Member of #TeamJackson Allegedly Edited Wikipedia Bios of Potential Supreme Court Nominees

A former clerk to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is accused of burnishing her Wiki bio, while sabotaging those of other contenders to replace Justice Breyer.

Politico reports that a former clerk to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was editing the Wikipedia bios of Judge Jackson and other potential nominees to replace Justice Stephen Breyer. According to the story, the former clerk sought to make Judge Jackson's bio more appealing to progressives, and the other potential nominees' bios less so.

After POLITICO began inquiring about the changes on Friday, a group of former law clerks for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson identified the anonymous editor as Matteo Godi, another former Jackson clerk. Godi did not respond to multiple emailed requests or a phone call. . . .

Those edits display a pattern: The page for Jackson, seen by many as a Supreme Court frontrunner, was tweaked to paint her in a more favorable light for a liberal audience, while the pages for other potential nominees — South Carolina federal district court Judge J. Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger — were altered to make them potentially less appealing to a left-leaning audience. . . .

The Wikipedia user "H2rty" — identified as Godi by his former colleagues — made over 20 edits to seven Wikipedia pages of potential Supreme Court nominees in the past week: Jackson, Childs and Kruger, as well as Wilhelmina Wright, Tiffany Cunningham, Arianna J. Freeman and Holly Thomas. The changes began on January 28, two days after news of Justice Stephen Breyer's retirement broke, and continued until February 2. The user also edited Jackson's Wikipedia page as early as May 2017, Wikipedia change logs show. . . .

 

Comments

[Don Nico]

Is that the normal give and take of politics?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Yes. In 2022 everyone knows how Wikipedia works and people that are really interested in politics should have an account and they should have explored how to edit pages. I’ve edited multiple pages in order to strip away Orwellian propaganda added by some sycophant. So my first edit was years ago and it concerned the 2008 Democratic primary in which the Obama sycophants wanted to make it appear he won the nomination through the state nominating contests when in fact neither he nor Hillary won enough delegates through the state nominating contests to win the nomination. So Obama won by getting superdelegates to endorse him on the day of the final state nominating contest and eventually the establishment convinced Hillary to drop out before the convention. Hillary had enough delegates that the superdelegates could have made her the nominee but superdelegates were free to choose either candidate pursuant the rules.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Actually the aide is breaking one of Wikipedia's rules: you're not supposed to edit articles about anyone you have a personal or professional connection to.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Very shabby conduct. It might cost the offender his job (if he works for a reputable employer in a position that relies on judgment).

[Noscitur a sociis]

Looks like it's just Paul Weiss.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fine firm. This could make it tough for him there.

Let's hope he learns to conduct himself in a better manner.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I just checked out one of the articles I edit and it very clearly was edited long ago by someone closely associated with the individual. So I edited it to be more like the original article from years ago. I attempt to use the “talk” page so we can come to a consensus but nobody has ever responded to one of my talk posts people just edit the article.

[Trollificus]

I've looked at a few of the "Talk" pages on subjects of interest and no freaking way do I have desire to engage with the kind of massive autists who devote themselves to sleazing up Wikipedia.

And that's what I told Jimmy last time he asked me to donate.

Wikipedia. Great idea, in theory, and IF it weren't true that people gonna people.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Probably. Getting caught...not as much.

[Don Nico]

The best part of the story is that Clayburn's minions will have seen it and Clayburn will remind Biden that he needs Clayburn and his entourage more than ever.
The AOC's of the world are on the downhill side of the November 2022 election and Biden knows that. So Clayburn's voice will sound louder than ever.
(By the way S_O, that is how patronage works; nothing wrong or dishonest about it)

[Sarcastr0]

Funny, Clyburn doesn't look like a black woman. And he seems to have picked a specific candidate that isn't one of the two frontrunners.

[Don Nico]

HA HA. Why are you so afraid of patronage, S_O?
BTW, your front runners ar so-called by people to who Biden owes nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not afraid of it. I don't think this is patronage, and I want to call things by their correct names.

You want to see what patronage looks like, look at ambasadorships.

[Trollificus]

Or the entire city government of Chicago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe on the left; The right doesn't have the access to do that sort of thing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The right doesn't have access to Wikipedia?

[Brett Bellmore]

To edit Wikipedia. The editors are predominantly left-wing these days.

[bernard11]

Conspiracy!!

[zztop8970]

No, just demographics.

[Trollificus]

No, just degrees of obsession and delusion.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The right doesn't have "the access" to edit Wikipedia ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit") for a few days until someone notices?

[Brett Bellmore]

You think it takes days for pages that are topical, to notice an edit? Maybe if you're planting Easter eggs in obscure articles, for later use, but editing a page that's going to be under scrutiny?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I think sometimes not every topical page is being watched.

You really do see conspiracies everywhere.

Also, too, choosing not to edit wiki is not the same as not having access to edit it.

[zztop8970]

Every non-obscure page is watched. The pages in question have tens of watchers -Ketanji Brown Jackson has 57 people who have it on their watch list (i,e_ they are notified every time it gets edited) and an average of more than 6000 daily page views.
There's no conspiracy involved - juts the demographics of the site's active editors and administrators.
And if you think someone with a contrarian view can simply come in and edit w/o having their edits quickly reverted and eventually finding themselves topic-banned or blocked, then you haven't been doing much Wikipedia editing.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

They don't revert your edits if you cite reliable sources.

[John F. Carr]

Sure they do, but they don't do it for the specific reason that you did not cite a reliable source. One of the privileges of being in the majority is deciding which reliably sourced factoids should be included and where, and which should be dismissed as not worthy of mention. So Obama's article, when I checked a few yeas ago, had an official policy that "birthers" must not be mentioned even though many reliable sources reported on them. The Messiah must not be disrespected. On the other hand, pages about right wing organizations are allowed to lead with a list of left wing gripes.

