreements when justices have little else in common.
Her charismatic background puts an existentialist influence on the table. The criticism description that she is idiosyncratic[41] is the sort of criticism description you could expect to see leveled against concerning an existentialist. She doesn't seem to have anything to do with economics or sociology, which I would expect if she was a secularist existentialist. Rather instead it is a Christian existentialist influence, the sort that is not cynical at all and in an open and uncouth form would be derided by Hegelians as superstitious and primitive.
This roughly outlines three strands: Kantianism (via Dominicanism and manifested in originalism and textualism), utilitarianism, and existentialism. There may be more. On the Münchhausen trilemma I'd expect her to rest more on the axiomatic and regressive forks. In contrast a strict paleoconservative would be entirely on the axiomatic fork and a neo-conservative would be using the circular fork. For the article to be well rounded, it would be good to show examples reflecting as many influences as possible.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think that the use of “idiosyncratic” in that article was a criticism. Rather, it was intended as “not a clone of Thomas or Scalia.” — Swood100 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I fixed my above comment; the piece was favorable; the description was not a criticism as you noted. I added a subsection on Suspension you can review as well. Her position seems to come from originalism.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
maybe throw in here that academics in general observe how precedents are hewed to/overturned at Scotus level per ideological understanding of right vs. wrong more so than simply 'cause /x/, /y/, or /z/ are precedents and, so, have to be followed by succeeding supreme courts
I think this is too simplistic a rendering of the Noah Feldman piece. It says that liberals cling to precedent in cases like Roe but have willingly departed from precedent in cases dealing with gay rights. It characterizes conservatives as being “exponents of a strand of constitutional originalism that favors overthrowing precedent in favor of the long-neglected “true” meaning of the Constitution.” Feldman does not come right out and say that this is all a smokescreen for the fact that conservatives are really influenced by the ideological content involved, just like liberals, but perhaps that’s what he means. He says that conservative judges are influenced by both constitutional philosophy and morality and that liberal judges face a conundrum. This implies a bit of nuance.
Feldman says that “Judges speak in praise of stare decisis when they want to uphold precedent. They speak about the limits of precedent when they want to make new law.” This appears to express the view that judges are craven hypocrites. Is that the opinion of “academics in general”?
Your source link cut the article off before the end and I can’t find a version anywhere that is available without a subscription, but I think that this is a nuanced area that cannot properly be characterized by the Feldman piece. — Swood100 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • >>>>>Do you mean that there is evidence that she personally holds “Paleoconservative” beliefs or that there is evidence that such beliefs will influence the way she rules as a justice?<<<<<

Paleo-what? lol. I'd just meant she's generally considered, by current types of conservative that are big on the Constitution, as one of their own.

  1. donaldjtrump[42] (who may or may not be much "Constitutional conservative" ideologically but has their backs) - ". . Amy Coney Barrett, as a Constitutional conservative, proud Christian, .."
  2. American Center for Law & Justice - "Appoint a Constitutional Conservative to the Supreme Court"
  3. Rep. Sam Graves [43] - ". . Barrett is a wise choice, a Constitutional conservative who will be steadfast in her pursuit of the original intent . ."
  4. &c&c --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Well you wikilinked “constitutional conservative” to the Paleoconservative article so I assumed that’s what you meant. Is that what the term means? I don’t really know what “big on the Constitution” means. But in any event does the term refer to beliefs that will influence how she rules as a Justice, like her beliefs on textualism do? — Swood100 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • politico/robertltsai[44] - ". . Ideologically, she will slot in somewhere to the right of Chief Justice John Roberts — making this the most conservative court in our lifetime. Barrett’s addition would most likely turn Justice Samuel Alito into the median justice and the person toward whom most legal arguments would have to be pitched. . . " ". . She has written that precedent operates only in a 'weak' sense, acknowledging that a textualist 'would more often find precedent in conflict with her interpretation of the Constitution' than a jurist with a more 'flexible' approach. That suggests that she would join a strong majority to sweep away precedent when she feels it is incompatible with the original meaning of the text. . ."
      --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
". . Ideologically, she will slot in somewhere to the right of Chief Justice John Roberts — making this the most conservative court in our lifetime. Barrett’s addition would most likely turn Justice Samuel Alito into the median justice and the person toward whom most legal arguments would have to be pitched. . . "
I don’t have a problem with this, as long as it is presented as the opinion of Robert L. Tsai
She has written that precedent operates only in a “weak” sense
This makes it sound like the force of precedent is less strong for her than it is for the other justices on the court but what she actually said was:
Over the years, some have lamented the Supreme Court’s willingness to overrule itself and have urged the Court to abandon its weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases in favor of a more stringent rule. In this Article, I point out that one virtue of the weak presumption is that it promotes doctrinal stability while still accommodating pluralism on the Court.[1]
So she is describing the existing Supreme Court practice as involving a ‘weak’ presumption. This is quite a bit different from the implication of the article.
acknowledging that a textualist “would more often find precedent in conflict with her interpretation of the Constitution” than a jurist with a more “flexible” approach.
This is her exact quote:
It makes sense that one committed to a textualist theory would more often find precedent in conflict with her interpretation of the Constitution than would one who takes a more flexible, all-things-considered approach.
That suggests that she would join a strong majority to sweep away precedent when she feels it is incompatible with the original meaning of the text.
In the first place, if there is a strong majority then what difference does it make if she joins it? But the conclusion doesn’t follow. The decision about whether to overrule precedent is not a simple function of the number of times the interpretation is out of sync with textualism. But Barrett did allow that there could be some connection. I could see adding something to this article on this subject. How about this:
Concerning the relationship of textualism to precedent, Barrett said, “It makes sense that one committed to a textualist theory would more often find precedent in conflict with her interpretation of the Constitution than would one who takes a more flexible, all-things-considered approach.”[1] She referenced a study by Michael Gerhardt which found that as of 1994, no two justices in that century had called for overruling more precedents than Justices Black and Scalia, both of whom were textualists, even though Black was a liberal and Scalia a conservative. Gerhardt also found that during the last eleven years of the Rehnquist court, the average number of times a Justice called for the overruling of precedent was higher for textualist Justices, with one per year coming from Ginsburg (non-textualist) up to just over two per year from Thomas (textualist). Gerhardt pointed out that the calls for overruling were not all related to textualism issues, and that one must be careful in the inferences one draws from the numbers, which “do not indicate either why or on what basis the justices urged overruling.”[1]


  1. ^ a b c Barrett, Amy Coney (2012–2013). "Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement" (PDF). 91 Texas Law Review 1711. Retrieved October 9, 2020.CS1 maint: date format (link)
user:Swood100: I like the text immed. above & hope u contribute it to mainspace.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Me too, please add it in--it must fit somewhere. As for "constitutional conservative"--that is a broader label than paleo-conservative. "Constitutional conservative" is a unifying term or category intended to appeal to both paleo- and neo- conservatives by asking different questions. A paleoconservative is typically a Kantian, while a neoconservative is typically a member of the Hegelian right or the secularist type of Existentialist, like many economists. A constitutional conservative could be any of these. An example in history would be how St. Thomas helped combine the Platonist Augustinians and the Aristotelian Dominicans into a unified Schola antiqua by asking and answering different questions than either side had been using. Paleoconservatives are more like the Dominicans and the right-leaning Hegelian sort of neoconservatives are more like the Augustinians, in broad brush strokes of how their philosophies operate. On this table, the paleoconservatives, being limited realists, fall under the second column to the left, while neoconservatives occupy the two columns to the right. A constitutional conservative could be any of the columns except the one on the far left.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
user:Epiphyllumlover, I imagine there's a lot of meat to what you're saying above. It's just that I'm in no position to know for sure one way or the other. But it seems to make some kind of sense, is what I'm saying. I mean, that one term might be a subset of the other seems like a useful idea.

My effort at a more layman's attempt to articulate what u just wrote might go something like this: When a charleskrauthammer tosses off 'constitutional conservative' to categorize uschiefmagistratejohnrobert's jurisprudence (at least when roberts' isn't acting in the way krauthammer categorizes as 'institutionally')----- Ah um well, when krauthammer does something like that: What's he doin'? Talkin' ONLY to folks w/ SPECIALIZED knowledge of the various facets of conservatism?? Or, to <ahem> folks like me who are just...general readers? OK well my impression of a guy like krauthammer is that he's pro'lly doin' just a bit of both. I mean, maybe readers cognizant of the tensions among pragmatic and principled impulses that apparently have been theorized about by folks like Harvey Mansfield and Peter Berkowitz <Me: harvey & peter who?> will have synapses light up that bring up such associations when their eyes scan across the word "conservative" modified by "constitutional." But when I read this ah established lexical entry or ah fresh coinage (at the time of my reading, being unsure which of the two it is), I just think that krauthammer must be throwing out some verbal marker to represent the rightward pole of theussupremecourtmembers' "jurisprudence" in a concise, yet evocative, way: its concision contributing to the short word count of the op-ed and its evocation----- Well, "knowing" what I already "know" about politics before reading the column, my weakly pulsing synapses remind me that folks umbrella'd under various rightward-pole terminologies tend to be nativist among a slew of other isms. You know. Like that. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Krauthammer has a deep understanding, and then simplifies it for his audience. The difference between pragmatic and principled is another good way to put it. Another way is this chart. Neoconservatives fit in at either the top or bottom of the left hand side, while paleoconservatives fit in at the top right side. Barrett's own reasoning patterns appear adaptable to different circumstances, making her hard to pigeonhole. Another way to look at it is this table. From it you can see where my philosophical classifications come from. They also just come from general historical background knowledge, like the sort you accumulate by reading Wikipedia. As for nativism and the other isms, a number of them can be articulated using different patterns. Back to Krauthammer: I suspect he labeled her a constitutional conservative because it is the best fit for her; that such conservatives may be pluralistic like Barrett rather than fundamentalist or totalitarian with only one possible thought pattern.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, user:Epiphyllumlover. Btw-Oops! fwiw it'd been our uschiefjustice John Roberts whom krauthammer labeled in twenty twelve "jurisprudentially" "a constitutional conservative," yet "institutionally" "a custodian of the court."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • time[45] - ". . Her philosophy places her further to the right than Chief Justice John Roberts, who had become the ideological middle of the bench. . . In her three years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Barrett was known for being a staunch conservative . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Part 3Edit

Will mention her 2017 "pledge" - but how she'd be considered to have more leeway on the Scotus bench. See eg today's thehill[46] - ". . Blumenthal in a subsequent interview said another key area is Barrett’s views of precedent. 'She seems to give much less weight to well-established, long-accepted precedent when it conflicts with her positions,' he said. Barrett in a 2003 academic article cited Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, as an 'erroneous decision.' In another article, she gave examples of Supreme Court cases that no justice would overturn even if they might disagree with the reasoning behind them but left Roe v. Wade off the list. During her 2017 confirmation hearing for a position on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett deflected Democrats’ questions by saying she would follow Supreme Court precedent. She would have much more leeway to overturn that precedent as a member of the high court, Democratic senators note. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Blumenthal in a subsequent interview said another key area is Barrett’s views of precedent. 'She seems to give much less weight to well-established, long-accepted precedent when it conflicts with her positions,' he said.
BlumenthaI is one of the most partisan politicians I can think of. I would call him the antithesis of somebody who can be relied on to present a reasoned, sober, balanced prediction of whether Barrett is likely to do harm to liberal causes.
Barrett in a 2003 academic article cited Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, as an 'erroneous decision.'
The article in question expressed it this way:
"The questions that traditionally have occupied courts and scholars with respect to stare decisis are systemic. Courts and commentators have considered the kinds of errors that justify or even require the overruling of precedent. They have thought about the kinds of reliance interests that justify keeping an erroneous decision on the books."
Footnote 70 was attached to this:
"See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 855-57 (1992) (holding that reliance on availability of abortion counts in stare decisis calculus); id. at 956-57 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting) (insisting that such abstract interests do not count); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Pressure of Precedent: A Critique of the Conservative Approaches to Stare Decisis in Abortion Cases, 10 Const. Comment. 67, 78 (1993) (claiming that reliance interests at stake in Casey were even greater than plurality imagined); see also A. Goldberg, Equal Justice: The Warren Era of the Supreme Court 74 (1971) (arguing that stare decisis should be strongest when overruling precedent would contract individual freedom and weakest when overruling would expand individual freedom), quoted in Charles J. Cooper, Stare Decisis: Precedent and Principle in Constitutional Adjudication, 73 Cornell L. Rev. 401, 403 (1988)."
Does this qualify as Barrett referring to Casey as an ‘erroneous decision’? If not, it emphasizes how fraught this area is with partisanship masquerading as reason. Even if Barrett had said that Casey was an ‘erroneous decision’, that is always the starting point when stare decisis is being considered. What insight does that give as to how the question should be answered? Even Ginsburg criticized Roe.
In another article, she gave examples of Supreme Court cases that no justice would overturn even if they might disagree with the reasoning behind them but left Roe v. Wade off the list.
Does saying that Roe doesn’t qualify as a superprecedent say anything about whether it should be overruled?
She would have much more leeway to overturn that precedent as a member of the high court, Democratic senators note
Does the fact that Barret would have more leeway to overturn precedents as a member of the Supreme Court give us any insight into whether she will overrule any specific precedent? — Swood100 (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

At her 2017 Senate confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett said she would follow Supreme Court precedent while on the appellate bench. As a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, Barrett, according to The Hill newspaper, would "have much more leeway" to overturn its precedents.

