text:
Dr. Bonham's Case

Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians, commonly known as Dr. Bonham's Case or simply Bonham's Case, was a case decided in 1610 by the Court of Common Pleas in England, under Sir Edward Coke, the court's Chief Justice, in which it was ruled that Dr. Bonham had been wrongfully imprisoned by the College of Physicians for practising medicine without a licence. Dr. Bonham's attorneys had argued that imprisonment was reserved for malpractice not illicit practice, with Coke agreeing in the majority opinion.

The case is notable because Coke argued in the decision's rationale that "in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament", the act of parliament in question being the "College of Physicians Act 1553" which gave the college the right to imprison. The meaning of this phrase has been disputed over the years. According to one interpretation, Coke intended the kind of judicial review that would later develop in the United States, but other scholars believe that Coke meant only to construe a statute, not to challenge parliamentary sovereignty. If Coke intended the former, he may have later changed his view. The statement by Coke is sometimes considered to be an obiter dictum (a statement made 'by the way'), rather than part of the ratio decidendi (rationale for the decision) of the case.

After an initial period during which Coke's controversial view enjoyed some support but no statutes were declared void, Bonham's Case was thrown aside as a precedent, in favour of the growing doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. William Blackstone, one of the most prominent supporters of the doctrine, argued that Parliament is the sovereign lawmaker, preventing the common law courts from throwing aside or reviewing statutes in the fashion that Coke had suggested. Parliamentary sovereignty is now the accepted judicial doctrine in the legal system of England and Wales.

Bonham's Case was met with mixed reactions at the time, with King James I and his Lord Chancellor, Lord Ellesmere, both deeply unhappy with it. In 1613 Coke was removed from the Common Pleas and sent to the King's Bench. He was suspended from duties in 1616 and in October 1617 James I demanded an explanation from Coke for this case, with Coke affirming the validity of his reasoning. Academics in the 19th and the 20th centuries have been scarcely more favourable and called it "a foolish doctrine alleged to have been laid down extra-judicially" and simply an "abortion". In the United States, Coke's decision met with a better reaction. During the legal and public campaigns against the writs of assistance and the 1765 Stamp Act, Bonham's Case was used as a justification for nullifying the legislation, but by 1772, Blackstone's views had gained acceptance. The 1803 case Marbury v. Madison formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States, under Article III of the US Constitution, with the case having both parallels and important differences with Dr Bonham's case. Academics have used this connection to argue that Coke's views form the basis of judicial review in the United States, but there is no consensus on the issue.

Background
The College of Physicians (renamed in 1674 to the Royal College of Physicians) was an elite organisation. Created by royal charter in 1518, it was founded by six English academic doctors trained in English universities. It admitted only British men who had trained at a university and passed a three-part Latin exam in medical theory. Only 24 Fellows were allowed, and if an entrant came at a time when all 24 Fellowships were full, he would instead become a Candidate, the most senior Candidate being admitted to the first vacant Fellowship. An act of parliament, the Physicians Act 1523, that confirmed the royal charter also gave the college the ability to act as a court to judge other practitioners and to punish those who were acting badly or practising without a licence. A second Act, the College of Physicians Act 1553, amended the charter and gave the college the right to imprison indefinitely those judged. That "flew in the face of the common law assumption that to practice medicine one needed only the consent of the patient". Still, on 8 April 1602, John Popham, the Chief Justice, upheld the college's authority to imprison and fine: "That no man, though never so learned a Phisition, or doctor may Practise in London, or within seaven myles, without the Colledge Lycense.... That a free man of London, may lawfully be imprysoned by the Colledge".

Thomas Bonham had been admitted to St John's College, Cambridge, in 1581. Earning a bachelor's degree in 1584, he completed a master's by 1588 and studied for a medical doctorate at Cambridge, which was later granted by the University of Oxford. By 1602, he had completed his studies and moved to London, where he practised medicine and associated himself with the Barber-Surgeons' Company, campaigning for it to be allowed to authorise medical practitioners in a similar way to the College of Physicians. Apparently giving up after a failed petition to Parliament in 1605, Bonham petitioned to join the college on 6 December 1605 but was rejected and told to return after further study. Returning on 14 April 1606, he was again told he could not join and was fined £5 and threatened with imprisonment for continuing to practise. Bonham still kept working as a doctor; on 3 October it was announced he was to be arrested and fined £10. Bonham again appeared before the college, now with a lawyer, on 7 November. He announced that he would continue to practise without seeking the college's permission, which he claimed had no power over graduates of Oxford or Cambridge. He was then imprisoned (some say at Fleet Prison, and some say at Newgate Prison) for contempt, but his lawyer had a writ of habeas corpus, issued by the Court of Common Pleas, which freed him on 13 November.

Bonham's successful writ worried the college, whose previous success with Popham and "keen cultivation" of same as well as Lord Ellesmere and other Crown officials had left them assured that their jurisdiction would be maintained. As such, the college appealed directly to the Crown officers, and on 1 May 1607, it met with a committee of judges at Ellesmere's house. The committee were Ellesmere, Popham, Thomas Fleming, two judges from the Court of Common Pleas and two from the Court of King's Bench. The judges all agreed that "for not well doeing useing or practicing the facultie or arte of physike or for disobedience or contempte donne and committed against anye ordynaunce made by the colledge... they may committ the offenders without bayle or mayneprise". That success spurred the college to move against Bonham yet again, now by suing him in the King's Bench for £60 for maintaining an illicit practice. In a counterattack, Bonham brought a suit in the Common Pleas, requesting £100 (£) damages, and alleging that they had trespassed against his person and wrongfully imprisoned him "against the law and custom of this kingdom of England".

Case
The case was heard in the Court of Common Pleas by Warburton J, Daniel J, Foster J, Walmisley J and the Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, with a decision finally reached in the winter of 1610. The college's lawyers had argued that the two Acts of Parliament and the royal charter "intends, that none shall practise here but those who are most learned and expert, more than ordinary". As such, the college was free to punish for both practising without a licence and for malpractice, with the 1553 Act giving them the authority to imprison those they judged. Bonham's lawyers replied by arguing that the Acts and charter were intended to prevent malpractice, not practising without a licence.

Moreover, Bonham's study "[in the texts at university] is practise [sic]", and to become a doctor means to be considered capable of teaching: "when a man brings with him the ensign of doctrine, there is no reason that he should be examined again, for then if thou will not allow of him, he shall not be allowed, though he is a learned and grave man, and it is not the intent of the King to make a monopoly of this practise". As such, the Act "doth not inhibit a doctor to practice [sic], but [only] punisheth him for ill using, exercising, and making [of physic]". In other words, it covered malpractice, not illicit practice.

Walmisley and Foster sided with the college, with Walmisley delivering the joint opinion. He said that since the statute clearly said "no person" could practise without the college's licence, only one verdict was acceptable, as the college had a valid licensing authority. The royal charter was to be interpreted as granting the college a duty on behalf of the king:

"It is the office of a King to survey his subjects, and he is a physician to cure their maladies, and to remove leprosies amongst them, and also to remove all fumes and smells, which may offend or be prejudicial to their health... and so if a man be not right in his wits, the King is to have the protection and government of him, lest he being infirm, waste or consume his lands or goods; and it is not sufficient for him that his subjects live, but that they should live happily; and [he] discharges not his office, if his subjects live a life, but [only] if they live and flourish; and he hath cure as well of their bodies as of their lands and goods for health for the body is as necessary as virtue to the mind."

