Talk:Neil Gorsuch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Neil M. Gorsuch was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Abortion Position POV

I suggest the abortion position be edited to use more direct statements of fact rather than what, to a neutral reader, appeared to be a value judgement laden and factually incorrect statement. In short, his specific position on abortion as a jurist is not known but the article implies that it is known. (i.e., "people on both sides of the issue know where he stands") Given the principle of stare decisis, Gorsuch may or may not uphold Roe v. Wade. I also believe that the statement of the article implies a negative judgment on Gorsuch's assumed position. I know this will be a controversial page so I will leave to higher editors to make the change. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.58.139 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to say "one writer has reported that people on both sides ..."? The article is very weak as support of the blanket statement that people believe this, as it itself is at best secondary. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

He was paid only $350 on the book that he helped on, it currently says he made $5,000. Stormwolf4 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Boomer Vial^Holla 01:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Associate Justice

I don't think it makes sense to have him listed as an associate justice already -- he's only just been nominated and has yet to be confirmed. Is very premature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkjuniordelegate (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree and even so, I think that it needs to be discussed here before it's changed. Tdiamantidis (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A nomination is good enough for it to be included in the article. Boomer Vial^Holla 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

The word "constitution" in the lead should be changed to "US Constitution" and linked:

• Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism and of textualism in interpreting the constitution.
• Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism and of textualism in interpreting the US Constitution.

50.53.39.142 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. There are many Constitutions in the world. Please qualify with "US" or "United States": "US Constitution" (which is a redirect). --50.53.39.142 (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Done I've made the change because I don't think it's a big deal, but I think from the context it was fairly clear that the constitution in question is the US one. Mz7 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. "U.S. Constitution" is a redirect, so the piped-link is redundant. --50.53.39.142 (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

PhD should read DPhil

The Oxford degree is a DPhil, not a PhD. Although it means the same thing, PhD is not the Oxford usage. 191.125.128.229 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Gorsuch's biography at the 10th Circuit web site does indeed say:

"Oxford University, D.Phil., 2004"

--50.53.39.142 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Reynolds v. United_States

This text seems to link to a different case by a similar name. Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg held the same view in their 2012 dissent of Reynolds v. United States Bad link: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States The dissent being talked about: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-6549/dissent.html  Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.156.198 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Protection Needed

There is plenty of vandalism ongoing. Protection requested.

I second that. Just enforce an immediate protection. werldwayd (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Reloading this page repeatedly has been fun, but someone should probably get to protecting this page.

I third that request for protection... Cllgbksr (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

At 49, he is the youngest nominee in 25 years to this lifetime position. Nss280 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Found one: New York Times. Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Already done Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Name pronunciation?

It would probably be nice to have a name pronunciation guide in IPA as usual, since the spelling doesn't make it unambiguous. Does anyone know how he says it? Min6char (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll second that because pronunciation was the reason I consulted his article. For example, his name might rhyme with "such" or "Butch," or the "ch" could be a hard sound like "Offenbach." Thanks in advance. In fact, once someone adds that, the pronunciation would be useful in Anne Gorsuch Burford's article as well. RCTodd (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert

[1] [2]

Originally added by User:Frankam12 after Gorsuch was nominated.[3]

User:Neutrality, this op-ed was not a significant part of his career at the time it was published. It coincidentally features Merrick Garland whose nomination for a position Gorsuch is currently be considered for expired. Are there any new sources talking about this? If there are I think it's best suited for Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination. If there aren't it shouldn't be mentioned anywhere because then we're just highlighting something that might end up being looked over. Riley Cohen (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This has been widely reported in the media, including the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, Business Insider, UPI, and more. Since these third-parties feel that it is of some sort of significance, I suggest keeping it in. Frankam12 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Appointed By or Nominated?

This applies to the wiki pages for every federal judge: is the verb "appointed" by or "nominated" by? Different pages are using different verbs and it might be better to make it consistent across wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskinsam (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

They are largely interchangeable for our purposes. Technically he was nominated. Upon being confirmed, the nomination becomes an appointment. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

In the second paragraph (beginning "Gorsuch clerked"), line 4, please change "Doctorate of Legal Philosophy" to "Doctor of Philosophy in Law". That is the proper name of the degree. See eg https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/admissions/postgraduate/doctor-philosophy-law

In the fifth paragraph (beginning "In 1985"), line 3, please:

a. delete "University College at ". Degrees are awarded by the University, not the College;

b. replace "where he received a Marshall Scholarship." by "where he was a Marshall Scholar at University College." to preserve the ref.to his College. Neverbeen~enwiki (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done (I think). I couldn't find where you wanted "University College at" to be deleted; maybe somebody already did so. Anyhow see if it is right now. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

It is worth noting, that as we embark on the confirmation vote in the US Senate of this Supreme Court nominee, that Neil Gorsuch has faced a Senate confirmation before. This is listed in the article, but I believe it is important to note a few of the Senators, who now are decrying this nomination, have approved of him in the past. These include the following:

Former President and then Senator, Barrack Obama Former VP & then Senator, Joe Biden Former Senator, Harry Reid Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Minority Whip, Dick Durbin Senator, Robert Menendez Senator, Ron Wyden Benfirst46 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This would be original research - possibly meant to imply hypocrisy on the part of the senators? - and in any case it is not really relevant. This is a completely different situation, and senators could have many reasons for approaching this nomination differently from the previous one. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be OR to bring up such accusation (hypocrisy). But the statement that he was appointed unanimously including all the relevant democrats itself is relevant and sourcable. It was directly mentioned by Trump during the nomination. It has been mentioned in numerous reliable sources.