[zztop8970]

Of course they do. As JFC notes below, often the reason is given as "undue weight" or some similar crap, and when the majority is on your side, that's the way it goes.
Not to mention the fact that what counts as a "reliable source" is also decided by that same majority, so MSNBC/CNN/WaPo/NYT etc.. are automatically good, but Fox News, for example is "generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science".

[Trollificus]

Yes they do, [redacted] Mr. Toad.

How hard do you think it is for lefties to find "sources" that say anything they want, or can be interpreted to mean anything they want? They're really good at this shit.

[SimonP]

It's so weird how institutions that dedicate themselves to truth and knowledge tend towards being "left-wing," while institutions that dedicate themselves to the use of force and accumulation of wealth and power tend towards being "right-wing," huh?

[zztop8970]

I'm sure you don't even see the question begging inherent in this framing.

[SimonP]

I don't need to beg the question. Academia, science, journalism, and whatever wikipedia is are at least by mission and design dedicated to "truth and knowledge" and widely viewed as left-leaning. You may view that to be a massive, pervasive, almost conspiratorial, deceit, and you may even be right about that - but it wouldn't make my description any less true.

Same goes for police forces, military, and the upper echelons of commerce and politics. Those are institutions that are defined by their use of force, wealth, and power. And they're filled with conservatives. Even if you think I'm being uncharitable in describing them that way. (Like, you know, maybe people who go into policing are people who just want to give back to their community, or something.)

[zztop8970]

You are assuming that Wikipedia is actually following its mission and is truly dedicated to "truth and knowledge". That is the very definition of begging the question.

[SimonP]

I am not assuming that. See above.

[zztop8970]

You are assuming that - see above "Academia, science, journalism, and whatever wikipedia is are at least by mission and design dedicated to "truth and knowledge". If you do not assume that they are actually dedicated to "truth and knowledge" , then your point is meaningless.
And it is quite telling that you do not similarly assume that police departments whose motto is "to protect and serve" or the International Association of Chiefs of Police who state their mission as "to serve the community...to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation" are actually attracting people who want to do that - you mock that notion.

[SimonP]

If you do not assume that they are actually dedicated to "truth and knowledge" , then your point is meaningless.

My point was only to observe that left-wingers are drawn to institutions that are dedicated to "truth and knowledge." If you wish to modify that statement, for the sake of argument, to their being only ostensibly dedicated to "truth and knowledge," that's fine. It remains no less true that left-wingers are drawn to institutions that are ostensibly dedicated to "truth and knowledge."

And it is quite telling that you do not similarly assume that police departments...

I have described police departments as dedicated to and designed around the use of force, which remains the case even if we were to take their public-facing statements about "protecting" and "serving" seriously. That is what police departments are - the only ones entitled to use force against us. I am not really sure what else you think police officers think they can do to "serve the community." They're not operating soup kitchens.

[zztop8970]

So, using your formulation and standards above, it would be fair to say that right wingers are attracted to organizations that are ostensibly dedicated "to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation", while left wingers, not so much?

[SimonP]

I am describing these institutions as they are structured, not as how they advertise themselves. So, I would agree that we could agree that the police and military are only ostensibly dedicated to the use of force.

Which would be silly, of course, because we know what the police and military are. But it's your question-begging we're trying to accommodate, not mine.

[zztop8970]

No you are not. WRT to Wikipedia, you are simply assuming it is structured so as to be dedicated to "truth and knowledge" based on what it says ,and taking it as a given that what is is ostensibly for is in fact what it is
WRT to the police etc.. you assume the opposite.

[SimonP]

Wikipedia is expressly structured in a way to ensure that its posts are accurate. It permits anyone to edit posts, and has an administrator team tasked with ensuring that changes conform to Wikipedia's TOS and guiding principles.

Feel free to point me to any structure, typically embedded in a police force and essential to it, that could reasonably be expected to push the force to "protect and serve." Internal affairs? Civilian oversight? Police forces are opaque and unaccountable by design. The structure promotes and rewards the use of force; if they should happen to keep communities safe, that's only a happy coincidence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ Same goes for police forces…”

Huh? Police are literally dedicated to truth and knowledge. One of their main missions is to investigate crime.

And as for commerce, you don’t think you need knowledge to produce products that people want to buy?

[SimonP]

Huh? Police are literally dedicated to truth and knowledge. One of their main missions is to investigate crime.

Only as a precondition for the use of force. Anyway, it's a preposterous assertion about actual American police departments, which are notoriously quite bad at investigating and solving crimes, are generally oblivious as to the actual law they're supposed to be enforcing, and famously choose not to hire bright or intelligent officers. You've been watching too much CSI.

And as for commerce, you don’t think you need knowledge to produce products that people want to buy?

Only as a means to generating wealth.

Like - is this really hard for you to understand? An academic studying a field is interested in the pursuit of knowledge per se, and their professional success as an academic is based in their ability to do so. The same goes for journalists.

A widget maker may need to have some technical expertise and knowledge and be quite bright to achieve their ends. But businesses are about making money; if some degree of knowledge or discovery doesn't serve a foreseeable bottom line, they have no reason to pursue it. Just look at where any pharmaceutical or tech company puts its R&D cash. Facebook isn't exactly trying to figure out how to modulate their algorithms to promote a better understanding of current events among its user base.

[phoqueue]

Simon simultaneously believes:
(1) facially neutral institutions can harbor nasty elements or at least have nasty effects and
(2) if Wikipedia says proclaims to be dedicated to truth and knowledge, then it must be so.

[Trollificus]

Press "X" to doubt assertion presented as true without evidence.

[CocoN8]

Conquest's Second Law of Politics is relevant here:

Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. You don't even need an account! But you do need to cite reliable sources for everything you post.

[zztop8970]

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but if you want to express an opinion contrary to the left-leaning majority, that edit will be gone within minutes. And you do need an account to edit many controversial topic areas.

[Sarcastr0]

Alternatively, you want to say stuff that you stongly feel is true, but is actually right-wing bullshit.

[zztop8970]

Begging the question, again.