As such, in Walmisley's mind, the king had a duty to protect the health of his subjects and had delegated it to the college. In addition, Bonham had given "an absurd and contemptuous answer" when he claimed that he would not submit to the college, and "it should be a vain law if it did not provide punishment for them that offend against that". The king had delegated part of his prerogative powers to the college, for the purposes of punishment and imprisonment, and as such, it had the right to sit as a court.

Coke delivered the majority opinion in favour of Bonham, with Daniel and Warburton agreeing. He undertook a closer reading of the college's charter and associated Acts and divided the relevant passage into two clauses. One gave the power to fine practitioners without licences. The latter specified that they could imprison a practitioner for "not well doing, using or practicing physic". He argued that they constituted separate powers and issues; the former dealt with authorisation to punish for illicit practise, and the other covered punishment for malpractice. Simply practising without a licence did not constitute malpractice. As such, the college did not have the power to imprison Bonham, who was accused of practising without a licence, not of practising dangerously.

Coke also went further by arguing against the validity of the charter and its associated Acts, which gave the college the right to act as both as a judge and as a party to a case, which "provided for an absurdity":

"One cannot be Judge and attorney for any of the parties.... And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void; and, therefore in.... Thomas Tregor's case... Herle saith, some statutes are made against law and right, which those who made them perceiving would not put them in execution."

Because of that and four other reasons given by Coke, the college was to stop trying to supervise medical practice, arbitrating and acting as a court. In support of his judgment, Coke cited not only Tregor's Case but also two anonymous cases with the academic names of Cessavit 42 and Annuitie 11, respectively.

Criticism
The decision in Bonham's Case has been described by John Campbell (Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor in the 19th century) as "a foolish doctrine alleged to have been laid down extra-judicially". Philip Allott, in the Cambridge Law Journal, simply called it an "abortion". Coke was later dismissed from his judicial posts, and Ellesmere immediately began making veiled criticisms, maintaining that it was unconscionable to allow the judges power to throw aside Acts of Parliament if they were repugnant or contrary to reason; however, he spoke "not of impossibilities or direct repugnancies". It was acceptable to overturn an Act if it was clearly and obviously repugnant but not otherwise.

Coke has come under criticism for his examples to justify his decision. The first case that he gave, Tregor's Case, was seriously misquoted. Coke stated, "Herle said some statutes are made against law and right, which those who made them perceiving, would not put into execution". In fact, there is no reference to "law and right" is found in the original text; Herle wrote that "there are some statutes made which he himself who made them does not will to put into execution", meaning only that some statutes are poorly drafted, and if they cannot be interpreted to work, Parliament would accept the courts not applying them. Theodore Plucknett wrote, "Whoever reads the whole of Herle's remarks can see that he did not regard the statute then under discussion as falling within this category; on the contrary, he suggested a perfectly obvious and straightforward interpretation of it.... Coke's first authority is far from convincing".

His second authority, Cessavit 42, "goes much further to support his thesis" and concerns a situation in which William Bereford refused to apply an Act of Parliament because it would undermine several common law principles. However, Plucknett notes the distinction that in Cessavit 42, "the statute is not held void; it is just ignored. To this fact Coke has really added an explanation and a theory of his own".

His third example, Annuitie 11, was based on the Statute of Carlisle, which required all religious orders to have seals, placed in the custody of the prior and four of the "worthiest brethren" so that the Abbot could not use it without their knowledge. Any decisions made without the seal kept in that fashion were invalid. That clashed with church law and was incredibly difficult for small religious orders; as such, Sir Anthony Fitzherbert said that the statute was void, as it was "impertinent" or "impossible". However, Plucknett again casts doubt on the example's validity by stating that it "would have looked strong... [but] is, in fact, of doubtful import".

Bonham's Case was deeply unpopular with the Crown; Coke was removed from the Common Pleas and sent to the King's Bench, in theory a more senior office but in practice a less rewarding one in 1613. In June 1616, he was suspended from office and ordered to "correct" his case reports. In October 1617, James I demanded an explanation from Coke of the reasoning behind Bonham's Case. Coke claimed that "the words of my report do not import any new opinion, but only a relation of such authorities of law, as had been adjudged and resolved in former times, and were cited in the argument of Bonham's case". He refused to admit to any flaws with his writings, and his only corrections were minor errors and rearrangements of the language. If he was led from this case to a general support of judicial review instead of Parliamentary sovereignty, it has been argued that his latter writings show that he does not take such a stance.

Interpretation
The decision has been variously interpreted. It can be construed as marking the supremacy of the common law over Parliament by judicial review or only as being another form of statutory interpretation. Noah Feldman suggested that the dispute over the two meanings has its origins in 1930s America, where frustration over judicial review of elements of the New Deal spilled into the academic world. James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law, argued that Bonham's Case and similar cases meant only that statutes should be given a "reasonable construction". Charles Gray, in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, argues that Coke, as a judge, never intended to advocate the judicial review of statutes. Bernard Bailyn wrote that "Coke had not meant... 'that there were superior principles of right and justice which Acts of Parliament might not contravene'" and also that by "saying that courts might 'void' a legislative provision that violated the constitution he meant only that the courts were to construe statutes so as to bring them into conformity with recognized legal principles".

William Searle Holdsworth agreed that it would be a mistake to view isolated statements by Coke in Bonham's Case as endorsing limitations upon Parliament; Coke himself elsewhere acknowledged the power of Parliament as being "so transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined either for causes or persons within any bounds".

Raoul Berger, in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, disagrees; the words of the statute were clear, and the only application that it could have was unjust. Statutory interpretation allows for the ignoring of unjust extraneous meanings, but what Coke did was nullify the statute as a whole, along with its main intention. John V. Orth, writing in the Constitutional Commentary, concurs: "If that were so, why did they not say so? Is it likely that the royal judges, confronting a case involving a statute that had necessarily passed both houses of parliament and received the royal assent, would lightly use the word 'void'?"

Research by Samuel Thomas and Sir John Baker has led to a reassessment. During the early 17th century, non-common law courts were claiming an "[i]mperial, almost legislative discretion over statutory interpretation, free from any supervisory jurisdiction of the common law courts". Coke's decision can, therefore, be seen as him reminding such courts that their interpretations were subject to the law, not to individual discretion.

Britain
During Coke's lifetime, he was judicially dominant, and his ideas were upheld by his successor as Chief Justice, Sir Henry Hobart, in Day v Savadge and Lord Sheffield v Ratcliffe. After Coke's death, however, his jurisprudence "naturally suffered an eclipse", and its next appearance is in Godden v Hales, in 1686, where the doctrine was twisted to argue that the Crown had the prerogative to dismiss government laws. Plucknett notes that "the Revolution of 1688 marks the abandonment of the doctrine of Bonham's Case", but in 1701, the common law judges cited Coke's decision with approval in City of London v Wood, with John Holt concluding that Coke's statement is "a very reasonable and true saying". His position was to treat statutes in the same way as other documents for the purpose of judicial review and was followed for decades. Outside the judiciary, John Lilburne used Bonham's Case in his book The Legall Fundamentall Liberties of the People of England and then in his 1649 treason trial to justify his attack on the Rump Parliament.