• Unanimous [4][5] [6][7][8]
• Specifically pointing out Dems who previously voted for him [9] [10][11][12]

ResultingConstant (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly "unanimous" - "unanimous voice vote". That means there was a chorus of ayes and no nays - but there is no way of knowing how any individual person voted. They could have said "aye" or they could have kept quiet. Anyhow I don't think that kind of detail belongs in this biography. You could see if they'll accept it at Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A "unanimous voice vote" means there were no nays. If there were nays, thats just a "voice vote". Mentioning Unanimous voice vote here seems appropriate, but I agree that the Dem callout is more appropriate for the nomination article ResultingConstant (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit suggestion: Meet his English-born wife whilst studying at Oxford

British press now reporting that Gorsuch met his English wife (maiden name Burletson?) whilst studying at Oxford University Telegraph Guardian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.148.29 (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Money in politics section needs revision

The single-sentence statement in the money in politics section is wrong. Judge Gorsuch did not argue that regulation of campaign contributions should categorically be subject to strict scrutiny. Rather, he said that intermediate scrutiny applies to First Amendment challenges, strict scrutiny applies to Fourteenth Amendment equal protection challenges, and it is unclear as to whether courts should apply strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny when the challenge is based on an equal protection argument under the Fourteenth Amendment but the underlying right is derived from the First Amendment. He says there is an argument in favor of applying strict scrutiny when there is a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim combined with a First Amendment challenge, but he stops short of adopting that position, concluding the relevant case law is ambiguous. He certainly doesn't say that strict scrutiny should apply to First Amendment challenges outside of that rare instance in which it is combined with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. Gorsuch declined to and didn't need to ascertain which level of scrutiny applied in that case because he (as well as the majority) found that regardless of which level of scrutiny applied, the statute in question was clearly unconstitutional. Specifically, see the text at pages 931-32:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4536436223189820388

Gorsuch did say that political expression is a fundamental right, but that isn't particularly remarkable as that was already well established, including in the campaign finance context by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. I am suggesting that the sentence currently in the money in politics section be replaced by the following paragraph regarding Gorsuch's stance in Riddle v. Hickenlooper:

Gorsuch opined that a state could not discriminate between candidates from major and minor political parties in setting campaign contribution limits. He concluded that such discrimination violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Gorsuch has also noted that restrictions on political expression implicate fundamental rights and such restrictions, including campaign contribution limits, cannot survive judicial scrutiny unless they are closely drawn to support a sufficiently important interest.

Ao045q (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

References

 Not done This is a complicated request, involving a lot more detail than we are giving to other cases. IMO it would require a talk page discussion to decide how much detail to go into with regard to this one decision. You could start such a discussion by changing the section heading here from "Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017" to something that summarizes what you are trying to say, perhaps "Money in politics section is too oversimplified" or "Money in politics section needs expansion". --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: (closing request) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

Please add a comma after "D.C." in the following sentence in the Career section:

"From 1995 to 2005, Gorsuch was a lawyer at the Washington, D.C.<<<INSERT COMMA HERE>>> law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel.[22] He was an associate from 1995 to 1997 and a partner from 1998 to 2005 [...]"

When providing a state or district, we add a comma before the state and also AFTER, if we mean to continue the sentence. 73.238.198.254 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

in 2.1.5:

The child's family brought a federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights) action against school officials and the school resource officer who made the arrest, arguing that it was a false arrest that violated F.M.'s constitutional rights.

"F.M.'s" should be changed to "the child's" for the sake of clarity. Wikigazz (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Religion

Info box should include Religion. Various sources report that he is Episcopalian. According to the Washington Post he and his family attend St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. Perhaps this should also be included under Personal Life. BlueMesa171 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

References

I believe there is a Wiki-wide consensus not to put a political figure's religion in the infobox unless it is an important part of their career or public persona. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Right-wing credentials

During his freshman year at his elite high school Georgetown Preparatory Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ″Fascism Forever Club″. Read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html --87.156.236.251 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not something that belongs in the article. Basically a high school prank. If it becomes a major issue during his confirmation hearings we can add it, but for now, no. We should all be entitled to leave high school foolishness behind us and not have it thrown in our face 30 years later. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. And in any case Daily mail would not be sufficient for a contentious issue like this. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A few other publications have picked it up. US News for one. They always cite the Daily Mail as their source. That makes one wonder where they got their information - the first and most basic rule of journalism is "who says so and how do they know?". They cutely just say "The Daily Mail can reveal". But they do show a picture of his high school yearbook, listing him as founder and president for four years (without any explanation), so it is sourced. So then the question is, should we include it? I say no, per UNDUE and BLP; it's a very loaded word, and tying it to him leaves all kinds of negative implications that are just not there in a high school joke. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree - I think this is a notable fact, and an insight into his early interest in politics as well as his sense of humor. However, there just needs to be a little context around it to make clear that this was a facetious name, and not some sort of neo-Nazi thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New York Post and US News & World Report are reliable sources, but do little more than confirm what Gorsuch's entry in the yearbook says: "Fascism Forever Club (Founder and President) 1, 2, 3, 4". Hopefully we'll see a statement from nominee or the administration clarifying whether this was a joke by the yearbook staff, a joke club, or whathaveyou. gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This article clarifies that the club did not exist and it was a yearbook joke. http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/02/02/no-neil-gorsuch-did-not-start-fascism-forever-club-his-jesuit-high NPalgan2 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And this is why we don't rely on high school yearbooks as sources, nor on newspapers that rely on high school yearbooks, nor on newspapers that rely on newspapers that rely on high school yearbooks... StAnselm (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor User:Monopoly31121993 who placed the false information into this article this morning is engaged in an editor war at the Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination page where he is attempting to put the false information into that ancillary article. There is no consensus to include this information from a high school yearbook. His justification to violate BLP is that it is "trending on AOL" right now. That is not the standard to decide if something is should be included in the article.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN, Korny O'Near that this information belongs on this page and current attempts to totally omit it are obstructionist at best. New York Post and US News & World Report are reliable sources and the fact that America Magazine (which I had never heard of until right now) claims to have inside knowledge about this could appear in the article but should not be reason that the topic is omitted from the article. SlackerDelphi, a new editor with a surprisingly vast knowledge of Wikipedia rules who has keeps deleting messages from his/her talk page has completely misrepresented my AOL reference. It was an article that stated, factually, that "fascismforever" had become a trending topic on Twitter, the world's third largest online blogging platform. Certainly at least a notable fact.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It was only me that agreed - and then only with appropriate context to make it clear that it was a joke. Now I'm not sure any more - I could go either way. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You apparently do not agree with me, but thanks for the ping. I have stated here several times that I strongly oppose including this trivial, misinterpreted, bias-inducing factoid in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993 It appears that you are incorrect in your evaluation of other editor's opinion on this matter. You are the only editor arguing FOR inclusion, several editors are arguing against, and one "could go either way". Additionall, SlackerDelphi is entirely justified in removing messages from his own talk page. WP:REMOVED and WP:DRC are quite clear on this. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, the following text is NPOV and factual regarding this actual event which cannot simply be totally ommmited from this page since it happened and has received considerable media coverage. Text: While attending Georgetown Preparatory Gorsuch founded a satirical student group called the ″Fascism Forever Club″ in response to his belief that the school's faculty were biased towards liberal-leftist political views. The organization did not hold any meetings or events.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

