Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

when did the SCOTUS become discretionary in appelate cases?

Editor User:Magidin suggested the following addition to the article: "It is a fact that the changes in mandatory appellate jurisdiction come mostly from the Judge's Bill from of 1925, not from 1988. I just finished reading Vladek's book, to which I directed you, which has an entire chapter discussing these changes, made mostly at the behest of Chief Justice Taft. You can also see the following quote in the page for the Judiciary Act of 1925: Congress chose to pass the act in 1925. This action rendered the majority of the Supreme Court's workload discretionary by removing the possibility of direct appeal to the court in most circumstances. Henceforth, pursuant to §237(b) of the act, appellants would file petitions for writs of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which would be accepted at the discretion of four of the nine Justices. You seem to believe otherwise but provide no citations; the page for the 1998 Act quotes Section 1257 before the changes as providing that the Supreme Court may review certain judgements, not that it must review them." - Walter Tau believes, that something like this but briefier (you know what it means) should be in the very first paragraph.

I personally think, that it is highly desirable to compare SCOTUS with analogous courts in other countries, which have a separate Constitutional Court and a separate Highest Court of Appeals. I can write this section and provide numerous book references, but I want to get an agreement on where to place this section first. Walter Tau (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, first, I did not "suggest" such an addition. I replied, in my talk page to you saying "we can discuss further, whether the legislative act 1988 , or an actual earlier date, or both should be mentioned there" with the above, and nowhere did I say I wanted to add that. So please don't say that I proposed an "addition" that I did not propose. I did no such thing, and nothing I wrote there suggests that I am proposing that paragraph as an addition.

Second, I continue to think that such a mention does not belong in the lede. There are plenty of substantive differences between the US Supreme Court and other courts (such as a lack of retirement age), and having any one of them in the lede, or "the very first paragraph", is unwarranted as giving it unwarranted weight, and listing them all is out of place in the lede.

A mention of the changes in mandatory appellate jurisdiction is probably a good idea, but it belongs in the Appellate Jurisdiction subsection in the Jurisdiction section, not in the lede. The major change came with the Judge's Bill in 1925, some more tinkering happened in the 70s, and the 1998 Act finally removed all mandatory appellate jurisdiction except for certain cases that are brought directly to a 3-judge federal district court and which are appealed directly to the Supreme Court. This is discussed in Vladeck's book, as a possible source.

Third, there are already some mentions of how other countries have separate constitutional courts and appeal courts, which gives you an idea of where they can be placed. If the comparison is to be made to highlight shortcomings of the United States court, then it should be in the Criticism and Controversies section; it can be their own subsection. If it is simply to be a list of differences... then I am not at all sure it needs to be there. There are of course differences between courts in multiple countries, and a simple catalog of those differences seems both irrelevant and not particularly illuminating (and quite likely to give undue weight by only listing some differences and not others), even if you only compare countries that follow the same legal traditions. Magidin (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I support all 3 suggestions by Magidin and currently I do not have a strong preference where to place them. As long as these 3 things are addressed somewhere in the article, interested readers should be able to find them. Shall we go ahead and write these additions? Walter Tau (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Why do you insist on claiming that you are supporting additions and suggestions by others when they did not make such suggestions? If you want to propose something, propose it under your own name instead of pretending you are just supporting what others said, especially when they did no such thing. This is getting tiresome.

I did not make "3 suggestions". At best, I made one: to mention the change in mandatory appellate jurisdiction in the Jurisdiction section. I did not suggest adding comparisons: I said that if comparisons are to be made (a hypothetical I do not support as it happens), then they would have to be in the Criticism and Controversies section and should not be a catalog of differences. That's at best two things. What three things? And, no, you should not "go ahead and add them" (whatever it is you imagine I am proposing to add). Magidin (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Add Military Service Section

I propose adding a section to this article listing each justice's military service. I drafted the entry it, but a user reverted it as "synthetic." However, military service is a common biographical detail included in the biographies of every Supreme Court Justice and every other federal judge who has had military service. You can even find these entries by typing in any of their names on the Federal Judicial Center's database (e.g., https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/marshall-john). Since the Supreme Court was created, 44 of the 117 justices who have served on it had military service (i.e., 37.6%). Therefore, military service is a salient demographic that provides valuable context about the justice's life, career, judicial philosophy, and history of public service.

By including this information, we can provide a more complete picture of the subject's life and career. This is consistent with Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive and informative articles.