With the growth of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Coke's theory gradually died out; William Blackstone, in the first edition of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote that "if the parliament will positively enact a thing to be done which is unreasonable, I know of no power that can control it: and the examples alleged in support of this sense of the rule do none of them prove, that where the main object of a statute is unreasonable the judges are at liberty to reject it; for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which would be subversive of all government". Parliamentary sovereignty is now upheld by the English judiciary as a "central principle of British constitutionalism". The case's modern irrelevance is such that Philip Hamburger wrote in 2008, "Bonham's Case scarcely deserves mention in a history of judicial duty, except for reasons that are now largely forgotten".

In America
In the Thirteen Colonies, there were instances of Coke's statement being interpreted to mean that the common law was superior to statute. For example, drawing on Coke's statement, James Otis, Jr., declared during the struggle over writs of assistance that courts had to ignore Acts of Parliament "against the constitution and against natural equity", which had a significant impact on John Adams. When the Stamp Act 1765 was declared invalid by the Massachusetts Assembly, the rationale was that it was "against Magna Charta and the natural rights of Englishmen, and therefore, according to the Lord Coke, null and void". By 1772, Otis and others had reversed course by adopting Blackstone's position that judges cannot challenge Acts of Parliament. Even before then, Dr. Bonham's Case had rarely been used as a rallying cry in America; judicial review in America grew primarily from other political and intellectual sources.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the case that forms the basis for the exercise of judicial review in America, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that "the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument". Marshall specifically used the words "void" and "repugnant", which has been characterised as a deliberate reference to Coke, but Marshall's principle involved repugnancy to the written Constitution, instead of repugnancy to reason. In Hurtado v. California (1884), the US Supreme Court discussed Bonham's Case specifically by saying that it had not affected the omnipotence of parliament over the common law.

Edward Samuel Corwin, writing in the Harvard Law Review, praised the idea of a fundamental higher law of reason enforceable by judges and so endorsed "the ratification which Coke's doctrine received in American constitutional law and theory". Gary McDowell, writing in The Review of Politics, called the case's influence "one of the most enduring myths of American constitutional law and theory, to say nothing of history". McDowell pointed out that it was never discussed during the 1786 Constitutional Convention. During the ratification conventions, despite Coke being mentioned, it was not during debates over the striking down of unconstitutional statutes. Also, other writings of Coke were brought up but never Bonham's Case itself. An additional point of view is that the US Supreme Court has come "full circle to the dictum in Bonham's Case" by using the Due Process Clause to strike down what the Court deems "unreasonable" legislation.

title: Dr. Bonham's Case


text:
Template talk:WikiProject Stub sorting category

Use of WPSS-cat (copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting)
I understood that this template should be applied to approved stub categories, to indacate that future chnages should be made thorugh the /criteria mechanism. Si i added a mention of it to WP:STUB in the instuctions for creating new stub catefories. User:Sn0wflake reverted this, with the edit summary: ''User:DESiegel, I believe you are missing the point of that template somewhat. Would you mind taking creating a discussion at WP:WSS first?''. I am creating the discussion as requested. If the point of the template is not as I have suggested above, what exactly is the point, and how is it to be used. I thought I was doing obvious maintence work after seeing the brief discuission over creating this template, and looking at the tempalte itself. What did I miss? Look at the edit history on WP:STUB, and particularly this version to see what I said. Note that I did this change twice, but not as an attempt at a revert war -- I incorrectly thought that my change had been wiped out in the course of repairs to vandalism -- i didn't look at the history closely enough. But that is a minor point, the question is, should this template tag be used on all "approved" stub categories? If not, how and were is it supposed to be used? DES 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * DES, it seems that the implementation of this information on the guideline page should have been a little different, but your general idea is correct. The wording I propose is something along these lines: "The addition of the WPSS-cat template should be made once your stub category is approved by the WP:WSS, to make clear that it underwent the mandatory revision proccess and was approved by means of consensus." and that this paragraph is not placed on the A,B,C list, since that is directly connected to the green box above it, and it would not make a lot of sense to contain a different letter which does not appear there. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 01:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I created the template in an attempt to slow the proliferation of new templates and categories. The template should be used on categories that have been approved by WP:WSS and are currently on the stub type list, but which are likely to attract new splits from people not involved with the project (such as bio-stub, geo-stub, hist-stub and the like). It can theoretically be used on all stub categories that we want to keep, so the edit to WP:Stub was OK, but could do with rewording as Sn0wflake says above. BTW, I'll post a little of this at template talk:WPWSS-cat, as well. Grutness...  wha?  01:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Box colour
I've added the coffee colour back to the box. The actual colour isn't too important as far as I'm concerned, but the simple grey is too easily ignored. The reason I used the talk-style box in the first place was because the colour made the notice stand out far more than the grey boxes used for other category templates, which can easily be overlooked. Grutness...  wha?  04:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't mind the more contrast, I was more after the wrong CSS class. It was confusing to see a Talk notice on a Category; using the wrong classes defeats the point of standardizing on classes. --Joy [shallot]   09:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Colour discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting
Editors interested in the colour scheme for this template can comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Valentinian T / C 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

cmbox
Just wondering if this template should be using the cmbox template

-- WOSlinker (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Happy‑melon 10:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Slight change in wording
It was pointed out during a discussion at WP:WSS/D that theis template only taks about proposing categories, not templates... so I've tweaked the wording a bit. I've also simplified it slightly, so that it's now on two lines rather than three. Grutness...wha?  09:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian interwiki
Can somebody please add  mk:Шаблон:ВПСН-кат  to the interwiki of this page. Thanks a lot! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — RockMFR 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On mobile
This template is not visible on mobile. Why? It provides essential information, such as disambiguating Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs from Category:Roman Catholic church stubs, which are about different topics (the organization and buildings, respectively), but differ only by capitalisation of a single letter. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note for anyone who might test: For some reason, it seems to be hidden only in category space. If put on, say, a user subpage, it's still shown. This strikes me as some pretty bizarre behaviour. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification of RfC affecting this page
Village pump (proposals). -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 18 June 2024
Andumé (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: @Andumé Your proposed modifications visually change the way the template looks in light mode (the colors are different). Please fix that issue and use the edit protected bat-signal :) Sohom ( talk ) 13:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently there was an undocumented templatestyles parameter for cmbox that had to be used. Andumé (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 * .  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'er there 18:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Christianj~enwiki

$$\frac{n_i}{pop_i} > k * \frac{\sum_i n_i}{\sum_i pop_i}$$

title: User:Christianj~enwiki


text:
2,4-Oxazolidinedione

2,4-Oxazolidinedione is an organic compound with the formula HN(CO)2OCH2. It is a white solid. The parent ring is not particularly important, but this core structure is found in a variety anticonvulsant drugs. The parent compound is obtained by treating chloroacetamide with bicarbonate.

title: 2,4-Oxazolidinedione


text:
Talk:MIVEC

why is this a stub?