But even that is not correct. He didn't actually "found" it. He made a yearbook joke implying the existence of it. And a yearbook joke is not notable for someone's biography. We absolutely can omit it. WP:EDITORIALDISCRETION and WP:UNDUE are both in play here. Yes some sources covered this story. Almost all of them either unreliable, or in a humorous way.WP:GRAPEVINE WP:DOGBITESMAN Even if one counted them all at full value, what percentage of ink do they constitute, relative to the reams of writing otherwise about this man?ResultingConstant (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominee questionnaire and appendixes now available

Gorsuch's nominee questionnaire and appendixes to the questionnaire are now available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme/pn55-115 . BEWARE, however, some of the appendixes are very large, one reaching 3516 pages, so if your on a slow connection you may want to be cautious in clicking on the appendix links. Safiel (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"The Honorable"

I'm removing the title from the infobox because it is rarely used on wikipedia. There are thousands of positions accorded this title, but this is one of few pages that actually has it. For that reason, I'm removing it. SlitherySentinel (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2017

CHANGE:

Gorsuch was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to replace Judge David M. Ebel, who took Senior status in 2006. Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate on July 20, 2006. In September 2016, during the U.S. presidential election, then-candidate Donald Trump included Gorsuch, as well as his circuit colleague Timothy Tymkovich, in a list of 21 current judges whom Trump would consider nominating to the Supreme Court if elected.[10]

TO:

Gorsuch was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to replace Judge David M. Ebel, who took Senior status in 2006. Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate on July 20, 2006. In September 2016, during the U.S. presidential election, then-candidate Donald Trump included Gorsuch, as well as his circuit colleague Timothy Tymkovich, in a list of 21 current judges whom Trump would consider nominating to the Supreme Court if elected.[10] The American Bar Association gives Judge Neil Gorsuch their top rating - "Well Qualified" - to serve as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. Mike D. Roper (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 00:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

In the section titled U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit please note the spelling error in the first sentence of the paragraph and change "While House Counsel Harriet Miers." to "White House Counsel Harriet Miers." Hoghead101 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 DoneResultingConstant (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

ADD the following sentences to the first paragraph after the sentence that ends, "...to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia eleven months earlier.[4]"

Gorsuch is the second judge to be nominated to the Supreme Court to fill Scalia's seat. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on March 16, 2016 but the Republican Senate Majority, in a highly controversial move <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/14/republicans-democrats-draw-battle-lines-supreme-court-nomination-obama> declined to hold a hearing for Garland <https://elections.ap.org/content/republican-senators-no-hearing-or-vote-obama-court-pic>]; the seat was left empty for the remainder of Obama's term. Dustmouse3 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Dustmouse3

 Not done Such a comment is appropriate for the Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination article (and indeed, a similar statement is already there), but this is a biography, and such political analysis is not appropriate here, especially not in the lead. I could possibly see a statement added into the nomination sub-section of this BLP, but I think the wording could be more neutral. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

This page incorrectly lists Judge Gorsuch as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. The judge has yet to make it out of sub-committee, let alone proceeded to a full vote. It is incorrect and politically biased to list him as something other than his current title. If voted on, and confirmed, it would then be appropriate to hist him as a justice with a pending swearing in date. The article is incorrect, premature, and politically biased. 24.241.225.233 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Already done All mentions of associate justice appear to already include pending/yet to confirm statements. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Change

I'm asking that you change the formatting of the infobox to this to make it more in line with other Trump nominees.

Neil Gorsuch
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Nominee
Assuming office TBD*
Nominated by	Donald Trump
Succeeding	Antonin Scalia
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Incumbent
Assumed office August 8, 2006
Nominated by	George W. Bush
Preceded by	David M. Ebel
Personal details
Born	Neil McGill Gorsuch (1967-08-29) August 29, 1967 Denver, Colorado, U.S.
Political party	Republican
Spouse	Louise Gorsuch
Relations	Anne Gorsuch Burford (mother)
Children	2
Education	Columbia University (BA) Harvard University (JD) University College, Oxford (DPhil)
*Pending Senate Confirmation

108.52.100.147 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done There's no point in the change, and it suggests that it's a foregone conclusion that he will be approved. The infobox indicates that he is a "nominee". From that it is obvious that he has not yet become a Supreme Court Associate Justice. There is no rush. We can wait until he is confirmed. Sundayclose (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Add clarification to introduction