I believe this addition would be beneficial to readers and would improve the overall quality of the article. I am open to edits, suggestions, and feedback on this proposal. Looking for consensus; the list includes only 44 justices and is proposed as follows:

You didn't need to copy and paste this here in full, either.

Justices with Military Experience Throughout the history of the Supreme Court of the United States, more than a third of the justices have served in the military before or during their tenure on the Court. Their military backgrounds span from the American Revolutionary War to the Vietnam War, reflecting the varied experiences of Americans in times of conflict. The military service of these justices provided them with unique perspectives on issues related to national security, military law, and veterans' affairs. Their experiences highlight the longstanding tradition of public service among members of the Supreme Court. Below is a list of chief and associate justices who had military experience, each placed under the war era during which they served. American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) John Jay (Chief Justice, 1789–1795): Colonel in the New York Militia. John Marshall (Chief Justice, 1801–1835): Captain in the Continental Army's 11th Virginia Regiment. Oliver Ellsworth (Chief Justice, 1796–1800): Lieutenant Colonel in the Connecticut Militia. William Paterson (Associate Justice, 1793–1806): Commissioned officer in the New Jersey Militia. Thomas Johnson (Associate Justice, 1792–1793): Senior Brigadier General in the Maryland Militia. James Wilson (Associate Justice, 1789–1798): Brigadier General in the Pennsylvania Militia. Bushrod Washington (Associate Justice, 1798–1829): Private in the Continental Army's 3rd Virginia Regiment. Alfred Moore (Associate Justice, 1800–1804): Captain in the Continental Army's 1st North Carolina Regiment; Colonel in the North Carolina Militia. Henry Brockholst Livingston (Associate Justice, 1807–1823): Lieutenant Colonel in the Continental Army's 3rd New York Regiment. Gabriel Duvall (Associate Justice, 1811–1835): Private in the Maryland Militia. War of 1812 (1812–1815) John Catron (Associate Justice, 1837–1865): Militiaman in the Tennessee Militia. James Moore Wayne (Associate Justice, 1835–1867): Captain in the Georgia Militia's Georgia Hussars. Mexican–American War (1846–1848) John Archibald Campbell (Associate Justice, 1853–1861): West Point Cadet in the United States Army. American Civil War (1861–1865) Union Army John Marshall Harlan (Associate Justice, 1877–1911): Colonel in the Union Army's 10th Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. William Burnham Woods (Associate Justice, 1881–1887): Major General in the Union Army's 76th Ohio Infantry. Thomas Stanley Matthews (Associate Justice, 1881–1889): Lieutenant Colonel in the Union Army's 23rd Ohio Infantry; Colonel in the Union Army's 51st Ohio Infantry. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Associate Justice, 1902–1932): Brevet Colonel in the Union Army's 20th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, known as the "Harvard Regiment." David Josiah Brewer (Associate Justice, 1890–1910) Second Lieutenant in the Union Army's Kansas Militia. Confederate States Army Edward Douglass White (Associate Justice, 1894–1910; Chief Justice, 1910–1921): Lieutenant in the Confederate Army's 9th Battalion, Louisiana Artillery. Horace Harmon Lurton (Associate Justice, 1910–1914): Sergeant Major in the Confederate Army's 5th Tennessee Infantry; Private in the Confederate Army's 2nd Kentucky Infantry and 3rd Kentucky Cavalry. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II (Associate Justice, 1888–1893): Lieutenant Colonel in the Confederate Army's 19th Mississippi Regiment; Colonel in the Confederate Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps. World War I (1914–1918) Frederick Moore Vinson (Chief Justice, 1946–1953): Private in the United States Army. Hugo Black (Associate Justice, 1937–1971): Captain in the United States Army's 81st Field Artillery Regiment. Stanley Forman Reed (Associate Justice, 1938–1957): First Lieutenant in the United States Army. Felix Frankfurter (Associate Justice, 1939–1962): Major in the United States Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps. William Orville Douglas (Associate Justice, 1939–1975): Private in the United States Army. William Francis "Frank" Murphy (Associate Justice, 1940–1949): Captain in the United States Army's 305th Ammunition Train, 80th Division. Sherman "Shay" Minton (Associate Justice, 1949–1956): Captain in the United States Army's 82nd Division, which became the 82nd Airborne Division. Thomas Campbell Clark (Associate Justice, 1949–1967): Sergeant in the Texas National Guard. Harold Hitz Burton (Associate Justice, 1945–1958): Captain in the United States Army's 361st Infantry Regiment, 91st Division. Earl Warren (Chief Justice, 1953–1969): Private in the United States Army; First Lieutenant in the United States Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, 91st Division. World War II (1939–1945) John Marshall Harlan II (Associate Justice, 1955–1971): Colonel in the United States Army Air Forces,Eighth Air Force. William Joseph Brennan Jr. (Associate Justice, 1956–1990): Colonel in the United States Army's Ordnance Department. Potter Stewart (Associate Justice, 1958–1981): Lieutenant Junior Grade in the United States Navy. Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White (Associate Justice, 1962–1993): Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy. Lewis Franklin Powell Jr. (Associate Justice, 1972–1987): Colonel in the United States Army Air Forces. William Hubbs Rehnquist (Associate Justice, 1972–1986; Chief Justice, 1986–2005): Sergeant in the United States Army Air Forces. John Paul Stevens (Associate Justice, 1975–2010): Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy. Arthur Joseph Goldberg (Associate Justice, 1962–1965): Major in the United States Army. Abraham Fortas (Associate Justice, 1965–1969): Seaman Apprentice in the United States Navy. Vietnam War Era (1955–1975) Anthony McLeod Kennedy (Associate Justice, 1988–2018): Private First Class in the California Army National Guard. Stephen Gerald Breyer (Associate Justice, 1994–2022): Corporal in the United States Army Reserve. Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. (Associate Justice, 2006–Present): Captain in the United States Army Reserve, Signal Corps.