 * Only nine sentences of prose text, so strictly speaking it could qualify. WP:STUB says:
 * "A stub is an article that is too short to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. To qualify as a stub it must at least define the meaning of the article's title. Often that means three to ten short sentences, but less text may be sufficient to qualify as a stub for articles on narrow topics, and complicated topics with more than ten sentences may still be stubs. However, in reality, many articles which are labeled as stubs are much longer than that. You can help Wikipedia by removing inappropriate stub notices.

 * Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub."

 * I'd say it's borderline, but I'm going to convert the list of current applications to a table just now, and I'll remove the stub template while I'm at it depending on how long the article is. --DeLarge 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
It might be a good idea of the editors edit warring here actually initiate a discussion and discuss in a civilised fashion what they perceive to be the problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm trying, I'm trying. See User talk:Justin5117 last year, and lately on my own talk page. --DeLarge (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its best to keep artcile content disputes on the article talk page as thehy then inform the discussion should other interested editors wich to suggest ways of improving articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 * See here for explanation. If an inexperienced editor (c.120 edits) starts a conversation on my talk page, I think the best thing to ensure the lines of communication stay open is to keep it where it is, especially where no-one else is involved. --DeLarge (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Far too detailed: MIVEC works almost identically to VTEC, Neo VVL, variocam, Valvetronic/VANOS, etc.
This article is far too detailed. with the exception of the specific mechanical details of the operation of the MIVEC system.... eg how the hydraulic system is controlled, where the oil is channeled into the cam system, the exact details of how the VVT system is engaged, etc. (all of which are *purely* differentiated to avoid patent conflicts).... MIVEC is functionally identical to everyone else's VVT+VVL system. The Valve Lift functionality is *never* different. All manufacturers adjust the lift by using 2 (or more) cam profiles that are switched during operation. This is the source of the ridiculous saying "VTEC just kicked in yo!" when at a certain RPM, the "extra" cam lobe takes over and the profile changes to one that could not be sustained at the low RPM conditions of regular driving. MIVEC uses the same principle, with a second cam lobe/profile that engages at a preset RPM. All of this information is contained within the Variable Valve lift/Variable Valve Timing articles.184.189.220.114 (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MIVEC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719193400/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/performance/e/mivec.html to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/performance/e/mivec.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070125232459/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/GDI.asp to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/GDI.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MIVEC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008061013/http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2006083039843&mime=ASC to http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2006083039843&mime=ASC
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022122334/http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2007010850689&mime=ASC to http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2007010850689&mime=ASC
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505233011/http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_2651/article.html to http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_2651/article.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:MIVEC


text: User talk:70.181.10.101

title: User talk:70.181.10.101


text:
Talk:John Roberts/Archive 1

Considering that this page is about to become very busy, I think we need to create a Talk page for it.

Resources
A few resources:
 * A Pictureat the Drudge Report Washington Post [ Drudge stole the image with an inline link —Clarknova ].
 * AP story confirming his nomination.
 * There's a good reference on Roberts here, for whoever's editing the article right now. Adam Faanes 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

(From which someone has currently lifted the entire paragraph beginning "In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA" to this page Cromis 00:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

 * A link to some of Roberts's position on key issues with appropriate sourcing

more resources:

google news digs up articles here and here.

older profile here.

POV
Let's get ready to rumble!!! Now, fellows, let's try to keep in mind Point of View in this article. Neutralityyy please! I'm sure this will turn out to be a controversial decision, but let's try to be professionals with this article. Happy writing!<> 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Things to mention: ABCNews is reporting that he was nominated twice before his 2003 appointment and was struck down both times, which should be mentioned, and is also reporting that he confirmed before he got his federal judgeship that he would have no problems following the strong precedent of Roe v Wade despite his personal views. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=955020)

 * We need to be very careful when using court cases which he argued as an attourney for positions he holds, those are the positions of his clients. It is likely that he holds the same opinion, though, for the cases cited. His decisions as a justice, however, are prime examples of his legal views. --Jacob 05:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cases he cites aren't relevant to showing what position he holds. I'm a law student right now and I can tell you that where there's controversy, there are cases on both sides. Attorneys are supposed to zealously advocate for their clients. Therefore, what he did as an attorney aren't as indiciative. I agree that what he has done as a judge is much more telling.
 * I meant the cases cited in the wikipedia article, not the actual cases. So, I meant he likely agrees with the positions he argued in court, the fact that he argued them does not make proof that he does hold that view, it seems you agree with me on that. My point was: most of the article, so far, with regard to his positions comes from cases he argued and this should be changed and furthermore we should be wary of practices.

 * There seems to be some conflict as to whether Feminists for Life should be "pro-life" or "anti-abortion". Might I suggest something more neutral, like "a group which does not support abortions" or something similar?
 * That's a question for the ages, Falcorian - if anyone ever does figure out a truly emotionally neutral way of separating those two viewpoints, I shall eat my hat. Kwh 08:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, they're an abortion-advocacy group, so I say "anti-abortion," but I doubt we'd come to any consensus. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

PROTECTED
Protected the article page temporarily to clean up massive anon edits that had reduced the article to one paragraph. Please be patient, and USE SECTION EDITING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID EDIT CONFLICTS! If an edit conflict happens, please do not just hit "save" on your version to quash existing text. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This reason is in violation of Protection policy, and subverts the guidelines at Edit lock. - O^O 00:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Although the reason seems to follow the following guideline "Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.". Falcorian 00:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * O^O, "assume good faith." If you look at the 7 July 2005 London bombings page and other fast moving news pages, they were all protected dozens of times to fix up problems of lost edits and quickkly unprotected again. Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This page may need to stay protected; we keep having vandals want to add things like bestiality and take away his current photo.  These vandals need to get a life.Bedford | Talk  09:43, 20 July 2005 (EST)

Past Campaign Contributions
also... interesting history here, he seems to be a former bush campaign contributer. he represented the legal firm he worked for (Hogan & Hartson), whose Hogan & Hartson Political Action Commitee (H&H PAC), is listed as one of the larger PACs in Washington, and it's history can be found here, qualifying on this list, according to the [FEC], having donated $163,000 in a less than one year stretch between 2003 and mid-2004. source (pdf)

We need a public domain picture of Roberts ASAP
Can someone find one?