[Sarcastr0]

OK then, lets stop dancing. What specific facts have you or those you know had reverted?

[zztop8970]

There are any number of things you can look at - you can start with the deletion of the Hunter Biden laptop in article; Or the whitewashing of recent facts regarding the sources and the veracity of the Steele Dossier.

[SimonP]

These are not actually "specific facts," but rather right-wing grievance-mongering over some pet conspiracy theories.

[zztop8970]

Begging the question , again.
Anything I show that has been redacted is "right-wing grievance-mongering" or "conspiracy theory", and "facts" are only those things that are allowed, by the left-leaning majority.

[SimonP]

Since you haven't bothered to cite a single "specific fact" that has been reverted because it is "contrary to the left-leaning majority" of Wikipedia editors, it's unfortunately not possible to say anything substantive about what you're talking about.

What it is possible to say, however, is that you've chosen to cite a couple of highly tendentious examples from recent right-wing grievance-mongering.

[zztop8970]

Ok, here's a fact for you. The now-deleted "Hunter Biden laptop controversy" article used to say that "In his opinion column for the Wall Street Journal, editorial board member Holman W. Jenkins Jr. called tabloids The New York Post and The Daily Mail "everything journalism aspires to be", and criticized the US's "newspapers of record" for conspiring to "deny facts and hide truth" on the subject. "
It is a fact that Jenkins wrote that. That fact has been deleted form Wikipedia.

[SimonP]

It is a fact that Jenkins wrote that. That fact has been deleted form Wikipedia.

It is also a fact that the article that included it was barely more than a stub article that was generally dismissive about the controversy, citing Jenkins' statement as negative fact about the NYPost story. And the article, now deleted, redirects to a much more robust and neutral description of the scandal on a different page.

So, yes - this precise bit of right-wing propaganda - essentially nothing more than hearsay - has not survived the process. But it would be wrong to say that the result is a description of the controversy that is more amenable to the left-wing point of view. If anything, the existing description of the scandal would surprise most current-day left-wingers, if they hadn't been following the developments closely.

[zztop8970]

What you describe as "much more robust and neutral description of the scandal " is described by others as a whitewashing of the actual situation, and a suppression of inconvenient opinions. And since your description is shared by the majority of editors, that is what the article looks like.
This is exactly what I wrote above- it's not that facts are simply reverted away - the suppression is justified on the grounds that they are undue weigh or similar crap like you're presenting above - this is supposedly a "more neutral description", where what is "more neutral" or what constitutes "due weight" is decided by a majority of like-minded editors.

[SimonP]

ZZtop - you originally cited the deletion of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article as an example where "left-wing" administrators at Wikipedia suppressed a point of view that was contrary to their leanings. When I pressed you to be more specific about how this deletion demonstrated this, you cited what ended up being the only "fact" the article in question actually seemed to feature, which was a description of what one WSJ editorial board member said about the quality of the NYPost's reporting. You also neglected to mention (or, possibly, bothered to inform yourself of the fact) that the deleted article itself had a pretty strong left-wing slant.

That being the case, it's strange to cite the article's deletion as a cause for complaint. A low-quality, highly-left-slanted post was deleted, and anyone searching for the laptop controversy are now smoothly redirected to a lengthy discussion of the very topic, which includes plenty of information and cites that lend credibility to the controversy.

I appreciate that you - like most right-wing grievance-nursers - don't view the main article's description of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy as sufficiently deferential to your right-wing views. That is always the case - an article is "slanted" against your point of view just because it doesn't clearly support the conclusion you've already reached via other paths.

In this case, your complaint boils down to a comment by one editorial board member about the quality of the "news reporting" done by affiliated news publications. Why is it relevant? The irony of it, in this discussion (sparked by Godi's tweaking of articles about Jackson and her rivals for a SCOTUS pick), is that Jenkins' own comments carried a clear conflict of interest, and are only of minimal relevance to whether the initial claims about the Biden laptop had any merit. It is hard to make any objective defense for its inclusion in any high-quality discussion about the controversy. But for you it's the whole ballgame.

You're just a clown.

[zztop8970]

THE WSJ was just one example, which illustrates the point. When even an allegedly left-leaning article is not left-leaning enough for the site admisnatrtors to allow it (apparently because any praise for the NY Post's reporting on the matter is verboten, even if done in the context of challenging some of the Post's claims) , that makes my point, not yours.

There are countless others, and I would imagine your response to all of them would be along similar lines.
But I guess when all you have as far as arguments is ad hominems, I shouldn't expect intelligent debate.

[SimonP]

THE WSJ was just one example, which illustrates the point.

And my response was to explain how (i) Jenkins' statements were only tangentially relevant, if at all and (ii) the removal of the article in which his statement was included resulted in the removal of a low-quality, left-biased account of the laptop controversy, in favor of a central post that discusses that controversy at length and within its broader context. It therefore serves as a poor example of the institutional bias you're complaining about, as I've also explained.

When even an allegedly left-leaning article is not left-leaning enough for the site admisnatrtors to allow it (apparently because any praise for the NY Post's reporting on the matter is verboten, even if done in the context of challenging some of the Post's claims) , that makes my point, not yours.

There is zero reason in the editor logs that support this "apparently" parenthetical. There are completely obvious, objective reasons why the original article would have been deleted, in favor of the article to which it now redirects - the original article was short and almost devoid of detail and heavy on the editorializing, and the existing article and discussion is more comprehensive and fair than the deleted article (even if it's not as right-leaning as you might feel to be appropriate).

Keep in mind that we're talking about a laptop that may or may not exist, that is said to contain emails that may or may not be authentic and came to light by way of an unclear and suspect chain of control, but are purported among the right-wing conspiracists to contain some kind of incriminating information about Biden, which were offered first to a reputable right-leaning media outlet for a story, which then passed, and came eventually to the NYPost, which published a story about them. Substantially all of this "controversy" is permitted to be described on Wikipedia, notwithstanding the fact that just about every left-winger in the country would dismiss it out of hand as a meritless conspiracy theory.