Actually, that was the observation of the Democrats, not The Hill: “She would have much more leeway to overturn that precedent as a member of the high court, Democratic senators note.” The Democrats are promoting alarm and that is the only purpose of such a remark. It is a truism that Supreme Court justices have more leeway than judges on the courts of appeals. What is the point of including such a statement? — Swood100 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Southen conservative laywerEdit

What's up with all these arguments trying to portray conservative southern lawyer like she is mainstream. She is clearly conservative in her record. There is no need to sugar coat anything. State it like it is. The article sounds like it is trying to send a specific message. State it like it is. (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

How would you characterize the difference between conservative and mainstream? — Swood100 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) Parents & upbringing (2) ACB herself served within [laypastoral] "headships" callingEdit

Raised within PoP communities

PoP part of subject's upbringing.

  • AP [47] - ". . Barrett’s father, Michael Coney Sr., has served as the principal leader of People of Praise’s New Orleans branch and was on the group’s all-male Board of Governors as recently as 2017. Her mother, Linda Coney, has served in the branch as a 'handmaid,' a female leader assigned to help guide other women . ."
Some Democratic party associations
  1. AP - ". . While socially conservative in their understanding of family and gender, some members are deeply committed to social justice in matters of race and economics, they said. Barrett’s parents are both registered Democrats, according to Louisiana voter registration records. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Politico[48] - ". . she pulled a Democratic ballot in the 2011 primary, when Buttigeg ran for mayor. . .
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Her father is also a Roman Catholic deacon, and co-officiated along with a priest at the wedding one of his daughters according a newspaper notice. Any mention of her father's leadership role in PoP should include a mention that he is a deacon. There are a variety of reliable sources that mention his position as deacon that can be found on an Internet search.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Unless the activities of her parents directly relate to her (for example in her childhood), their activities during her adulthood are their own and would be more appropriately added to their own Wiki articles (if ever created). KinkyLipids (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
When did he become a deacon, or a PoP leader? I'm not sure we have sources giving us years for these.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. KinkyLipids (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. story yesterday @ catholicnewsagency[49] - ". . Mike Coney, has also been a permanent deacon for 38 years. . ." ". . Coney’s decision to become a permanent deacon was also a joint discernment, brought about by the couple’s experience with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, a movement with a particular emphasis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. . ." ". . By the time Coney was ordained, he and Linda had four children. After ordination, they had three more, becoming a family of nine. . ." ". . It was also after ordination that the family felt called to join People of Praise, an ecumenical lay covenant community – to which Barrett continues to belong . ."
  2. stcatherineofsienaparish/deaconmike[50] - ". . Diaconate has spanned 36 years of our almost 49 years of marriage. Our call (I firmly believe it is a call to both husband and wife) came through the Charismatic Renewal. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
From here there is enough of a date to add the Roman Catholic deacon position and her parents' membership in PoP. We do not have enough of a date to add any leadership positions in PoP that her father or mother had. That could conceivably have come later after she had grown up. If both the diaconate and the PoP membership are mentioned, it should be indicated that the diaconate came first, and if possible how old she was when he was ordained.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that we need to bother at all with these details about her parents and People of Praise. It's all a big WP:COATRACK opportunity. Let's focus on Barrett and her facts. Elizium23 (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Angela_Merkel#Background_and_early_life could be a model. It is non-prejudicial of her religious upbringing.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The first source is fine. It directly refers to Barrett and shows that she was raised by a deacon in the Charismatic movement from the time she was about 10. KinkyLipids (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Nov 16, 2008 Vine & Branches [51] Life Notes - . . Servant Branch Congratulations to Tom Beckley, Mike Coney and Areta Thomas, who made the covenant of the People of Praise on September 14, 2008. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
That was after she was grown and had left her parent's house, correct?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. May be, I'm thinking, her brother: Michael Coney Jr.?
dailymail[52] - ". . Mike Coney, 72, is a member of the Board of Governors until his term expires in August. Mike Coney was also the official branch coordinator for the group's New Orleans chapter. He is also a deacon in the Catholic church, the nearest clerical rank a married man can have to a priest. On the block where they live there are four other families who belonged to People of Praise, according to a 2005 article in the group's newsletter. Most of Coney's siblings, including her brother Michael, 32; her sisters Carrie Coney Urbanski, 42; Eileen Coney Timler, 38; and Vivian Coney Orthmann, 34; brother-in-laws Matt Urbanski, 45; John Timler, 43; and David Orthmann, 34; and sister-in-law Naomi Caneff Coney, 32, appear to be active members of the group and have been written about in its newsletter Vine and Branches. Michael and Naomi Comey previously led Christians in Mission, a part of the group's activities, as full-time members living in a house owned by the group. Coney's husband's brother, Nathan Barrett, 39, is active in the group's youth summer camp . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, a 2011 PoPChristianCommunitynewsblog post [53] reads, "During Mike Coney’s twelve years as head of the branch."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
apnews[54] - ". . a 2006 magazine story about Barrett’s parents that referred to Linda Coney as a 'handmaid,' a female leader assigned to help guide other women, was also deleted. The article noted that five of the Coney’s seven children were People of Praise members, though it did not say which ones. A 2012 tribute written by Jesse Barrett about his recently deceased grandfather, Eugene Geissler, also disappeared. The story recounted how Jesse Barrett’s grandparents joined the religious community in 1976 and raised 16 children in the group. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • washingtonpost[55] - "Amy Coney Barrett Served as a 'Handmaid' in Christian Group People of Praise." (In 2010, she was ". . one of three handmaids in the South Bend branch's northwest area . .")
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Assuming this report is true (which is not proven), why should this picayune trivia be placed in the article. I don't see it. If true it is no longer true. It is undue weight and trivial. I don't see any reason for its inclusion. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
(cmt - It should be mentioned that ACB cannot talk about specific instances of her laypastoral counsellings in order to preserve confidentiality of her counsellees. (See also "layclergy-penitent privilege."))--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. nytimes[56] - ". . The Coney family’s eldest daughter, Amy, spent formative years of her childhood embedded in that intense faith community in Louisiana. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. newsweek[57] - ". . A photocopy of an undated membership directory obtained by The Times includes the Barretts and five of their seven children. Amy Coney Barrett is also listed in the directory as a "handmaid" (advisors who are now known as "women leaders") for one of the group's divisions in South Bend. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sentence cited to Washington Post Oct. 6 reportEdit

I added one sentence of new content cited to an in-depth article published yesterday in the Washington Post, about Barrett's leadership position in her religious group. That content was subsequently removed by a different editor. No substantive reason for the removal was offered by the removing editor, who merely indicated that he "disputes its addition in the article."

I would like to restore the sentence. It is clearly relevant/on-topic, proper weight, very well-sourced, and exactly the kind of significant biographic information that belongs in an encyclopedia article. Neutralitytalk 04:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The content is well-sourced, and belongs in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Seems to be non-notable trivia. Where someone lives as a student has very importance in a BLP. I'm not seeing a reason for inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I referenced the AP & WaPo reports w rgd the subject's former laypastoral service in her parachurch community in this (diff) edit (leaving off mention of her student-housing arrangement with the couple who'd been among 1970s-era movers/shakers in the covenant community movement).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Assuming this report is true (which is not proven), why should this picayune trivia be placed in the article. I don't see it. If true it is no longer true. It is undue weight and trivial. I don't see any reason for its inclusion. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I have read what everyone is saying and no one has given a substantive reason for its inclusion other than something along the lines of "It is trivia, but I think it should be in the article". No, that is not a substantive reason. I have not read a reason for the trivia. None. Nada. I do agree it is enormously trivial and insignificant though. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
If someone serves in a leadership position in a religious group, it usually goes into Wikipedia bios without any controversy (provided it's well-sourced). It's basic bio info. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There is no doubt that Snooganssnoogans is correct. This information is biographical in nature and belongs in the bio. It is common practice to include such info. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The sentence being contested has two main separate components ("While a law student, Barrett lived at the home of the group's co-founder Kevin Ranaghan and his wife, Dorothy") and "in 2010, a group directory listed Barrett as a 'handmaid'" with some additional details about what that term meant in the group and how the group later stopped using that term. We could separate these out. Neutrality gives four different reasons for thinking the information should be in the article. His four reasons are that it is (1) "clearly relevant/on-topic" (2) "proper weight" (3) "very well-sourced" and (4) "exactly the kind of significant biographic information that belongs in an encyclopedia article." I agree with (3) that the information is very well-sourced. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on claim (2), that it is of proper weight. On (1) and (4), my initial reaction to the idea that where she lived when she was a law student is "clearly relevant/on-topic" and "exactly the kind of significant biographic information that belongs in an encyclopedia article" is that I don't get the force of those assertions. I get from the adjectives ("clearly" and "exactly") that it really very, very strongly seems self-evident to the editor who put that sentence in the article that it just obviously belongs here. But, it doesn't strike me that way. I am more in the camp of an initial reaction of "gosh, seems like meaningless trivia". So, would need more reason to believe that it clearly belongs in the article. It doesn't seem that way to me. The second component (the claim about how she was described in a group directory in 2010 and how the organization used to use one term and now it uses another one) I'd say the same things about. Novellasyes (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
cmt - For what it's worth, Wiki's "Mitt Romney" blp does mention a couple of things he'd counselled as a laypastor (quote: "he [Romney] counseled women not to have abortions except in the rare cases allowed by LDS doctrine[nb 10] and encouraged unmarried women facing unplanned pregnancies to give up their babies for adoption.[69]").
(In any case, I believe a Romney--or a Barrett--may be reluctant to talk much about such counsellings due their respective privacy as well as confidentialities granted communicants.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's a section dealing with a subject's religious-education leadership in a SCofWI member's blp: "Brian Hagedorn#Views on LGBT rights."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Revised version of proposed contentEdit

Here's a shorter, slightly revised version of the content that I propose, since the longer version may be clouding the issue:

Like her mother, Barrett has previously served as a "handmaid" (a leadership position for women) in People of Praise.[1][2] Barrett is the first Supreme Court nominee from a charismatic Christian background.[1]


  1. ^ a b Emma Brown, Jon Swaine & Michelle Boorstein, Amy Coney Barrett served as a 'handmaid' in Christian group People of Praise, Washington Post (October 6, 2020).
  2. ^ Michelle R. Smith & Michael Biesecker, High court nominee served as 'handmaid' in religious group, Associated Press (October 7, 2020).

