Talk:John Roberts

Talk:John G. Roberts Jr./Archive 1

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)

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. —Charles O'Rourke 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:

• 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)

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)

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. --Neutrality^talk 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. [1]

—or—

1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government [2]

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. --Neutrality^talk 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. 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, Kaiser, aren't acknowledging Robert's political roles mentioned above and that you are against "objective, indisputable, and factual description..blah..blah." This would go on forever and would just be a serious of meaningless attacks. Roberts is a clear headed respectable Harvard graduate, 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). Voice of All(MTG) 17:11, July 22, 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)

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)

Adoption

I don't see any reason why the article should not mention that the Roberts' children are adopted. It's not exactly secret information, it's mentioned in most of the news articles. Let the reader decide what is relevant. Rhobite 04:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned and it is relevant vis-a-vis his Catholicism, which disallows the use of birth control. Having two (and only two) children is to some Catholics quite suspect because it seems likely (but not necessarily) to imply the disregarding of the Church's teaching on the matter, as I learned in a conversation with a friend yesterday. The fact that they are both adopted means that this concern and potential criticism is greatly mitigated. --Flex 12:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you would like to present some evidence that he and his wife use birth control, please do. Anyway, I don't see how you can conclude that because they don't have any children of their own, they use birth control. -JPO

Did you ever think that maybe either Roberts or his wife may be physically incapable of producing children? That could explain why they adopted children.

Respondents? Petitioners?

I've not heard these terms are they British? In the US we say "plaintiff" and "defendant"-whicky1978 14:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, on Judge Judy, or in trial court during a civil case, we say "plaintiff" and "defendant," but Roberts was an appellate lawyer, which means he represented clients after their trial was over and they were appealling (or being appealled against) in a higher court. The party appealling is known as the "petitioner" and the one responding to the appeal is the "respondent." TheGoodReverend 14:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not that simple. In the U.S., there are instances in which the parties in the trial court are "petitioner" and "respondent", and instances in appellate courts in which they're not. I have no idea what terms are used in the U.K. JamesMLane 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sure, if someone wants to look up each of those cases and make sure that the official position of the party Roberts represented was "petitioner" or "respondent" and not, e.g., "appellant" or some other term, that's fine with me. I'm content to let these general terms stand. They are still more applicable than "plaintiff" and "defendant." TheGoodReverend 14:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There are two general instances when "petitioner" and "respondent" are used instead of "appellant" and "appellee." One is the vast majority of cases before the Supreme Court. There is no right of appeal before the Court; a party aggrieved by a circuit court or state court decision must file a "petition for writ of certiorari" with the Court. If the Court grants the petition, it issues the writ to the lower court to "certify," or send up, the case. The person who lost the lower court decision is thus the "petitioner," and his opponent, who has to "respond" to the petition, is the "respondent." The second instance this is used is when federal circuit courts review administrative decisions. Instead of an appeal, someone who loses an administrative hearing (such as a soon to be deported immigrant) files a petition for review with the court. That person becomes the petitioner, and the government becomes the respondent. So yes, in a nutshell, the terminology matters. --Saucy Intruder 16:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• "Petitioner" and "respondent" are generally used for civil cases and in appellate courts. "Plaintiff" and "defendant" are usually reserved for use in criminal matters, and even then in trial court only. Neutrality^talk 04:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

There's some variance among the states, but a fair generalization is that most civil cases are between a plaintiff and a defendant (or more than one on each side). I'm less familiar with criminal practice, but it's certainly common, and perhaps uniform, that criminal matters are generally captioned "The People of the State of ____ v. Lane" or whatever. The side that isn't the defendant is variously referred to as the People, the State, the prosecution, or the government. I don't think I've ever seen "plaintiff" used in a criminal case.

Now, returning from that excursion to the question of writing the article, I question whether even including that column in the table is a good idea. What's the point? I suppose a reader familiar with these terms could look over at the abbreviated case name and thus know the name of Roberts's client, unless, of course, the name of his client wasn't included in the abbreviated case name, which can happen. What if we drop "Petitioner" and "Respondent" and substitute the name of his principal client? Most readers would care more about whom he was representing than about whether he was attacking or defending a circuit court ruling. JamesMLane 11:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Roll in Florida recount

I had included a direct reference to Bush v. Gore and the GWBush campaign in the explanation of Roberts's roll in the Florida recount. Paul deleted this, reasoning that it was already addressed in the recount article itself. I'm thinking it might be helpful to draw the direct connection to Bush because he's the president who ended up nominating Roberts. Should we add the direct connection back in? TheGoodReverend 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You are attemting to add evidence that supports some possible corruption of Robert's part(not to say that YOU are POV, you are probably neutral). I understand that facts that suggest integrity AND possible corruption should all be included to balance the article; however, given the nature of judge nominees (90% are of pol. party of presidient) and their frequent ties to minor politics(not running for office/interest group leaders..ect) such as liberal/conservative organization membership, these sort of connections can apply to almost any nominee, nothing unique to John Roberts or any other SCOTUS judge. Voice of All(MTG) 19:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Memberships

216.254.30.152 removed the reference to Roberts' membership in the Federalist Society and yet the Washington Post[3] reports that he is a member. Which is the truth? --Paul 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That may have been me... see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002393165_member21.html for the news story (credited to the Washington Post, but published by the Seattle Times), for the story about him not actually being a member.--Sharon 18:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Good Find! --Paul 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

1973

In Early Life 1973 refers to the year, not the school. This can be understood by the fact that the article about the school states that the typical class size is around 100. Please note and allow my correction, whoever is administering this page.

Who is John G Roberts?

The following was posted in the article by anon 64.12.116.14; not appropriate there, so I've moved it here. -- BDAbramson ^talk 17:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know who is John G Roberts ? What his family background is ? Above is all a small attempt at giving legal viewponits over a handful of the 1000s of issues that may be before the US Supreme Court. But in general, who is John G Roberts ?