Your only objection about it, so far, has been to complain that an irrelevant comment by a conflicted member of the WSJ's board about an affiliated news organization has not survived an article deletion that can be completely and satisfactorily explained on objective, non-political grounds as not to Wikipedia's general editorial standards. That, you would have us believe, demonstrates Wikipedia's hostility for right-wing points of view.

There are countless others, and I would imagine your response to all of them would be along similar lines.

If you mean, I would take any other proffered examples seriously, and see if they stand up to the claim that they demonstrate an unfairly political editorial bias, then you can be assured that I would. The one example you have so far deigned to provide does not stand up to scrutiny, but that does not mean that I have already concluded that none of them could.

As for "ad hominems" - I am not eager to conclude that the only conservatives I can seem to find online all happen to be white supremacist conspiracy theorists in their 50s and 60s who've had their brains hollowed out by mainlining conservative propaganda for the past couple of decades; I would like to believe that there is some kind of intellectual backing to modern conservatives in this country. But for some reason you trolls just never are able to play the part. Grievance-mongering over Russian agitprop seems to be all you're capable of.

[Trollificus]

Don't bother to engage an NPC like this. He has, as his "intellectual counter" to anything you might assert, the 'defense' that it's just "right-wing grievance-mongering over some pet conspiracy theories."

That satisfies his meager desire to know anything resembling "the truth". His narrative flow chart tells him the truth, everything that would normally be argument and presentation of competing facts is taken up instead, with name-calling and presentation of rote responses.

Thus the designation "NPC", predictable and very, very limited.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Welcome to the site, Trollificus. Also welcome to the mute list!

Simon - An excellent rebuttal to zztop. Sadly he'll never understand why his grievances are a joke.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ What specific facts have you or those you know had reverted?”

Jackie Coakley’s name was constantly reverted. As was, IIRC, the “whistleblower”s

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Alternatively, you want to say stuff that you strongly feel is true, but is actually right-wing bullshit."

Any evidence that wikipedia is fairly edited, and the claims of bias are due to people posting bullshit, or is this another one of your fact-free assertions?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm talking about zztop8970 specifically, who doesn't seem able to provide actual examples.

But then you are similarly not really good at critical thinking - you jump the gun all the time at stuff you want to believe. And I would not be surprised if you blamed wikipedia when they don't go along with you.

But prove me wrong - do you have any specific examples?

[zztop8970]

I've provide an example. I can provide as many as you want.

[Sarcastr0]

SimonP rather blew your example out of the water as opinion, not fact.

[zztop8970]

You need to read more carefully, if you can.

[SimonP]

"Ad hominem" for me, not for thee...

[Voize of Reazon]

If you are editing Wikipedia to "express an opinion" then that is why your edits get reverted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

[zztop8970]

Begging the question, once more.

[Leo Marvin]

You're the one who said, "Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but if you want to express an opinion contrary to the left-leaning majority, that edit will be gone within minutes."

[zztop8970]

Indeed, and I stand by that claim.

[zztop8970]

Check the example I provided above - trying to include the opinion of a journalist that runs contrary to the favored narrative gets removed.

[Sarcastr0]

Voize of Reazon explained why opinions of all types are going to get reverted.

Your complaint of bias is falling apart around you.

[zztop8970]

Opinions of other Wikipedia editors are rightly reverted, but opinions of notable people, published in reliable sources (which is what I posted above) are not supposed to be reverted. And indeed they are not, when they hew to the "correct narrative". Take a look at the examples I provided, and see how often Jane Mayer's opinions are quoted in the Steele Dossier article.

[Sarcastr0]

So there is a line to be drawn about what opinions are notable, and you disagree with that line and blame partisanship.

This is you hairsplitting, it is not a double standard.

As expected.

[zztop8970]

It is not hairsplitting, it is what Wikipedia policy - a Wiki editor's opinions can't be presented , but notable opinions of others, published in reliable sources are. Again , read the article and tell me how many tome the opinions of Jane Mayer are quoted.
Then go back and reread what I wrote in one of my first comments her e- "often the reason is given as "undue weight" or some similar crap, and when the majority is on your side, that's the way it goes."
Who determines what opinions are noteworthy? The same majority of like-minded, left-leaning editors.

[Drewski]

I love how everyone is arguing about the root cause of a statistic that you just made up on the spot.

[Jaypd]

No comment?

One more reason we do not rely on wiki in legal briefs.. unless we're Posner.

For the curious- this does not fall into Orin's favorite legal problem, unless this guy was paid for his edits. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

[Michael P]

It runs squarely afoul of a Wikipedia "core content policy", though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

[Don Nico]

Indeed. The question is now that the dishonesty has been exposed, will all those edits be stricken.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Or the candidate disqualified...

[Brett Bellmore]

No reason to disqualify the candidate, unless you can show that she was actually implicated in the edits. Having idiot friends is hardly a disqualification for any office.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Maybe not formally disqualified...but perhaps informally.

Here's the issue. This isn't a "friend" of yours. They're a previous clerk of yours. This type of behavior is apparently what is being taught is appropriate.

She may or may not have explicitly known about the edits. But implicitly...with a wink, wink? Probably.

[bernard11]

Oh sure.

Are you an idiot? Never mind. I know the answer.

Among other things, what sane person woudl think that encouraging someone to insert a bunch of lies in their Wikipedia page would help them get nominated to SCOTUS?

You really need help.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Among other things, what sane person woudl think that encouraging someone to insert a bunch of lies in their Wikipedia page would help them get nominated to SCOTUS?"

It's a good question. What sane person indeed? We know that Jackson's previous clerk Matteo Godi did exactly that...presumably to help Jackson get nominated. Perhaps you're insinuating that Godi isn't quite sane?

[bernard11]

What sane person indeed? We know that Jackson's previous clerk Matteo Godi did exactly that.

And it doesn't strike me as a very bright or rational thing to do.

But what I asked about was who would encourage someone else to do that, since you pretty much accused Jackson of doing so.