It is good to see an article that I created has finally hit the big time. :)   NoSeptember  00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Good luck. PD pictures of judges are rather hard to find on the internet.  -- tomf688 (talk) 00:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, none of the sites I checked had any, nor did any of the major search engins turn up any. Falcorian 00:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Forget PD, find a picture where he is one of a dozen people in the pick and clip him out of it - that would be a fair use. :-D -- BD2412 talk 00:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, that image is PD since it's provided by the DC Court of Appeals. ^_^ Cookiecaper 00:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to whomever shrunk that first image of Roberts -- the article looks better now without it taking up so much of the screen Rast 01:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving already?
Did we really need to archive discussion so soon? It's not as if the discussion page was overflowing...
 * I put it back. --pile0nadestalk 01:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Abortion v. Reproductive Rights v. Abortion and birth control
I can see something of an edit war brewing over this section and what it should be titled. It should be noted that John G. Roberts Jr. which means that if he follows the Churches teachings he will not only regard abortion as "sinful" but also any form of birth control. So personally I think we should go with "Reproductive rights". Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You "personally"??? Then stop trying to impose your "personally" on others.  "Reproductive rights" is a loaded special-interest term. Using it here, along with a carefully marshalled citation, reflects a bias which makes a mockery of Wikepedia's NPOV. Not only is the term disingenuous and agenda promoting, it's innaccurate. The issue is abortion, the decisions are about abortion, the cases are about abortion, the laws are about abortion, not so-called "reproductive rights," which, aside from their weasely euphemization, generically cover a wide range of issues. Calling the issue of abortion "reproductive rights" is like calling civilian casualties "collateral damage".

 * I've placed an NPOV tag on the article, and we'll let arbitration sort it out. Meanwhile,  "Abortion and birth control" are perfectly neutral terms.  LEAVE THEM ALONE! — J M Rice 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What does birth control have to do with the price of tea in China, so to speak? I do not think that he will be questioned on birth control; only on abortion. Note that birth control explicitly differentiates abortion from birth control, and, AFAIK, birth control, in the sense which Wikipedia defines it, is not a seriously contended legal issue in the United States. Perhaps this is an allusion to RU486, but I do not believe that RU486 is considered to be birth control in that it actually terminates an existing pregnancy (but I could be wrong - could we get a professional opinion or two on this?). Anyway, abortion is clearly the neutral term here; POV'd terms include Right to Life and Right to Choose. So, the section should be titled either Abortion or Right to Life v. Right to Choose, and IMHO, Abortion is less awkward and is probably adequate. --Mm35173 02:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

How about just saying "Roe vs. Wade"; that's as neutral a term as we'll probably find. Bedford

 * Sounds OK to me. — J M Rice 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Abortion and reproductive rights are two different things. Abortion is a subset of reproductive issues. Reproductive rights (or, "reproductive freedom" are neutral terms, no more POV than terms such as "voting rights," "free speech rights," or "property rights." If the discussion is limited to abortion, the label "abortion" is appropriate, but if we include discussion of his views on, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, "reproductive rights" is a more accurate term. -asx- 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "Reproductive rights" (or, a fortiori, "reproductive freedom") are not a neutral terms - they are never read as such, and are haltingly rarely meant as such. They reflect the POV - overt or subtle - that the issue of abortion is a question exclusively (or primarily) of the rights of the mother. Which is, of course, a very reasonable, NPOV view if you happen to be pro choice. But, NPOV doesn't mean "seems reasonable to one side or the other", it means neutral point of view. The whole point of the pro life argument is precisely that abortion is not merely a question of reproductive rights. The best term to use, IMO, is abortion. If it is a loaded term, it is equally loaded on either side, and both pro lifers and pro choicers can read their own ideas into the term. Simon Dodd 02:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Subheadings
Neutrality, how are the subheadings messing up your browser? And is it only in this article? What browser do you use? --pile0nadestalk 02:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Playboy Channel
David Boies on MSNBC just said that he represented the Playboy Channel in a case. Can someone mention this in the article with the details? -Amit

BA in only three years
I added that he got his BA in only three years per MSNBCwhicky1978 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic
There is nothing in the article that indicates Roberts is Roman Catholic, yet it is one of the categories.whicky1978 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * But Roberts is a Roman Catholic... I heard it on CNN, must be a source somewhere. Interesting that this nom therefore preserves the non-Protestant majority on the Court. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 03:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is. It says in the article that he is a practicing Catholic.

Punctuation
Shouldn't this be moved to John G. Roberts, Jr.? Postdlf 02:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It absolutely should! But the latter page already redirects here, so the redirect must be deleted first. -- BD2412 talk 03:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes from other people
Well, my quote from Sen. Kennedy got taken out while I was looking for a counterbalancing quote from the same source (his confirmation hearings in 2003). What's the policy on quotes -- are they allowed? Chip Unicorn 04:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Who Were His Interns?
One interesting way to get insight into Judge Roberts' judicial temperment might be looking at which schools he has drawn interns from. Anyone know how to find that out? -asx- 04:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Obvious Vandalism
"Beastiality" this looks like vandalism. This should probably be removed unless there is a source backing it up.

Why does the entry refer to the judge being "really stupid" and President Bush being a "Douchebag?" (page does not allow editing right now)

Lack of Neutrality re: Environment
"Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation."

Saying that this particular decision is AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION is like saying abortion rights groups are against babies. It's easily as much about the specifics of that case and about sueing the government.

This is not a list of his views, this is a list of reasons liberals won't like him, and should either be titled as such or reworked to be neutral.

--66.74.199.238 05:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * False dichotomy. You claim it is not a list of views, but reasons libersls don't like him. They are one and the same; given that he is a conservative, it only stands to reason that liberals would not agree with his views. Put another way: if you list the views of any conservative, it will be a list of reasons liberals disagree; likewise, if you list the views of any liberal, it will be a list of reasons conservatives disagree. Furthermore, you equate "babies" with "environmental regulation." The problem with that is that everyone universally agrees that babies are a good thing; not everyone agrees "environmental regulation" is a good thing. In fact, conservatives tend to oppose environmental regulation, while liberals tend to support it. The statement as it stands is an accurate representation of the views of this particular conservative, based on his body of work. -asx- 05:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a very proper description of his beliefs. He has stated that, as part of his conservative government ideology, he does not think of the gov't as the enforcers of environmental laws. Therefore, he is Against Evironmental Regulation. --jonasaurus 08:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong, this is a very proper description of his client's beliefs. If we're going to talk about his personal beliefs, we must use his rulings and his words, not his defenses as he states them for a specific client he's working for.  The article handles it well, currently, but to say that it has to do with "his conservative government ideology," and is thus "against Environmental Regulation," cannot be divined via arguments made for his clients.  --Badlydrawnjeff 13:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You are saying that all of his views are encapsulated in the 4 reasons he will face a tough confirmation. I am saying that is not necessarily the case.  To list his most controversial views as his only views, and to frame them not in the way he would but in the way those opposing him would, is just plain un-neutral.  If it were a list of his controversial views, or a list of reasons he might be opposed, I would support it whole heartedly.  As a list of his judicial views PERIOD it doesn't do it's job fairly.