ADD the following sentences to the first paragraph after the sentence that ends, "...to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia eleven months earlier.[4]"

Gorsuch is the second judge to be nominated to the Supreme Court to fill Scalia's seat. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on March 16, 2016. No hearing was held and Garland's nomination expired on Jan. 3, 2017. Dustmouse3 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Dustmouse3

This is my second attempt to edit the introduction. I tried to make it politically neutral in response to the editor's comment. Leaving this information out seems like too big an omission. Not everyone who reads the Neil Gorsuch entry will also read the Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Nomination entry so this one needs to be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustmouse3 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - It is a clear statement of fact and politically neutral as presented. Adding to text rather than lead is fine. Buster Seven Talk 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Much better wording. Would support adding to body nomination section, but oppose adding to lead. WP:10YT. This is the biography of a person, and the lead of that biography is supposed to be just the most important information. Actions taken regarding a different person, by a different congress, under a different president, are not one of the most important bits of information about this individual. In 10 years, either he will be a veteran supreme court justice (and therefore having hundreds of important cases under him which will dwarf this), or will not be, in which case this is a random bit of trivia. either way it shouldn't go into the lead. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that something along these lines should be included in the text, but not in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Per the obvious consensus, I have added text similar to the below in the body, slightly modified for grammar/flow, near the sentence which was already discussing Gorsuch's phone call to Garland.

Butique firm

Boutique Firm should have a wiki definition for lay readers.

72.94.230.78 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

Remove the asterisked content "pending Senate confirmation" which refers to an at-present non-public section. 137.165.72.51 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Already done Stickee (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017

At the bottom of Judge Gorsuch's infobox, it says "*Pending Senate confirmation." That note was there for when it had the office of nominee for associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It would make more sense to have the "*Pending Senate confirmation" at the bottom of Judge Gorsuch's infobox removed, as it just makes no sense. 206.144.31.60 (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Already done Stickee (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Correction requested for section Private Law Practice

In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nominations of Merrick Garland and John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated" by the Senate.[32][33]

Merrick Garland was nominated in 2016 so Mr. Neil Gorsuch could not have penned an op-ed complaining about US Senate refusal to consider his nomination in 2002. Please correct the entry by removing Mr. Merrick Garland's name. JoLa8 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done That bit is talking about his nomination to the APPEALS court, not the SUPREME court. See Merrick_Garland#D.C._Circuit ResultingConstant (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The first reference states: “Some of the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated,” he said, mentioning two candidates for the federal appeals court in Washington who he said were “widely considered to be among the finest lawyers of their generation. One was John G. Roberts Jr., who went on to become chief justice of the United States. The other was Judge Merrick B. Garland, who was confirmed to the appeals court in 1997 after a long delay, but whose nomination to Justice Scalia’s seat last year was blocked by Senate Republicans. Buster Seven Talk 21:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

Please add this:

108.52.100.147 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done—Fundude99^{talk to me} 21:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please merge the two boxes together? I think simply deleting the middle "start" and "end" would do it. 108.52.100.147 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Didn't catch that in the initial edit, good eye!—Fundude99^{talk to me} 03:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:STOPS

The Manual of Style MOS:STOPS calls for full stops (periods) to be used in abbreviations in American English, while they are optional in European English. The abbreviations for Bachelor of Arts, Juris Doctor and Doctor of Philosophy should read B.A., J.D., and D.Phil., respectfully. I made the change accordingly but another user reverted. So putting the question here. Safiel (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification I am referring to usage within the infobox. Safiel (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

In Section 2.4.1 "Administrative Law", I'd like to include a paragraph discussing "TransAm Trucking Inc. v. Administrative Review Board" as a notable dissenting opinion of his on Administrative Law and his rejection of Chevron Deference. I'd also like to mention that his opinion on the case, sometimes known as the "Case of the Frozen Trucker", is controversial, and his dissent in the case was brought up during his Senate nomination hearings. The case referenced in Section 2.4.8 "List of Judicial Opinions" but given its national spotlight and controversy I think it should mentioned in greater detail. Proposed text below:

"Gorsuch was the lone dissent in TransAm Trucking Inc. v. Administrative Review Board , also known as the "Case of the Frozen Trucker". He wrote that the federal statute protecting employees from termination who "refuse to operate a vehicle [with] reasonable apprehension of serious injury" did not apply to the case of Alphonse Maddin, a truck driver who abandoned his trailer after the breaks were stuck frozen. Maddin waited several hours for help in a truck with a broken heater system, and fearing hypothermia, he unhooked the trailer and drove to safety. Relying on textual definition, Gorsuch argued that Maddin's actions did not constitute "refusal to operate a vehicle", regardless of his removal of the trailer or life-threatening circumstances therein. He further rejected the Department of Labor's interpretation of the statute, opposing the use of Chevron Deference in this case. His ruling garnered controversy, and was brought up multiple times during the Senate Hearings for his Supreme Court Nomination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raikespeare (talk • contribs) 19:51, March 27, 2017 (UTC)

References

SCOTUS Table

Could someone modify this template title from 2016-present to 2016-2017 and create a new one for 2017-present? I'm asking here because the request will get more visibility.

108.52.100.147 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I presume this will be done only once Gorsuch is actually sworn in and assumes his position on the Court. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Update Bottom

Please change the box that states he is an Associate Justice at the bottom of the page from "designate" to 2017-present.