Not that your accusation is surprising, of course.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And Godi was Jackson's clerk...

So, where did Godi learn such behavior? Behavior you think isn't "very bright or rational..."

[Sarcastr0]

AL, made up a story, and, pretending it is true, demand a scalp for it.

That's freaking nuts.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro: "AL made up a story"

What story? That Godi altered Wikipedia for the benefit of Jackson? Or that Godi was Jackson's clerk?

[Sarcastr0]

This type of behavior is apparently what is being taught is appropriate.

So, where did Godi learn such behavior? Behavior you think isn't "very bright or rational..."

Believe it or not, a clerkship is not the determinant of one's every behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

See also your 'plausible deniability' yarn below.

You're full corkboard and string on this.

[SimonP]

They're not even "a bunch of lies." They're spin, maybe in some cases editorializing. Nothing cited by the Politico piece appears to be substituting fiction for fact. Indistinguishable from a lot of ad campaigns that are run around a nomination these days.

Wikipedia may not be the best place for that kind of campaign, but I have a hard time seeing them as "dishonest" edits.

[benji]

I agree they were just editorializing to try and frame Jackson as ever so mildly better, but there is a bit of dishonesty involved if the person was a clerk. I know it's only a Wikipedia rule but you're not really supposed to do that or if you are you should disclose it.

I figure it's just a case of oversight though, guy was probably trying to help and it just looks sketchy because of how he did it and how these now anonymous other former clerks are going to the media to say what he did.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's worse than that, because the clerk was editing other judge's profiles to make them look worse.

[Carl_N_Brown]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/H2rty

"This account [H2rty] is currently blocked. ... (Undisclosed and fairly obvious COI editing, making positive (and unencyclopedic) edits to Ketanji Brown Jackson, with attendant negative POV pushing on Leondra Kruger and other articles.)"

COI=Conflict Of Interest POV=Point Of View
editors are not supposet to push positive point of view either.

[SimonP]

I'd like to know who taught you that these kinds of evidence-free non sequiturs can constitute reasonable statements, so that I can hold them responsible for how you turned out.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You know that's how it works. It's called "plausible deniability"

[SimonP]

"Plausible deniability" is usually used to describe a situation where a person clearly has a hand in causing some unpalatable result, but has maintained a public facade apparently disconnecting them from those results. See, for example, Trump's collusion with Russia in the 2016 and 2020 elections, his attempts to get dirt from Ukraine on Biden during the 2020 campaign, his goading of the insurrectionists on January 6, his witness tampering in connection with the impeachment investigations and the January 6th commission, and so on.

Here, you are inferring guilt from Jackson's non-involvement, which flips the notion of "plausible deniability" on its head.

[Armchair Lawyer]

LOL. Your examples make it clear you don't actually know what plausible deniability is.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't seem to know what evidence is. Saying 'well of course there's no clear connection, because plausible deniability' doesn't count as evidence.

[SimonP]

LOL. Your examples make it clear you don't actually know what plausible deniability is.

Conveniently, I'd also provided a casual "definition", when I stated:

"Plausible deniability" is usually used to describe a situation where a person clearly has a hand in causing some unpalatable result, but has maintained a public facade apparently disconnecting them from those results.

Do you dispute this usage?

My examples were all cases where Trump maintained a kind of "plausible deniability" that allows boosters like you to "LOL" when someone like me asserts Trump's malfeasance as established fact. I'll certainly grant that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Simon,

You clearly don't know what it actually is, based on your examples.

[SimonP]

You clearly don't know what it actually is, based on your examples.

And this evasion clearly signals that you don't disagree with how I'd defined "plausible deniability," with the further implication that you understand that you'd intentionally misapplied the concept to Jackson, and really have nothing further to support your unmerited inference that Godi was acting with her express or implicit support.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe not formally disqualified...but perhaps informally.
" Here's the issue. This isn't a "friend" of yours. They're a previous clerk of yours. This type of behavior is apparently what is being taught is appropriate. She may or may not have explicitly known about the edits. But implicitly...with a wink, wink? Probably. "

Similarly, having fans such as Armchair Lawyer is probably enough to disqualify every movement conservative -- such as the Volokh Conspirators -- with respect to faculty positions at strong, mainstream law schools.

Attracting bigoted dopes should have consequences.

[SimonP]

Eugene's tolerance of Josh's posts is probably disqualifying itself, by this standard.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It seems reasonable to conclude that operation of this blog has made Prof. Volokh a hero in some circles at the cost of severe loss of respect among other audiences, such as that which operates America's strongest research and teaching institutions.

At Federalist Society events (and perhaps at State Policy network, Heritage, Council for National Policy, and similar events), though, he likely is asked for autographs.

[Commenter_XY]

No Don Nico, the edits will not be stricken. They will be justified.

[Don Nico]

explain what you mean by that C_XY

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, I mean we will be told that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the edits, were done with nothing but the purest of intentions, and we'll listen to a carefully worded justification why it was perfectly Ok. Just watch.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem disaffected, Commenter_XY. Are you an intolerant, superstitious right-wing culture war loser?

[Commenter_XY]

Disaffected Arthur? Nah, just patient and observant. Let's see what happens wrt the disingenuous edits.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Okay, that is just the kind of thing I would expect, excuses for sleaze.
I much prefer the open and honest quid pro quo of Clayburn

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He means that if you look at the page, and the history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ketanji_Brown_Jackson&offset=&limit=100&action=history), you'll see numerous pieces of evidence that he's wrong.

The editor has been blocked, the edits largely reverted, the page itself mentions that it needs to be cleaned....

Hardly "justified."

[Trollificus]

In which case, good for Wikipedia and we move on..to what? The ten thousand right-wing stealth edits we need to deal with? Riiiiight.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, suppose a civil trial in which the honesty (accuracy) or dishonesty (deliberate inaccuracy) of those edits was to become the basis for a libel judgment. Would you as a publisher right now have enough information to prove dishonesty, and thus escape a charge of actual malice?