We typically include religious leadership positions where well-cited. (To give a recent example, Cal Cunningham's article states that he is an elder in the Presbyterian Church; Jimmy Carter's article notes that he is a Sunday school teacher in a specific Baptist Church). Here, in addition to the in-depth Washington Post article, this was reported upon by the Associated Press and other top-tier sources. Her longstanding active membership of the group was also the subject of earlier reporting dating back several years. Neutralitytalk 15:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

So it seems this is more about the "handmaid" wording. Why not simply write "Like her mother, Barrett has previously served in a leadership position in People of Praise." That's neutral, well sourced, and probably DUE. The "Like her mother" part is probably also unneccessary, but I wouldn't quibble about that. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There's zero reason for the circumlocution. Both cited sources identify the title. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It's a euphamism and semantics. Just say what she was. Most people associate handmaid with that book, which isn't accurate to what Barrett was - a leadership position in a religious group, something most people are more familiar with. What's the real circumlocution - "handmaid (a leadership position for women)" or "a leadership position?" Mr Ernie (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
To omit the actual title is just weird. It's in the first few lines of both sources. We don't ignore the source material. Neutralitytalk 19:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There are differing intuitions or gut instincts here about whether to use the title "handmaid" to describe a role she had with POP (or may have had according to a 2010 handbook). From what I can tell, the reason for resisting the use of that title (as opposed to describing her as holding a leadership position) is because POP no longer uses that terminology. And, the reason they no longer use that terminology is because in between when they started to use it, and when they abandoned it, the Margaret Atwood book was published. Once that book was published and became popular, including with a television adaption, the connotation people would get when they'd see the word "handmaid" was based on that set of associations, and that's not what POP's leadership position was ever about, in any way at all, according to their statements on the matter. Thus, the POP group decided to no longer use it. They gave up on the term for those reasons. That's how they have described their thinking on this. These would also be reasons why people here might have second thoughts or not have the same gut instinct that it should be obviously clear and unproblematic just to use that older terminology. Some of the examples given above about, for example, including in Cal Cunningham's article that he is an elder in the church, or that so-and-so teaches Sunday school -- those examples are disanalogous to the situation under discussion here because the Presbyterian Church still does use the word "elder" and various churches still refer to the act of Sunday school teaching etc. Their terminology hasn't shifted over time, contrary to the situation with People of Praise and the word "handmaiden". FWIW, my grandmother was a nurse in the southwest in the 50s who trained medical personnel on the care of Down syndrome children. At that time, many people including mainstream medicine used the word "mongoloidism" or "mongoloid" to refer to this condition and as mother told me, my grandmother had a job title that had that word in it. Starting in the early '60s, people stopped using "mongoloid" (as is described in the Wikipedia article about this) but, however, it was historically true that at one point prior to this name change, my grandmother's employment had given her a job title that used that word. If she had been the subject of a Wikipedia article, would it have seemed important to use that older job title to describe her, even when time had moved on and the title had fallen into disrepute? I don't think so. Novellasyes (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the organization later adopted a different title (years later) is immaterial. What matters is the title at the time. If we wanted to include a parenthetical, explanatory note such as (the group later renamed the position 'women leader'), then would seem to resolve any concern. But if the contention is that we should omit the title even though all reliable sources use it, that doesn't find any basis in encyclopedia policy. Neutralitytalk 23:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I think Hodgdon's secret garden improved things with this edit. "Handmaid" doesn't mean anything to the average reader, so we would have to define it anyway (and then undoubtedly get into a whole overly verbose recounting of how they used to call it a handmaid and now they don't , Margaret Atwood, blah blah blah). Might as well just cut to the chase and clearly describe what the position is in a way readers can easily understand. It's also probably not important to mention her mother here. Maybe in the early life section? But this article needn't become a family almanac, either. Marquardtika (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Neutrality. We should cover this aspect according to RS, which in this case involves using the actual term. To second-guess these RS based on editors' "gut instincts" or WP:OR essays about genetic disorders that their grandmothers used to treat amounts to a NPOV violation. Sure, if people feel that readers in 2020 need a parenthetical remark to avoid misunderstandings related to some currently running TV series, we can discuss that. That said, it's also worth keeping in mind that neither People of Praise nor Margaret Atwood invented the term "handmaid"; its most important connotations existed already when Amy Coney Barrett decided to take on a position with that name. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
A problem with the word "handmaid" is that it implies she is a deontologicalist, since handmaids (using the generic and general definition) perform duties. Including the disputed content from her 2016 graduation address would be good balance for this, since it shows her using utilitarianism. I support the inclusion of the term handmaid on the condition that the disputed content at Talk:Amy_Coney_Barrett#2016_graduation_address is also included.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I get that to Neutrality it seems blindingly obvious that the fact that the organization adopted a different title is immaterial. That doesn't seem obvious to me. There is also a hint of an argument that "encyclopedia policy" would invariably, universally and 100% of the time conform to Neutrality's instincts on this. Is that really the case? Has this topic, but with different people, been thoroughly discussed by the folks who consider deep policy issues like that for biographies and has a lasting consensus been reached? Novellasyes (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that the RSs use the term handmaid, and that is what it was called at the time. But if we use the term 'handmaiden' we have to explain that it is a leadership position, not a subserviant position. And if we have to say "handmaiden, a leadership position" they what is the point of including the term 'handmaiden?' The historical use of it as a title is irrelevant and the current implication of the term handmaiden is more likely to cause unneccessary negative conotation. Tchouppy (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I think we might be overthinking this. Why don't we just say "Barrett served in a high-ranking female leadership position in People of Praise." That's clear, concise, and supported by the AP and Washington Post sources. Marquardtika (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why we should obscure the title of her position when it was a real title within the organization and when RS have specifically mentioned it. We are not here to run PR for this person and scrub away terms that don't sound cool. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Both AP and Washington Post clearly present the title "handmaid" a central aspect of this part of ACB's life, each of them even highlighted it in the title. Your argument is that Wikipedia should deviate from these RS in that respect, because 1) your own judgment of its relevance ("irrelevant) is superior to the RS, and because 2) omitting it will make the article subject appear in a more positive light. I don't agree with either, but in any case it is a violation of WP:NPOV, which asks us to represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", not "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic and that editors agree with, and that do not risk to portray the article subject in a negative light". Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll take another crack at this. I think it would be uncontroversial to say that "Over time, some organizations change the terminology they use to refer to their roles, positions and offices." There are many examples of this. One example would be that Pan Am used to refer to female flight attendants as stewardesses. At some point in the history of their organization, they stopped using the label "stewardess". But, some women who worked at Pan Am were referred to as "stewardesses" by dint of when they worked there. Since it is (I believe) uncontroversially the case that a number of organizations have changed their role-related terminology over time, the question could arise on many Wikipedia articles about whether to refer to the subject of the article by the label that they actually did have, by dint of when they worked for or had a role in an organization, even if the name of that role was later changed. Because ACB/the handmaid situation is surely not the first time this has ever happened, I thought perhaps there might already be a well-established policy on WP on how to handle situations like that. I have looked but so far haven't found one. I will say that if a dialogue were to occur on Wikipedia by its editors who like to work on editorial policy, that I doubt that these editors would come to a consensus that said, "Anytime a person who is a subject of a Wikipedia article once had a job that at the time they held it, was referred to as "XYZ", but the organization later changed its name for that role, we should 100% of the time, invariantly, always use the original label, and not use the new name that the organization changed to." I also doubt that the consensus would be "Always just use the new name." I imagine that "it depends on a lot of different factors and here are some to pay attention to" might be as far as one would get. I could be wrong but because of thinking that through, I've been surprised by editors here believing with 100% certainty that it is blindingly obvious how to deal with this. If we were working on an article about a woman who was a flight attendant once at Pan Am, I wouldn't be in favor of a sentence about her saying, "Jane was a stewardess at Pan Am (a role they now refer to as flight attendants)". I'd be more inclined to say "Jane was a flight attendant at Pan Am." There are lots of other examples like that, often involving women: Stewardess. Waitress. Poetess. Ambassadress. Novellasyes (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
My personal favorite is senatrix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
wordy much?-->
nytimes[58] - ". . Men and unmarried women are each assigned to individual counselors, an older member of the same gender, whom they consult about spiritual and practical matters. Some former members say those counselors — male leaders are called 'heads' — exerted notably granular influence, attempting to control their dating lives and their household budgets. Married women are “headed” by their husbands. . . Until recently, the group used the term 'handmaids' to refer to female leaders, inspired by a biblical reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as “the handmaid of the Lord.” They shifted to 'women leader' when the popular TV adaptation of the book 'The Handmaid’s Tale' gave the term a sinister cast. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
What do y'all think of this explanatory note that I added? Marquardtika (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. It is concise and resolves most concerns circulated above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Novellasyes (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. The only thing I could think of adding would be that "handmaid" is biblical reference to Jesus’ mother Mary, who called herself “the handmaid of the Lord.” This would clarify that the term is a reference to serving the Lord and not to just being somebody's personal maid or female servant. — Swood100 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I am removing the POV tag because this discussion has died down.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ACB (1) a political constitutional conservative? (2) w rgd precedentEdit

Surfing teh webs I see it saidsalon/brianjglenn that accdg to Harvey Mansfield, Peter Berkowitz, et al, so called "constitutional conservatism" "requires a proper balance between principle and prudence." ... "J. S. Mill, Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and the authors of the Federalist Papers, all focused on how a society of people with very different values could live together." (&c&c.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

washingtonpost/charleskrauthammer [59] [60]: ". . Jurisprudentially, he [Roberts] is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature. ... That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • cmt - Some kind of established lexical meaning for the term doesn't seem to pop up in my search results.

    Hmmm. Here's a shot at giving a meaning to the term from the seat of my pants: Maybe there isn't any precise meaning for the term as a compound and that maybe what it really means can best be understood by breaking the term into its constituents. When, for example, the White House (link) or the American Center for Law and Justice (link) say ACB's one, maybe what they're intending to convey is that she's both constitutionalist -- "jurisprudentially believing in close readings of the U.S. foundational document's text"(?) -- AND conservative -- "holding a stringent belief in following as opposed to making law"(?): both of which trends toward a conservative POV: sticking with established ways/tried and true/so-called ""law-and-order" politics/so on and so forth.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I just now see that the "Conservatism in the United States" wikiarticle includes this material:

* Constitutional conservatism, a form of conservatism bound within the limits provided within the United States Constitution, defending the structures of constitutionalism, and preserving the principles of the United States Constitution.[1] Chief among those principles is the defense of liberty.[2] This form of conservatism coalesced in the Republican Party in the early 20th century, in opposition to progressivism within the party; it can also be seen being influential to the 21st century Tea Party movement.[3][4] Constitutional conservatism has also been associated with judicial originalism.[5][6][7]

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ J. Postell; J. O'Neill (November 12, 2013). Toward an American Conservatism: Constitutional Conservatism during the Progressive Era. Springer. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-1-137-30096-6.
    Ken Blackwell; Ken Klukowski (May 31, 2011). Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America. Simon and Schuster. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-1-4516-2928-6.
  2. ^ Peter Berkowitz (February 12, 2013). Constitutional Conservatism. Hoover Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-8179-1604-6.
  3. ^ Schambra, William A. (August 20, 2012). "The Origins and Revival of Constitutional Conservatism: 1912 and 2012". Political Process. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 21, 2017.
  4. ^ Lienesch, Michael (July 2016). "Creating Constitutional Conservatism". Polity. 48 (3): 387–413. doi:10.1057/pol.2016.10. S2CID 147743074. Archived from the original on September 1, 2017. Retrieved June 21, 2017.
  5. ^ Mark A. Graber (March 6, 2015). A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism. Oxford University Press. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-19-024523-8.
  6. ^ Bradley C. S. Watson (2009). Ourselves and Our Posterity: Essays in Constitutional Originalism. Lexington Books. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-7391-2789-6.
    Daniel T. Rodgers (May 1, 2011). Age of Fracture. Harvard University Press. pp. 241–242. ISBN 978-0-674-05952-8.
  7. ^ Nancy Maveety (February 2, 2016). Picking Judges. Transaction Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4128-6224-0.
A former wikientry on "constitutional conservatism" was deleted (link): "The result was delete per either WP:NOR or WP:V—take your pick because in its current form at least one or the other applies." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Fwiw, the wayback machine has this 2005 snapshot (link) of the (lacking-of-references) stub:

Constitutional Conservatism is the belief in free enterprise, limited government, and traditional conservative principles within constitutional boundries. Essentially, constitutional conservatives believe that the ideas and intent of the framers, who formed the constitution, should be applied to government for all time, and seek to restore or maintain a constitutional size of government.