108.52.100.147 (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion

It is really really silly to claim that Gorsuch may have converted to Protestantism. It is NOT a denomination of Christianity. Why not be even more vague and say he may have converted to Christianity or to Deism? Has it been established that he was a member of the Roman Catholic Church? The editor doesn't even apparently know the difference between Anglican and Episcopalian denominations.98.21.212.86 (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. Quis separabit? 04:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Term start date in infobox

By longstanding practice, the start date in infobox is the commission date, which reflects the start of the term. The oath date is when the Judge/Justice actually enters into performance of the office. But the start date should reflect the commission date, as is the practice for every article about an Article III Federal Judge that has an infobox. Safiel (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2017

Please change in the sub-section of the "Legal Philosophy" section, "Judicial Activism", this sentence. "In a 2005 speech at Case Western Reserve University, Gorsuch said that judges should strive..." Change "In a 2005 speech" to in a "2016 speech", because he gave those remarks in 2016.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/know-dont-neil-gorsuchs-judicial-philosophy/

And add on to Case Western Reserve University and add School Of Law, because that's where he made the speech at their School of Law. Same source.

Thank you. Hitterneuron (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 17:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Term start date in infobox

I have changed a number of Supreme Court Chief Justice and Associate Justice Articles to reflect commission date as the term start. I intend to pursue this issue further via Request for Comment if necessary. If an RfC is necessary, I intend to place the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges rather than here, as this will be a consensus that would effect ALL Article III (and Article I & IV) Federal Judge articles. I will leave a notification here if I post an RfC. Safiel (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2017

Neil Gorsuch's Term Acually Began on April 10, not April 9. 2601:401:C503:63C6:703B:5990:A21F:5431 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a comment after the posted date points out why the date says "April 9" and not "April 10." This is why I am asking for this request to reach a consensus. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I should note that a discussion is currently being held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges with the idea of finding a solution to this issue. That page is not protected and IP's are welcome to participate in the discussion. Note that we are discussing a solution that will effect hundreds of articles, not just this one. Safiel (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Degree Abbreviations in the Infobox

Another user and I have had a disagreement on the infobox regarding his doctorate in law. Gorsuch got that degree from Oxford, which awards the DPhil. The American standard is typically a Phd, as seen at Harvard. What should the abbreviation be? JocularJellyfish (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Gorsuch appointed to a stolen seat

The article should make it clear that Gorsuch was nominated for an empty seat for which Republicans refused to consider a previously properly nominated candidate, Garland. The Supreme Court has been rigged.Paulhummerman (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

While that matter is discussed in detail in the nomination article, I think it should have a brief one sentence mention here, in the SCOTUS section, but such needs to be neutrally worded, which this proposal is not. If what happened to garland was right or wrong, thats not really a BLP issue for Gorsuch who was not involved in filibustering him. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Such a "critics contend the seat is properly Garland's..." line would mean more with historical reference to other such instances as a comparison.Bjhillis (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Religious freedom and separation of Church and State

The section on his views of religious freedom calls his stance "broad" but the context really isn't clear from the article that his stance is very controversial among church-state separation advocates. I made an edit a few days ago (see above) that was reverted because no citation and biased language, and the editor who reverted it was nice enough to give an explanation. Now my latest edit was reverted with NO explanation even though there was a citation (Americans United for Separation of Church and State is NO MORE BIASED a source than than some of the citations of sources PRAISING Gorsuch's church-state views but it was removed with no explanation. I'd like to seek consensus please from others here on how to make changes to this section covering Gorsuch's views on religious freedom that are "not biased" but clearly communicate the controversial aspect of this. Unless there is some kind of agenda here to obscure his views. I'm not asking Wikipedia to take a stance on this, but it's an issue I feel strongly about as a voter and the details on this page are skimpy and not helpful to those of us who would say it's urgent that people know there is a controversy here. I don't usually edit wikipedia articles, but I felt obligated and called to edit this one because of how important this issue is. Thanks.

Possible reading material to help build consensus on more directly and explicitly acknowledging that this controversy exists (without wikipedia taking a "side"):

• https://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/519501771/judge-gorsuchs-writings-signal-he-would-be-a-conservative-on-social-issues
• https://www.au.org/tags/neil-gorsuch
• https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:108.2.150.37&action=edit&section=2
• https://www.au.org/content/senate-should-reject-gorsuch-nomination-to-supreme-court
• https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/neil-gorsuch-is-the-wrong-choice-for-a-seat-on-the-supreme-court
• http://religionandpolitics.org/2017/03/22/neil-gorsuch-the-supreme-court-and-religious-freedom/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.150.37 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reached out to user talk:108.2.150.37 on their and my talk page and am moving this discussion over here because, frankly, article talk pages exist for this purpose.

I was the one who good faith reverted the first edit as having overly broad language. When I was made aware of the second (more concise) edit, I did not have any problem with it. user talk:Marquardtika's concern appears to be with the fact that au.org appears to be an advocacy site and thus fails wp:rs.

(FYI, I am also reaching out to user talk:Marquardtika to get their input here)

On viewing https://www.au.org, I absolutely agree that it's an advocacy site, but I actually think it was valid for the second edit. The source was cited in indicating "the opinion of church state separation advocates," which, frankly, is absolutely accurate. There's no other claim that au.org is a reliable source in any other way, but it absolutely relaible in citing the concerns of curch/state separation advocates since it a church/state separation advocacy site.

With that said, I *do* think any article can be made stronger by bringing in other sources - the NPR citation above is a great start. A quick search also brought up this NY Times piece and this New Republic article.

So... what are everyone else's thoughts on this? Is there a way that we can reach consensus on this issue?

