Talk:John Roberts/Archive 2

What will Roberts change

Hi, Something that would be interesting would be to put all the recent Supreme Court cases where O'Connor casted the tie-break vote and to explain Robert's position on the issue, and how it differs from O'Connor's one. --Revas 22:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• 90% of that would be rampant speculation mostly based on positions assumed at the will of clients (see his 2003 comments before the senate about the "roe v wade should be overruled" line). interesting, but ultimately meaningless until he has his own record on the court- by which time it will be irrelivant. Darker Dreams 06:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the note under Views on Roe v. Wade about how he would be able to overrule Roe as a Justice when he couldn't as a Judge. It's pretty speculative in this context. That kind of explanation is helpful in an article about the powers of justices, but I'm not convinced it really contributes to a section on his advocacy or views. Can we delete it? TheGoodReverend 15:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be deleted as it is more journalistic than encyclopedic. The text preceding is sufficient to explain Roberts position. --Paul 15:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Disaree. I think it's basically just trying to say that as an judge, he didn't really have the power to dictate constitutionality, but as a Supreme, he does...that's an important fact people may not realize.Endersdouble 15:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that really just a general explanation about what he can do as a Supreme Court justice rather than an appellate judge? Why do you think it's necessary or helpful to frame it in the context of Roe? TheGoodReverend 19:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Because it helps explain the significance of his nomination and what it means for the country. We should not strive to obscure the significance of his position or his nomination simply because some people agree or disagree with how he will use his power as Justice. -asx- 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Length

Someone should edit and cut some info in this article. It's getting to be real long. Why? Compare this article to that of Justice Stephen Breyer. That article is practically a stub and yet he has been in the court for 11 years.

This is one of the main critcisms of wikipedia. Articles about current events grow to be too long.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 03:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather see it too long than too short. --Jamaesi 06:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Current events articles are always big. Look at the size of the Circuit court judges Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown articles; while most circuit court judges don't even have an article about them at all. If an article covers an event that happened before 2001, then the article has never been a "current event" here at Wikipedia. NoSeptember 15:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is a lot longer than those. It is longer than those for Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist or probably any other SC Justice, living or dead. IMO most of the content should be moved onto seperate pages or simply cut entirely. -- Rast

Rast, perhaps you ought to spend your time researching and adding to the Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist articles, rather than complaining about this one's length. —thames 17:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)