[Don Nico]

SL,
I doubt that you would. Hence, Adler's use of the passive voice.

[AmosArch]

As a funny aside the last time I remember checking the Jan 6th 'insurrection' wikipedia article they were using the same template for it that they use for military battles. Sort of gives you an idea of their idea of 'neutrality'.

[Bill Poser]

I hate to tell you this, but there was a battle, albeit one that was mostly non-lethal. When a group forces its way into a building, hunts down its occupants, engages in vandalism and steals some of its contents, that is a type of battle, one for which the battle template was quite appropriate. There were opposing forces, whose motivation, number, equipment, composition and so forth need to be described, there was a sequence of events of confrontation, there was an outcome, and there was an aftermath. The use of the battle template was quite appropriate whichever side you favor.

[Michael P]

The same was true of many protests the preceding summer, but is it appropriate to use the "war" template to describe BLM?

[FourteenFour]

With what happened in Portland and other cities where there was destruction of private and public property, definitely.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The protests did not involve deliberate attack on a government building with a specific goal.

[Toranth]

Attacking the Federal Courthouse while chanting about stopping the arrests of illegal aliens or violent protesters is not a deliberate attack on a government building with a specific goal?

Remember, these are the same people who barricaded the exits of that building before trying to set it on fire, knowing the building was occupied by federal employees.

[Sarcastr0]

Attacking the capital while the electors are being counted to stop the count has a causal connection, even if it ultimately would have failed regardless.

Attacking a courthouse after hours to get illegal aliens to not be arrested does not have such a connection.

[Don Nico]

I notice that you brushed off the charge of criminal endangerment.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say it wasn't criminal, or that it was good.

[Don Nico]

No, but you ignored it in your reply.

[Sarcastr0]

Because this thread was about a specific comparison, not about the trivial question of whether attempting to burn down federal buildings is legal and good.

Come one, dude.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
The common dude applies to you. You made your usual duck in a thread that started with "protests did not involve deliberate attack on a government building with a specific goal."

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the attempted arson of the Federal courthouse was nothing like what happened on Jan 06.

For many reasons, including specifically because they were not causally related to the thing being protested.

What happened on Jan 06 was, in the vernacular of the left, 'direct action.'

That does not mean attempting to burn federal buildings is a great idea, just that it's not comparable.

[Toranth]

They did it to the Portland ICE building, too, as well as the courthouse. But hey, to Sarcastro, burning down the building (and murdering the employees there) that commands the arrest of people in the area does not have a casual connection to preventing the arrest of people in that area.

[Sarcastr0]

That sounds awful, and has a causal relation. I hope they throw the book at the perpetrators. But also not like invading our capital, through police, and hunting for our representatives.

[Toranth]

Literally one minute before you posted this, you were claiming that burning down federal law enforcement buildings and murdering federal law enforcement employees did not have a casual relationship to protesting federal law enforcement activities.

As for "throwing the book" at anyone, well, those arrested were released without charges. What's a little arson and attempted murder, if it is in a good cause, says the Biden DoJ. Do you work there, Sarcastro?

[Sarcastr0]

I was responding to YOUR post that talks about, and I quote 'Attacking the Federal Courthouse' and nothing else.

When you brought up another example here, I responded to that example.

You are conflating two different things you said in an attempt to make me seem inconsistent. Either you've got serious memory and reading comprehension problems, or you're arguing in bad faith.

those arrested were released without charges
Arrested for these arsons? Prove it.
The right has been saying this for ages and they always have nothing.

[zztop8970]

Of course they did. You just seem to like that particular goal.

[DaivdBehar]

Jan. 6 was a pro-democracy protest, against agents of the Chinese Commie Party that took over our government.

[GKHoffman]

"When a group forces its way into a building, hunts down its occupants, engages in vandalism and steals some of its contents, that is a type of battle..." So every home invasion or smash and grab is a battle? Even when the occupants are not harmed?

[benji]

I admit I would like to see these treated the same way on Wikipedia just for amusement.

[Trollificus]

Hell, I'd like to see them treated the same under the fucking law.
Selective application of the law is an open door for tyranny.

[Carl_N_Brown]

The same or similar Wikipedia templates are used for SWAT raids and other police involved conflicts.

[Archibald Tuttle]

The one saving grace is that it's really hard to get away with such a thing without someone noticing. Especially when the subjects are in the headlines of the day.

[ah....Clem]

Yes, just about impossible, and if the allegation is true then the perpetrator must surely have been completely ignorant about how Wikipedia works.

It's incredibly easy to see all the edits a particular editor has made, and if they're sufficiently NPOV, well, you can see the result here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/H2rty

[Pierce Wetter]

If only our elections had the same degree of audit trail as Wikipedia.

[migrant log picker]

Impressive people around Jackson. Can hardly wait to observe the legal acumen brought to Rockin' Roberts and the Supremes.

[Sarcastr0]

Really searching for reasons to dismiss her, eh?

[Michael P]

People have lots of reasons to dismiss her, but it seems like only two reasons to nominate her.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, three: Race, gender, and ideology. There's not the slightest chance that Biden would have nominated a conservative black woman.

[Michael P]

I was thinking "editor of Harvard Law Review" and "clerked for Breyer", but sure, some politicians act like there are more important qualifications.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

To the bigots found at the White, male, right-wing Volokh Conspiracy, those points are irrelevant. She is a Black, female mainstreamer, and must be opposed.

[Sarcastr0]

She also seems pretty good at judging, Brett.

Funny how the right doesn't mention that, just going straight to her race meaning she has no merit.

Just awful.

[Don Nico]

C'mon, S_O.
What does pretty good at judging mean?
That is why the ABA (for all its faults) does not rank grade judges. They are just Qualified or Not Qualiified.
On that score Jackson is qualified; all the opinions besides Biden's matter very little.
The only other question is how much Biden fells that he owes Clayburn.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Actually, Biden is explicitly not using ABA recommendations for his judges...

