Talk:Clarence Thomas/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wife apparently no longer runs Liberty Central

[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure why you excised large chunks of relevant material sourced to the New York Times and L.A. Times, though. I've restored that material, but edited it to clarify that Lamp Thomas' role with Liberty Central is no longer as prominent. MastCell ^Talk 00:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I was in process of restoring the material about Thomas' acknowledgment of the error, but you beat me to it. Also, per the link I gave at the start of this section, does Liberty Central even still exist? Additionally, it seems to me that "personal life" sections are usually toward the end. Any problem with moving this one?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Follow-up: It would seem that since stepping down from Liberty Central, Ms. Thomas now runs a conservative lobbying firm, advertising her "connections", meeting with freshman Republican congressmen, and branding herself as an ambassador to the Tea Party. I've added one sentence, which I think is a reasonably brief amount of weight, sourced to the New York Times and Politico. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

It seems appropriate to add something about the recent financial controversy. Since this appears to be a controversial article, I would like to get some input first rather than making changes unilaterally. [2], [3], [4], etc. WikiManOne (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The current content on the subject is:

Thomas' wife remained active in conservative politics, serving as a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and as founder and president of Liberty Central, an advocacy group associated with the Tea Party movement.[160] In January 2011, Common Cause reported that between 2003 and 2007 Clarence Thomas failed to disclose $686,589 in income earned by his wife from the Heritage Foundation, instead reporting "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be reported on his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms.[161] The following week, Thomas acknowledged in filings that he had erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.[162]

It's in the section on his personal life. The wording – and placement – may not be optimal, but at least there's something. Any suggestions for changes? Fat&Happy (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it adds any new information but here is another REF as it seems to be getting more traction in the news.[5] --169.253.4.21 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That is just a press release from a special interest group. Drrll (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That was the first group to look into it, if I remember the link correctly. There are other news stories from major outlets such as... [6] [7] [8] --169.253.4.21 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like those stories cover what's already in the WP article. Did you find any new information? Drrll (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Characterization of Common Cause

I added "liberal advocacy group" to the mention of Common Cause in the Personal section. I added it because it adds important context to the bringing forth of the information about Thomas and because Common Cause is often described as "liberal" in reliable sources. For example, in all three reliable source references given in the above Talk section, CC is described as liberal (ABC News, The New York Times, and CNN--hardly known as conservative sources). I don't object to the material about financial disclosure being in the article, but the reader should know more about the background of how this originated. If you look at the rest of this article, you'll see that "conservative" is used rather liberally, including as a descriptor of the group Heritage Foundation.

As far as CC not labeling themselves as liberal, I would like to see a WP policy that trumps the preference for using what reliable sources say, favoring self-labeling for advocacy groups. Drrll (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, you're welcome to survey editors here, but the issue is that he failed to disclose information, not who found out. The fact that he failed to disclose this income and violated the law is indisputable and listed by multiple reliable sources. While CC may or may not be liberal, it is irrelevant to this article, maybe you can bring it up for addition to CC's article if it hasn't been mentioned there already. _WikiMan^One 02:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's unnecessary, why do such news organizations as ABC News, The New York Times, CNN, The Christian Science Monitor, and NPR (by none other than lefty Nina Totenberg) find it necessary to describe CC as "liberal" in their reporting on Common Cause's bringing up this matter? Drrll (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps then you would like to create a full length article on the controversy and include it there? We can link to that from here. If we're just included a paragraph or two about the issue, then its not something that needs to be included, if its a long article, then perhaps a side issue like that is worth including. _WikiMan^One 03:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, in yet another of numerous New York Times descriptions of CC as "liberal", CC just recently helped to organize protests of the conservative Koch brothers:

Liberal groups have begun a calculated political and legal strategy in recent weeks to make the Koch brothers a target of their efforts to stop the Republican momentum.

Common Cause, a liberal advocacy group that helped organize the rally and a panel discussion nearby on the brothers’ influence, filed a petition with the Justice Department this month challenging the Citizens United ruling and arguing that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should not have taken part in the case because they had attended the Koch brothers’ retreat as speakers and were biased.

Drrll (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fair to describe Common Cause as a "liberal group" (although I sort of wish you could drop your campaign to bash Nina Totenberg, or failing that contain it to Talk:Nina Totenberg where you've pursued it thus far). MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. OK. Even though it was relatively mild criticism and I believe supportable, it was a little gratuitous. Drrll (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell that bashing Totenberg should be contained at talk: Nina Totenberg.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues raised by wife's political activities

In an ES about Thomas's false financial disclosure forms, Bbb32 commented, "really doesn't belong in Personal life but nowhere else to put it other than creating new section." I'd had the same thought about a new section. This article should cover the serious allegations that:

• Ginni Thomas's service on the Bush transition team created a conflict of interest for Thomas in Bush v. Gore, and he should have recused himself;
• Her political work stood to benefit and has benefited from the decision in Citizens United;
• Her salaries from right-wing organizations were illegally omitted from disclosure forms he filed dating back to his confirmation hearings; and
• Her active partisanship is at best unusual and at worst unseemly for the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice.

A "Personal life" section can note in passing what the bio subject's spouse does. The above matters, however, relate much more closely to Thomas's perforance in office. I think that there should be a new section with most of this information, leaving in "Personal life" only a cross-reference along these lines: "Some of Virginia Thomas's political activities have been the basis for criticisms of Thomas (see ___)."

It's not obvious what to call the new section, though. "Criticisms arising from wife's political activities" is a little clunky. JamesMLane t c 22:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the need for a new section, while I, like you, do not have any brilliant solutions for a name. _WikiMan^One 23:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with a new section covering this type of material, but it needs to be sourced to non-opinion reliable sources. And it should include material from reliable sources that says that her activities are not a problem and not unprecedented for spouses of judges. Drrll (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't see the need for a separate section, because I think that would give undue weight to this aspect of Thomas' biography. I'm actually fine with this subject occupying a short-to-medium paragraph under "Personal life" - it is part of Thomas' personal life, and I'm fundamentally opposed to "Criticism" sections. I agree that we should avoid opinion pieces, which I think we've actually done quite successfully by citing news coverage from the New York Times and Politico (which broke the story). I don't see any issue with our sourcing in that regard. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I find myself in agreement with MastCell for the reasons he explained. For those interested in this subject, it might be worthwhile to create a separate Wikipedia article that generally covers outside political activity and alleged conflicts of interest involving SCOTUS judges and their spouses. This stuff goes back a long way. For example, John Marshall served simultaneously as chief justice and secretary of state, and it was he who failed to deliver the judicial commission that was later at issue in Marbury v. Madison. Chief justice John Jay negotiated the famous Jay treaty while on the court. Justice Smith Thompson ran for Governor of New York while on the court. The history of this subject is very interesting, and could make a good article, IMHO. In contrast, focusing on the Thomases alone could be considered a POV fork.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We have no need for a separate "Criticism" section. The most important criticisms of Thomas would relate to the contents of his opinions, and I'm not talking about including that in a new section. The material isn't "Personal life", though, because a Justice's official duties go beyond the contents of his/her opinions. A Justice must avoid conflicts of interest. For example, with the modern understanding of judicial ethics, I think there'd be universal agreement that a Justice could not sit on a case that reviewed or arose from his or her own earlier action (or inaction) in some other official capacity, yet that incident wouldn't be "Personal life". Here, as it happens, the alleged conflict arises through Thomas's wife. That fact doesn't convert judicial ethics into a matter of "personal life" on a par with Thomas having taken in his great-nephew.

As for sourcing, we can and do cite opinion pieces in support of factual assertions about opinions. (Per WP:NPOV, "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects.") Drrll says that our article "should include material from reliable sources that says that her activities are not a problem...." Well, there's no reliable source anywhere of any type that can establish that as true, the way we can establish the date of Thomas's nomination or the like, because it's an opinion, not a fact. What Drrll suggests is precisely the reporting of facts about opinions. In that context, the test of a "reliable source" is whether we can be confident that the person or entity to whom the opinion is attributed did in fact say it. The general form we would use is "Spokesperson X opined that Thomas's conduct was proper because ____. Spokesperson Y disagreed, arguing that ____." I certainly agree that we should fairly represent both (or, if necessary, all) significant points of view. JamesMLane t c 15:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is a particular opinion he's been involved with, where there were credible reports about widespread allegations about conflict of interest, then it could go in the subsection about that case.

If you put some refs after each of your bulleted items, that would help. I am unaware that Mrs. Thomas was employed by the Bush transition team, or even volunteered to work directly for that team; we already discussed above that the only allegation of conflict of interest in that case came from one single partisan source. As for Citizens United, every person in the country who wishes to publicly criticize candidates benefitted from that decision; was she connected to a party in the case? The omission from disclosure forms I think is acceptable in the personal life section, at least until some fine or disciplinary action occurs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

every person in the country benefited from that decision? I think you meant to say corporations unless you believe in corporate personhood, which is quite ludicrous. It's common knowledge that Virginia was involved with the Bush transition. [9] [10] _WikiMan^One 17:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Every person who works for or is otherwise affiliated with a corporation benefitted from the decision.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, let's not be ridiculous. That would be true only if corporate priorities overlapped directly with those of individual employees, which is often not the case. More to the point, numerous sources (from constitutional law scholars to reputable media to the most recent Republican and Democratic presidential nominees) have criticized the decision, or at least noted that it substantially increases the political clout of corporations and big-money donors, at the expense of those without the ability to make massive financial contributions to candidates. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the decision is fine as part of the overall description of the case, in the article about the case. But we're talking here about conflict of interest. The suggestion seems to be that Thomas had a conflict because his wife was one of the many thousands of people who help to run corporations. That seems like an extremely tenuous link to me, and not one that I've seen reported in reliable sources as a conflict of interest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you're confusing two conflict-of-interest allegations that have been raised against Thomas. In Citizens United, the concern arose because Thomas appears to be tight with the Koch brothers, who are among the most prominent beneficiaries of the Court's ruling. Separately (or mostly separately), some people are a bit concerned because Thomas' wife is highly active in the more extreme end of conservative politics, has opened a lobbying shop on the basis of her "connections", and has publicly described the health-care bill as unconstitutional. If you're honestly unaware of reliable sources documenting these concerns, I will provide some. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, in my previous two comments, I was discussing only Citizens United, which was a first amendment case, not a health care/commerce clause case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What I meant by including "material from reliable sources that says that her activities are not a problem" is use of news stories that report opinions of various experts on different sides of the issue. Drrll (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy, as I quoted it, doesn't require that an opinion be both voiced and reported in a news stories. It requires that the opinion be "significant", which is obviously a term requiring the exercise of some editorial judgment. Coverage in news stories is one indication of significance, and we should consider it, but it's not the only one. We've reported significant opinions that weren't covered in news stories. Consider this passage from John Edwards extramarital affair:

Several prominent sites criticized the omission of information about the allegations, most notably Gawker.com and the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog. Another critic was Roger L. Simon of Pajamas Media, whose posts were linked by Glenn Reynolds at the high-traffic weblog Instapundit.

