Talk:Harry Blackmun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Please remember to sign your comments by typing four tildes (i.e. ~ ~ ~ ~, without the spaces). Too many comments here lack signatures, which make sthe talk page very confusing to read.
Contents |
[edit] NPOV or not NPOV?
This article is neither particularly informative nor written from a neutral point of view. Instead of giving information on Harry Blackmun, it strongly critizies (in none to clear language) one of the Supreme Court decisions (Roe vs. Wade) he was involved in. I would encourage someone with more knowledge than me about the American Supreme Court to completely rewrite this article.
- Baroqqque, your "contribution" here is almost as useless as that offered at Antonin Scalia. At time of writing, this article expends 1544 words discussing Justice Blackmun's life and career. The discussion of Roe - the single most salient aspect of his career - takes up only 224 words, with a slight return of 57 words describing its effect on his subsequent jurisprudence. I can scarcely begin to fathom the mangled grasp of the English language implied in your suggestion that scarcely the scant one fifth of this article's content that relates to Roe justifies the accusation that "instead of giving information on Harry Blackmun, [the article] strongly critizies . . . one of the Supreme Court decisions (Roe vs. Wade) he was involved in." Since you appear to have a shaky grasp of English (and a finely-honed sense of exaggeration) to go with your freely admitted lack of "knowledge . . .about the American Supreme Court," I would encourage you decline further involvement in this article or Antonin Scalia.Simon Dodd 03:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone ahead and done it. It can still use a lot more information by a knowledgable person!
Any source for his first name being Harold rather than Harry? I can't find any reliable confirmation of that. MisfitToys 22:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article does not paint a clear picture of Blackmun's philosophy as a judge. There are some insights (such as his reliance on emotion), but if anyone can, it would be helpful to enter more info on his written opinions about a variety of topics, e.g. the limits of state jurisdiction, interstate commerce, other big legal issues (even those fundamental issues not popularized by mass media). I can add it some info from time to time. 10/06/2005
- The criticisms above are from almost two years ago; the article is much different now. The article paints a very clear picture of Blackmun's jurisprudence. Blackmun's tenure was marked largely by Roe v. Wade. There is no "secret history" of really important decisions Blackmun wrote that have been eclipsed by the media's focus on Roe v. Wade; Roe defined Blackmun as a judge and a person. Blackmun obsessed over Roe just as much as the "mass media" did (see his dissent in Casey). I suppose your references to "state jurisdiction" and "interstate commerce" refer to Garcia v. SAMTA; that opinion is notable only for its result, as the reasoning employed by Blackmun is indebted entirely to a book by legal scholar Jesse Choper. To be blunt, Blackmun did not have much of a lasting impact on the Court apart from Roe. See his concurring opinions in Gertz v. Robert Welch and Michael M. v. Superior Court, as well as his dissents in DeShaney, J.A. Croson v. Richmond, and other cases for why. All of these opinions are entirely sentimental and contain little legal reasoning-- and made no impact on the reasoning employed in future cases. --Anon
[edit] neutrality
"All of these opinions are entirely sentimental and contain little legal reasoning-- and made no impact on the reasoning employed in future cases." This opinion, however well-founded, is reflected in the article. While I agree with most points in the article, it criticizes Blackmun a little too harshly for being emotional. See the Byron White article for an example of going in depth into his rulings on different topics.
This language used in the article is skewed towards a negative view of him, a view that does not necessarily foollow from the listed facts. I strongly believe it should be rewritten.
[edit] Term of office
According to this reference (PDF) from the official website of the Supreme Court, Blackmun started his term of office on June 9, 1970. I will be changing the text to match shortly.
— DLJessup (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV issues
This language used in the article is skewed towards a negative view of him, a view that does not necessarily foollow from the listed facts. I strongly believe it should be rewritten. I could trace many of the POV remarks to changes made by 199.111.227.16.
I agree, user:Please don't block has re-added a passage describing him as unusually thin-skinned and complaining too much about not getting enough chances to writye his opinions, I do not care what source you have for these comments, they don't belong in an encyclopedia article, they amount to mere personal attacks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- A factual statement is not a personal attack. If you think it is offensive, that is your opinion. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
Just because someone may really have said it does not mean it belongs in the article. Just because Pierre Trudeau called George Bush Sr. an idiot, doesn't make it relavant to George Bush's article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV vs Usefulness
To start, there are very few scholars who understand Blackmun, much less laypersons. Thus, I do not believe you will find particularly compelling resolution as to his motivations, actions, or belief system. Certainly, each of these constitutes a POV, but that is not to say that they have no application in this article. What is lacking here is the same thing that is lacking in every wikipedia page--references. A POV with scholarly documentation is perfectly fine. I strongly suggest that future revisions of this page be informed by credible texts and articles. --Anon.
I agree. Please, start citing your assertions!