In the United States of America, constitutional conservatives believe in the size and scope of the government as invisioned and originally intended by the Founding Fathers. Typically they are pro-life, pro-religious freedom, pro-fair trade, pro-gun rights, and are almost universally strong supporters of property rights, and support a limited federal government, less regulation of the economy, and support nationalism.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
In general your findings are correct, and are consistent with my earlier comments about it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We should stay away from using descriptive terms for which there is no clearly defined definition, resulting in an amorphous term that operates like a Rorschach blob and into which people can put whatever meaning they think belongs there. If we think that the term means x, y and z, then let's use x, y and z. — Swood100 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
user:Epiphyllumlover: I think its We're-the-liberty-loving-folks! (read: "proponents-of-classical liberalism") aspect important. Saying this as someone voting Progressive. My meaning: Constitutional conservatives see themselves as critical of perceived less-than-(small D)-democratic aspects at the core of (another would-be catch-all here) living-Constitution Progressivism. In any case, user:Swood100, catchalls such as these are in currency and are useful when politics are being discussed, even though they can be disputed when arm-chair political theorists on Wikipedia or elsewhere posit what deep realities of thought may underlie these surface tensions.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
catchalls such as these are in currency and are useful when politics are being discussed
I disagree. I think “constitutional conservative” to one person describes someone who wishes to bring about policy goals favored by political conservatives, and to another person describes someone who believes that the constitution should be interpreted in an originalist fashion, or perhaps someone who believes that the discovery of new constitutional rights should be done with a great deal of caution. To one person “conservative” refers to political end goals and to another person “conservative” refers to the method of constitutional interpretation. I don’t think that such terms are useful when politics are being discussed, but are rather a source of confusion when people don’t define their terms. It is especially troublesome in this context where everyone is focused on the differences between Barrett’s personal and judicial philosophies. What does calling her a constitutional conservative say about that? — Swood100 (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, when a journalist and/or opinion maker <coughs> Sen. Coons says that a Justice Barrett would be prone to hold that Griswold was badly reasoned due to her record of judicial "conservativism," such a "shorthand" is useful within political discourse. Although the attempt to strain out what exactly the meaning of the word conservative's parameters are in whatever context is a worthy one -- such as whether this ascribed "conservatism" of ACB's is really fully judicial, political, or social -- to deny that the word has any useful ah erm public meaning seems a stretch.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, “judicial conservative” is better-understood than “constitutional conservative.” Coons means “Scalia-like” and “an adherent of originalism and textualism.” That kind of person (along with plenty of non-conservatives) would say that Griswold was badly reasoned, and/or not an exemplar of original public meaning. I don’t object to “judicial conservative.” — Swood100 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
When ACB is called a constitutional conservative, it refers to her judicial approach rather than her politicasl ideology, although the two are connected. It refers to originalism and judicial restraint, as opposed to the living constitution and judicial activism.[61] TFD (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Then why can't we just say that? Isn't it too soon to be attaching labels to her judicial philosophy? She's been a judge since 2017 but she was conservative before that. EagleLanding (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Per The Four Deuces, we do say that when the article discusses her originalism and philosophy of judicial restraint. The use of "constitutional conservative" in the sources above means the same thing. Since some people will inevitably confuse "constitutional conservative" with "politically ideologically conservative," I see no reason why we should introduce the term when her originalism is already well covered in the article. Marquardtika (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Here’s a description of what “Constitutional Conservative” means to many people:
For conservative politicians, the name signals that they are identifying as Tea Party members, which means limiting government, balancing the federal budget, lowering taxes, ending redistribution from the wealthier to the poor, assigning a central position for God in the lives of Americans, even in courthouses and public schools, and asserting the right to bear arms. While God will always be given top billing, one gets the sense that lowering taxes and eliminating social programs are actually the most important pillars in the platform -- so much so that many elected officials claim to be unwilling to compromise no matter what the short-term consequences.
"Constitutional Conservative" was used by and is associated with the Tea Party movement. It carries that baggage in people’s minds, which goes far beyond merely an approach to interpreting the Constitution. If this is not what we are intending to ascribe to Barrett then we should use a different term. “Judicial conservative” is generally regarded as carrying this meaning:
In short, judicial conservatives believe that judicial authority extends only to judicial enforcement of the law enacted by the requisite majority of duly elected representatives, whether that law is a statute or the Constitution. They argue that because any such enactment represents the authoritative voice of the people, it should be "strictly construed" according to the "original intent" of its framers. Any deviation from the original intent lacks authority and is to be condemned as judicial fiat or "lawmaking."
So if we need to use such a term, this would be it, but do we? — Swood100 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree we don't need a term, we should just describe her judicial approach, per technical language. If someone wants to say that this has been described as constitutional or judicial conservatism, that's fine so long as we clearly convey the meaning when used to describe her views.
The Tea Party meaning of the term if I remember would mean seeing the IRS, FBI and Dept. of Education as illegal because their responsibilities are not assigned to the federal government in the original constitution.
TFD (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth (LINK):
Coons take on ACB's jurisprudential philosophy

". . Judge Barrett has said that she shares the judicial philosophy of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked. Justice Scalia had deeply regressive views of the law. He was the sole dissenter in the case that struck down the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy and helped pave the way for the fight against gender discrimination across the board. He dissented in cases that secured rights for same-sex couples, for workers, for Native Americans, for the incarcerated, and for consumers. Justice Scalia even sought to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, which requires law enforcement to read people their rights upon arrest. Not only does Judge Barrett share Justice Scalia’s originalist philosophy; her writings indicate that she would overturn longstanding precedents that conflict with it. Throughout her career, Judge Barrett has endorsed a legal philosophy that argues that Supreme Court justices should simply overturn precedent with which they disagree. This means that many of the rights the American people think of as established and part of who we are as a country — like the right to privacy or the right to marry whomever they love — would be in danger of being taken away. In fact, after reviewing her record and writings over the past few weeks, I believe Judge Barrett has a radical judicial approach, even more conservative than Justice Scalia. . ."

  1. Also this clip from pbsnewshour[62] contains back-n-forths between ACB & Sen. Coons on such things as her prospectively joining the Court's ah conservative [sic] flank as well as on her academic analysis, "Statutory Stare Decisis in the Court of Appeals."
  2. And, Jonathan Turley argues for ending the "sham of stare decisis politics" here. (Quote: "Stare decisis often seems honored more in the breach by justices in the majority and most often cited by justices in dissent. When they secure a fifth vote, justices often lose their adherence to precedent.")
  3. ACB's been quoted[63], "The doctrine has its greatest bite, however, when it constrains a justice from deciding a case the way she otherwise would. In this situation, a justice must decide, to paraphrase Justice Brandeis, whether it is better for the law to be settled or settled right." Google scholar, however, seems to point to Alexander Tsesis's 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1609 (2012-2013) "Maxim Constitutionalism: Liberal Equality for the Common Good"[64](?) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what is being suggested by these references. Are you looking for a way to characterize Barrett’s view on stare decisis, such that the reader will have greater insight into how she will rule on abortion, gay rights and other incendiary issues? I question whether the characterizations of senators leading the charge against her confirmation (as demanded by his base) will qualify. I have similar doubts concerning an evaluation of this question in an article beginning, “Amy Coney Barrett is a radical jurist whose extremist interpretation of the Constitution could jeopardize the very unborn lives she seeks to protect.” Nor do I see the relevance of general statements of legal principles that do not refer to any reason for knowing how Barrett will come down on this issue. — Swood100 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The alleged quote of ACB seemed quite good.
Here's another one from npr (ACB to Coons)[65]: ". . 'I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere.' . . Coons pointed to a 2013 Texas Law Review article in which Barrett argued that a Supreme Court justice should disregard precedent if she believes an earlier ruling was incorrectly founded. . ."
Also an interesting quote from nationalreview/matthewcontinetti[66] w rgd would-be political constitutional-conservatism: ". . For years, the Right has tried to define a 'constitutional conservatism' that would serve as the political analogue to originalism. That project has been overshadowed by the rise of national populism. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
washingtonmonthly(Garrett Epps)[67] - ". . [ACB]: 'Stare decisis is not what holds a super precedent in place, for the force of a super precedent does not derive from the Court’s refusal to overrule it. Rather, it stays in place largely because it stays off the Court’s agenda.' . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ACB's "Settled? or Settled right?" paraphrase of Brandeis can be found here.--> (link)
(2013) Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement

Decided cases enable the justices to reason by analogy, and the doctrine itself is a reference for arguments grounded in other modalities like text, structure, ethics, prudence, and history.16 Because of these and many other contributions, stare decisis can fairly be characterized as the workhorse of constitutional decisionmaking.17 The doctrine has its greatest bite, however, when it constrains a justice from deciding a case the way she otherwise would.18 In this situation, a justice must decide, to paraphrase Justice Brandeis, whether it is better for the law to be settled or settled right.19 This is the decision upon which this Article will focus.

16. Cf PHILIP BOBBITT, CONSTITUTIONAL FATE: THEORY OF THE CONSTITUTION 7 (1982) (describing the modalities of constitutional argument).
17. See MICHAEL J. GERHARDT, THE POWER OF PRECEDENT 65 (2008) ("The extreme frequency with which the justices cite, or ground their opinions in, precedent establishes precedent as a, if not the, principal mode of constitutional argumentation."). For an excellent catalogue of the many contributions other than constraint that stare decisis makes to constitutional law, see id at 147-76.
18. See ANTONIN SCALIA, A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION: FEDERAL COURTS AND THE LAW 139 (1997) ("The whole function of the doctrine is to make us say that what is false under proper analysis must nonetheless be held to be true, all in the interest of stability."); Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Stare Decisis and the Constitution: An Essay on Constitutional Methodology, 76 N.Y.U. L. REV. 570, 570 (2001) ("The force of the doctrine ... lies in its propensity to perpetuate what was initially judicial error or to block reconsideration of what was at least arguably judicial error.").
19. See Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) ("Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.").