[Sarcastr0]

No one here is mentioning merits. It's taken as a given that she's not good because she's black.

Which is really showing something, but not about her.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Look at the bright side, Sarcastr0. These obsolete right-wingers have managed to navigate this post and the comments -- so far, at least -- without a single use of the vile racial slur that Joe Rogan and Prof. Volokh seem unable to resist using.

I make it 50-50 whether this blog will get through the next week (or the week a nominee is named) without using that word. They just can't help it! (And Prof. Volokh's ostensible civility standards allow it, of course.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it highly likely she's not the best possible nominee, if the primary criteria were race and sex, with ideology at three, and competency at four. If you rule out 97-99% of the potential candidate pool before you consider competency, the odds of none the less getting the best possible nominee are pretty darn slim.

It's possible that she's the best nominee you could expect from the Biden administration, though.

It's taken for granted by conservatives that she'll be truly awful from a conservative perspective, because otherwise she wouldn't be a candidate for the job.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Although given the fact that they're excluding so many candidates because of race and gender, they're probably passing up a lot of ideologically worse candidates.

[Sarcastr0]

As though Reagan didn't do the same thing? As though white men were the only ones eligible for quite a bit of our history?

It's not like the Court is devoid of white men right now.

Your objection doesn't hold water because of how convenient your timing is. And how you continue to ignore the actual merits of the candidate to bang on with your white grievance bullshit.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
When you reply to me, don't ascribe to me other people's words or ideas.
I NEVER said Jackson was not qualified.
In fact, I said the contrary.
Your post is deliberately misleading. Which is really showing something, but not about me.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you just defended folks for saying 'she was nominated based purely on race, gender, and ideology.

Note how merit and talent are left completely out?

That's treating her pretty poorly.

[Trollificus]

Uh...isn't that exactly what Biden did? Went straight for her race?
Let me guess: "Oh, but that's different."

Tell yourself that. Believe it. It's the real advantage the left has, self-indoctrination.

[bernard11]

There's not the slightest chance that Biden would have nominated a conservative black woman.

True. Presidents tend to nominate judges whose ideology they generally approve of.

Apparently, when a Democrat does that it's a crime in your eyes.

[zztop8970]

I don't think Biden would have faced similar backlash had he said 'I will nominate a judge who shares my ideology'.
But he said 'I will nominate a black woman'.

[ah....Clem]

Yes, and Reagan famously campaigned on nominating a woman.

The "White" part was left unsaid since it was clearly assumed by everyone at the time.

[zztop8970]

Do you have any argument that is not 'whataboutism'?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sure. Here's an easy one: Not every conservative is a bigot, but every Republican right-winger appeases or embraces bigots and bigotry.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The "White" part was left unsaid since it was clearly assumed by everyone at the time."

Yup. As every Democrat knows, the court was all white men until Regan appointed a white woman.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thurgood Marshall was a White woman appointed by Reagan?

I know clingers accept "alternative facts," but . . .

[Trollificus]

Well, he also said his "Voting Rights" (lol) bill had to be passed because black people and Hispanic people didn't know how to use the internet, and therefore needed less rigorous ballot validation.* Believe it or not, it sounded even stupider and more racist when he said it.

Ah, but that was different too.

Just like CHAZ declaring secession from the United States was different than a bunch of MAGA hats walking through the Capitol building.

Damn, S_O, no wonder you think you win all the arguments! You can just say anything you want, declare it true and mark down your high score.

[GKHoffman]

In fact Biden threatened to filibuster the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, who would have been the first black woman on the SCOTUS.

[bernard11]

And who is also a genuine right-wing nut case who Biden would have filibustered regardless of race or gender.

But go ahead with the nonsensical talking point you picked up on OAN or somewhere.

[zztop8970]

She's a conservative jurist and that is why Biden would have filibustered regardless of race or gender. His approach to judicial nominations is 100% politics.

[Sarcastr0]

What President the past 40 years hasn't had such an approach?

Every objection you have seems to be suddenly discovered, and not retroactively applied. You don't get to declare something doesn't meet your standards when you so clearly have none.

[zztop8970]

I don't believe I've made any objections to any candidate. I only noted that race and gender shouldn't be the criteria for selection of SCOTUS nominees.
When you have something other than 'whataboutism', let us know.

[Sarcastr0]

Not whattaboutism,
I'm pointing our your hypocrisy. I'm attacking your sincerity. I'm calling you a liar.

Because your complaint proves too much but you're ignoring all its other implications. Because the objection isn't real - it's just a partisan cudgel you're using.

If you really believed it, you'd be consistent with it.

[zztop8970]

what hypocrisy? Choosing based on race and/or gender is wrong, whether Reagan did it or Biden does it, and I never said otherwise.

And bringing up the fact that Reagan (or all prior presidents) also did it ) is the very definition of 'whataboutism'- you're not defending the practice (which is indefensible) other than to say 'others did it, too'.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you objected to Reagan? Or anyone else who has done this? Did you even object when Biden promised it when running for President?

Not that I've seen. You just discovered this was bad just now.

I do not believe your recently discovered yet convenient principle.

[zztop8970]

I wasn't living in the US nor a US citizen during the Reagan years, but I just wrote above that it was wrong if he did that.
If you have any VC thread where I said the opposite, produce it. In the absence of that, a simple apology would do.

[sparkstable]

You conflate choosing her because she is black/female with choosing white males because black females were excluded. The white men were chosen over others unfairly (although you could argue that they were more qualified due to racism in education which simply pushes the issues farther down the line) but they were not chosen on the basis of their being white. They were chosen out of what was left based on politics. What Biden is doing now is reinstituting the exclusion but doing so not against white men, but for black women. Which means she IS being chosen because of her race/sex. The system today does not preclude anyone from serving unless and until someone with the power to do so explicitly does so (which Biden has done). Up until the point he made his declaration, all qualified Americans could conceivably have a shot. The moment he opened his mouth he expressly told ~93% of Americans they need not apply. You are right to call this out when it happened in the past against others. Which is why you are wrong on your own merits today for defending it. You have an intellectual inconsistency here which is sad.