Thanks! KNHaw ^(talk) 07:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, KNHaw. I agree the second edit, with added sources, is an improvement from the first. My concern is with the noteworthiness of Americans United for Separation of Church and State's opinion. There are many advocacy groups with opinions on Gorsuch (and other such public figures), so we have to figure out which opinions are worth including. In my view, we can best do that by finding which of those opinions have been reported on in other sources--academic works, newspapers, etc. Is there evidence that the opinions of AUS have been discussed elsewhere in relation to Gorsuch? Marquardtika (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marquardtika, AU is one of the country's leading and most active, bipartisian, interfaith and "inter-values" church-state separation advocate orgs; they have a close relationship with the ACLU and other well established advocacy orgs. Barry Lynn was the former executive director (up until last November) and he is frequently quoted by news outlets and other sources that discuss church-state separation issues. Here are some examples (not that all of these are unbiased; just showing that AU's statements are notable and AU's assessment of Gorsuch is cited in other media and discussed by other advocacy groups (I'll start with an article from "The Economist"). Some of these might be worth considering as additional citations backing up the controversial nature of his stance:

• https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/02/prayer
• https://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/flatview?cuecard=111112
• https://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/search?terms=Americans+United+for+Separation+of+Church+and+State
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-gorsuch-trinity-lutheran-church-v-comer_us_58f6454ae4b0bb9638e6d0a2
• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/26/neil-gorsuch-firmly-on-supreme-court-right/
• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/21/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-noted-religious/
• https://civilrights.org/civil-and-human-rights-organizations-oppose-confirmation-of-judge-gorsuch-to-supreme-court/ - this one is a letter from dozens of civil and human rights groups including AU

Take a look! I think you'll find these address your concerns. Be well. 108.2.150.37 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neil Gorsuch. 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/20170125080902/http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/neil-gorsuch to http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/neil-gorsuch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170502205549/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-adds-to-list-of-potential-supreme-court-justice-picks to https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-adds-to-list-of-potential-supreme-court-justice-picks

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Coke, Blackstone!

In his concurring opinion in Sessions v. Dimaya he cites both Coke and Blackstone with respect to due process. I wonder if this is covered somewhere or in some substantial reliable source, or is that what originalists do? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/17/crossover-sensation-neil-gorsuch Not a source, of course. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The Merrick Garland nomination should be mentioned in the lede

The circumstances under which Gorsuch became a SC justice should be covered in the lede. A six-week old account just deleted any mention of Garland[13]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans. I made this edit. I'm still thinking about whether the edit you mention should be reinstated. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Came here to talk about removing this after seeing it. I know this may be contentious, but there is no precedent for mentioning rejected SC candidates in the lede of the persons who eventually filled that seat, even among contentious cases like Garland. See Clarence Thomas (Bork literally became a verb), Samuel Alito (the previous nomination was an embarrassment to the president), Harry Blackmun (third pick), Oliver Ellsworth (Rutledge's rejection is famous because of his attempted suicide). Mentioning Garland in Gorsuch's second sentence is unusual and could easily be read as POV, even if well-intentioned. It doesn't necessarily have to be removed from the lede entirely, but, if it does stay, it should be towards the end. See Ellsworth for an example. lethargilistic (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Religion

If Neil Gorsuch is verified as a member of the Episcopal Church, as he was on the official member rolls of Holy Comforter Church, why does the article express language that wonders if he considers himself Roman Catholic? The Anglican Communion, of which The Episcopal Church is part, considers itself both Catholic and Reformed.SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC) He may consider himself Roman Catholic, although he has not said that, but we do know that he is a member of The Episcopal Church, the US branch of the Anglican Communion, and he volunteered actively as an usher at St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. Also, while he could consider himself to be both Roman Catholic and Episcopalian, which can be left there since that's possible, the Catholic Church does not consider a person to be a communicant member of the Catholic Church if that person marries, joins, and receives communion in a Protestant denomination. The Episcopal Church, however, does allow open communion.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

One suggestion I have, and I have asked at least one admin editor to give feedback here, is that what is there presently remain but it also just be stated "Gorsuch is a member of an Episcopal church; he is not currently a member of a Catholic church." Could that give a clearer statement while the use of the indefinite article still leaves room for how his own conceptualization of his identity fits into religion? Also, Catholic media report that he is Episcopalian and not currently Catholic.SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Catholicism and Accurate Information

A CNN report speculating that Gorsuch might consider himself Catholic, in addition to church records of his membership at Holy Comforter Episcopal Church, was earlier given undue weight when other major reporting agencies were less ambiguous. An earlier contributor, I did not review all the history and of course am not going to call out any one person as improving an article is a collaborative effort, made implied assertions about membership in the Catholic Church. It is fair and accurate to note that it is possible that Neil Gorsuch self-identifies as Catholic in addition to belonging to an Episcopal church. However, that possibility is not a hard fact and leaves out any explanation of what the Catholic Church teaches within its own catechesis. One thing I always find important is to be respectful to the religion being discussed. It is sometimes forgotten that religious studies, divinity studies, and theology are academic disciplines in their own right. The Catholic Church's teaching on communicant membership should be respected. Likewise, I think the undue weight given to the CNN article has caused unnecessary confusion about Justice Gorsuch. His membership and active lay service in his church should be able to be stated clearly without that ambiguity. It seems that the implication that he might still be a member of the Catholic Church, when he is not, is an improper manipulation of a synthesis of information. Thank you fellow editors and I hope this continues to be improved upon!SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, John. Thanks for your note on my talk page. Please note that I comment at these articles as a regular editor, not as an admin, because I am WP:INVOLVED. I am combining your two sections into one for ease of discussion.

I understand your question - is he a Catholic or an Episcopalian? - but we should not try to resolve that issue or put something definitive into the article one way or the other. It would be WP:Original research for us to do so, because Reliable Sources don’t. Of the sources you provided, The Denver Post calls him an Epicopalian. Crux Now, a Catholic magazine, calls him an Episcopalian. American Magazine, a Jesuit publication, calls him a Catholic. None of them quibble about which is "correct" and neither should we. We are not the religion police. It is entirely possible for a person to be ambivalent about their religious affiliation; that is what the public record shows about Gorsuch and that is what we should reflect.

