Talk:Samuel Alito

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Samuel Alito article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	New Jersey Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

@GuardianH: In my judgment, ethical issues are professional issues, especially for the US Supreme Court. The court's only enforcement mechanism is the willingness of the body politic to support its decisions. I therefore support reverting your move.

If you still believe this should belong under "personal", please explain. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please explain the deletion of ""The exception only covers food, lodging and entertainment," she told ProPublica. "He's trying to move away from the plain language of the statute and the regulation."<ref name="ethics" /> That deletion looks like POV editing to me. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:EDITORIALIZING

, which prohibits such writing.

I removed Canter's comment because she is both a minor figure and stating her opinion; she seems only to have been used in that particular article for a brief comment. She isn't a legal scholar and hasn't had a big influence on this particular field or even Alito. "He’s trying to move away from the plain language of the statute and the regulation." is her opinion, and there's no reason we should give a

WP:SOAPBOX to her particular comment. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. You wrote "who had also hosted Justice

Anthony Scalia on an similar junket in 2005". It's spelled Antonin Scalia; you wrote a misspelling. I previously corrected the term, but you reverted that correction. GuardianH (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't speak to the rationale, but the section for nondisclosure of gifts on Clarence Thomas's page lies under his personal life section. Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He has called himself a 'practical originalist' and applies originalism flexibly, reliably arriving at conservative outcomes."

Applies flexibly, arriving reliably... These are subjective evaluations, not facts and we are not informed whose evaluations these are. The statement sounds a bit like a characterization of a used car by its seller.

Are these kind of subjective opinions really necessary in a Wikipedia entry? Many would without a doubt disagree with these characterizations. A Wikipedia entry is not an opinion text. Kukkis75 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "practical originalist" appears in a reference cited.

I just revised that part of the lede to be more consistent with the references.

These may be "subjective opinions", but they clearly reflect what others have published and seem appropriate as long as the citations are there -- and I think are described in ways that it's clear that they aren't "truth" but reflect what the sources have said.

I hope you like my suggested alternative text. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kukkis75 and GuardianH: On 2022-05-18 the University of Chicago Law School published an article with a subtitle "Samuel Alito: One Angry Man".^[1] Then less than four months later, a seemingly independent article in The New Yorker says, "Justice Alito’s Crusade Against a Secular America Isn’t Over," asking in a subtitle, "What drives his anger?"^[2] These look like fairly careful mainstream publications that generally avoid inflammatory rhetoric. If they are discussing "anger", I think that should be reflected in this Wikipedia article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidMCEddy No, because those are opinion articles — actually, this is just that: inflammatory rhetoric. The labels "anger" and rhetorical questions such as "what drives his anger?" are supplements used by the writers for their opinions (flourishes). We have no more reason to put those in the article as we should for other WP:RS that say Alito is a champion of freedom and legal reasoning. For example, I'm sure there is a WSJ opinion out there framing liberal justices as angry and unsound too, but it's not our job to reflect that (that is, assuming most sources don't characterize them as such), much less put those labels prominently in the lede. GuardianH (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GuardianH: I'm confused. On 2023-06-30T16:04:40, you deleted the following:

The CEO and President of Elliott Investment Management, Singer was involved in the 2014 Supreme Court case Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., about a default on Argentinian government debt, purchased by NML Capital, Ltd., a division of Elliott Investment Management; the court ruled 7–1 in favor of NML Capital.^[1] Legal ethics experts quoted in ProPublica called Alito's behavior "unacceptable".^[2]

You justified this saying, "non-primary source needed;

Are you whitewashing? DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SYNTH. GuardianH (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention in the article Alito’s unique judicial philosophy in relation to constitutional rights? Alito uses the “deeply rooted” doctrines found in Timbs v. Indiana and Washington v. Glucksberg. They can be found in both his majorities (such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and dissents (such as Obergefell v. Hodges). Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That generally falls under his being a proponent of originalism, which is already in the lede. GuardianH (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The “deeply rooted” doctrine is pretty unique to Alito though. The two primary court originalists, Thomas and Alito, have proven to differ on their views of originalism. Alito often cites Glucksburg and argues about tradition and roots in re to constitutional protection, whereas Thomas is more in favor of original meanings of the words and the two have disagreed before on certain rulings where originalists take the majority (such as in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski). Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GuardianH: Are you saying that members of the US Supreme Court cannot be impeached or only that Alito's statement to that effect should not be labeled as controversial?

The Wikipedia article on "

In my judgment, it's POV editing to cite without rebuttal Alito's claim that "No provision in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period." The Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields" says, "Having a strong POV is fine and you can report it from a source, but also other POVs may be reported from sourcing." That's particularly true for anything as controversial as Alito's denial of the authority of the US Congress to regulate the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, I'm reverting your edit. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia:Prime objective to create "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CIRCULAR. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]