With regard to Thomas, an opinion voiced in an editorial in The New York Times ([11]) is certainly significant and can be considered for inclusion. JamesMLane t c 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I myself think that policy is unclear as to using opinion pieces in BLPs, but current practice seems to favor not using them. Policy really needs to address this issue head on, so that it can be consistently applied to the various BLPs. If opinion pieces are to be included, certainly one from The New York Times would be noteworthy enough to use, just as opinion pieces from The Wall Street Journal would be. I agree that if they are kept out of a Clarence Thomas article they should be kept out of a John Edwards article. Drrll (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course we must recognize the difference between nationally recognized/respected papers like the New York Times, Washington Post, San Fran Chronicle, LA Times, AJC, Chicago Tribune, etc. and those that do not measure up like Washington Times, local newspapers (in general), Fox News/Glenn Beck and affiliates, Rush Limbaugh, WSJ, etc. _WikiMan^One 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. should not be used as sources, but I don't agree that the other sources should be rejected, especially the WSJ, as the largest newspaper in the country (about 2 1/2 times larger than the NYT) and one that often gets awards for both its news coverage and editorial coverage. Drrll (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Never Argued a Case Before the High Courts?

I'm not sure this should be in the article. It's not clear what it means. If it means federal courts, that's true. If a state Supreme Court counts as a high court (as I sure think it would), then it's simply false. He argued lots of cases before the state Supreme Court in Missouri, when he was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, first with criminal appeals and then with revenue and taxation. He may be the most experienced member of the current Court when it comes to the latter sort of cases (which is why he often gets assigned those, since he loves them, and the others consider them boring). 67.246.108.175 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize I'd been logged out. The above comment was by me. Parableman (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The source of that appears to be Toobin, p. 26, "For example, he had never argued a single case in any federal appeals court, much less in the Supreme Court; he had never written a book, an article, or even a legal brief of any consequence." Clarification may be needed. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly formatted footnotes

What's with the oddly formatted footnotes in the article, such as the last two, for example in the Stare decisis section? They don't seem to be formatted properly. Is this intentional or some problem? Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed those and the others in the article. The {{sfn}} templates were not being used properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That works, but I'm not convinced the problem was in the way the {{sfn}} template was being used. Those templates have been in use in the article for a long time; I'd like to think one of us would have noticed the odd results both in-line and in the reflist itself. I wonder if possibly the changes made to the template in November may have something to do with the issue. In addition to the odd appearance, the current version generates two links to the supplied URL, one correct (as entered), the other concatenating underscores and additional parameters – including the "display" version of the page number – to the entered URL. Using a URL is supposed to work correctly; if the {{harvnb}} template is used with <ref> </ref> tags wrapped around it like you would do with a standard {{cite}} template, it does work correctly. The problem is, I don't have the knowledge (or the boldness in this instance) to fix the template, and no idea who to ask to look at it. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, thought about the possibility that the template had changed as I agree with you that someone would have noticed it, but I didn't have time to investigate it and just fixed it based on the use of the template in other articles. Two things you can do if you wish: one is to ask someone on the Pump, and the other is to raise the question on the template's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a bit more prominent?

So, Justice Thomas didn't report just under $700k in his wife's income from a conservative think tank. How do we tell the story? Buried in the Personal life section, of course! "In 1971, Thomas married college sweetheart Kathy Grace Ambush. Thomas has a reputation as an affable, good-humored man who is extremely personally popular with his friends and colleagues. Oh and by the way between 2003 and 2007 Thomas failed to disclose $686,589 in income earned by his wife from the Heritage Foundation".

This shouldn't be tucked away like that. It should have its own section. Any suggestions where to relocate it? --JaGa^talk 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It currently gets a full paragraph of coverage. It doesn't deserve more prominence unless it develops into a bigger story. Drrll (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The simple fact that he failed to report a huge COI is noteworthy, and it's getting coverage already. I read about this story in the news, came here to learn more, only to find a short blurb inexplicably buried in Personal life. --JaGa^talk 19:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It really is just the opposite. The way this entire project works is completely reversed from that. We take what's in secondary sources and trim it down to a brief summary. You learn more about a subject by going to the secondary sources. If any article has more info that what's in the secondary sources it needs serious work.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Drrll. Minor incident with little ongoing relevance; it may merit a mention, but it's own section? Please. This is just the latest in a long line of attempts by soi-disant progressives to turn this article into a dressed-up attack page. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read every secondary source in the world and come here for more. I saw an article that mentioned it and came here for the overview. So, do you also think the bottom of Personal life is the proper place to mention a Supreme Court justice's failure to disclose just under $700k of income from a conservative think tank? --JaGa^talk 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the choices. I find some of the construct of this article a little odd, but if we're not talking major rewrite, I personally wouldn't move it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If we were talking major rewrite I think the career section could be expanded on with some of the info that's currently in judicial philosophy and oral arguements, but without that expansion being done first I wouldn't just pop this paragraph up there.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'Personal life' section may not be the most apropos, but there really isn't a more applicable section and it doesn't deserve its own section. It makes sense that since it is the most recent item in 'Personal life' that it would be at the bottom. BTW, it's been known for a long time that Thomas' wife worked for the Heritage Foundation and it's hardly unique for spouses of federal judges to be in ideological jobs. Circuit Court judge Marjorie Rendell's husband used to be the Pennsylvania governor and Circuit Court judge Stephen Reinhardt wife used to head the Southern California office of the ACLU. Drrll (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was boppin' around on the interwebs today, and came across this article. I read it, and thought, huh, is there anything to this, or is it just an attack piece? So I came here for a balanced overview of the controversy, and found... pretty much nothing. Which was no help at all. I mean, is this really a big deal, or is it something blown out of proportion? I was relying on Wikipedia to present the facts and allow me to make my own decision about the seriousness of his actions, as I'm sure thousands of others have done recently. But instead I get a micro-blurb hidden away in Personal life. It's a story people are interested in, and want to understand. It's been covered in the media. It raises important questions about the actions of a member of the Supreme Court. Even if it isn't a big deal - which I'm completely prepared to accept, once I know all the facts - we should present the facts that explain the situation and allow a reader to figure it out for themselves. --JaGa^talk 23:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems more pertinent to the career section than the personal life section. There's a subsection on "early years", but he's been there since 1991, so a new subsection on current/later years should probably be made, and this could be incorporated in it. My 2 cents anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it where it is, given that it was about his wife's income rather than his. If there are any legal consequences for Justice Thomas, then we can move it. More details are (or can be) available in the wife's Wikipedia article, and in the linked sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the information deserves more prominence, but I also don't think it belongs in the Personal life section. However, I agree with others that there's no better section to use, and the information isn't notable enough to warrant its own section.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't belong in the personal life section, and there's no section to which it ought to be moved, and it doesn't merit its own section, the obvious conclusion is that it ought to be deleted. Any objections (other than Jaga)? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, it could be incorporated into the "First Amendment" section. One of the primary reasons this has been pursued seems to be a claimed/perceived conflict of interest in Citizens United, in which Thomas was part of the 5–4 majority ruling for Citizens United and against McCain–Feingold, and I'm sure a 30-second Google search would turn up plenty of sources making that point. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but they would all be commentator sources. My view is he failed to follow the rules and, in particular, rules that directly or indirectly implicated his wife's activities. I'm not sure how comfortable I feel going beyond that, although without looking at the quality of the sources, I wouldn't foreclose the possibility.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There's probably some room in witchhunt, too, where it belongs.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Simon, in response to your comment above about the "obvious conclusion", as well as the even more overstated witch-hunt comment, I object. The news is noteworthy and relevant and should remain. If you like, we can put it in the lead. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As you put it above, it doesn't "belong[ ] in the Personal life section," "there's no better section to use" (the lede is a section), "and the information isn't notable enough to warrant its own section." If it can't stay where it is and it can't go anywhere else, I'm not sure how any conclusion other than deletion follows. Hence, obvious. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll rephrase. The information is sufficiently notable to include in the article. Based on the current sectioning of the article, the Personal life section is the best place to put it. (And I don't think of the lead as a section because it doesn't have a section header, but that's semantics, and my comment was intended to be facetious.)--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas's skin color in the lead