We do state, in the first sentence, supported by three references, that he is a Protestant. That again is somewhat debatable; the Anglican community considers itself to be both Protestant and Catholic, although not Roman Catholic, as we state in the article with a source. But I believe we should retain that sentence, because the sources raise the issue specifically in reference to the religious balance on the Court.

BTW since he was baptized Catholic, he is still a Catholic, even if he is not currently attending Catholic services. He could be considered as a Catholic not in good standing, but a Catholic nevertheless. He has not been excommunicated or anything. But that’s also Original Research on my part and not something I am suggesting should go in the article. I am just saying that it would be incorrect for us to try to define him more precisely than he defines himself. --MelanieN (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am continuing to work on suggestions for the talk page. I really do appreciate it. Just as a note of correction, American Magazine refers to him as Episcopalian in contrast to Justice Kavanaugh whom it identifies as Catholic. We would have to talk about baptism, which as you say is personal opinion and I respect that, because if you're baptized Catholic yes you are Catholic unless** asterisk there you join another church and become a communicant of that other church. Since Justice Gorsuch is a communicant member of an Anglican church, he would not be Catholic by their measure of that. I was confirmed Greek Orthodox, but I do not believe they consider me Orthodox any more! (like you said that's all just hypothetical but just wanted to throw that in here) haha I hope it's okay to put emojis but again thank you :) SeminarianJohn (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW I am perfectly agreeable to the consensus you have brought to the talk page. I agree with you that the current wording is satisfactory unless Justice Gorsuch says otherwise.SeminarianJohn (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It's quite possible to be both Catholic and Episcopalian, as The Episcopal Church has an Anglo-Catholic wing. Jonathunder (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, Jonathunder, and I made that note on the page awhile back in a previous edit. The question we were discussing is whether he considers himself "Roman Catholic." The Catholic Church generally says "Catholic" without the qualifying adjective "Roman." And, in part, your point was an earlier reason of mine for wanting the clarification. He could very well have put down Catholic because many Anglicans would describe themselves as 'Catholic' just as many would describe themselves as 'Reformed.' The Via Media, which under the Elizabethan Settlement came to include a middle way between Catholicism and continental Protestantism, was originally an Anglican middle way between Calvinism and Lutheranism. So the Reformed and Catholic traditions of Christianity are very present in the Anglican CommunionSeminarianJohn (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

All of this is very interesting and informative, but it's Original Research not suitable to go in the article. Our article makes clear that 1) he was raised Catholic; 2) he is currently a member of an Episcopalian church; 3) he does not give a definite answer when asked which he is. That's all we have coverage for. No official statement from the Catholic Church has said anything about his status. (For example, a bishop could say that he is not considered a Catholic, or that he must not take Catholic Communion until the issue is resolved.) This ambiguity is where the Reliable Sources take us. The whole question of what he "really" is, much less what the Catholic Church considers him to be, is not an issue that independent reliable sources have devoted much or any time to. Our coverage is based on what those sources cover, not on what we think we ought to cover. (BTW I know many Episcopalians - the American branch of the Anglican Communion - and if you ask what they are, they always say Episcopalian. They never say Catholic.) I know am repeating myself, perhaps unnecessarily, because I think you said above that our current coverage is OK with you - is that correct? --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I just rearranged the material in the article to give a more logical flow and a better timeline. I think you may find that the new arrangement also highlights the ambiguity of his position a little better. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am very agreeable to the way it the talk page has helped to put some information here and then keep what is relevant in the article. Thank you so much and I do hope to chat with you again.SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of international examples

A NY Times piece focused on Gorsuch's contradictory views on using examples from other countries.[14] This belongs in this article, as it sheds light on Gorsuch's legal philosophy. Text on this was removed, with the assertion that it was WP:SYNTH. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Not quite, no. The text was removed on the grounds that it was "Essentially, SYN, but also "Gorsuch justified the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census" is factually wrong." G isn't "justifying" anything (read the record: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/18-966_5hek.pdf): he is asking questions William M. Connolley (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, if you disagree with the wording, then we just add a variation of this language and strictly adhere to the reliable source in question: "during arguments over whether the Trump administration may add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census, Justice Gorsuch did not hesitate to consider what he called “the evidence of practice around the world.” “Virtually every English-speaking country and a great many others besides ask this question in their censuses,” he said."[15] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think your POV is showing through here. Where do you get "did not hesitate to" from? You're making him sound positively *eager* to use this line. But that's wrong, too. The actual text is:

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Mr. Letter, I'm sure you've given this some thought, but -- I know you have. In terms of assessing what a reasonable relationship is, what do we do with the history and the fact that this question has been on for what a long time was the only form in the census through almost all of our history, and it continues to be asked today in the long form or in the ACS. It's not like this question or anybody in the room is suggesting that the question is improper to ask in some way, shape, or form. And what we do as well with the evidence of practice around the world and virtually every English-speaking country...

So actually the "international" stuff is his third line of discussion.

Furthermore, I think the NYT stuff is, as I said, essentially SYN. Your purported section on "international examples" isn't, really, about that at all. The NYT clearly intends it as "examples of G's hypocrisy". Unless you're prepared to present it as that, then it is SYN William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The text is literally verbatim from the NYT source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

His mother was censured; does that belong here?

User:X1\ added to the early life section that Gorsuch’s mother, Anne Gorsuch (which was her name at the time), was "the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress."[16]. I removed it saying Is this really relevant to his biography? If people want to know about her they can click on the link. [17] X1\ re-added a somewhat shortened version, saying significant mother's first (contempt of Congress) since son is Supreme Court justice; reworded, shortened [18] I would like people's opinion whether this belongs in an article about her son, or if it is just an attempt to tar him with her brush. IMO that wasn't even the most notable thing about her tenure at the EPA. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe Readers will find his mother's first of contempt of Congress of interest, as similar cases are potentially reaching the the Supreme Court related to the nominating Trump administration. Undoubtedly he is aware of his own mother's experience. While Readers may also find the Superfund controversy context of interest, they can go to wp's Anne Gorsuch Burford for more detail.