Regarding the case of interstate commerce and the "hapless toad", first a case citation (i.e. the name of the case) would be an important addition. Also, the quotes chosen do not, IMHO, further illustrate his position (as opposed completing the same sentence without quoting him). I humbly suggest finding a more substantial (lengthier, providing more context) and more logically based quote that further illustrates the legal basis for his dissent. Perhaps something that clarifies _why_ interstate commerce would prevent the government from protecting this species. - DL

 * The case is Rancho Viejo vs. Gale A. Norton. After a three-man panel had ruled agains Viejo, they petitioned for a full en banc hearing. The petition was denied with Roberts dissenting.  Roberts argued that using the commerce clause to justify the result in this case was in conflict with recent precedents of the Supreme Court and with the rational used by the 5th Circuit in a similar case.  Roberts suggested that the petition for an en banc hearing be granted to give the court a chance to clarify the legal issues and craft a grounds more in keeping with Supreme Court guidence and the other circuits. Judge Sentelle of the D.C. curcuit also dissented mostly on the grounds that the reasoning between the 5th circuit and D.C. courts was in conflict and needed to be sorted out.

Too Many Links
This article is drowning in blue hypertext. Many terms and dates are linked over and over again. Like "July 19," linked nearly a dozen times in one screenful of text. This drives users away and makes the actual content hard to read. Don't get me wrong: I think liberal use of links is a good thing. But not the same term over and over. This article currently has Supreme Court, George Bush, and other terms linked multiple times. -asx- 05:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Links should be linked so that the software knows they are dates and can change them to match the user preference. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article seems link heavy. Removing duplicates would porbably help. EDIT: I think I got most of the double links... Still alot of links. -Falcorian 05:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * What I meant to write above was that "Dates should be linked so that the software knows they are dates and can change them to match the user preference.". As such I have relinked the one date that was unlinked. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That rationale applies only to the month and date, correct? I don't think there's any reason to keep linking "2005" over and over.  Not wanting to tackle that chore, though, I've removed some of the other duplicate links, and tried to make the treatment of the Bushes consistent with policy (uses of full names and honorifics). JamesMLane 11:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it must have a month and day at least, although it also works if it has a year, so years, months, or days by themselves can be de-linked without messing up formating. -Falcorian 15:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually the year also has to be linked for the preference to work properly. Of course it really only affects people if they are using the date format "2005 July 20". If you are using "20 July 2005" format then not linking the year can result in the dates appearing like "20 July, 2005" if the person wrote the date with a comma. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but years alone do not need to be linked, as in 2005. -Falcorian 23:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * (that is alot of colons!) Yeah you are right. Must read what is written not what I think is there. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is a hot topic these days. Has anyone got anything on what this guy's position on that is? Since the whole FMA thing was about a feared conflict between the executive and judicial branches' positions on the issue in light of the recent events in Canada's courts, some mention of the stance taken by this nominee should be made here, even if it's just something he said in an interview and not in court. Dave

 * Agree. This is indeed a hot topic, and is something that could potentially come before the Court in his time. However, I would caution against anything that reflects only his personal opinion of gays or gay marriage. Rather we should find something about his opinion on the _legality_ of gay marriage, or better yet the _constitutionality_ of it (or of laws that allow or ban it). (Just trying to head of this debate before it even starts. ) Possibly something relating to the conflict between the executive and judicial that Dave mentioned would be helpful? - DL

Past Court Cases.

 * "In his role on the Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote the unanimous decision for a three-judge panel rejecting the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating one French fry in the D.C. Metro" source.

 * The section "Political and judicial views" discusses mostly cases he tried as an attorney. Unless there's something I'm unaware of, this seems relatively un-indicative of his own views since as a lawyer one tries the cases, and the sides on the cases, that one is hired to do. Cases he tried as an attorney are not inappropriate to the article, but belong in a different section. What would seem more relevant to this section would be some of the cases he presided over as a judge, and some information on his "Constitutional philosophy" so to speak. - DL

 * True, BUT... attorneys do not need to accept every case offered to them. In fact, as morality (surprisingly) becomes more and more of an issue with attorneys, they turn down more and more cases; They simply refuse to argue in ways conflicting with their personal beliefs or for someone they believe to be guilty. To me, the fact that Roberts has even argued for such cases shows me one of two things: his moral guideline (or lack thereof) or his weak backbone (to support any idea people are willing to pay him to support). I believe this is what the author indended to show in this section.

 * Statements about his moral stature and the state of his backbone are opinions. Let's present facts, in the appropriate context, and let readers decide for themselves what they think of Roberts' morals. As for choosing cases, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a deputy solicitor general gets to choose his cases. As for private practice, again correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was never a partner in the practice and I think that means he would have had to try the cases that the partners told him to. However, I think the changes made are good: dividing between "judicial opinions" and "arguments on behalf of clients" and specifying in the latter case who he was arguing for (President and Attorney General, and clients). Good work everyone! - DL

 * I restored the paragraph about the authors of the Rust brief that anon deleted. I think it's helpful for putting the brief in context and judging how well it represents Roberts's views on the subject.  Does anyone disagree?  TheGoodReverend 16:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Hogan & Hartson Link
Someone keeps removing my links to HHLaw. Can this be justified? Isn't it expected that such a valuable link be made available when it's known? User:Slonob

 * I suspect the correct way to do this is create a wiki page for Hogan & Hartson that explains what they are/do and have a link from there to the H&H website. In the Roberts article references should be wiki'd... Hogan & Hartson. --Paul 16:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yearbook photo
Does anyone agree that the yearbook photo doesn't belong? If we had baby pictures, would we upload them too? It doesn't seem to add anything to this article to see what he looked like 30 years ago. —Cleared as filed. 03:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree. The yearbook photo adds little to the article. Chip Unicorn 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Disagree. It's customary to include this kind of photo in a biographical sketch. I will bet you a dollar that photos of his childhood/young adulthood will be included with his write-ups in Newsweek and Time magazines next week. Besides which, photos simply make articles more interesting, automatically. -asx- 04:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You're right about that. See this article from the NY Times. It has a bunch of old pictures. --Flex 12:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Speculation about the direction of the court
By its nature, a nomination of a SCOTUS justice is significantly about the impact that his confirmation to the court will have. Would a section such as the following be useful in this article?:
 * ==Potential immediate impact of Roberts replacing O'Connor==
 * One immediate impact of the Roberts replacement of O'Connor may be in close cases where O'Connor joined the liberal justices in the majority, where Roberts may have joined the conservative justices instead. Listed below are cases decided by a 5 to 4 vote, where O'Connor joined the liberal justices of the court in the majority:

Of course, specific details about these decisions would be added as well. If not a section of this article, we could create a daughter article on the speculation on the impact on the direction of the court. NoSeptember 13:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * McCreary v. ACLU (2005)
 * Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Education (2005)
 * Tennessee v. Lane (2004)
 * Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004)
 * McConnell v. FEC (2003)
 * Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
 * Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
 * Davis v. Monroe (1999)
 * IMHO, it's a bad idea. Unless and until he's on the court, we don't actually know how he's going to vote on any issue.  (Remember Justice Souter.)  We should focus on what he's actually said and done. Chip Unicorn 14:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps appropriate would be a generalized comment that the nomination was a matter of particular interest because O'Connor was often the swing vote in close decisions, without listing specific cases. This CNN story calls her that (and also reports that she "has dismissed the swing vote label"). JamesMLane 14:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem with the swing vote label is that, in 5-4 decisions, any of the five majority justices are a potential swing vote because any one of them could swing to the other side. TheGoodReverend 17:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, but none of the other 4 of the 5 in these decisions are being replaced right now. The point is that if he votes differently to O'Conner on them, he'll cause a different outcome.  Cromis 19:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * O'Connor is considered a swing vote in that she's ideologically in the middle and so less predictable. I think there've been several terms of the Court in which O'Connor wrote or joined in the fewest dissents, because her vote was most likely to be the decisive one. JamesMLane 22:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Can these photos be used
Can the photos at this government link be used? Are they public domain? whicky1978 14:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC) white house link
 * I do believe so, as they were taken by a public employee during their work hours as part of their job. -Falcorian 15:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * absolutely. i think. after all, if official white house portraits are in the public domain, why shouldn't these be? all paid for by our tax dollars.