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I support including the settled or settled right quote in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you think that the “settled or settled right” quote suggests that by default she would prefer one answer over the other?
Here’s the full Barrett quote:
Because of these and many other contributions, stare decisis can fairly be characterized as the workhorse of constitutional decisionmaking. The doctrine has its greatest bite, however, when it constrains a justice from deciding a case the way she otherwise would. In this situation, a justice must decide, to paraphrase Justice Brandeis, whether it is better for the law to be settled or settled right.
This is simply a description of what stare decisis means. “Settled or settled right” is always the question when stare decisis is being considered, since by definition a judge believes that the law was decided erroneously before and the question is whether the prior decision should be overruled. The question would be to what extent we want to explain stare decisis in this article. She lists the factors to be given weight when considering stare decisis.
Coons pointed to a 2013 Texas Law Review article in which Barrett argued that a Supreme Court justice should disregard precedent if she believes an earlier ruling was incorrectly founded. . ."
This is an assertion that Barrett doesn’t follow stare decisis at all. I can’t locate any such statement by Barrett in that article. Coons may have claimed that, but what is the Barrett statement that he is relying on? — Swood100 (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
user:Swood100, Maybe we can mention in this or the confirmation article along the lines that coons/mainstream media scribes such as totenberg & raphelson read ACB as advocating an inherent predilection but several times in her testimony she said she should be parsed as describing a tension.
Nationalreview/rameshponnuru[68] ". . checked Barrett's testimony against Samantha Raphelson's account for NPR, by the way, and it gets the point about precedent wrong. She writes, 'Coons pointed to a 2013 Texas Law Review article in which Barrett argued that a Supreme Court justice should disregard precedent if she believes an earlier ruling was incorrectly founded.' That’s not what she argued. She was explicitly defending the Supreme Court’s longstanding practice of giving some weight to precedent. She merely argued against giving a lot more weight to it. In a passage frequently taken out of context, she rejected the idea that protecting the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is an independent reason to retain mistaken precedents. . .")
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
insurancenewsnet[69] - Coons: ". . After studying Judge Barrett's record, I'm convinced she would come to the Supreme Court with a deeply conservative originalist philosophy and a judicial activism with regards to precedent that would put numerous longstanding rights the American people have come to rely on and hold dear in nearly every aspect of modern life at risk. Simply put, I believe she will open a new chapter of conservative judicial activism unlike anything we've seen in decades. . . As she conceded during our questioning, our exchange, Judge Barrett has written in no uncertain terms she thinks Chief Justice Roberts got it wrong in his ruling upholding the law against the constitutional challenge. She wrote that article in early 2017 and months later found herself on President Trump's shortlist for the Court. . . Judge Barrett also steadfastly refused to answer whether she believed Scalia was correct in his criticism of Griswold v. Connecticut, a case decided when I was just 2 years old that protects the right to use contraceptives in the privacy of one's home and is an important landmark case because it is the anchor as we all recognize the line of substantive due process jurisprudence. Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, were willing to say Griswold was right, so it left me concerned and as I laid out yesterday, what truly concerns me more is her approach to precedent. Precedent has been called the foundation stone of American law and gives predictability, stability to it. And as I walked through yesterday, I've concluded that Judge Barrett is even more willing than Justice Scalia to overturn precedents with which she disagrees and made clear that justices should feel free to overturn cases that they believe were wrongly decided, which if she deeply holds the originalist philosophy she's espoused may mean that dozens and dozens, in fact as I detailed in a chart yesterday, more than 120 cases long settled in many cases may be at risk of reconsideration. . ."
apnews[70] - Barrett: ". . that sentence has been plucked out of the article to kind of, I think, create this impression about the context. The whole article discussed reliance interests, discussed the reasons for stare decisis and emphasized that courts ought not disrupt settled precedent absent very good reason to do so, reliance interests being one. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hodgdon's secret garden: One approach would be to say “X interprets Barrett’s writings as arguing that a Supreme Court justice should disregard precedent if she believes an earlier ruling was incorrectly founded. Y interprets Barrett’s writings as saying the opposite." Under this approach there would be no problem with: “She clearly does not consider as a justice she is bound by precedent,” said Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. “And we don’t know on what basis she will do this.” All kinds of statements motivated only by partisanship would be allowable.
Another approach would be to locate passages in Barrett’s academic writings or judicial decisions that have been interpreted in different ways and show the different interpretations. This seems to me to be clearly the right approach. For example, the following seems to be the passage that Ramesh Ponnuru believed had been misinterpreted by Coons (emphasis added):
The above speaks to the Court’s apparent legitimacy. The question remains whether overruling precedent affects the Court’s actual legitimacy. Does the Court act lawlessly—or at least questionably—when it overrules precedent? I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it. That itself serves an important rule-of-law value. Of course, constant upheaval in the law would disserve rule-of-law values insofar as it would undermine the consistency—and therefore the predictability—of the law. But constant upheaval is not what a weak presumption of stare decisis has either promised or delivered. The Court follows precedent far more often than it reverses precedent. And even though overruling is exceptional, it is worth observing that the Court’s longstanding acceptance of it lends legitimacy to the practice. Our legal culture does not, and never has, treated the reversal of precedent as out-of-bounds. Instead, it treats departing from precedent as a permissible move, albeit one that should be made only for good reason. Because there is a great deal of precedent for overruling precedent, a justice who votes to do so engages in a practice that the system itself has judged to be legitimate rather than lawless.
The following seems to be the passage referred to by AP News (emphasis added):
Basic confidence in the Supreme Court requires the assumption that, as a general matter, justices decide cases based on their honestly held beliefs about how the Constitution should be interpreted. If one is willing to make that assumption about the decision of cases of first impression, one should also be willing to make it about the decision to overrule precedent. A change in personnel may well shift the balance of views on the Court with respect to constitutional methodology. Yet the fact that a reversal flows from a disagreement between the new majority and its predecessors about constitutional methodology does not itself render the overruling illegitimate, as criticisms of overruling sometimes suggest. Reversal because of honest jurisprudential disagreement is illegitimate only if it is done without adequate consideration of, and due deference to, the arguments in favor of letting the precedent stand.
The Insurancenewsnet text seems to be little more than a rant by Coons that Barrett seems to him to be too willing to disregard precedent, and that the precedent he is most concerned about would probably not be thought consistent with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
Do you think I have identified the correct passages, and that the objection of Barrett’s defenders is that it is misleading to display the bolded portions in isolation, without any explanation of how an alternative interpretation is more likely the correct one? Are there any others? — Swood100 (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's another one that may have been referenced by the Barrett critics (emphasis added):
In cases like these, stare decisis seems less about error correction than about mediating intense jurisprudential disagreement. Asking whether a prior case is in “error” according to a shared standard does not generally require a justice to relinquish her fundamental interpretive commitments. But when a justice rejects the premises of a precedent rather than its conclusion, affirming it requires her to let those commitments go. Seen in this light, it is unrealistic to think that the Court should give its constitutional precedent more weight than it currently does, at least in those cases that strike at a justice’s core positions. (Indeed, the fact that statutory and common law cases more rarely involve fundamental commitments may be one reason why more robust stare decisis is easier to sustain in those contexts.) Justices are unlikely to set aside easily their most closely held jurisprudential commitments; in fact, history shows that they have been unwilling to do so. They express the hope that “the intelligence of a future day” will turn their dissents into majorities. And sometimes they cling to dissents repeatedly in future cases, steadfastly refusing to give stare decisis effect to a precedent with which they disagreed at the time it was decided. — Swood100 (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
user:Swood100: Thanks for researching these. Below, I précis what "ACB believes—" (as expressed in the boldened triptych above).
  1. [coons-barrett(from npr)] "I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it. That itself serves an important rule-of-law value."

    —that rule of law is served by overturning of Constitutionally incorrect precedent;.

  2. [coons-barrett(from apnews)] "Basic confidence in the Supreme Court requires the assumption that, as a general matter, justices decide cases based on their honestly held beliefs about how the Constitution should be interpreted."

    —that confidence in the Court requires its decisions be grounded in justices' respective constitutional interpretations; and,

  3. [unnamed sen.(s)-barrett(uncited)] "Justices are unlikely to set aside easily their most closely held jurisprudential commitments; in fact, history shows that they have been unwilling to do so."

    —[the tautology] that closely held jurisprudential commitments are indeed those that are least likely to be set aside.

How can the nonboldened material surrounding these three be précised? My shot:
  1. [npr] —that under the Court's "weak presumption of stare decisis" it "follows precedent far more often than it reverses precedent," which serves "consistency—and therefore the predictability—of the law";
  2. [apnews] —that "reversal because of honest jurisprudential disagreement is illegitimate only if it is done without adequate consideration of, and due deference to, the arguments in favor of letting the precedent stand"; and,
  3. [uncited] —that the Court's upholding precedent, to the extent it does, is sometimes about "mediating intense jurisprudential disagreement".
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It appears she uses a complicated procedure to determine when to follow precedent and when not to. What comes out in your quotes are clues to what her reasoning processes look like on the topic, but cannot be the full picture because of their generalized nature. In theory someone will be able to write about it at some length in the legal scholarship in like 10 or so years. It could be worse--we can thank her for not pontificating like a Federal Reserve Chairman. At some level being completely open to how you operate may be unwise in her career because if you say things really bluntly, lawyers are going to exploit it. To give an idea of how they strategize for their audience, see pages three and following:[71]--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, user:Epiphyllumlover, some folks have given it his shot.
  1. Gregory Bassham(Commonweal)[72] - ". . she largely falls back on various 'passive' strategies that judges can employ to avoid head-on collisions between original meaning and popular, well-entrenched non-originalist holdings. When push comes to shove, however, the inexorable logic of 'original public meaning is the law' must prevail, and the mistaken precedents must die. As she says, it is all a matter of 'timing' (Barrett and Nagle 2016, 43)."
  2. Dale Carpenter(Reason magazine, orig. from The Volokh Conspiracy)[73] :

    "Judge Barrett, in a 2013 Texas Law Review article defending what you call the Supreme Court's 'weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases,' you wrote the following:

    Justifying an initial opinion requires reason giving, particularly if the majority is challenged by a dissent. Justifying a decision to overrule precedent, however, requires both reason giving on the merits and an explanation of why its view is so compelling as to warrant reversal. The need to take account of reliance interests forces a justice to think carefully about whether she is sure enough about her rationale for overruling to pay the cost of upsetting institutional investment in the prior approach. If she is not sure enough, the preference for continuity trumps. Stare decisis protects reliance interests by putting newly ascendant coalitions at an institutional disadvantage. It doesn't prohibit them from rejecting a predecessor majority's methodological approach in favor of their own, but it makes it more difficult for them to do so.

    (pp. 1722-23)

    "At first reading, your views seem well within the mainstream of American legal thought. An erroneous decision should neither be overruled simply because it is wrong nor should it be reaffirmed simply because there has been some institutional investment in it or individual reliance on it. Every justice, with the possible exception of Clarence Thomas, accepts something like that statement.

    "But Judge Barrett, your approach to stare decisis seems more subtle and possibly adds a wrinkle. Your approach implies a sliding scale in which a justice weighs the degree of certainty that the earlier decision was actually wrong against the strength of the need for continuity. As you wrote: 'If she [the justice] is not sure enough, the preference for continuity trumps.' (emphasis added). Also, you write: 'I tend to agree with those who say that a justice's duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.' (p. 1728) (emphasis added)

    Your version of the weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional law cases seems to go like this: If a justice is only weakly convinced that a precedent is wrong (say, 51% convinced) then even a small amount of reliance on the precedent (or other institutional interests) might cause her to stand by the erroneous decision.

    But if a justice is completely convinced that a precedent is wrong (say, 100%), then the precedent should be overruled no matter how weighty the reliance or institutional interests.

    (For now, let's leave aside the status of so-called "super-precedents" like Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, the Legal Tender Cases, and so on, for which there is broad executive, legislative, judicial, and popular support.)