An editor removed from the lead the reference to Thomas being the second African American justice, Marshall being the first. Apparently, the justification for the removal is we don't mention that Scalia is white (and, according to the editor, "ditto for the other justices"). I think it should be put back the way it was, and after completing this edit, I intend to do that. First, it's not notable that Scalia is white. It is notable that Thomas is black AND that he is the second black justice in the history of the Supreme Court. We DO note, for example, that Kagan is the fourth female justice in the lead. We also note that Sotomayor is the first Hispanic justice in the lead. So, the editor's justification just doesn't hold water. Second, the reference has been there for years (at least since 2009 - I didn't continue looking back), and before removing something like that, I think it should be discussed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have to revert. Another editor did it for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're both wrong. Discussion is fine, and there will be no edit-war about this. Is it really necessary to have his race in the opening paragraph? It's covered later in the article. And, we don't get into race and ethnicity in the opening paragraphs of other SCOTUS judges. Thomas isn't even the first African-American in his position. How many African-Americans before we stop putting it in the opening paragraph? How many women? For the first one, fine. But after that, enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "necessary" but it's appropriate. With Kagan, we included it, even though she's already the fourth female justice. Someone asked a similar question about how many is enough with respect to Kagan (I think). I can't give you a precise number, but my sense is that the second black justice in over two hundred years is not the point where we keep it out of the lead. It's rather important.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Cardozo was the second Jewish justice. Not in lead. Edward Douglass White was the second Catholic justice. Not in lead. Felix Frankfurter was the only Austrian-American justice. Not in lead. I just wish we could ease up on emphasizing demographics so much. It's only important for people obsessed with such things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel obsessed, at least not about this. I'll take it up with my therapist. Cardozo and White are good examples for you; Frankfurter is not - very people would care about his Austrian ancestry. Most white justices comes from Europe. Also, the Frankfurter lead is so short it's barely noticeable. Even the Cardozo and White leads are short in comparison to Thomas's. Maybe we should change the Cardozo and White articles. :-) Anyway, I'll let others chime in at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll settle for your personal solemn oath that when the next African-American justice is confirmed, we'll not have it in the lead. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Scalia was the first Italian-American justice and his article doesn't mention that. I don't have any opinion either way on Thomas' article mentioning that he's the second black justice, but like Anythingyouwant, I do find this obsession with demographics a little juvenile, and if Kagan's article says she's the fourth woman, that's just silly and it ought to be fixed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and Scalia's article is featured (ooh). I'll now let others chime in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about whether this needs to be in the lead, vs. the body. In favor of the lead, Thomas' race has been a central aspect both in how he has presented himself and in how he has been perceived and discussed by reliable sources. Moreover, it was arguably an "obsession with demographics" that led the Bush White House to nominate Thomas in the first place. But like I said, I can't get too worked up about whether it's discussed in the body vs. the lead. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's a consensus to remove it from the lead, the body would have to be clearer. At the moment, it's not as squarely stated: "Thomas biographer Scott Douglas Gerber has opined that attacks against Thomas from critics such as Jeffrey Toobin have been unusually vitriolic, which Gerber attributes in part to liberals’ disappointment that Thomas has departed so much from the jurisprudence of the African-American whom he succeeded, Thurgood Marshall." I also agree with MastCell that demographics plays a significant role in the appointment process.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia should be tempered with reason. Scalia being an Italian American of Eurpoean ancestry probably doesn't belong in the lede of his article. Thomas' situation is a little different. Going from slavery to the SCOTUS is a big deal. It's worthy of mention. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Just to note this as a matter of record, it was I who requested temporary semi-protection of this page. IP and brand new account vandalism was out of control. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This level of protection is interesting. I think it would be of benefit to history if Wikipedia could quantify this type of behavior. Especially, in regard to the political sides that take part in vandalism of the topics that are politically charged. I am certain that it is the left that will be shown to be the most mean-spirited. Isn't it interesting how the MSM will heavily cover any right-wing violence -- even the whiff of it -- and yet characterize real filmed violence by union thugs and WTO vandals in a more neutral fashion and with little condemnation. This is because of the bullying nature of left wing advocates. The MSM knows that it will invite a firestorm if they were even-handed. Lkoler (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of articles about liberals are (justly) protected. Vandalism is vandalism. Every editor has the right to hold Clarence Thomas, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or anyone else they see fit in utter contempt. However, if they are unable to put aside those feelings when working on articles, they need to refrain from editing them. As far as "the left being shown to be the most mean spirited", I don't think that holds water. And even were it to be true, it doesn't seem revelant, because as I said, vandalism is vandalism. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the lion's share of vandalism comes from the left, but that subjective impression may be because the articles on my watchlist are disproportionately weighted toward articles likely to suffer lefty vandalism and away from articles likely to suffer righty vandalism. In any event, my observation is that the vast majority of pure vandalism is best understood as neither right nor left, but IP. Notwithstanding WP:HUMAN (which concedes that 80% of vandalism is from IP accounts), I emphatically support semi-protecting all BLPs—permanently, or at very least, an admin guideline requiring semi-protection to be approved whenever any user requests it at RFP. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I emphatically second that support. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I ask that data be tracked to document this phenomenon and you just assure me that it's nothing to talk about. That's comforting. Aren't you interested in this data? Or are you similarly suspicious as I am that it will lean heavily to the left. Vandalism is vandalism doesn't answer my issue -- it covers it up, it minimizes it, it sets it aside. Why respond in this fashion? Wikipedia is a fantastic experiment. It is a unique contribution to the modern world and I hope it continues for decades.

Let me talk about it this way: PBS and NPR let the leftward drift continue unabated and un-policed. They had a responsibility to the American public to use the startup and continuing funds in a fair way for the benefit of the larger public. This is really a fiduciary responsibility, too. But, my issue is the moral one. NPR got to the point that they were effectively telling people who work for them to lie about this bias.

Wikipedia must have credibility in order to proceed into the future. We need data to prove that. Why are financial statements expected in many aspects of public life but not political agendas (which in NPR's case is very much more important). There must be a way to quantify this -- publishing such things would chasten whoever is doing it and give a tremendous boost to Wikipedia's image. I feel certain that there are very good people in the Wiki higher ups. We don't want the Left (or Right) to come into this organization and intimidate it. Set standards, measure compliance and adjust as necessary. Bias and lying about it is the hobgoblin of modern life. A concerted effort to expose it within any politically affected organization is only the first step to fixing it.Lkoler (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Whom are you asking to track this data? This is a volunteer project; you're as well placed to do this as anyone else. Virtually every edit made here (with rare exceptions) is a matter of public record. Anyone could mine the database, either by hand or using automated tools, to investigate whatever hypothesis they like. Your comments lead me to believe that you'll need to be wary of confirmation bias if you undertake such a project, but nothing is stopping you.

Now, to be a bit more blunt: you need to get off the soapbox and stop using this talk page (and Wikipedia in general) as a platform for your personal ideological views. We get it: you don't like Anita Hill, public broadcasting, the mainstream media, and the left. But this isn't the place to discuss your dislikes. You can blog about these things, or write letters to the editor, or avail yourself of any of the other myriad options for free expression that we all enjoy, but while you're contributing to this particular website please try to keep in mind its guidelines and policies. In particular, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and its talk pages are not forums for general discussion or debate. MastCell ^Talk 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What value is it to the encyclopedia to know whether more vandalism comes from the left or the right? What are we going to do, block editors who display lefty userboxes? What's the practical value to the encyclopedia to engage in that project? We aren't a sociology experiment, and to the extent that WP's edit data can be used as raw material for someone else's sociology experiment, MastCell is right: Go for it! If you want to do it, great. Let me know when you post the paper at SSRN; I'll enjoy reading it. And why, seemingly at random, do you jump on a soapbox about a completely different subject for a paragraph before getting back on topic? I agree with you, as it happens, but what's the relevance? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback -- good points all. The most important of which is that this isn't the place to do this. Regardless, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. I read the Reliability of Wikepedia page and didn't find the item that I'm interested in (which targets have more vandalism).Lkoler (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is STILL protected in violation of policy. I asked for it to unlock. Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think the article is protected? It's not.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Disbarment complaint

Can this article please reflect news that there is an attempt to have him disbarred? These news articles talk about it. I can't do it as the article is oddly locked down. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• As if to prove the value of semi-protecting the page...- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I still cannot edit this article and the information doesn't appear to have been added. When will this article be unlocked? I thought Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles are protected at Wikipedia if there is sufficient disruption by unregistered users. In this instance, the article is protected until May 7 because of vandalism. As for the substance of your suggestion, anyone can file a complaint against a judge or a lawyer. At this point, the supposed complaint against Thomas is not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope I'm wrong, but I fear the attacks will begin anew the moment this article is unprotected. I'm willing to give it a shot, but based on this article's history, indefinate semi-protection may be in order. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Anita Hill allegations - AGAIN

The entry I have trouble with is: "She sought to emphasize the inappropriate nature of the alleged behavior, rather than focusing on whether it was illegal or not, but said that in her view it was indeed illegal."

Please provide a reference to the statement that she did say it was illegal -- in her testimony before the Senate hearing. It is wrong to put this word into this paragraph and to characterize her testimony with this oddly constructed sentence that seems only to try to prejudice the reader. It should read:

"She sought to emphasize the inappropriate nature of the alleged behavior and specifically avoided the question of its illegality."

It's clear she was doing a drive by insinuation without having to explain more of her own behavior -- as to why she followed Thomas to his next job, for example. My complaint has to do with how it reads in the first sentence above. We have no business in perpetuating this version of events and passing on the insinuation without adding comments by people supporting Thomas who explain this whole despicable attack by Hill. Hill describes behavior that if it were Bill Clinton would further raise him in the eyes of the media, with knowing clucks and stifled mirth. But, with Thomas, we are supposed to be appalled and exhibit high dudgeon.Lkoler (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, a substantial portion of your edits to Wikipedia seem to express personal hostility toward Anita Hill. If it's possible for you to tone that down, it would probably help move things along. I agree that the sentence in question is poorly worded and ambiguous. I think your proposed edit is an improvement, although it could probably be improved even further. MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The underlying quote in footnote 52 has the underlying quote. Hill said that in her opinion it was sexual harassment, but that even if it wasn't, it was "behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court." I agree with Lkoler that the sentence in the article body is a problem, but I think the solution is simply to hew more closely to the quote. It currently reads: "Following the leak, Hill was called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearings, where she stated that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature. She sought to emphasize the inappropriate nature of the alleged behavior, rather than focusing on whether it was illegal or not, but said that in her view it was indeed illegal, adding that it might not 'rise to the level' of illegal sexual harassment." Let's change that to "Following the leak, Hill was called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearings. She testified that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature which she felt constituted sexual harassment, or at least 'behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court.'"- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds reasonable to me. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too, as long as you change the "which" to "that", please.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit that which/that is a usage problem I struggle with, but I think which is correct here. The phrase "she felt [Thomas' behavior] constituted sexual harassment, or at least 'behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court" doesn't restrict or define its predicate (i.e. Thomas' comments); it gives additional information about the predicate, and (so to speak) that is the province of which.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it does restrict comments, but it's on the line. If you remove the clause, the sentence still makes some sense: "She testified that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, or at least 'behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court.'" In any event, if you want to use "which", then offset the clause by commas so it reads: "She testified that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, which she felt constituted sexual harassment, or at least to 'behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court.'" I bolded the added comma. Regardless of what you decide, I've added a "to" (bolded) for parallelism ("subjected to").--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the "to" is that it changes the meaning of the sentence. Hill said that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, characterizing those comments as either sexual harassment or at least behavior unbecoming a Justice. Adding the "to" changes that subtly into a claim that Hill said that Thomas had subjected her to behavior that could be characterized as harassing comments or behavior unbecoming. I realize that's a subtle distinction, but I think it matters.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I therefore removed the comma after harassment so it doesn't read as if behavior is referring to what she was subjected to. The entire which clause therefore characterizes Hill's comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up and making these changes. You have been scrupulously fair. I have been busy lately and not able to watch the to and fro. I'll try to stop myself regarding Hill -- in future. I haven't gone to her Wiki entry because in truth my only desire is to see Justice Thomas's bio in a form that school children get as fair a read on him as possible.Lkoler (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Perception/Fox News Poll Paragraph

I recommend removing the paragraph that begins "In a 2004 Fox Poll.." for the following reasons: - The data is almost 8 years old - One snapshot in his time of his popularity is hardly representative, as poll numbers go up and down all the time, so the number seems meaningless. - The poll undermines itself when 58% of the respondents can't even name a supreme court justice. Clearly the poll respondents are not well-informed enough to rank SC justices.