 * If someone has uploaded them, please provide a link. There are some articles that could use these pictures, such as this one: Bush Supreme Court candidates   NoSeptember  14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks to TheGoodReverend for adding the picture to the article I mentioned above. NoSeptember  15:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody has uploaded them. I thought I would ask before I did it. 64.136.27.225 12:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I uploaded the photo from the conference that you can see in the article. Feel free to do the others. TheGoodReverend 12:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Pets
Does he own any pets? --Fastflam 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Financial Markets
Has he ever expressed any opinions that might be pertinent to the financial markets. I don't mean the dictum about the frog who lived in California. I mean, for example, insider-trading prosecutions? Securities-fraud civil lawsuits? Enron-style accounting chicanery? Protection for corporate whistle blowers? --Christofurio 15:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Judicial Philosophy
There's probably a better term for this than "constitutional philosophy" so if anyone knows one, let me know. Basically what I'm getting at is what is his philosophy on how the Constitution should be interpreted? There are terms for some of the different views on this, but I don't recall any of those offhand... I'll see if I can find some examples. Saying that he's a member of the Federalist Society is a clue, but if there's any more information, that would be very nice to have. - DL

Okay, I guess I was close. "Judicial philosophy" seems to be the term, or at least the one used elsewhere in Wikipedia. Some examples of what I'm talking about can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Judicial_philosophy - DL

Roberts a Political Figure?
The introductory paragraph refers to Judge Roberts as Political Figure. Since, to my knowledge, he has never run for office or pursued politics professionally I believe this is an incorrect characterization. The only possible justification for this description is that his appointment must be approved by the Senate and it is causing a lot of politics. Using such reasoning, almost anyone mentioned in the Congressional Records could be referred to as a Political Figure and it makes the term almost useless. G.W. Bush is a political figure, Chuck Schumer is a political figure, but John Roberts and, for instance, Stephen Breyer are not political figures, and describing them as such has no vaild reason I can see other than providing a rationale for the political storm that seems to brewing. Since we are having a revision war on these two words, I would like to see the justification for using this term. --Paul 19:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree with Paul. He may be a figure of some immediate political controversy, but that can be true of anyone who is ever nominated to serve in any capacity. Whig 19:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't know if calling him a political figure adds anything, because I don't see how he's political beyond his already mentioned roles as lawyer and jurist.  Those roles themselves might be political, to a degree, but whether or not they are, without any other way in which he is political, there is no need to add a third term. TheGoodReverend 20:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * He served in the Justice Department under two separate administrations in top positions, then later served as assistant White House Counsel. Of course he has "never run for office"—that's why I termed him a "political figure," rather than a "politician," a crucial difference. I'm reinstating. --Neutralitytalk 00:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can see how a member of an executive agency could be deemed a political figure.  I wonder if using a term like "Justice Department official" would be less polarizing. TheGoodReverend 00:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Another term would be better to save on polarization, but the current lable is not innaccurate. "Justice Department Official" doesn't do justice to the situation given his history. Darker Dreams 06:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The current label is inaccurate and needlessly provocative. Today's NY Times headline reads "A Life That Is Light On Politics But Rooted In Law and Faith." Do we know something they don't know? Roberts has never had policy job in the government as opposed to many Washington lawyers. Every one of his five government jobs were law jobs where you had to be an attorney to do them: law clerk, special assistant to the Attorney General, Associate Counsel to the President, Deputy Solicitor General, COA Judge. Now tell me, which of those jobs makes Roberts a political figure? (BTW, none of these positions are "top positions" in the Justice department, and his stint in the White House was when he was in his 20s in low-level positions). More than half of his career has been spent as a corporate attorney, and the other part has been spent as a government attorney.  Attorney and jurist are accurate and sufficient descriptions of Roberts career. Political figure is a distortion and is clearly misused here. --Paul 13:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I also contend the current label as "political figure" is inaccurate, but I understand User:Neutrality's view that Roberts' service in two Administrations & as Assistant WH Counsel is relevant. Why not take the safe route and just report the objective facts:

 * John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is an American attorney, jurist, and political figure. He is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and previously served in the Justice Department under two Republican Administrations and as assistant White House Counsel to President GHW Bush."

 * Thus we don't have to debate if he is a political figure, or whether he was in "top positions" or anything. Just give the facts.  Kaisershatner 18:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a reasonable solution. How about this working of the paragraph (he didn't work in DOJ for Bush I & the details of what the actual positons were can be found further along in the article)?:

 * John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is an American attorney and jurist. He is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and has held positions in two Republican Administrations as well as  in private law practice.

 * --Paul 18:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Disagreed: As a judge, and now a nominee for the Supreme Court, Roberts absolutely is a political figure. Here's the definition of political, which should remove any doubt:

 * 1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
 * —or—
 * 1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

 * Paul says, Roberts is not political because "he has never run for office or pursued politics professionally," but as you can see, that's not the definition of "political." People, I think, are getting hung up on the 2nd definition of "political":

 * 2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians.
 * -asx- 03:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with -asx-, he is a political figure at least, not to say that he is a politician. Voice of All(MTG) 03:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but this doesn't clear anything up. Of course political has the dictionary meanings you cite, but the true meaning in the real world is contextual.  I could correctly label someone as a political scientist but if I were to call them a political figure I would probably be wrong.  I could call someone a student and be correct, but if I called them an academic figure it might seem correct to a Martian with a dictionary,  but it is clearly wrong in context unless the person has an academic avocation.  We are not stringing together words about John Roberts for a Martian with a dictionary, we are writing an encyclopedia entry that accurately and with a NPOV describes who and what.  By describing Roberts as a politcal figure we are implying that his career has been political when everything you read about his background makes it very clear that he has lived an apolitical life immersed in the law.  Just because someone is passing through a politcal process does not make them a politcal figure.  None of the other American Jurists I looked up on Wikipedia are described as politcal figures; those entries are correct, the Roberts one is not. --Paul 04:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there is a misunderstanding that the judicial branch of government is not political, and that the law or judicial system are removed from politics. And to a martian reading the US Constitution, it might look that way. ;) But to those of us who live in this country, we know that the Court and law are deeply political. Laws are made by politicians. They are enforced by the Executive branch. And ruled above by judges. In a nutshell, that's politics.

 * You say, "he has lived an apolitical life immersed in the law." But he has lived a life working for Republican and conservative figures and causes, including in government.