    "Is this a fair characterization of your view?
    "Second, you noted in the same Texas Law Review article that "'the more determinate one considers the underlying rules of decision in a particular area, the more likely one may be to conclude that a past decision in that area is 'demonstrably erroneous.'" (quoting Caleb Nelson) You added: 'It makes sense that one committed to a textualist theory would more often find precedent in conflict with her interpretation of the Constitution than would one who takes a more flexible, all-things-considered approach.' (p. 1724) . . "

  3. Keith Whittington(nytimes)[74] : ". . The principle of stare decisis was at the center of much of Judge Barrett’s academic work before she was appointed to the circuit court in 2017. Those writings do not reveal how a Justice Barrett would resolve any particular case, hot button or not, that might come before the court. But what those writings do clearly reveal is a scholar working diligently to pull originalists toward a more moderate position on questions of precedent. . . On stare decisis, she has urged giving precedents more weight than some originalists would prefer. . . she has argued that a committed originalist can reasonably adopt a mainstream approach to stare decisis on constitutional issues. Even an originalist judge, she believes, should frequently defer to what might be flawed precedents. That is true for what are sometimes called 'superprecedents' like the unconstitutionality of racial segregation and the constitutionality of paper money, but it is also true for many more ordinary precedents that might have been badly reasoned but that are now broadly accepted. . . Far more interesting were Judge Barrett’s arguments for adhering to precedents, even when she thinks they are mistaken. In contrast to originalists like Justice Thomas, Judge Barrett embraced what she characterized as a 'weak presumption of stare decisis.' Notably, this was her language for describing the standard, mainstream position on stare decisis. She mounted a defense of the conventional view against, on the one hand, those who called on the court to give no real presumption to the validity of existing precedents and, on the other hand, those who favor a strong form of stare decisis in which the justices should almost never overrule the work of their predecessors. Judge Barrett thought it 'inevitable and probably desirable' that the justices be willing to sometimes overturn precedent, but they needed a brake that would slow them down from doing so too easily. That brake can come from a presumption of stare decisis, albeit a weak one . ."
  4. Congressional Research Service(Victoria Killion)[75] : ". . For the Supreme Court, deciding whether to overturn a prior decision involves consideration of multiple factors, including the 'quality' of the opinion's reasoning, the 'workability of the rule it established,' and 'reliance on the decision.' Judge Barrett has advocated for a 'flexible' or 'relaxed' approach to stare decisis in which 'reliance interests count,' but hold less weight if a decision is inconsistent with the Constitution or a federal statute. In discussing competing views over the 'legitimacy' of overruling precedent, Judge Barrett wrote in 2013: 'I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.' The former professor has also written that one virtue of a 'weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases' is that it respects pluralism in society, allowing controversial disputes to 'be aired' whether or not they 'should succeed.' . ."
  5. Yale Journal on Regulation(Evan Bernick)[76] - ". . She recognized that adherence to precedent can help judges reduce decision costs, error costs, and even legitimacy costs. As to decision costs, Barrett observed that because “justices do not all share the same interpretive methodology, they do not always have an agreed-upon standard for identifying "error,"' precedent can serve as a means of 'mediating intense jurisprudential disagreement' between those who deploy different interpretive methodologies. It can therefore make it easier for Justices to reach decisions than it would otherwise be. As to error costs, precedent can 'force . . . a justice to think carefully about whether she is sure enough about her rationale for overruling to pay the cost of upsetting institutional investment in the prior approach.' Precedent may therefore discourage overhasty votes to overrule that are themselves the product of interpretive error. Finally, as to legitimacy, Barrett noted that a “weak presumption of stare decisis” is particularly important in constitutional cases because it is 'both realistic about, and respectful of, pluralism'—it 'helps the Court navigate controversial areas by leaving space for reargument' by citizens who seek to 'push[] back against the proposition that the Constitution embodies the principles the Court says it does.' . ."
  6. First Things(Marc DeGirolami)[77] - ". . her view that stare decisis poses a problem for all theories of constitutional interpretation. She is 'soft' on stare decisis not because she is an originalist, but because people disagree in good faith about how to interpret the Constitution."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden and Epiphyllumlover: With respect to Barrett statement #1 above, an explanation of it in context ends up being somewhat verbose, but it has the benefit of explaining Barrett's view on institutional legitimacy as a justification for stare decisis. What do you think of the following:

In the course of his questioning of Barrett, Sen. Coons said:
But in this 2013 University of Texas Law Review article, which has also been referenced today, you wrote, and I’m quoting, “It’s more legitimate for a justice to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.” Again, you’re saying that if a Supreme Court Justice thinks a prior ruling was clearly wrong she should disregard precedent with which she disagrees, regardless of the typical balancing factors.[1]
To this, Barrett replied that the meaning Coons was proposing was clearly not the correct one because it was inconsistent with the remainder of the article in question, which discussed reliance interests, discussed the reasons for stare decisis, and emphasized that courts ought not disrupt settled precedent absent very good reason to do so.[1]
The article containing the quote evaluated the different justifications for stare decisis.[2] The quote came in the context of examining the strength of the claim that protecting the Supreme Court’s “institutional legitimacy” is one of the reasons to retain precedent. The first type of institutional legitimacy she discussed was “apparent legitimacy.” The idea is that public confidence in the Court would be diminished if the public saw the members of the Court as “partisan rather than impartial,” and the concern is that this might be the result if new members of the Court overruled the decision of the previous members. Barrett said, “But even assuming that the Court should make decisions with an eye toward its reputation, there is little reason to think that reversals would do it great damage. ...the Court has not been afraid to exercise its prerogative to overrule precedent. Still, public confidence in the Court remains generally high. ...The “protecting public confidence” argument seems to assume that the public would be shaken to learn that a justice’s judicial philosophy can affect the way she decides a case and that justices do not all share the same judicial philosophy. ...That Americans—and thus Supreme Court justices—disagree about how to interpret the Constitution is a fact of our political culture.”[2]
The second type of institutional legitimacy Barrett evaluated as a justification for stare decisis was the extent to which overruling precedent affects the Court’s "actual legitimacy." It was in addressing this question that the text cited by Sen. Coons was found: “The question remains whether overruling precedent affects the Court’s actual legitimacy. Does the Court act lawlessly—or at least questionably—when it overrules precedent? I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it. That itself serves an important rule-of-law value.” Barrett asserts that enforcing the Court’s best understanding of the Constitution, even if that conflicts with precedent, does not increase the lawlessness of the Court. Those who disagree with Coons argue that the cited quote was intended to address whether overruling precedent reduces the Court’s actual legitimacy, and only by presenting it out of context can it seem to indicate that Barrett believes that precedent should always be sacrificed when a justice’s interpretation of the Constitution conflicts with it.[3][4][5] — Swood100 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I support your proposal. In particular it is helpful to mention the comparison that disagreement between past decisions is similar in harm to disagreement between justices. This is useful because it allows the reader to draw an inference between the circumstances of her existing dissents and her propensity to overrule precedent. Barrett's past rulings have shown her to usually agree with other judges. She has a relatively low overall rate of dissent. And one of them resulted in 10 other judges going back and accepting her reasoning. She is not a maverick.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that this is something that should be added to the text that I proposed, in which case I'm not sure how to do that. In fact I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that there is a correlation between a propensity to agree with the other judges on the panel when deciding cases and a propensity to overrule precedent? Is there some literature on that? The problem would be not only that we have a relatively small sample size of Barrett opinions, but that Court of Appeals judges must obey Supreme Court precedent and we have no idea how "agreeable" she would have been to affirming that precedent. I'm not sure how clear the record is concerning how many opportunities she had to overrule Seventh Circuit precedent or whether the “propensity to overrule precedent” should be affected as much by the overruling of a number of minor cases as it would by being willing to overrule one major case having profound and wide-reaching ramifications. — Swood100 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
IMO "Barrett replied" should be "Barrett argued," and otherwise the text should veer away from backing up ACB's position, subtly, in Wikipedia's voice. Actually, since Coons & Barrett both seem engaged in splitting hairs, I suppose, your proposed text does so as well. I wonder: Could some more simple disagreement be highlighted? Maybe there's some quote(s) of Coons/others framing too weak of Stare decisis, for example--or even originalism itself run amok--as a threat to the established order, which can be contrasted with others' comments about how whatever's the best thing since sliced bread.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hodgdon's secret garden: This particular quote is the one that has been widely quoted to indicate that Barrett will not properly respect precedent, so I think that examining it is worthwhile. I have no problem with “Barrett argued.” Can you explain what you mean by “backing up ACB's position, subtly, in Wikipedia's voice,” and what you mean by “splitting hairs”? — Swood100 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that “Barrett asserts that enforcing the Court’s best understanding of the Constitution, even if that conflicts with precedent, does not increase the lawlessness of the Court,” could be seen as implying “…and does not assert that as a general rule it is more legitimate for a justice to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.” But is there any question that she is making the assertion specified? She is addressing herself to the question of the Court’s actual legitimacy. I am willing to make changes in order to remove misleading implications. — Swood100 (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, user:Swood100, I say contribute it and let what tweaks & whatnot come!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Not so much a general "propensity to agree with the other judges" but that in the source cited above Barrett says that the damage to the court's reputation or credibility is similar between the two. If you include that info, readers may link her personal propensities on their own without the need for additional research on your part.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b "Amy Coney Barrett Senate Confirmation Hearing Day 3 Transcript". Rev. October 14, 2020. Retrieved October 21, 2020.
  2. ^ a b Barrett, Amy Coney (2013). "Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement" (PDF). Texas Law Review. Retrieved October 21, 2020.
  3. ^ Ponnuru, Ramesh (October 15, 2020). "Roe and Griswold (and Barrett)". National Review. Retrieved October 21, 2020.
  4. ^ Daley, Kevin (October 12, 2020). "In Barrett, the Chief Justice Has a Critic". Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved October 21, 2020.
  5. ^ Whelan, Ed (September 26, 2020). "Judge Barrett on Stare Decisis". National Review. Retrieved October 21, 2020.
  • vox/Dylan Matthews[78] - Princeton University's Keith Whittington: Barrett ". . has also suggested that judges ought to care more about stare decisis than Thomas tends to. I think she’s a more moderate figure in that regard than Thomas. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Credibility checkEdit

11th reference can't be read unless if subscribed and paid. Is it ALRIGHT to trust it on ancestry? Stephenfryfan (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the 11th reference is, but the same problem applies to sources that are not available online at all, and I don't see them being excluded any time soon. — Swood100 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal is considered a credible source.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Per TP banner removal: Judges are not politicians, and Barrett is no exception.Edit

Since this article is probably being quite heavily edited I thought I would post about this. There is a talk page banner saying that Barrett is an "active politician" and "running for office." Neither of these things are true. In the words of Stephen Breyer "we wear black robes because we speak for the law, not for ourselves." This is not at all true of politicians, and if there's anything to be taken away from Barrett's confirmation hearing it's that she is not interested in commenting on politics. Furthermore, she is not running for office because she is trying to get a job from the Senate, not the people. I have removed the banner for now but I thought I would give everyone here a chance to discuss.mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 15:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Good points; I didn't think of that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The page appears to have been vandalized with the current image.Edit

When doing a search on this page, the following image of Amy Coney Barrett is shown.