@MelanieN: as an aside, what do you find is "most notable thing about her tenure at the EPA" that would be relevant here? X1\ (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I take offense to the accusation I attempted to "tar" someone. X1\ (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think "this happened to his mother so it might affect his judicial opinions" is a valid reason for including it. I see no reason to include any of the details about her tenure, such as the large number of regulations she overturned - which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment. I think we should simply say that she held that position. As for "tar him with her brush", I didn't mean that to be an accusation against you personally, just that IMO that is what including it would look like. I will await other people's opinions on whether to include it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. We have that his mother was "the first female Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency." In terms of describing her career, that's the most notable top-level thing about her and plenty of detail for an article about her son, not her. Details of her career belong at her article. Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

In 1982, Congress charged that the EPA had mishandled the $1.6 billion toxic waste Superfund and demanded records from Ms. Gorsuch Burford. Ms. Gorsuch Burford refused and became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress.

Ms. Gorsuch Burford refused and became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to turnover EPA records.

For reference, the above are my original, then shortened contributions. X1\ (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Louise or Marie Louise?

His wife's name is given both ways and should be clarified. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

LGBT protections?

He also voted on protecting the LGBT community from discrimination just now. Could anybody edit that in?

This is at odds with the over-simplistic assertion that Gorsuch is a "Republican" judge and an ardent textualist. 2A02:C7F:463B:FC00:A888:6E15:4CAE:A96B (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand something: his job is defending the Constitution, not of advocating evangelical policies. That's exactly what the judge from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District said: he is paid to defend the Constitution. So, yeah, Republicans do believe in the Constitution, it's not just a hobby for Democrats. The Constitution is not the same thing as evangelical Christianity. As a judge of the Supreme Court, his primary allegiance isn't to Christ, but to the Founding Fathers. In other words, fundamentalist Christians will say that he sold his soul to the philosophy of the Enlightenment. As Margaret Thatcher said, Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy. All SCOTUS judges are supposed to place the Constitution above the Bible. That's a mandatory requirement for their job. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

American "lawyer"

Bit of a nitpick but my understanding is that when lawyers become judges they're no longer considered lawyers by the profession. There's a distinction between the "bench" and "bar" and when someone becomes a judge they're not exactly a member of the bar anymore. I certainly don't believe they're allowed to practice law. I'd put "American jurist" in the lede instead of "American lawyer". 199.66.69.67 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is about the totality of Gorsuch's life, not just currently, and he was a lawyer for at least ten years before becoming a judge. Thus, "lawyer and jurist" is an appropriate description in the intro, considering the totality of his biography. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2020

Add the court case McGirt v. Oklahoma to the section on Native American law. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional information added. Spencer^T•C 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggested change to the verb "opined"

I recommend changing "opined" here to "argued:"

• In 2005, at Kellogg Huber, Gorsuch wrote a brief denouncing class action lawsuits by shareholders. In the case of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, Gorsuch opined that...

A judge issues an opinion stating reasons for their decision, but lawyer's briefs are not considered opinions. Rather, they are considered arguments, and the verb opined isn't used to describe them.

I don't think this changes the substantive meaning of the sentence--after all, those are his words--but it would better conform to the usage of argued/opined in the legal community, and would avoid any potential confusion that he wrote that in a judicial opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.255.198 (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"‘Just say the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me,’

Trump told acting attorney general, according to an aide’s notes

"the rest" may mean 2021 United States Capitol attack ... sadly, I am no native speaker. Is there a fellow wikipedian who wants & who can write sth. about that ? thanks in advance, --Präziser (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Neil Gorsuch, who is the subject of this article. And what Trump meant by "the rest" is unclear. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth

Date of birth is listed as 1967 right at the beginning and then 1963 under "Early life and education."

I corrected this to 1967 and provided a RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Surname pronunciation discrepancy

IPA on this page says /ˈɡɔːrsʌtʃ/ , but his mom Anne Gorsuch Burford's is /ˈɡɔːrsətʃ/ . One of these might be inaccurate, right?--RZuo (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the pronunciation should be altered so that the "u" has a schwa sound /ə/ rather than a flat sound like in "such" /ʌ/. 67.83.99.134 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)corpho

Edits

Yesterday, I wrote as follows: Gorsuch is considered part of a doctrinaire conservative bloc willing to overrule precedent, alongside Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, though he has sided with the liberal justices on some occasions, most notably in the landmark LGBT rights case Bostock v. Clayton County. For some reason, this was marked by another user as POV, even though I provided 4 (!) reputable, ideologically diverse sources for Gorsuch's general philosophy and sourced his role in the Bostock decision. What is wrong here? Island Pelican (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Your references did not support your assertion that he is part of a "doctrinaire conservative bloc willing to overrule precedent"; see WP:SYN. Be careful of your biases William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I will concede that the phrase "Doctrinaire" was inappropriate, but is it really in dispute that he is A. Part of the rightmost faction on the court, and B. Willing to overrule precedent? Island Pelican (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm doubtful he is part of a bloc or faction; that the simplistic description "rightmost" is not misleading; and that he takes precedent lightly (which last isn't quite what you said but appears to be what you are implying: all the justices are "willing" to overrule precedent if that is correct, so "willing" by itself becomes meaningless; there is no doctrinaire bloc that would refuse to overrule precedent in any circumstances). But of course the point is not my opinion or yours: it is what WP:RS say William M. Connolley (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding Category Abortion

given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Undone. Please see Talk:Ketanji_Brown_Jackson#Adding_Category_Abortion for centralized discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)