I'm deleting paragraph unless someone has an objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You removed the 2006 poll info as well. Polls are always snapshots - that doesn't mean they don't mean anything. The respondents' apparent ignorance of the names of justices is disclosed, putting the poll into some perspective. It doesn't necessarily follow that those who ranked were not "well-informed" - that's mostly just your inference. I believe the polling data is worth keeping, particularly in light of the later 2006 poll.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I really do appreciate the courtesy and thoughtfulness brought to these discussions by the editors. Thanks as always for the logic employed. OK, now my thoughts: The first statement in that paragraph and the poll itself feel awfully partisan to me. It's a Fox News poll that chose the furthest right-leaning judge as the second most admired. Further, if you look at the actual data from that poll, we're talking about 8% of people who said Thomas was most admired. I think at the very least the statement should be reworded to say "8% of respondents view Thomas as the most admired SC justice." While Rassmussen has been roundly criticized for its methodology, I'd be fine leaving it in (though without broader context like a trend line of approval ratings of him vs other justices) I still say it's meaningless. But the first poll? Come on, that's reaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It would really be better if you would wait for consensus before continuing to edit the article. You've now changed the article to replace an accurate description of Thomas's ranking with the 8% data. I don't have a problem with reporting on the 8%, but it's misleading to omit the description because 8% is a relatively small percentage, which would incorrectly lead the reader to infer that he wasn't admired. Let's also leave out your opinions about partisanship, right-leaning, etc. They're not helpful. Unless you want to claim that Fox is not a reliable source, those thinly veiled accusations of bias by the source really don't belong in this discussion. I'm going to put the article back to the way it was, and PLEASE wait for consensus before editing it again. Just so it's clear, although I don't want to put it in now because I want to hear from other editors, I don't have a problem including Thomas's ranking AND including the 8% as it gives the reader a more complete picture to have both.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"thinly veiled accusations of bias" [sigh. I didn't think comments like that were a part of the wikipedia editorial staff's parlance.] All of that aside, it still seems that a single 8 year old poll that barely shows him above the other justices (the next one is 1% below him) is at best irrelevant and at worst included to paint him in a positive light instead of a neutral one. Further, I looked up Sandra Day O'Conner's page, the one who was the MOST admired in that poll, and that fact is not included on her page. I looked at all of the other justices' pages, and none of them have public poll numbers included. Not sure why those things are here on Thomas' page. Curious to hear the opinions of other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Given their status as lifetime appointees, I don't see much relevance in the so-called public image of the justices, and the 59% who couldn't or wouldn't name one of the then-current justices as their favorite seems to support that view. The 2004 poll seems particularly meaningless. It has a ±3% margin of error; after O'Connor, four justices – Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Ginsburg – are grouped in a virtual tie with 8–6–5–5%. That really seems to fall squarely into "who cares" territory. The 2006 poll is slightly more meaningful, but still hasn't been shown to have any effect on Thomas. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

After we hear from others, if the consensus is to remove the poll material, I suggest we rename the section header as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Poll results for other justices are not nearly as relevant as ones about Thomas. With the unequaled media coverage of the phase of his confirmation hearings dealing with the Anita Hill allegations, and what I believe to be unequaled hostility in news and opinion coverage since his confirmation, poll results matter for Thomas. I agree with Fat&Happy that the Fox News poll has dubious value, not because Fox is not a reliable source (which it is), but because of the close results and the margin of error. I don't have a problem removing the Fox poll, but I do in removing the Rasmussen poll. Drrll (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sound logic re Fox poll and margin of error. My only question is why leave the one Rasmussen poll in there? I don't know what 48% favorable, 36% unfavorable means. Is that good? Is that bad? Why? I just don't get the relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that poll has no context. It's not like they do those polls regularly, and they didn't include other justices to compare against. It's just a number floating in space. Like saying my refrigerator has a 61% approval rating. OK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this discussion, it looked like we had consensus to at least remove the Fox Poll. Where did we land with the other poll numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to wait until others weigh in on whether to include the Rasmussen poll. Drrll (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove it. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a "Public Perception" section at all? Thomas was approved by the Senate to a lifetime appointment 20 years ago. He doesn't have Nielsen rating, and he won't ever be up for re-election. None of the other Justices has such a section in their article (though Justice Sotomayor does have the distinction of having an "awards and honors" section. That seems even-handed. I'm certain that Thomas has no awards or honors.) Why should anyone take Wikipedia seriously, if it won't be serious about itself?--Paul (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"I'm certain that Thomas has no awards or honors." What exactly does that mean? –CWenger (^ • @) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's sarcasm, sorry. I was pointing out the different treatment that Scalia and Thomas receive on Wikipedia compared to the more liberal Justices. --Paul (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It came across as very insulting to Justice Thomas. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm and irony are sometimes difficult to communicate in on-line text exchanges.--Paul (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, there hasn't been any other Justice who received as much media coverage as he did at the end of his confirmation hearings. And I believe that there hasn't been any other Justice who has received as much hostile news and opinion coverage as Thomas. That puts Thomas in a unique position where "Public perception" is relevant. Drrll (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Harlan Crow

This should be included. Where and how? [12][13] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like about the only one saying that Thomas did something wrong is Deborah Rhode. She is a prominent feminist who works with feminist organizations, has been a long-time Thomas critic, a supporter of Anita Hill, a defender of Bill Clinton's concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by him (including working for Democrats during his impeachment), and a law clerk for Thomas' liberal predecessor, Thurgood Marshall). Hardly an impartial judge of Thomas. Drrll (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

zOMG a feminist who works with feminist organizations doing feminist stuff!11!! You're right, no reason to include her view in the article, even if it is reported prominently by the New York Times. In all seriousness, I don't think you're accurately representing the sources. The New York Times article states:

Legal ethicists differed on whether Justice Thomas’s dealings with Mr. Crow pose a problem under the code. But they agreed that one facet of the relationship was both unusual and important in weighing any ethical implications: Justice Thomas’s role in Mr. Crow’s donation for the museum.

In other words, legal ethicists (plural, not just Rohde) see this as an unusual and notable relationship. Using your logic, one could say that the only one who doesn't think Thomas did anything wrong is Ronald Rotunda, since he's the only one quoted by the Times defending Thomas (incidentally, he's a former Ken Starr staffer and a fellow at the Cato Institute, so he's hardly an impartial judge of Thomas... right?) See how easy it is to inject ideological spin? Let's see if we can stick to accurately representing the content of the source rather than spinning it. MastCell ^Talk 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's getting significant coverage in reliable sources. It can easily rankle, which is why I came here rather than create a section for it that despite my best efforts would have some crying NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If we include any mention of this in the article, it is relevant to note Rhode's history of being hostile to Thomas. It is also relevant to note that it appears that she is the only one definitively saying that he did anything wrong and that this appears to be a one-story controversy (where other sources merely report on the single NYT story). Yes, if Rotunda has a history of praising Thomas, then that should be noted as well. Drrll (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, and just hear me out, we could try to represent the story as reported by reliable sources. Your partisanship is showing in your efforts to spin this into a personal campaign by Rohde. That doesn't appear to reflect reality, nor does it reflect existing sources.

One could just as easily say that Thomas' activities are of concern to legal ethicists, and "only" Ronald Rotunda is defending his actions (insert attempt to discredit Rotunda by association). That would be misleading and improper, of course, but it's exactly what you're doing. Either we convey what reliable sources are saying, or we decide that this is below the notability threshold. Your attempts to spin this along partisan lines are inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There aren't "reliable sources" there is one media outlet, the NYTs that decided to do a hit piece on Thomas, quoting one critic, and other sources picked it up. This has not yet gotten to a "notable" state.--Paul (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that when you look at the Times article, you see a "one-source hit piece". In general, though, news pieces from the New York Times are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. What makes this an exception (besides your personal dislike of the article's content)? MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right that we should stick to the sources about this issue in describing it if we do include it. It is still worth taking into consideration about whether to include this, the issue of the weight of the person saying that what Thomas did was wrong and the weight of apparently a one-story controversy. Rhode clearly does not like Thomas as her support of Anita Hill shows (she participated in a forum with Anita Hill that had a very Hill-sympathetic audience and she included in a book she edited, Women and Leadership, an essay by Hill), her dismissive writing about Thomas not learning the correct lessons from his life experiences in contrast with Thurgood Marshall, and more importantly her participation in a teleconference by the liberal activist group Common Cause that advocated the Department of Justice investigate Thomas for conflict of interest in the Citizens United case. In sticking to the sources, we should not give the impression that this is a widely reported item or that several ethics experts consider what Thomas did wrong. Drrll (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. According to the Times article, ethics experts consider Thomas' relationship with Crow "unusual" and believe that it raises important ethical questions. That stops short of saying that it's "wrong". MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue merits at least a mention in a biographic article. No ethical claims should be made, but we should express the facts attracting attention. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection and alleged ethics violatons

First, why is this page protected? I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Second, why is there no mention of his ethics violations? It is published in reliable news sources, such as Democrats mobilize over Clarence Thomas ethics investigation. Thank you. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Now it's on CNN Clarence Thomas under fire again. 1) Why is the article locked and 2) why is this not on the article? 65.96.60.92 (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

While I have the technical ability to unprotect the page, I have been heavily involved in editing it and thus would prefer to defer that decision to an uninvolved administrator. I'd suggest going to Requests for protection; find the section of that page entitled "Requests for unprotection" and file a request. An uninvolved admin will review it. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As regards to the content I'd suggest it's premature. We're an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Right now all that's happened is a letter has been sent making a complaint. If and when this turns into a serious and formal inquiry I'd likely support inclusion.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

While I am relatively new to Wikipedia, it seems that the short blurb needs to be expanded. In case you missed it, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are supposed to be complete; blocking an adequate reporting on the DisclosureGate scandal seems spectacularly irresponsible, as Thomas has publicly admitted every fact necessary to constitute a confession of multiple felonies. To wit, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title [and/or] imprisoned not more than 5 years…

According to the Department of Justice, the Section 1001(a) as amended in 1996 (pointedly, after the Ethics in Government Act!) was intended to reach “documents that have most often been the subject of congressional false statement prosecutions, such as vouchers, payroll documents, and Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) financial disclosure forms.” United States Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual 902 (1997) (emphasis added).

