Talk:Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

Plurality opinions

A think the article needs to say a few more words about plurality opinions. Specifically, that for each issue there will be a final tally on whether to affirm or reverse, so even if there is disagreement on the reasoning, even a plurality opinion will result in a definite disposal of the case despite; and that the plurality is the opinion on the winning side that commands the most votes (so even if four justices agree on a single opinion to, say, reverse, and no opinion to affirm commands more than three votes, the plurality opinion would still be a 3-vote opinion to affirm, not the 4-vote opinion to reverse). Right now, I think the description is potentially ambiguous. Magidin (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Length of time from case hearing to releasing a verdict.

It seems a little long going by how the article describes the process of forming an opinion. What do the Justices do with all their time? Read lots and lots of old cases and law books? The article presents it as if they make their decision straight off the bat and then spend a little time debating it.--occono (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The justices read the submissions and applications they have received, which can run to several thousands of pages. Before they vote on a case, they've researched the case, read the opinions from the courts below, read the submissions and briefs by the parties and any amici, go through the Oral Arguments for the case, and thought about it for a few days. Only then do they vote in Conference. And then the designated writer has to write an opinion which has to get enough support from other justices (not unheard of for a justice to change his vote after Conference, once opinions start to circulate). Hardly "straight off the bat". Magidin (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it was straight off the bat, but the article sort of makes it look that way. The section "Forming cases" gives that impression to me. Maybe you should rewrite it.--occono (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) How come you hadn't already rewritten it if you're watching the talk page of the article? --occono (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have other things to do, you know... I'm watching the page because material got moved from the main page; and it's not always clear to everyone what may be confusing. I'm an avid (though lay) Court-watcher, so a lot of things seem clear and obvious to me, but may not be to others. As for the quote from Scalia, it stuck in my mind last year when the interviews aired, but I somehow never got around to adding it. Something you said jogged that memory. Magidin (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of being lazy, honest. Glad I helped jog your memory on the quote.--occono (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Color code

I reverted an edit that changed "blue" to "orange" in the Rehnquist quote about the bindings of the briefs. In the edit summary I mentioned that the quote "need not reflect current color coding." However, looking through the Court's rules (page 43, which is page 47 of the PDF file), I note that the brief on the merits by the Petitioner is to be bound in light blue, and the brief on the merits by the Respondent in light red; this agrees with the Rehnquist quote. Magidin (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420173034/http://papers.ssrn.com:80/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1377522 to http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1377522

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060221174707/http://www.joink.com:80/homes/users/ninoville/lesserevil.asp to http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/lesserevil.asp#850

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tied votes comment

In the Tied votes and lack of quorum section, there is the following sentence:

After the retirement of Justice O'Connor in 2006 three cases would have ended with a tie. All cases were reargued to allow the newly appointed Samuel Alito to cast a decisive vote.

I think this is a bit misleading/potentially confusing; O'Connor's retirement did not become final until Alito was confirmed, so there wasn't a 8-member Court (Roberts was confirmed to Rehnquist's place before the term opened). If I'm not mistaken, these would be cases that were argued between October 2005 and February 2006, but were not handed down before Alito took his seat. Should something more precise be added there, to clarify that it was not the vacancy, but rather that the decision did not come down before O'Connor left? Magidin (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have made this edit to clarify that point. SilverLocust 💬 12:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)