Duck Duck Go search of Amy Coney Barrett

It has been replaced by a picture that is uglier and seems to have been done maliciously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cl00bie (talkcontribs) 20:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I was unable to find any issue on the Duck Duck go page. Possibly it has been fixed. There are two screenshots from the hearings some years back that I uploaded. The one on this page is different from the one in the nomination article. The screenshot on this article features a more agreeable expression. I was not trying to make her look bad--I needed a brief moment when the C-SPAN subtext was not obscuring the bottom. Only brief moments of the video (right before it cut away from her) lacked the watermark. This restricted my ability to get an aesthetically pleasing screenshot. The photos used on this article have been widely viewed (2.8 million views from Monday the 12th through Saturday.[79]) and widely copied in the media. I believe the first screenshot that featured a less agreeable expression was reproduced by others (such as the Chinese wikinews) partly because it is smaller and a closer portrait crop rather than due to any malicious attempt to make her look bad.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Potentially notable casesEdit

  • Notability has nothing to do with the inclusion threshold for articles. Within articles, WP:DUE is the applicable policy. Elizium23 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to KinkyLipids's earlier comment that "A non-primary source is needed to establish notability". I noticed that Brett_Kavanaugh#Notable_cases has a lot more cases than this article. Given that he had more judicial experience, that is to be expected. Still I am looking to see which additional cases could merit inclusion. If you think including any of these is undue, or if they merit only a line or two at most, feel free to weigh in. I am seeing if there is interest or not in including them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Epiphyllumlover, @KinkyLipids: was incorrect; notability is not required for article inclusion. If an individual case were indeed notable, then we could create an article for it and link to it from this BLP. I have no opinion on the WP:DUE status of any of these cited cases. Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the section in the article can be adjusted slightly from "Notable" to "Selected". The preliminary searching is probably the fun part anyway. To actually make this useful is a decent amount of work, so if you want to put one in I won't sue you for alienation of wikiideas.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I did incorrectly misapply the notability rule to article inclusion. I was worried about WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not opposed to an editorially selected list of cases. Also, Epiphyllumlover, I'm sorry for creating a misunderstanding on WP:NOTE and confusing it with WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is the actual policy for the use of a non-primary source to establish the acceptability of primary-source material in a BLP: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source..." —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Last year, I came in and added the notable cases section- I tried to use whether there were RS talking about the case as my guideline, though she wasn't getting much attention then so some I added based on whether the actual case was noteworthy from a legal perspective. And I added cases since as was appropriate (although a lot of articles are paywalled so some did get legal-news traction but not added bc I don't have access to several of the legal news websites.) And some have been deleted as not particarly newsworthy since which is fine, of course. A few have been deleted in the past week that might be worthy of inclusion but with things changing so fast on here, I can't keep up. The problem of course is that is hard to encapsulate the legal issues of a case in such a small space. And lots of RS articles are just looking at the outcome (X person lost...) rather than what the actual legal issues are which makes this even more difficult. And this isn't a legal issues blog so we can't really get into the ins and outs of the cases. Overall, we certainly can't include every case that might get RS coverage and it's probably best just to have 5-6 cases that give a good impression of her legal leanings.Tchouppy (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me about this! I went through the old edit histories and re-added everything except for Autozone in which her role appears to be more distant due to circumstances. There are other cases dealing with race that could be added instead. Of all the possibilities I floated below, I think the "Qualified immunity" section is the one that needs developing the most. You already have given us coverage of "RAINSBERGER v. Benner"--other cases can be added onto that section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Qualified Immunity cases are going to be big going forward and I am starting to see more cases where QI is denied. I'll continue to keep an eye out for cases.Tchouppy (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Look no further! Just below this comment are links to four QI cases, including the one you previously used. Also, I did some word counts for the equivalent sections dealing with pre-nomination cases:
  • Kavanaugh-1,373 words
  • Gorsuch-1, 898 words
  • This article, after re-adding your work-1,417 words.
So I think it would not be excessive to expand this more.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I did some word counts for the equivalent sections dealing with pre-nomination cases
  • Kavanaugh-1,373 words
  • Gorsuch-1, 898 words
  • Sotomayor-1,959 words
  • This article, after re-adding your work and adding some new content-1,786 words.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The Selected cases section in this article is now at 1,900 words.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Obama Center in a parkEdit

PROTECT OUR PARKS v. CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT This one generated a lot of coverage and is even mentioned on Barack_Obama_Presidential_Center#Public_land. But it is not an interesting case; federal judges as a rule dislike being made into zoning boards-of-last-resort. A article seems to read into it a bit that Barrett is respecting the state level of government and careful not to over-federalize. There are a lot of news articles about this because Chicago has a lot of media. Most do not mention Barrett, but I did not do an exhaustive search.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sexual roughhousingEdit

Smith v. Rosebud Farm A variety of non-paywalled secondary sources at Google News.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NHL deathEdit

Boogaard v. NHL This is not an interesting case; it does not shed light on Barrett's judging philosophy. But there is a great deal about it already on Wikipedia at Derek_Boogaard#Litigation_by_parents.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Dissenting opinions written by BarrettEdit

In U.S. v. Uriarte the defendant wanted the First Step Act to apply. The First Step Act said that it applies (a) to any offense committed before the enactment of the Act (b) “if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.” The Defendant was in fact sentenced before the enactment of the Act, but the sentence was later vacated on unrelated grounds. Barrett held that as of the date of enactment, a sentence had been imposed, since “imposed” denotes a past act, not an ongoing condition. There were eleven pages of reasoning.
Reasonable people can disagree on this but the article, which comes across as a rant, refers to her reasoning as “clumsiness, tortured and precarious chains of logic, applications of plainly irrelevant definitions and precedents, and cruel contempt for those seeking justice.” It was the author of the article who appears to be unbalanced here, to think that such terms describe this opinion. — Swood100 (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I considered paraphrasing the coverage of Uriarte in the for the article, but since is a blog rather than a reliable source I think it is not recommended.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Shonda Martin v Milwaukee County case deserves mention, possibly in the criminal procedure sectionEdit

In light of police violence, questions of who may be held responsible when agents of the state use state-sanctioned violence outside of the responsibilities of their duties to commit crimes. In the Martin v Milwaukee County case, Barrett and the panel overturned the lower court that held the county had some responsibility for the actions of the prison guard when the guard raped the plaintiff and there are credible analyses that suggest Barrett and the panel were ruling based on principles outside of Wisconsin law, fitting in the pattern of judges and justices of all stripes to rule based on their own beliefs about what the law should be. For this reason, Barret has been accused of "unconscionable cruelty" by Accountable.US. (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If Martin v Milwaukee County is included, it follows that it should go with the other qualified immunity cases. In general Barrett appears to hold a more restrictive view of qualified immunity and a more expansive view of fourth amendment rights. That is, she tends to be more restrictive to law enforcement and more favorable to the accused, investigated, or incarcerated. You also might review the issues with this website's policy on putting in partisan sources. I was allowed to use one earlier on the suspension of habeas corpus, but needed to include another source on the topic from the opposite perspective along with it for balance. I encourage you to look in the Congressional Research Service report to find links to decisions personally authored by Barrett.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
That case involved a corrections guard who had sex with an inmate. The County had clear guidelines and training forbidding this. The question was whether the guard had been operating within the “scope of employment” which would allow the woman to sue the County. The case had to be decided under Wisconsin law, which said that an employee’s conduct is not within the scope of his or her employment if it is too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer or if it is motivated entirely by the employee’s own purposes, or if it is different in kind from that authorized or far beyond the authorized time or space. The woman who had been attacked “did not introduce any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude the sexual assaults were of the same or similar kind of conduct as that which County employed [the guard] to perform. Nor did she introduce any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude the sexual assaults were actuated even to a slight degree by a purpose to serve County.” Therefore she failed to prove that, under Wisconsin law, the guard had been within the scope of his employment. Is this “unconscionable cruelty” on the part of Barrett? — Swood100 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not a qualified immunity case, rather an employment case.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


Is New Orleans English worth including, on the basis of this source?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No. Amusing story, but Barrett's dialect is a non-issue other than for one ignorant 'Tweeter'. —Blanchette (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
People are interested in judicial dialects, descriptions of Gullah in the article on Clarence_Thomas could give ideas on how to incorporate it somewhere.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
No. The NOLA article about tweets is not biographically or historically significant. Neutralitytalk 19:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of expert analysis of her ideology score per WP:CRYSTAL???Edit

The editor CharlesShirley removed[80] content sourced an article by scholars which summarized their research on the ideology scores of judges, and which included their assessment of Barrett's ideology in relation to other judges. It's hard to think of more encyclopedic content on the page of a judge than that which is authored by experts and which outlines the judicial philosophy of said judge according to academic metrics. The content should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if we could change the wording: "According to a different metric of ideology scores, Barrett would be the second most conservative justice on the Supreme court (if confirmed), behind Clarence Thomas." It implies that the two studies disagreed. I would prefer, "According to a different study conducted for the Washington Post....." TFD (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
You say that Barrett would be the second most conservative justice on the Supreme court (if confirmed), behind Clarence Thomas, but according to the graph in the article, on Dimension 1 (traditional left-right political division) she is third most conservative behind Gorsuch and Thomas, and on Dimension 2 (highly salient cases along some social and civil rights issues) she is also third behind Alito and Thomas. — Swood100 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess if you mathematically combine the two dimensions she ends up being second most conservative but would it be useful to break out the two dimensions in the article? — Swood100 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
While the study may show she would be the second most conservative justice, the chart shows that she groups pretty closely with the other conservative judges except Thomas. That's the conclusion in the first source. The phrasing in the edit implies that she is far to the right of the other conservative judges except Thomas. TFD (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a strange discussion. I removed a bit from an author that claims he knows how Barrett is going to vote as a Supreme Court justice. She hasn't even be placed on the court yet. No one can know how she is going to vote. I don't care what the background of the people are that wrote the article it doesn't matter. No one has the ability to read the future. That is a fact. If any article attempts to KNOW how she is going to vote then they are engaging in speculation. It is speculation.  Wikipedia is a not a Crystal Ball. That is simple. We don't speculate on what might happen in the future. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
What Snooganssnoogans (talk) added to the article gives a false impression of what the article actually said. There is no place for this. The wording added was: "According to a different metric of ideology scores, Barrett would be the second most conservative justice on the Supreme court (if confirmed), behind Clarence Thomas." This does not reflect, at all, the more nuanced discussion of the Washington Post article. The Post article makes it clear that most Justices shift their ideological perspective when they join the court. That most, but not all, shift either left or right on the left-right ideological scale. The edit does not indicate this. It just makes the totally falsely loaded claim that Barrett will be the second most conservative justice, which is false, and of course it is speculation on the future, which is not encyclopedic at all. There are tons of things wrong with the addition and it should remain out of the article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Per the ideology scores, she is the second most conservative justice in comparison to the others on the court. The text never said she would be bound to stay that way for all eternity. Just because Barack Obama may become conservative at a future date, we don't avoid describing his political views in the present. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
CharlesShirley: Do you object also to the University of Virginia study? Is any estimate of how conservative she is likely to be on the Court allowable? WP:CRYSTAL does say, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." — Swood100 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
These are not "predictions". These are scores based on the decisions she's already made. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Horse hockey. Of course, they are "predictions". She is NOT on the court. You are wrong. The UVA study is looking at her work on the 7th Circuit and comparing that work to other 7th Circuit judges, that is real information. That work is NOT speculation. I did not remove the UVA article because it is based on things that actually happened. But the study by the professors for Wash Post is taking the 7th Circuit decisions and comparing it to what Supreme Court justice decided. This is comparing apples to oranges. It is pseudo-science. And it is speculation. There is NO WAY to tell how ACB would have decided those Supreme Court cases. It is speculation from professors. The UVA study compares apples to apples. The Post study is speculation and does not belong in the article. It is attempt to see into the future and as such it should not be in the article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
"There is NO WAY to tell how ACB would have decided those Supreme Court cases." At no point anywhere does the text say she has decided any Supreme Court cases. That's solely your own poor reading comprehension. This is a measure of ideology for justices. The measure does not prevent comparisons across courts, despite your own baseless original analysis that the measure is not applicable across courts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Offered for the purpose of prediction. Why else would you write: "Barrett would be the second most conservative justice on the Supreme court (if confirmed)..."? — Swood100 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
We do not do predictions. See: WP:CRYSTAL -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Relative to the other judges, the ideology scores show her to be the second-most conservative. If she is confirmed, her ideology score would be the second-most conservative. If she takes different opinions in the future, then the score changes. Just as how Bernie Sanders's ideology score would change if he suddenly turned into a Tea Party Republican. This is not rocket science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
No one said it was rocket science. So drop the attitude. But you are ignoring the fact that what you wrote does not reflect what the Post article says. The Post article states that she is not on the supreme court yet and the studies authors have no idea how she will vote if she is on the court. Your addition does not state that. Your addition is deceptive and is not NPOV. What you wrote is your opinion, not the opinion of the authors of the study. And the information is still speculation, where the experts compared apples to oranges. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Do we really have to write "On this metric of justices' ideology, her score is the second-most conservative of those on the Supreme Court. However, this does not mean she will be that way for all eternity"? Are Wikipedia's readers morons? Should we change Joe Biden's description from "Moderate Democrat" to "Moderate Democrat but he might become a Tea Party Republican. He might also become a Socialist. He might also stay the same"? This is ridiculous. The lengths that people here go to prevent people from knowing what Barrett's judicial philosophy is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
CharlesShirley I understand that it would not be right for someone on Wikipedia to say "she was conservative to this degree on the 7th circuit, so probably she would be the 2nd most conservative justice of SCOTUS if confirmed". That would be Wikipedia making a prediction. But is it against the "we don't predict rule" to report on what legal scholars think she will probably do if confirmed? To me, that is more like us reporting on opinion polls. I could be wrong since the cases are not strictly analogous. Novellasyes (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
CharlesShirley: WP:CRYSTAL does say that certain predictions are allowable “by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field.” You say that it is legitimate to conclude that one 7th Circuit judge is more conservative than another even though they have worked on very few of the same cases together. What do you say to this type of analysis, comparing Supreme Court justices from 1953 – 1999? If there is a valid way to determine judicial “conservativeness,” then I don’t quite see why it wouldn’t be comparable across courts. — Swood100 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
THERE IS NO PREDICTION. These are the scores based on the decisions these judges have already made. It goes without saying that any person might change over time. Trump may become a socialist, Obama may become a fascist, Clinton may become an anarchist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Snooganssnoogans. Reporting the analysis of other sources is not CRYSTAL. JTRH (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • U.ofV.'s Fischman & Cope (fivethirtyeight[81]) ". . analyzed . . cases that the 7th Circuit has heard since Barrett joined the court in 2017, including 378 where Barrett cast a vote . . It remains to be seen just how persuadable Barrett might be if she’s confirmed . . we do know that during her time on the 7th Circuit, Fischman and Cope found that she has voted in a liberal direction about 20 percent of the time when at least one Democratic nominee is on the panel but only about 9 percent of the time when the panel is composed of three Republican nominees. That could indicate that Barrett is open to the arguments of her more liberal colleagues — or that she is choosing not to dissent in some cases for the sake of collegiality. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree it should probably be excluded. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with including this sentence. This is a well-sourced, scholarly metric of past decisions that is helpful to the reader. Indeed, it would be very odd to exclude it. Neutralitytalk 19:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The legality of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote is now in the airEdit