To incur criminal liability under Section 1001, all Justice Thomas had to do was knowingly omit a material fact from his annual financial disclosure form. As he has recently amended the forms in question in response to public pressure, he has effectively conceded that the omissions were material. Thomas recently explained that he “inadvertently omitted” the source of his wife’s earned income as required by the Ethics in Government Act, “due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Ariane de Vogue and Devin Dwyer, Justice Clarence Thomas Amends 20 Years of Disclosure Forms With Wife's Employers, ABCNews.com, Jan. 24, 2011.

Problem is, through his conduct, Thomas clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the difference between earned and investment income -- correctly treating the advances on his autobiography as non-investment income. Clarence Thomas, Form AO-10 (Financial Disclosure Rept. for Calendar Year 2007) 2 (May 15, 2008), The instructions are pellucid, and require him to disclose the source of wife Virginia’s non-investment income, but not the amount. Moreover, every American taxpayer is charged with the ability to distinguish between investment and non-investment income. E.g., 26 U.S.C. §§ 163(d), 212. It is a simple concept, explained thoroughly in any law school survey course on income taxation. Reading the damned form can’t be that hard.

It would be one thing if Justice Thomas were a day laborer, used to spending his days out in the fields or on construction sites, but Thomas is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, who has even bragged about his familiarity with tax law. In his autobiography, he boasts that he had earned an honors grade in his class on taxation at Yale Law School, My Grandfather's Son at 75, confessed that he was “interested in tax and corporate law,” Id. at 99, and “had bench trials in a number of tax cases.” Id. at 108. Yet, despite his admission of competence in the area of tax law, see, Mo. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.1, and his admission by conduct that he understood the difference between investment and non-investment income, Clarence Thomas, Form AO-10 (Financial Disclosure Rept. for Calendar Year 2007) 2 (May 15, 2008), he claimed that this serial oversight was “inadvertent?”

In effect, Thomas invoked the “I am incredibly stupid” defense, which is not only unbecoming of an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, but never seems to work unless you are a federal judge. For instance, in an unpublished Tenth Circuit case—providentially, styled United States v. Thomas—neither the court nor jury were willing to swallow the “incredible stupidity” defense:

For example, Thomas bought a VCR and wide screen television for $5,130; by the time the units reached the final limited partnership, they were carried on the books at 307,800. He bought twenty horses for a total of $12,400; the horses were eventually carried on the books at $3 million. The jury could have found the necessary willfulness and criminal intent on the basis of such evidence alone. The obviously sham nature of these transactions could lead to such an inference.

United States v. Thomas, No. 91-4061, 1993.C10.41489, ¶¶ 97-98 (10th Cir. Feb. 23, 1993) (Versuslaw).

Something more needs to be said about DisclosureGate and more importantly, the large sinecures he receives from conservative activists (including the gift of the Bible of Frederick Douglass, valued at $19,000) Mike McIntire, The Justice and the Magnate, N.Y. Times, Jun. 19, 2011, at A-1. This is a legitimate scandal, and enough hard facts have made it into the public record for an appropriate expansion of the current blurb. As I have an encyclopedic knowledge of the scandal, I'd be willing to attempt it, and suggest that it be broken into three segments: the raw facts of the case, the critics' complaints, and his defenders' position. The normal editing process would precipitate a responsible, accurate, and reasonably complete exposition of the issues, especially in light of MastCell's continuing involvement in the page. Bouldergeist (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Bouldergeist, you write: "Thomas has publicly admitted every fact necessary to constitute a confession of multiple felonies". If that is so, then the Department of Justice will ask a grand jury to file charges, then a trial will occur, and Justice Thomas will be convicted. But AFAIK none of that has happened, so let's see if it does happen before assuming and proclaiming guilt. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Since this was cross-posted to my talk page, I responded there before seeing it here. I'll link to my response: [14], and further discussion should probably be centralized here where all interested parties can readily participate. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Worst ABA rating since 1955

It looks to me like nine Supreme Court nominees after William Brennan (nominated in 1956) received the same "qualified" rating as Thomas.  The "well-qualified" rating was not available, as it was when Thomas was nominated, so it's a bit like apples and oranges.  However, the ABA did make an exception by giving Harrold Carswell a "well-qualified" rating, and then returned to "qualified" ratings with Clement Haynsworth.  So it seems kind of weird to say that Thomas received the lowest rating since 1955, especially considering that Bork received a higher proportion of "not qualified" votes than Thomas received. See here. It appears that O'Connor also did not receive a "well-qualified" rating, nor did Goldberg (though I'm not including them in the "nine" who received the same rating as Thomas since 1955).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't feel qualified to comment, although I'll qualify my comment by saying that assuming all of what Anything says is accurate, I'd take out the material. I certainly wouldn't explain it all - what a quagmire.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I give my qualified endorsement to Bbb23's comment, except for the bit about him not being qualified.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. We have a reliable source - Merida & Fletcher - directly supporting our text (they write that the ABA gave Thomas "the lowest rating of any high court nominee since 1955"). We're proposing to replace that nearly direct quotation from a reliable source with original synthesis based on one editor's extrapolation, which I think is a mistake. MastCell ^Talk 01:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have not proposed to replace the material in question with anything whatsoever, much less with original synthesis. Where did you develop the notion that I ever proposed such a thing, MastCell? I didn't say it, I didn't think it, and I don't think you're really being accurate about it. Please try not to misrepresent the views of other editors.

What I do suggest now is that this Wikipedia article should say the following:

"The American Bar Association (ABA) rated Thomas as qualified; twelve members of the ABA committee voted 'qualified', one abstained, and the other two voted 'not qualified'."[1]

[1]Abraham, Henry. Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments From Washington to Bush II (Rowman and Littlefield 2007)."

That's it. The cited source is far superior to the one we use now, it is an in-depth analysis of ABA ratings, compared to a fleeting footnote tucked away in the book by Merida & Fletcher that does not indicate any basis for their statement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's use your source. Check page 299 of the Abraham book: "The ABA's Committee on Judiciary produced the following vote [on Thomas]: Twelve "qualified", two "unqualified", and one abstention. No member of the committee found Thomas to be "well-qualified". The vote by the 15 represented a record low for a nominee to the Supreme Court."

So whether one uses the 3 sources already in the article, or the one additional source you prefer, it seems that reliable sources unanimously consider the context of the vote important, in that it represents a "record low" approval for a nominee. I'll assume that you didn't see that quote in the Abraham book, but it should address your concern about "fleeting footnotes". In light of the consistent presentation of this material by numerous reliable sources, do you still believe it should be removed from our article? MastCell ^Talk 03:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would re-phrase it. The Abraham quote you point to (which I had not seen) says the vote was a low point, not that the rating was a low point. The rating was the same as for many other nominees. I have no problem tracking the most reliable source on this point. (It appears that nine of 12 voted "qualified" for Carswell, while three did not vote.[15]) At the same time, I think it's worth mentioning in this article that twice as many ABA committee members voted "unqualified" for Bork as for Thomas, seeing as how this comparison is in the sources.

"To date, no candidate for the Supreme Court has ever received the ABA’s third-tier ranking of ‘not qualified’ (although four members of the committee rated Bork ‘not qualified’ in 1987 and two committee members rated Thomas ‘not qualified’ in 1991.)" Source: Yalof, David. Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees, page 214 (University of Chicago Press, 2001).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we've established that Thomas' evaluation by the ABA represented a "record low" for a SCOTUS nominee. That's consistently conveyed by reliable sources in no uncertain terms. I am open to detailing the specifics of his vote (i.e. how many qualified vs. not-qualified), but not to juxtaposing excerpts from other books in a way which obscures the clear content of reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We've established that the ABA vote set a record low, and that he got half as many unqualified votes as Bork. It's not our proper role to pick and choose and slant that information, or mislead the reader into thinking that Thomas received a lower rating from the ABA than many other nominees.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You proposed removing the sourced material about the record-low vote, in favor of the Abraham source. But then you discovered that the Abraham source explicitly states that the Thomas vote was a "record low". Once that became clear, you moved on to another source and pulled out Bork's numbers. If anyone is trying to slant our coverage or mislead the reader here, it's not me.

You seem to be Googling through sources in search of very specific material you want to include. I would really prefer if we just decided on some decent sources and then followed where they led us. If you think the Abraham book is good, then fine - let's convey what it says. I get the sense that once you discovered that it contained the "record low" assessment, you immediately moved on to search for a different source more congruent with your preferred content. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the substance here and avoid speculation as to each other's motives. To paraphrase a dreadful legal term, based on a totality of the sources, the article currently negatively paints Thomas in a way that is unsupported in context. Thus, we have to come up with a wording that either contextualizes the vote or just puts in the facts of the vote without characterization.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) MastCell, instead of turning this talk page and this article into yet another toxic battleground, how about if we just focus on content? I propose the following:

The American Bar Association (ABA) Committee on the Judiciary split on Thomas' qualifications; 12 members voted that he was "qualified", one abstained, and the other two voted "not qualified". This represented a "record low" ABA approval vote for a Supreme Court nominee.[1] The two "not qualified" votes for Thomas in 1991 compare to four "not qualified" votes for Robert Bork in 1987.[1][2][3][4]

[1]Abraham, Henry. Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments From Washington to Bush II, pages 30 and 299 (Rowman and Littlefield 2007).

[2]Yalof, David. Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees, page 214 (University of Chicago Press, 2001).

[3]Segal, Jeffrey and Spaeth, Harold. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited, page 187 (Cambridge University Press, 2002).

[4]Hall, Kermit and McGuire, Kevin. Institutions of American Democracy: The Judicial Branch, page 155 (Oxford University Press, 2006).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources you cite also demonstrate that Bork received 10 "highly qualified" votes, while Thomas received (as best I can tell) zero. (Incidentally, the lack of "highly qualified" votes is probably why reliable sources regard Thomas' vote as a "record low"). Why do you propose comparing Bork to Thomas on the basis of "not qualified" votes alone? Doing so implies (incorrectly) that "record low" is wrong, and tells a bit less than half of the story. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources [2] and [4] do not seem to mention the positive votes that Bork received, but sources [1] and [3] do. I don't agree that including only Bork's unqualified votes implies that the "record low" statement is wrong; obviously, we wouldn't have said it if it was wrong. But maybe it wouldn't be a problem to mention that Bork's overall rating was well-qualified. Would that oblige us to also mention explicitly that several SCOTUS nominees have received the same "qualified" rating as Thomas? As Bbb23 mentioned, this is something of a quagmire, and I'd like some input from more than just you and me, MastCell. Frankly, I'm undecided how exactly to do it, although I still would find my draft above acceptable. I'd also be okay with just giving the Thomas ABA vote results here, without comparisons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Update

This article currently says: "Ultimately, on a scale of well-qualified, qualified, or unqualified, the ABA rated Thomas as qualified, albeit with the lowest level of support for any Supreme Court nominee since 1955." I still find this problematic and slanted. It omits the fact that Bork received twice as many unqualified votes, as described in the sources I listed above (and note that the Bork comparison was in this Wikipedia article for years prior to this week). But even putting aside Bork, we have stuff like this in the reliable sources: "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had been the last nominee to receive the same ranking." See Foskett, Ken. Judging Thomas, page 224 (William Morrow 2004).