 * You say, "Just because someone is passing through a politcal process does not make them a politcal figure." OK, but that's not what I am saying makes him political. I'm saying his role as judge all by itself makes him political -- because he works in government. The fact that his career has been devoted to working on political issues lends further support to the contention that he is a political figure. -asx- 05:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that Kaisershatner had a good suggestion that puts Roberts into perspective regarding his Executive Branch experience but which doesn't tar him with the inaccuracy and lobbying implied by the political figure label. --Paul 04:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Whether or not we conceive of judges and court nominees as political or political figures, there remains the question whether calling him a "political figure" adds anything when we already refer to him as attorney and jurist. If all jurists are political figures, the addition of the broader label seems unnecessary.  All ducks are birds, so we wouldn't have to call Daffy Duck an American duck, cartoon character, and bird.  The real question is whether Roberts is a political figure in some sense beyond the already mentioned attorney and jurist roles. TheGoodReverend 04:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * 'I agree; 'all good points. Let me add a couple of points. First, my point was that if we are having a discussion about whether Roberts is a political figure, it would be worthwhile for people to discover the meaning of the word "political." The discussion indicated that people misunderstood what the word meant. Second, whether we actually need to use the term is (as you say) another question altogether. I don't think it adds much of anything to the article. In my opinion, being more specific (judge) is better than the broader term (political figure). Finally, I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that Roberts has been actively political for almost 3 decades, working in government furthering the conservative Republican agenda. Conservatives need to have the courage of their convictions and not attempt to conceal this fact under a false understanding of neutrality. -asx- 05:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that the suggestion to remove the term "political figure" is in some way an attempt to "conceal...under a false understanding of neutrality," but rather that conservatives should admit that Roberts is conservative (something that no-one here is disputing, to my knowledge). Since you agree that the term "political figure" doesn't add much to the article, that leaves only Voice of All(MTG) against removing the term "political figure," and replacing it with the objective, indisputable, and factual description of Robert's previous employment, and letting the reader decide if that makes him a political figure -  Right?  Kaisershatner 14:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's the first paragraph of a Washington Post article that appeared on the front page today:
 * As an up-and-coming young lawyer in the White House counsel's office from 1982 to 1986, John G. Roberts Jr. weighed in on some of the most controversial issues facing the Reagan administration, balancing conservative ideology with a savvy political pragmatism and a confidence that belied his years.
 * And here's some more, later in the article: The Reagan-era memos portray a cocksure young lawyer whose writing was clear, highly attuned to political realities and occasionally sarcastic.
 * Roberts has served in top advisory positions in two presidential administrations. In this capacity, he wrote political memos, gave advice to prominent political figures. In this capacity he was plainly not a bureaucrat nor a jurist, and was not a politician either. Describing Roberts as a "political figure" in addition to an "attorney" and "jurist" is clear and informative, and is most certainly not a criticism of him. --Neutralitytalk 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Neutrality makes a good point. A Political figure does not have to run for office and campaign in order to be highly involved in politics(see above examples). And since his name is pretty important right now, and must have been politically important before(since Bush nominated him) he is a political figure. Nobody is insulting Judge Roberts by saying that. Also, the Bench of SCOTUS is of political importance, even though the Judicial branch is supposed to be "above politics." And I am NOT against an "objective, indisputable, and factual description" of Judge Roberts. I could say that you, Kaisershatner, aren't acknowledging Robert's political roles mentioned above and that you are against "objective, indisputable, and factual description..blah..blah." These kind of statements could go on forever and would just be a serious of meaningless attacks. Anyway, I think that Roberts is a clear headed respectable judge, unlike some nominees. In fact, I agree with his reasoning as to the flaws in Roe v Wade, but I am still pro-choice(God, I hate that term). The point is that "political figure" is not baised, I don't think he is some politician, and that I am not against fairness, so STOP saying that...peace out :-)...  Voice of All(MTG) 17:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Peace! I'm just saying that describing his career is more accurate, less contentious, and less subject to POV bias than trying to get a consensus on the meaning of "political figure," but we seem to agree on that - Best, Kaisershatner 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but you only mentioned me(not Kizzle) and you use three words that describe NPOV and then said "let the reader decide." It just seemed like you where focused on putting NPOV on one side and me on the other. Anyway, I don't care too much which one you choose, nor does Kizzle, it seems, I don't know about user Neutrality. I'd say keep it, but if you want to remove "political figure" it shouldn't make too much of a difference if the article explores his political aspects a bit. Voice of All(MTG) 19:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Since five users here either agree with removing "political figure" or agree with the potentially NPOV aspects of leaving it and don't care if it is removed, while only two are adamant about keeping it, I have changed the introductory paragraph accordingly. --Paul 16:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hamdan case
The capsule summary needs some work to clarify the issues a bit, but not sure how to go about this without introducing too much POV. I recommend reading the opinion to get a firmer grasp of the issues and the reasoning of the court. One interesting item that I think deserves mention is that the court believes that even though Afghanistan is a contracting party to the Geneva Conventions, al Qaeda is not, and that the US is supposedly "at war" with al Qaeda separately from its involvement in Afghanistan. It's curious reasoning indeed, at p. 15 of 22 in the PDF. Whig 20:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * on such distinctions does law live and breath... Darker Dreams 06:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah deleted the ending comment about further review from the end of this paragraph. Here is what I believe that comment was referring to: Suppose we are mistaken about Common Article 3. Suppose it does cover Hamdan. Even then we would abstain from testing the military commission against the requirement in Common Article 3(1)(d) that sentences must be pronounced “by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” See Councilman, 420 U.S. at 759; New, 129 F.3d at 644; supra Part I. Unlike his arguments that the military commission lacked jurisdiction, his argument here is that the commission’s procedures -- particularly its alleged failure to require his presence at all stages of the proceedings -- fall short of what Common Article 3 requires. The issue thus raised is not whether the commission may try him, but rather how the commission may try him. That is by no stretch a jurisdictional argument. No one would say that a criminal defendant’s contention that a district court will not allow him to confront the witnesses against him raises a jurisdictional objection. Hamdan’s claim therefore falls outside the recognized exception to the Councilman doctrine. Accordingly, comity would dictate that we defer to the ongoing military proceedings. If Hamdan were convicted, and if Common Article 3 covered him, he could contest his conviction in federal court after he exhausted his military remedies. There's a level of supposition there in between. Should the reference to further review after conviction be reinserted in a reworded form, or left out altogether? TheGoodReverend 13:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Judge Willams on page 21 of the opinion also says:"I concur in all aspects of the cour's opinion except for the conclusion that Common Aritcle 3 does not apply to the United States's conduct toward al Qaeda personnel captured in the conflict in Afghanistan. Maj. Op. 15-16. Because I agree that the Geneva Convention is not enforceable in courts of the United States, and that any claims under Common Ariticle 3 should be deferred until proceedings against Hamdan are finished. I fully agree with the court's judgement."

 * I think the reference to further review should be reinstated, as it correctly conveys the implied invitation of the court for further judicial review after "proceedings against Hamdan are finished." --Paul 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Roberts/Archive 1