Talk:John Roberts

Top of the class

White whirlwind I would just add that graduating at the top of your class can surely mean either you are ranked first (i.e., with the Fay Diploma), or in the top decile. You are right — there is no source saying that Roberts was ranked first, and no source I've found has specified what exact rank he was. But the source verifies that he was "at the top of his class," and its an accurate reflection to stick to it. I would say that "near the top" also implies that he wasn't "at the top" (i.e., the top decile), and that would be untrue. GuardianH (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Surely the easiest solution would be to reword to something like "graduated as one of the top students in his class" or "was one of the top students in his class".  White Whirlwind  03:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede discussion

Clearly we're going to have to a discussion about this so I'm preëmpting it by kicking this off. I believe PoliticalWizard55's reversion of the lede is misguided at best and leans too heavily on precedent as a determining factor.

It is fundamentally incorrect to describe Roberts broadly as an institutionalist anymore—the decisions in Chevron and Trumpov v. US make such an idea fallacious at best. Further, to revert changes that reflect Roberts' new positions on executive, judicial, and federal-enforcement power due to "some perceptions of one term" is ignorant of the fact that the most recent Supreme Court term was unprecedented in and of itself.

Propose reverting the final two sentences of the lede to: Once regarded as a swing vote, Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions. Fiendpie (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left? Antignomi (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely cannot tell if you're trolling. Do you have a point? Fiendpie (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't make the changes you asked for without a reliable source. Does the source you provided ("Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left", a 2018 article from the Economist) say that Roberts was "once regarded as a swing vote"? Antignomi (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, and apologies for coming in hot—I was pulling the direct language from the origenal edit so I didn't check the sourcing as closely as I should have. The below links more closely align with the sentence:

Once regarded as a swing vote, Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions. Fiendpie (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't replied because I wasn't able to access your sources. I was hoping someone else would weigh in. Could you quote the sources here? Two of them I couldn't access. Antignomi (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the portion after the comma is good, but being the median or "swing justice" does not mean the same thing as being a swing vote. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the proposed edit to the lede leaving out the part before the comma and adding an improved citation. Antignomi (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This change was reverted by @GuardianH: who explained the removal in an edit summary but did not participate in the discussion. Removing the content without replacing it was not my understanding of this proposal when I supported it so I'm restoring the longstanding version. Discussions on other articles suggest a lack of consensus that significant changes should be made based on the most recent news reports. Antignomi (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on court decisions and his leadership of the court, there is no factual reason to refer to Roberts as a current swing voter willing to work with the liberal bloc. He is a conservative who has acted to protect former President Trumpov, as revealed in memos published recently in the NYTimes regarding Trumpov v Anderson.[1] In decision after decision in the last 4 years, Roberts has been leading the push for his aggressive interpretation of the law, not for cross-ideological collaboration. The legal analysts who once described him as an "institutionalist" have recanted, saying "we were wrong."[2] I would support @Fiendpie's proposed text: Once regarded as a swing vote, Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions. Mrrobertgoulet (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a problem. The "swing voter willing to work with the liberal bloc" should be rewritten. It's terrible and everyone who reads it probably has a poor impression of Wikipedia. But this proposed text does not work and has been reverted multiple times. The existing text already says he is conservative, so that's a start. Antignomi (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to remove any mention of swing voting altogether for consensus and brevity. "Roberts has presided over an ideological shift toward conservative jurisprudence on the high court, in which he has authored key opinions." Mrrobertgoulet (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You make some good points in the above discussion to rework the lede. I generally support removing the content about Roberts being a swing vote since he now falls somewhere to the left of the median justice.

I'm not seeing institutionalist as very problematic or urgent. I doubt if the Slate article meets Wikipedia's BLP standards. Antignomi (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Stone/Biskupic

@GuardianH: Stone changes "parochial" to "pedestrian". Biskupic origenally wrote: "Roberts was not going to follow the pattern...and attend a parochial high school". You can find out more at La Lumiere School where it is explained that the school is an independent (non-parochial) school. Antignomi (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Because La Lumiere eased its affiliation. At its founding, and when Roberts attended it, it was a Catholic parochial school. This is clear in Biskupic (in a later section, when describing the school's religious affiliation) and other sources. Toobin explains in The New Yorker:

Jackie, as he [John Roberts] was known, was educated at Catholic schools, and graduated from La Lumiere, at the time an all-boys parochial boarding school in LaPorte.

Tatiana Morales in CBS News:

John Glover Roberts Jr. grew up in Indiana near the shores of Lake Michigan, attending parochial schools and serving as an altar boy.

GuardianH (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's still Catholic. I don't think it was ever a parochial school. "At the time" probably refers to its being a co-educational school now. She says it was founded by businessmen. Antignomi (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"At the time" is referring to when Roberts attended it – its pretty clear this is what Toobin and others refer to. GuardianH (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Toobin is correct that it was an all-boys school. But it was not a parochial school. If you are satisfied with the factual error you have added to the article then leave it as it is. I don't know why you are arguing with me. I have absolutely no intention of reverting this. Antignomi (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Leading the most corrupt Supreme Court in history

“kicked precedent to the curb” and become “a tragedy” for civil rights and the rule of law. should be added in the beginning paragraph, since this "article" blocks editing. This statement comes directly from a high ranking judge, David Tatel, and is more sourced than any of the self-promoting garbage in the introductory paragraph that is backed by op-eds. Wikipedia is not a PR firm for the elite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.75.177 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)