One of the basic problems here is nicely described by the leading compendium of ABA votes: "At various points in its history, the committee altered its rating categories, making comparisons across time difficult." See Epstein, Lee et al. The Supreme Court Compendium, page 390 (Fourth Edition, CQ Press, 2007). Plus there's the problem that some sources emphasize the rating while others emphasize the vote. And an additional problem is that we're still relying on a footnote tucked away in the book by Merida & Fletcher who don't address this matter in depth (unlike the sources I've listed above), and who are actually contradicted by more reliable in-depth sources (Merida and Fletcher are simply wrong that the rating for Thomas was the lowest ever, given that other nominees like Carswell got the same rating). So, I suggest that we should just shorten the sentence to read: "Ultimately, on a scale of well-qualified, qualified, or unqualified, the ABA committee rated Thomas as qualified, albeit with a relatively low level of support from the committee." A more detailed version can be hashed out at our sub-article. I'll give this a go.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted by Nuclear Warfare. I left a message at his talk page asking why.[16]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• A number of reliable, secondary sources unequivocally characterize the ABA's level of support for Thomas as exceptionally (not relatively) low (variously, as a "record low", as the lowest level of support since 1955, etc). This is clearly relevant context taken directly from multiple reliable sources. Despite extensive discussion, I still fail to see why we, as editors, need to water this down with original research. The support level wasn't "relatively low" - it was exceptionally low. Why are we unable to simply convey this well-sourced, relevant fact? MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

86% isn't low.166.137.136.110 (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question, nor does it make much sense. Sometimes 86% is low. If you were on an airline flight and were told that the pilot could land successfully 86% of the time, you'd probably feel that was exceptionally low. I appreciate that you personally think 86% is fine. My point is that independent, reliable sources feel it was exceptionally low. My question was why we're encountering so much editorial resistance to conveying these sources to the reader. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If I was told by 86% of airline officials that the pilot is qualified to land successfully 100% of the time, I'd feel fine with that. Are you suggesting that we discuss airline pilots in this Wikipedia article? I doubt that's what you're suggesting, but if you are then I'm opposed to it. The way it is now, Thomas is characterized as not just "low" but "one of the lowest". And without any chronological qualifier like "since 1955". If you want Thomas to look like an incompetent pilot, you couldn't do much better than that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to reflect what reliable sources have to say. They say that his level of support was a "record low" (in a source you brought to the table as reliable), that it was the "lowest since 1955", and that it was an "embarrassment". That's not me trying to make Clarence Thomas look bad (and I wish you'd make more of an effort to avoid personalizing the discussion at every turn). That's me trying to convey the content of what we all agree are reliable sources, and I continue to be baffled at the entrenched resistance to doing so. MastCell ^Talk 15:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are repeatedly repeating what only some of the sources say. That doesn't really baffle me, but it does frustrate me. Many of the cited sources compare the Thomas ABA vote favorably to the Bork ABA vote, or to the O'Connor ABA vote. Please stop avoiding that. By saying "one of the lowest" we are reflecting not just the sources that omit the Bork/O'Connor comparisons but also those that mention such comparison. The language in this article was not selected by me, but it seems to accurately reflect the six footnoted reliable sources (except for omission of "1955").

In my initial comment in this subsection, I carefully explained why comparisons across time in this matter are difficult. I cited the most prestigious and thorough book in this field. If that book (the Supreme Court Compendium) does not adequately explain the differences among our sources, then I don't think anything can.

This article already devotes vastly disproportionate space to the ABA vote, and I emphatically object to including even more, especially if it's grabbed from some footnote buried in the back of a book, regarding what a significant embarrassment this was for Thomas (without explaining who supposedly felt embarrassed).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The low level of ABA support is consistently mentioned by multiple reliable sources, making it worthy of brief coverage here. Above, you proposed Abraham 2007 as a source, calling it "far superior" to existing sources and praising its "in-depth analysis" of ABA ratings ([17]). That source reads: "The vote by the 15 [ABA committee members] represented a record low for a nominee to the Supreme Court." Again, I'm at a loss for why this is contentious when it seems uncontroversial among reliable sources - including those you've presented. MastCell ^Talk 01:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As you know, reliable sources also say that the ABA's action on Thomas was in some ways equivalent to, or more favorable than, its action on other nominees such as Bork and O'Connor. That does not contradict the statements that you prefer to cite, but it does help to put those statements in context. The current statement in this article summarizes the totality of all these reliable sources, instead of only the POV that you believe is most important. If you want to belabor this matter, and insist that this article say Thomas received a record low vote from the ABA, that would be fine with me, as long as we also point out that in some ways the ABA's action on Thomas was no worse than for Bork (who received twice as many unqualified votes as Thomas) and/or O'Connor (rated "qualified" instead of "well-qualified") and/or Carswell (same "qualified" rating). If we go into that kind of detail, then I would ask that we remove the material about pressure on the ABA, because the material about the ABA vote is already far out of proportion to its weight in reliable sources (not to mention that those sources say the ABA rating was not an important element in the Thomas nomination given that the White House was able to spin it favorably).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

These aren't "statements I prefer to cite". The Abraham book is a source you brought to the table, and one which you promoted as providing superior coverage of the ABA issue. That source unequivocally describes the ABA vote as a "record low for a Supreme Court nominee". I'm still not clear: why is it essential that we editorially water down what this highly reliable source says on the subject? MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight. Abraham is one of many sources I brought to the table, and you are choosing to overlook the others. Moreover, the mere fact that I brought Abraham to the table does not mean we are obligated to repeat everything in that rather lengthy book. Additionally, the sentence in this article that you apparently dislike so much was written that way by another editor, not me. I think it's a reasonable summary of the totality of the sources (except its omission of "1955"), but I wasn't the one who wrote it. As I said, we can quote the portion of Abraham that you think is so important, if we also include the context I described, and keep the overall length of this material limited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources consistently and explicitly describe the level of ABA support for Thomas as exceptionally low. Abraham's book is one example; I highlighted it to make clear that it's not just "my" sources that say this. You seem determined to find some way to avoid conveying this widely accepted truth to the reader. Failing that, you seem determined to extract some concession in exchange for accurately conveying the content of reliable sources. What's going on here? MastCell ^Talk 05:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What I am trying to extract is NPOV. As I've explained before at this talk page, Abraham said the "vote" was a record low. Other sources emphasize that the "rating" was not a record low. Others contextualize the record low vote by acknowledging that Bork got more unqualified votes than Thomas. There is more than one point of view in the sources regarding how to characterize and contextualize the ABA's action in the Thomas nomination. You are choosing to isolate and elevate only one POV, instead of making a reasonable effort to characterize what the sources collectively say. That's what's going on here. As I said, another editor wrote the sentence you dislike so much. Maybe if you raise the issue at his talk page, you'll get an answer that is more convincing to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Embarassment

This edit inserted: "Merida and Fletcher describe the ABA's action as a 'significant embarassment to the Bush administration'." Per WP:Summary style, we ought to follow the sub-article. The Merida/Fletcher quote is buried in a footnote without explanation or elaboration at the end of their book (p. 398 fn. 172), so it seems a bit weird to move that quote directly from there straight to the main text of our main Thomas article, bypassing the sub-article. Anyway, I'm going to be bold and replace it with this: "The White House said it was pleased that the ABA had found Thomas qualified, and the ABA vote generally had little impact on his nomination." Source: Viera, Norman and Gross, Leonard. Supreme Court appointments: Judge Bork and the politicization of Senate Confirmations, page 137 (SIU Press, 1998). This seems reliable, more so than Merida and Fletcher's fleeting quotation, which would best be left out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite what the source says. It simply says that the White House was determined to "discredit" the ABA, and that Republican Senators threatened to "pull the plug" on the ABA if it didn't give Thomas at least a "qualified" rating. More to the point, it doesn't in any way invalidate Merida/Fletcher's description of the rating as an "embarrassment"; it simply states that the White House chose to spin the rating positively. These sources are both reliable and do not contradict each other, and we shouldn't treat this as an either/or game. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)That’s not quite what the source says? The source says:

White House press spokesman Marlin Fitzwater issued a statement saying,’[W]e are very pleased that the ABA’s standing committee …has found Judge Thomas qualified to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court….In the end, the ABA’s vote on Thomas had little effect on his nomination.

My summary: "The White House said it was pleased that the ABA had found Thomas qualified, and the ABA vote generally had little impact on his nomination". If you're suggesting that I've not said what the source says, you're mistaken. True, I did not include everything in the source. The ABA ranking didn't have much impact, so why include everything? Wouldn't that be undue weight? And I'm still wiating for you to acknowledge, MastCell, that many other SCOTUS nominees received the same "qualified" ranking as Thomas did. Will you be commenting on that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No; see the first paragraph here. The reason that we use secondary sources is so that we can dig a bit deeper than transcripts or spin from a political spokesperson. The secondary sources indicate that the rating was an "embarrassment" for the Bush White House. The spokesman's comment suggests that they chose to deal with that embarrassment by putting a positive spin on it - hardly unheard-of.