Two minority members were not present, hence it violated the Committee rules.InsulinRS (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure the full Senate can and will vote to proceed anyway. JTRH (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Questionable legality suggests it can be only symbolic. Even Fox News accepts that two minority party members must be present[82]InsulinRS (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Even if you threaten to waive the rules, it doesn't mean you can. Even Vice News stated that the majority "broke the rules."[83]. However, I now prefer to keep my edits off the page until there is consensusInsulinRS (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, Schumer has already raised his point of order on the Senate floor, which was voted down by the full Senate, which is the judge of its own business. — Swood100 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This kind of detail probably belongs in the nomination article. — Swood100 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Swood100 on this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Unless there is a reasonable possibility that it might invalidate her nomination, it's not significant to this article. There was such a case in Canada, where the Canadian Supreme Court rejected the nomination of Marc Nadon to the court. TFD (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It will absolutely not invalidate her nomination. The Senate vote to confirm is not dependent on action by the Judiciary Committee. JTRH (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • as always, it was good for the Democrats to do it, but not for the GOP.

    The Judiciary Committee rules add that nominations cannot be reported "unless a majority of the Committee is actually present at the time such action is taken and a majority of those present support the action taken." Committee business has been transacted without minority members multiple times in the past, including in 2014 when Democrats took similar action to what Republicans took today with lower court judges. Committees have discretion over their own rules as long as their actions do not conflict with Senate rules.

    This is basically trivia to include and not really necessary. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


Snooganssnoogans added the following to Judicial philosophy, political views, speeches, and writings:

According to a review by Reuters, Barrett's rulings on the 7th Circuit showed that she consistently sided with police and prison guards when accused of excessive force.[1]

The reference cited ended with this text:

“I don’t think we can draw definite conclusions about how Judge Barrett would approach qualified immunity once she’s on the Supreme Court,” said Jay Schweikert, a policy analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute, which is campaigning against qualified immunity. “Her decisions all look like reasonable applications of existing precedent.”

I added the following:

Many of the cases dealt with qualified immunity. According to Jay Schweikert, who advocates for the Supreme Court reducing or eliminating the doctrine of qualified immunity, "Her decisions all look like reasonable applications of existing precedent."[1][2]

This was removed by Snooganssnoogans on the ground that it was WP:CHERRYPICKING.

In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says.

Does adding this text constitute cherrypicking, or does its absence constitute cherrypicking? Saying that Barrett consistently sided with police when accused of excessive force makes it sound as if she has a bias in favor of police in these cases, but not if she simply decided the cases as she was required to by Supreme Court precedent. — Swood100 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Hurley, Andrew Chung, Lawrence (October 25, 2020). "Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Barrett often rules for police in excessive force cases". Reuters. Retrieved October 25, 2020.
  2. ^ Schweikert, Jay (June 15, 2020). "The Supreme Court's Dereliction of Duty on Qualified Immunity". Cato. Retrieved October 26, 2020.
You purposely picked an opinion by someone who agreed with you while omitting opinions from that very same piece that disagreed with you ("“Her record also makes clear she is predisposed to side with law enforcement in the context of excessive force cases,” said Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which opposes Barrett’s confirmation."). That's cherrypicking. I'm of the opinion that the Reuters review should be in the article, not cherrypicked commentary from said review. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans: OK then, how about this:
Many of the cases dealt with qualified immunity. According to Jay Schweikert, who advocates for the Supreme Court reducing or eliminating the doctrine of qualified immunity, "Her decisions all look like reasonable applications of existing precedent."[1][2] There is a range of opinions on the subject. “Her record also makes clear she is predisposed to side with law enforcement in the context of excessive force cases,” said Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which opposes Barrett’s confirmation. According to Reuters, “Other groups that advocate for reform of the criminal justice system say she has written some encouraging rulings, with an overall record that is mixed.”[1]
This way we get on one side the statements that she "consistently sided with police" and is "predisposed to side with law enforcement," and on the other side "reasonable applications of existing precedent" and "some encouraging rulings, with an overall record that is mixed." — Swood100 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Hurley, Andrew Chung, Lawrence (October 25, 2020). "Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Barrett often rules for police in excessive force cases". Reuters. Retrieved October 25, 2020.
  2. ^ Schweikert, Jay (June 15, 2020). "The Supreme Court's Dereliction of Duty on Qualified Immunity". Cato. Retrieved October 26, 2020.
  • I favor the shorter version (Snooganssnoogans), and do not like the longer version (Swood100). The Reuters bottom line is the important part that we should briefly summarize; we don't need the individual quoted commentary from Schweikert and Clarke, which both makes the article longer and unhelpfully makes the sentence into a back-and-forth, he-said-she-said among two advocacy groups. Neutralitytalk 19:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The reason that Reuters included the different opinions was to show that the explanation for the rulings is disputed. That was the bottom line of the article. To show that is unhelful?
"In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." — Swood100 (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
unhelpfully makes the sentence into a back-and-forth, he-said-she-said among two advocacy groups
@Neutrality and Volun2020: The two advocacy groups are on the same side of the question. Schweikert and Clarke both favor the reduction or elimination of qualified immunity. They come to different conclusions about whether Barrett can be blamed for her rulings or whether they were required by Supreme Court precedent. — Swood100 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any cherry picking issues with that edit. PackMecEng (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I dont see any cherry picking either to be honest. Eruditess (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that the source is spin rather than substance. On the contrary, Barrett appears to favor a more expansive restriction regime on police activity--both for the more narrow topic of qualified immunity and for broader fourth amendment issues. This is all covered in the Selected cases section. And for suspension of habeas corpus, she thought that the suspension was unlawful every time it was implemented throughout history save once. The critical source that should be found (if it is necessary to have a critical source) is a law-and-order type character complaining that she's on the criminal's side and is hamstringing the police.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead expressionEdit

  • "Prior to her confirmation to the Supreme Court..." Was she confirmed to the court?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "modern times" — what does that mean?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"Lead too short" tagEdit

This article had a tag saying “This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (October 2020)” I disagree; it looks to me like the lead section covers the main aspects of the article very well, in three well-written paragraphs. And I see that whoever added the tag did not come here to the talk page to say what they thought was missing. So I have removed the tag. Open to discussion if anyone thinks the current lead is inadequate or needs to be expanded. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

lead is insufficient, look at the length of the article, the number of topics covered, and then view the lead, clearly not to the standard we would expect for an entry of this type. Acousmana (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the tag again. If you want to expand the lead, that's up to you. But there is no dire problem that warrants a tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the lead note why her nomination/confirmation was contentious?Edit

She's the first Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed in 151 years without any support votes from the other side, and her nomination/confirmation has led to calls for courtpacking. The underlying reason is that Republicans broke norms by refusing to hold a hearing on Garland and then flip-flopped on their rationale (that people should have a say in the next Supreme Court justice when an election has started) when a seat opened after RBG's passing. The circumstances under which she was nominated and confirmed are noteworthy enough to belong in the lead, and they have long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We should also mention her legal views. TFD (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. All RS characterize her judicial views as conservative. Per all measurements of judicial philosophy, she was among the most conservative judges on the 7th Circuit, and is in terms of ideology scores the 2nd most conservative justice on the Supreme Court after Clarence Thomas. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think controversial is the right term. More like partisan. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, confirmations used to be based on judicial competence and now are based on whether it is believed that they will vote in favor of substantive policies such as abortion or LGBT. It stands to reason that the votes should be on a party line basis. The days of the almost-unanimous confirmations of Ginsburg and Scalia are long gone. — Swood100 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
only one of the many notable aspects that are missing from the lead, right now it does not provide an authoritative summary, it's lacking. Acousmana (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
She's the first Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed in 151 years without any support votes from the other side
If straight party line votes are the ‘new normal’ in the current hyper-partisan Supreme Court confirmation process, then it’s a statement about the process, not about Barrett. — Swood100 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The lede of the article should not give undue weight to extraneous carping. This is yet another instance in a long list of instances in which a group creates an issue where an issue does not intrinsically exist. Not a peep was heard from a single soul over the qualifications of Amy Coney Barrett. Bus stop (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop: I believe some mention should exist saying her being a contentious nomination. And it wasn't over her qualifications, it was Trump nominating her so close to an election and later her conservative views. I'm not watching this page, please use {{replyto|Sixula}} if you wish to respond. Sixula (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the nub of the contention was that the Republican senators had blocked Obama's nomination of Garland in 2016 on the grounds it was too close to the election, but they have now supported a nomination much, much closer. However, as was pointed out in 2016, there is no problem with nominating a judge in an election year. If Trump had held off, there would have been a vacancy in the Supreme Court that couldn't have been filled to February (and possibly wouldn't have been filled to much later). Hence the contention really relates to the Republican senators stacking the court with conservatives and using inconsistent rationales, not with a judge being appointed a month after the death of another, because that is simply good administrative practice.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination dateEdit

Shouldn't the date of her nomination be mentioned in the lead? (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Only ceremonially sworn inEdit

Apparently yesterdays swearing in was ceremonial, that it was the first of two oaths to become a justice, and the actual ascension to the court will take place sometime today Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's correct. This is normal for SCOTUS justices, at least these days -- a ceremonial swearing-in and the official one. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully when she is officially sworn in, the article will be updated, and that sentence about her confirmation senate vote will be modified to her being confirmed. Eruditess (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is the SCOTUS press release on this, which the article already cites: [84] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Amy Coney Barrett" page.