AnubisIbizu (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No. Like I said in the edit summary, this seems to be a subtopic you have your own particular interest in, not one that's attracted sufficient coverage or analysis elsewhere. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source: by that metric, this is not important for people reading an encyclopedia article about the court. (See WP:UNDUE; WP:BALANCE). Adding dedicated material about it to the article would be undue, and possibly original research if any connective analysis is given that isn't verified in reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you're using ChatGPT to generate your talk page discussion here, I'll ask you to do right by your fellow editors and refrain from doing that in the future. It's rude. Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have expanded content on this subject under its own header at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Military service. I don't think that a complete list of this sort would work there either, but some additional content could be added delineating service by war, and noting those individuals who held relatively high ranks. BD2412 T 01:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding the military service of Supreme Court Justices deserves careful consideration. Military service, for many justices, is not just a line on a résumé but a formative experience that shapes their understanding of law and duty. Historically, 44 out of 117 justices—approximately 37.6%—have served in the armed forces. This is not a mere footnote; it is a significant thread woven into the fabric of the Court's history.

Including such information aligns with Wikipedia's mission to provide comprehensive and verifiable information. Reliable sources, like the Federal Judicial Center's database, the Supreme Court Historical Society, and even USA Today offer ample material to substantiate this addition. The military experiences of justices often inform their perspectives on issues of federal power and individual rights—matters central to the Court's work.

Concerns about undue weight or original research are understandable but misplaced here. The inclusion of factual, well-sourced information about the justices' military backgrounds enriches the article without bias. It does not overshadow other content but rather complements it, providing readers with a fuller picture of the people who have shaped the nation's highest court.

As for the notion that articulately presenting this proposal is somehow inappropriate, I wonder if your real issue is distinguishing thoughtfully crafted human discourse from algorithmic outputs. Clarity and precision in communication should be embraced, not discouraged or, as you have done, insulted.

Adding the Justices' Military Service is a constructive step toward enhancing this article's depth and aligning with Wikipedia's standards of thoroughness and neutrality. It acknowledges an important aspect of the justices' lives and offers readers valuable context about those who have served both on the bench and in uniform.

All that said, I support BD2412's proposal to add the information to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Military service and will begin working on it. Appreciate the chat y'all! AnubisIbizu (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@AnubisIbizu: Work on it, yes, but within reason. This information should not be disproportionate relative to content on the ethnic, religious, and professional backgrounds of the justices. BD2412 T 01:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan buddy! AnubisIbizu (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You can repeat yourself all you'd like, but it's disrespectful to continue using an LLM to reword the same shallow arguments that haven't at all engaged with site policies like those I've linked. Remsense ‥ 论 01:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I get that you might feel frustrated when someone disagrees with you, but I'm just trying to contribute my thoughts to the article. Maybe we can both learn from this experience. Happy editing! AnubisIbizu (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Remsense ‥ 论 01:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Court packing" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Court packing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 21 § Court packing until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"Justice positions" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Justice positions has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22 § Justice positions until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Circuit justice" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Circuit justice has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22 § Circuit justice until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)