My larger point is this. If we're going to cite a secondary source, then we need to actually convey that source's content and emphasis, not simply use it to buttress a particular snippet that we as editors find important. You've read the source, so you must realize that it presents the White House comment in context, not as the sole and final word on the ABA rating. It follows that we shouldn't present it that way. Right? MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've shortened the material so that it no longer contains the White House reaction to the ABA rating. The point is that the ABA rating had little signifigance to the nomination, so why go on and on about it? Grabbing an unexplained comment from a footnote buried in Merida/Fletcher's book seems inapt to me. And surely it's misleading to simply say that the White House was embarassed when in fact they conveyed no public embarassment, and no one really paid much attanetion to the ABA vote given that it was a positive one. When you say "No", MastCell, does that mean that you will not be commenting about whether many other SCOTUS nominees received the same "qualified" ranking as Thomas did?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to say that no one paid attention to the ABA vote. Just looking at the source you provided, it appears that the White House and Republicans were so concerned about the vote that they waged a preemptive campaign to threaten and discredit the ABA. When the vote was released, it prompted significant public reactions from both supporters and opponents of Thomas' nomination, including a statement from the White House. The vote turned out to play a minor role in Thomas' confirmation hearing - presumably because it, like everything else, was overshadowed by Hill's allegations - but it seems significant enough to warrant a couple of sentences here, given its obvious significance in the lead-up to the hearings. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't object to two sentences of normal length, provided they do not provide verifiably false, or misleading, or unreliable information, and conform to other Wikipedia policies. The White House spin machine never rests, so just because they spun something doesn't mean the matter deserves lots of space in the main BLP of a SCOTUS judge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The ABA paragraph is currently down to 4 sentences ([18]), which seems reasonable given the overall length of this article. I think the paragraph is accurate and reflects the content and context found in reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've rephrased it to make it shorter and less ambiguous: "Anticipating a poor rating due to alleged politicization of the ABA, the White House and Republican Senators exerted pressure for at least a 'qualified' rating." The source says explicitly that the poor rating was anticipated due to the ABA being "politicized". It wasn't some admission that Thomas was a lousy nominee, as one might gather from the prior wording. I'll have more to say about the "record low" sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that Nuclear Warfare has moved the politicization stuff down to a note, with an edit summary that suggests it was the Republican Party line. It seems like that's a swipe at me, so I'll reiterate that I simply wanted the main text to reflect that a poor rating was expected not because of a poor-quality nominee but rather --- as the source explicitly says --- because of what Republicans alleged was ABA politicization. I didn't say there was ABA politicization; I used the word "alleged". Now "politicized" is down in a note where nobody will see it, even though the source uses this term quite prominently. Anyway, I don't put a "party line" into any of my edits at Wikipedia, and I'm sorry there seems to be a need for me to have to say so here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The end of ABA ratings?

This edit states that "the custom of [the ABA] rating nominees was abandoned by 2001." I don't think that's true. Most recently, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were given "well qualified" ratings by the ABA; see [19] and [20]. Obviously, the ABA continues to rate Supreme Court (and other judicial) nominees; the custom has not at all been "abandoned".

What actually happened is that when George W. Bush took office in 2001, he ended the semi-official status of ABA ratings, thus "delighting conservatives" who were frustrated by a string of poor ratings for conservative judicial nominees (see [21]). I think it's obviously incorrect to state that ABA ratings ended in 2001; clearly the ABA continues to rate nominees, and those ratings continue to carry weight (as evidenced by the brouhaha over ABA ratings of Bush nominees [22]). Would someone else like to edit the sentence in question? If not, I'll take a stab at it. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the material should be removed - thanks for pointing out my error. KeptSouth (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Recommended edit

Jan Crawford, not Jan Crawford Greenburg—her name has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.130.2 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the context, I left it alone for now. Statements she made in a book and a WSJ article are quoted and attributed. Since both works were written as "Greenburg", I think leaving the attribution the same is less confusing to the reader. There's a link to the correctly titled article for those interested in more information about her. Of course, other editors here may disagree. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference 97 broken

Reference 97 doesn't work. I came hear looking for data on agreement ratings between justices. Are any of the regular editors of this page able to update and or fix this reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.47.11 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've updated it - should work now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference 72 is broken

I was looking for the roll call vote and found it in the main article on the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. Becalmed (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Claims of Not Being Accepted Because of His Intelligence Need To Be Countered

The fact is Thomas performed poorly at Yale and was admitted through affirmative action. The sources I have added are reliable and neutral. One of them is even the conservative newspaper The Wall Street Journal. Wikipedia is not a place for politicizing.75.72.35.253 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to tie his performance at Yale to his intelligence? They're not identical constructs. This sounds like synthesis to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal editor-controlled blog should be a reliable source; the ABA Journal seems like it would be RS if the opinions were attributed. But either is only a reliable source for what they actually say, not for the POV-driven way it was interpreted and inserted into this article. An op-ed in the Seattle Times and a personal blog are not reliable sources, especially for a BLP. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Muboshgu, grades analysis a person's intelligence. It's a known fact. If you are a fan of Thomas, I suggest you keep your political views and weak argument of synthesis to yourself.

Fats&Happy, they were not personal opinions at all to that extent. Those editors pointed out facts. One of the sources was even the conservative newspaper The Wall Street Journal.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The only real fact in the Wall Street Journal blog was that some black Yale Law graduates from Thomas' era did not feel – as Thomas has said he does – they had difficulties finding employment because of Yale's affirmative action program. The ABA Journal piece, which is the primary basis of the WSJ piece, unsurprisingly states the same fact. It also adds the fact that Thomas' grades "aren't publicly known", which is hard to convert to the statement you added, "it has been acknowledged that Thomas did in fact score mediocre grades throughout his years at Yale". Since Yale is not in the habit of publishing lists of students who would not have been admitted if they were of a different race, the basis of the statement "his classmates acknowledged that he was accepted into Yale through assistance from affirmative action's 10 percent minority enrollment policy with the university" remains a mystery. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think that my college grades aren't indicative of my intelligence. I just didn't study. And I'm no fan of Thomas. Check my userpage: I'm a confirmed liberal. I maintain NPOV no matter the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this deserves to be read in some quarters: A History Lesson From Clarence Thomas (Correcting a liberal smear about the conservative Supreme Court justice) by Damon W. Root, Reason, April 2013. Asteriks (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No mention of corruption criticisms

Why is there no mention of criticisms against Justice Thomas for conflict of interest in the Citizens United case? He had been receiving over half a million undeclared dollars (through his wife) and a 4-day all-expenses paid trip to Palm Springs from the billionaires (Koch brothers) for whom he ruled in favor - a decision that would prove very profitable for Koch. This resulted in a conflict-of-interest complaint submitted to the Department of Justice. Since this article has a section on the Anita Hill allegations, this would seem to be equally fitting and noteworthy to include. Especially because, if it is true, it indicates a systemic corruption at the very top of the American system of government.--Daniel (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, why is there no mention of Citizens United case whatsoever? That is probably the most important case of our generation (unless you count the case that gave Bush the 2000 election and therefore caused a million Iraqi casualties).70.113.72.73 (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Coverage of his personal life

The article in the "Anita Hill allegations" section says that press coverage of Thomas' personal life was "limited" after his confirmation. However, the NYDaily News did an interview in 2012 (after Thomas' wife called Anita Hill and left a message asking for an apology) with one of his former colleagues/girlfriends and reported on her view of his personal life. Accordingly, I have modified the sentence that says coverage was limited, and I have posted the interviewer's findings with a reference to the article. Goblinshark17 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have also posted a sentence in the "Personal Life" section explaining that his wife's political activism has prompted concerns among members of Congress that he may have a conflict of interest, particularly in cases involving Obamacare. I have backed this up with a reference to an article in the Washington Post which describes a letter sent to Thomas from 74 members of Congress, asking him to recuse himself from Obamacare-related cases to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Inserting incorrect information

(Moved from User talk:RightCowLeftCoast) Please take care to read sources carefully before citing them. These edits of yours to Clarence Thomas introduce factually incorrect material. Thomas is not the only Justice to hire law clerks from outside the Ivy League, as you should know from reading the sources you cited. They make clear that other Justices have hired clerks from Stanford, the University of Virginia, the University of Chicago, and so on. I'm assuming this was not deliberate on your part, but please be a bit more careful in the future to avoid inserting false information into our articles. MastCell ^Talk 07:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MastCell: another editor added the content, it was removed, and I found reliable sources to verify that it was verifiable. I hope that others are talking to them as well. Also, why contact me for adding reliable sources? Furthermore, the statement "deliberate on your part", soes not appear to show good faith; if there is something that the other editor missed, which the sources I added can modify, then please be bold and please do so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned that you added material with cited sources and claimed it was verifiable when the information in question was in fact completely false. While unsourced edits are usually rapidly removed, your edit gave the superficial appearance of being properly sourced, even though it was not. Those kinds of errors tend to "stick" unless someone actually goes through the cited source carefully, so they're much more dangerous in terms of writing inaccuracies into the encyclopedia. The claim that no sitting Justice besides Thomas had ever hired outside the Ivy League was so far-fetched that it triggered my skepticism, and should have triggered yours. More to the point, you claimed that this material was verifiable (in fact, you're still claiming this, as best I can tell) when it is clearly and unarguably false. I'm suggesting that you exercise a greater degree of care and diligence when citing sources, because next time you insert a superficially "sourced" inaccuracy, it may go unnoticed and compromise the accuracy and integrity of the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Toobin, Jeffrey (August 29, 2011). "Partners". New Yorker. Conde Nast. Retrieved 7 April 2015. Alone among his colleagues, Thomas usually selects at least some of his law clerks from less prominent schools. In recent years, his clerks have included graduates of the law schools of Creighton University, in Nebraska; Rutgers; George Mason; and the University of Utah.

Diff of content added by 2602:306:319f:6d10:44be:1688:5b10:95d1.

Diff of me finding the source from the New Yorker, and re-adding the content removed by Jim1138

Liptak, Adam (6 September 2010). "A Well-Traveled Path From Ivy League to Supreme Court". New York Times. Retrieved 7 April 2015.

New York Times source that he hires Clerks who graduate outside of Harvard and Yale. I am not seeing directly in this source anything that contradicts the New Yorker source that says that Justice Thomas hires clerks outside of the Ivy League.

MastCell, please stop accusing me of something that I am not trying to do. I am not trying to introduce deliberate factual errors. It shows non-adherence to good faith. Where in the sources am I missing? Are there sources outside of these two sources that contradict what they are stating?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is not about me. This is about content in articles, and better belongs on the talk page of the article. Please, MastCell, unless the New York Times and New Yorker are no longer reliable sources, stop accusing me and move along.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's figure this out. At dispute here is the sentence "Thomas is the only Justice currently sitting on the United States Supreme Court who has hired law clerks from law schools outside the Ivy League." That is simply not true, as proven by the sources cited.

According to the New York Times article, half of the clerks hired by the other justices were from Yale and Harvard; another quarter were from Virginia, Stanford, Chicago and Columbia. Of those four schools, only Columbia is an Ivy League school. So clearly the other justices DO hire clerks that are from non-Ivy League law schools (including Virginia, Stanford, and Chicago), and the statement is false.

In the New York Times article, he did say that he "has a preference for non-Ivy League clerks". However, that year he hired clerks from Duke, Texas, Virginia and Yale; Yale is an Ivy League school and the other three are top-tier (rated among the top 15) law schools. It's true that in the past he has hired people from law schools that are NOT in the top 15 (e.g., Creighton, George Mason, George Washington and Rutgers).

The New Yorker article, after mentioning his aversion to the Ivy League, says "Alone among his colleagues, Thomas usually selects at least some of his law clerks from less prominent schools." That's a little misleading - poorly written - because that sentence comes right after talking about the Ivy League (or rather, Harvard and Yale). But in this case "less prominent schools" cannot mean "non-Ivy League", since the New York Times article clearly shows that his colleagues DO hire clerks from non-Ivy League schools. What the New Yorker apparently meant by "less prominent schools" is schools that are not top-ranked. In other words, his colleagues stick to the top-rated law schools, while he sometimes goes further afield.

So if it's worth including something about his clerks (that's another question), it could be possible to say something like this: Thomas has said he has a preference for non-Ivy League clerks, although he has hired them.(New York Times reference) He is the only one among his colleagues who sometimes choses clerks from law schools that are not top-rated - schools like Creighton, Rutgers, George Mason, and the University of Utah.(New Yorker reference) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs)

Melanie, thanks for the voice of sanity. I don't feel strongly about whether we include this material or not, using your phrasing. My main concern was with the obviously incorrect statement that no other Justice hired outside the Ivy League. The response from RightCowLeftCoast was pretty disappointing—apparently, I'm supposed to "drop the stick" and let him write factual errors into our articles. Anyone can make a mistake, but posturing and doubling down on a blatant factual inaccuracy after it's been brought to one's attention is pretty silly. But whatever. I'll live. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am asking the stick be dropped about accusations against me.

I understand the content issue. As I said, if there is something that I missed from the sources, then please boldly correct it. The initial addition by 2602:306:319f:6d10:44be:1688:5b10:95d1 was specifically about the New Yorker. In so much as the sole New Yorker source is concerned, the content added with the source I quoted above, is correct. Whether it is the best source, is debatable.

I am fine with what MelanieN has proposed, as that is what both sources appear to verify. Two sources, appear to believe, due to the content being published, that it is somewhat notable. Even this opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times highlights Thomas' hiring practice, while showing that other justices do hire clerks who graduate outside Yale & Harvard, but to a lesser extent than Thomas (thus contradicting the New Yorker source). Here is another piece from Business Insider.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus. I added it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here are other sources which highlight the article subject's non-ivy preference for clerks: Washingtonian, National Review, WUFT, and National Jurist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody doubted that. The problem was with the claim that he was the ONLY justice who hired non-Ivy-League clerks. That was the issue that needed fixing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Public perception of conservative African-Americans generally

Unsure how one would go about including this but I was surprised to see Christopher Hitchens compare Clarence Pendleton unfavorably to the Zulu kapos used by the whites of South Africa to repress their fellow blacks (Around the 10-11 minute mark of this program). It certainly seems like the precise sort of attacks Justice Thomas endures for his advocacy of policies that are nonracial and supportive of economic freedom and personal protection. We shouldn't piece anything together ourselves, but I have to wonder if there's been a RS treatment (as at the WSJ) regarding the history of these sort of attacks on conservative African-Americans that we might use to include treatment and links to others who have been similarly maligned. — LlywelynII 02:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to lead

Previously, the lead said that the Senate hearings "center[ed] on an accusation that he had made unwelcome sexual comments to attorney Anita Hill."

This has now been changed to say the Senate hearings "center[ed] on an accusation that he had sexually harassed attorney Anita Hill."

Previous to the recent edits, this matter was addressed in footnotes 57, 58, and 59:

“ 57. Braver, Rita. "Inappropriate Conduct", CBS News (1999): "Hill herself did not accuse Thomas of outright harassment, but did say that he had made unwelcome advances toward her and used language that embarrassed her." ”

“ 58. Pollitt, Katha. Subject to Debate: Sense and Dissents on Women, Politics, and Culture, page 161 (2001): "The question Hill's testimony placed before us was not whether Thomas was guilty of a legally actionable offense (she herself was unsure if his behavior added up to sexual harassment) but whether he belonged on the Supreme Court." ”

“ 59. Travis, Carol. "Casting Simple Louts as Lawbreakers", St. Petersburg Times (June 11, 1997): "Although Thomas was never accused of illegal behavior – merely of behavior thought unseemly in a Supreme Court nominee – in the public mind the case conflated obnoxious actions with illegal harassment." ”

We ought not to contradict reliable sources such as these.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, we must never contradict reliable sources:

• "Twenty years ago, when Anita Hill returned home from the contentious Senate hearings during which she accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, people told her not to worry—her name would be forgotten in a matter of months." (Washington Post, emphasis mine)
• "In those proceedings, Anita Hill had testified, in unforgettably graphic detail, that Thomas had sexually harassed her, and he had denied it." (New Yorker, emphasis mine)
• "... there she was, this prim law professor from the University of Oklahoma, seated in the glare of klieg lights before the Senate Judiciary Committee, calmly detailing graphic charges of sexual harassment against the man who until last week seemed virtually certain to be confirmed as the next Justice to the Supreme Court." (TIME, emphasis mine)
• "In 1991, Hill submitted a confidential statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that Thomas had sexually harassed her 10 years earlier, when they were both single." (CBS News, emphasis mine)
• "Nearly 20 years after Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Justice Thomas's wife has called Ms. Hill, seeking an apology." (New York Times, emphasis mine)
• "Anita F. Hill was teaching the dry subject of commercial law this afternoon while the United States Senate debated how to handle her allegations of sexual harassment against Judge Clarence Thomas, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was hanging in the balance." (New York Times, emphasis mine)

... and so on. Anythingyouwant, when writing about a controversial topic, it's important to provide a balanced and complete overview of reliable sources, and to avoid the temptation to cherry-pick only those sources which agree with your viewpoint. In any case, it's obvious that many, if not most, reliable sources characterize Hill's allegations as revolving around sexual harassment. I've revised our text to state as much; given your stated commitment to following the lead of reliable sources, I assume I can expect your support? MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to accurately summarize the article text, which says: "She testified that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, which she felt constituted sexual harassment or at least 'behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court.'" That accurately reflects the sources, in my opinion. Your summary basically deletes everything after the word "or", so you cannot expect my support for your recent edit to the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. You made a big deal at the top of thread out of respecting reliable sources, so I thought I'd give you a chance to follow through. Shouldn't the lead reflect reliable sources, rather than the words of an anonymous Wikipedia editor? MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As you know, or should know, the lead is supposed to accurately summarize the article text, which in turn is supposed to accurately reflect reliable sources. If you believe these requirements are not being met, then please say so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I did say so. I provided a sampling of sources demonstrating that Hill's allegations are widely described as involving sexual harassment. I made an edit to the article based on those sources. You objected, but I don't quite understand your point. While the lead and body should be harmonized, there is no requirement that one precede the other. We can certainly bring the lead into line with the preponderance of reliable sources and then improve the body as well. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You have not said whether the current version, which was created by this edit subsequent to your previous objection, meets Wikipedia requirements. Why not say what you think, and explain why you think it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If I said what I'm really thinking right now, I'd probably be site-banned. Instead, I'll say that I think your edit is an unnecessarily wordy workaround to avoid stating the obvious, but I also don't think it's worth expending the necessary effort to make further headway here. So let's leave it as is. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we'll leave it. If I said what I really think then I'd probably be site-banned too. Suffice to say that reliable sources take varying approaches to this nuanced issue, and we can be nuanced too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that dates of statements using the term sexual harassment should be discussed here. What was actually said by her at the hearings should hold precedence over what contemporaneous and later accounts were trying to insert into her testimony or the interpretation of her testimony. What interests me is that there is an attempt by Hill to claim it both ways -- not wanting to charge sexual harassment legally at the time but wanting that phrase to be inserted into the record in some fashion to prejudice the senate and the country.--Lkoler (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clarence Thomas. 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/20130913093438/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new-yitna?id=UsaThom&images=images/modeng&data=/lv6/workspace/yitna&tag=public&part=24 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new-yitna?id=UsaThom&images=images/modeng&data=/lv6/workspace/yitna&tag=public&part=24
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/118/Nov04/Nine_Justices_Ten_YearsFTX.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704145153/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-908.html to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-908.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Scalia

This article seems desperate to talk about Scalia, even shifting tenses mid-sentence to do so. The most telling is when it says some see Thomas as the most conservative member but others say it was Scalia. That inadvertently makes the claim that Scalia was the most conservative Justice of all time.

Scalia should only be mentioned in the article when it serves to give information about Thomas. Statements that were relevant when Scalia was alive should not be blindly adjusted, because many of them regard the Court's current makeup.

It just needs a careful edit (which I don't do on Wikipedia any more because I hate you all). 66.87.142.162 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

Change "Thomas is seen as having joined the conservative wing of the court." to "Thomas is generally associated with the more conservative side of the Court." to match the tone of the Stephen Breyer article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer). Phalex32 (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Done —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 22:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

I suggest that you add the category "Conception Seminary College alumni"

2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2017

@Eggishorn: I still say the category: "Conception Seminary College alumni" should be added. The article itself says that Thomas attended Conception Seminary College. The article provides two sources for this:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-03-11/the-holy-cross-fraternity

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/03/us/judge-portrayed-as-a-product-of-ideals-clashing-with-life.html

2600:1700:7822:6190:4008:1D98:F518:6BCA (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bloomberg story does not mention the Seminary and the Times story says he left the Seminary after one year. Alumni are commonly thought of as graduates of an institution. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018

Acchord (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I propose removing from the Writings heading a title that was not written by Clarence Thomas.

Remove this: * Thomas, Clarence. "Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas"

(It was added to the article on Feb 2, 2016)

"Supreme Discomfort" was written by Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher.

I am a new user, don't have permissions to edit this page. Acchord (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 23:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

changed "owned by" to "enslaved by" for "owned by wealthy Liberty County, Georgia, planter Josiah Wilson."

Although it is true that his ancestors where owned from a legal perspective I think the language should be "enslaved" to more accurately describe what was occurring. The ownership of a human being has been proven to be unjust and unconstitutional. It was legal at the time in the legal system, but philosophically it wasn't and the people where in fact enslaved where and not owned. Given the overall subject of the Supreme Court and the Constitution it seems important enough to edit the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitwiggy (talk • contribs) 14:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree saying owned by does not correctly convey the veracity of the time or the impact that those actions had and still have on black people. Naledge82 (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed URL for 73

Here is an archived version of the page for citation 73. Someone with privileges can edit it in as the article is protected.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180504075736/https://fair.org/press-release/fairs-reply-to-limbaughs-non-response/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.181.86 (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)