You are often so close to providing challenging and thought provoking material to the threads. I am usually interested to see your posts... until you get in your own way and your bias for progressive ideology gets in the way. It would be different if you leaned into it and tried to make your argument from that position, but you dishonestly couch yourself as reasoned and libertarian but you have yet to offer an argument for your ends based on such means. You express, more often than not, leftist ends then fail to defend them on consistent grounds. It is the inconsistencies and antithetical dual-posituons you take that make me want to just finally mute you. I would much prefer that not happen because I do think you have something of a different t view to offer if you would just be honest about it.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Reagan said he'd choose a woman and chose O'Conner. Donald Trump said he'd pick a woman as well and then picked Barrett.

This is exactly a restriction for a demographic.

More generally, this is fine. There is no best Justice pick - you can't tell how someone will perform as a Justice after a certain threshold. Given that, might as well look to other criteria.

[Bored Lawyer]

There is only one reason: she will be a dependable vote for the left wing agenda. Everything about her leads one to the conclusion that she will be another Sotamayor.
Truth is, given this Administration, that would likely be the case regardless of the nominee's race or gender. That, combined with the fact that she is replacing Breyer, is why I am not worked up about it. One way or the other, Biden is getting another liberal vote on SCOTUS. Nothing the GOP can do about that this early in the Administration, and with a Democrat controlled Congress for the next year.

[Sarcastr0]

Believe it or not, it's helpful to have a good jurist up there as well as a partisan tool.

Alito isn't winning any converts to his opinion. Roberts and Kagan are.

You've simplified beyond reality.

[sparkstable]

Helpful? Sure. But that is a long view. Politicians with a time limit only care about today. In that sense, "dependable ideolgue" trumps.

Usually with both parties.

[Sarcastr0]

Right - but there are plenty that would be reliable. Saying that's the only criterion, as Bored Lawyer does, is manifestly untrue.

[santamonica811]

Entry for Feb 3, 2022: "Judge Childs is not drunk today."

[Don Nico]

What is she waiting for.
Someone, buy the judge a drink!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Someone really thinks that anybody is deciding anything off of Wikipedia info?

[floridalegal]

It's for the general public who get their daily information and news from Twitter and other social media sites. Shallow information voters.

[Sarcastr0]

I kinda buy that bit - a bit of lazy corner cutting amongst vetters would not surprise me at all.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You'd be surprised.

Ultimately the vetters are going to look at in depth information from sources. But for a first impression of a judge that they don't really know or need a refresher on, Wikipedia gives a good, quick, easy to access, first shot.

That first impression though can be difficult to change.

[ducksalad]

Bevis, I assume you know the intent was not to influence senators. The target was ordinary people who might call their senator or decide whether to donate to their senator's re-election.

And, yeah, they might use Wikipedia. I'm going to admit that I was taken in by this. When short lists started appearing I looked up Brown Jackson, Kruger, and Childs, and got the impression from the article that Kruger and Childs were surprisingly moderate. And maybe they really are, who knows.

IANAL and IANAUSSenator so I don't think failure to consult legal databases etc was a great moral fault. Nothing was at stake except my own opinion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Are we saving the actual edits for a big reveal later?

[Bill Poser]

Just go to the article and click on "history".

[ah....Clem]

Or go directly to all the edits from the editor in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/H2rty

[James_Herms]

A Wikipedia administrator has now redacted that article's Talk page, citing a policy that mandates suppression of information about "identities of pseudonymous individuals who have not made their identity public."

[Brett Bellmore]

And people have commented on the "locking the barn door after the horses escape" nature of that act.

[lucia_l]

I'd be very surprised if they page is not archived several places. Wikipedia's policy is fine inside Wikipedia. But no one should expect internet pseudonymity to be hard to pierce. Obviously, Wikipedia can't fix what happens outside Wikipedia.

[MaverickNH]

IANAL but wouldn’t such actions be seems as unethical behavior and draw sanctions from ABA?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The ABA does not have the ability to impose sanctions on anybody.

[Brett Bellmore]

The article now has a serious disclaimer on it:

Ketanji Brown Jackson

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (February 2022)
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (February 2022)"

[Dan Schiavetta]

Left wingers do the right thing. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why wouldn't they, in this case? This is a fight internal to the left, it's not as though Republicans have any say here.

[Hal Crawford]

Left-wingers were exposed and now trying to cover themselves, you mean.

[sparkstable]

Many GOP spoke out against Trump. That they lost doesn't mean they shouldn't be lionized.

Honesty is not the sole domain of leftism. If anything, they are more like the "He who has sinned more has more to be forgiven" type... but not all. All but a few of my oldest friends are hard leftists... and in their daily lives are honest people. In fact most of them have expressly stated they don't believe rich people have the capacity to deserve human rights, that they are OK with enslaving people, and that as long as they get what they think is OK then theft is justified.

EXPRESSLY admitted it.

[Don Nico]

The H2rty account is now blocked

[zztop8970]

...as is the sock-puppet account they created immediately after the block to try and circumvent it. What a fine lawyer we have here - the model of professional conduct and good moral character.

[Henry Krinkle]

I have every expectation that Jackson will be almost as impressive as The Wise Latina.

[Sarcastr0]

Y'all really hate her, don't you?

[Bored Lawyer]

Not her. What she represents. Tokenism and cheapening of standards.

[Sarcastr0]

You think she's below the standard for a Justice? Because that's quite a charge, and given how partisan it is seems like it more proves my point about how much you specifically don't like her.

[Bored Lawyer]

If Sotamayor were a white man, no one would have even considered her for SCOTUS. Or even the Court of Appeals bench.
Maybe district judge, I know a few mediocrities there. (And some stellar ones, too.) Magistrate Judge, certainly.

[Sarcastr0]

If Sotamayor were a white man, no one would have even considered her for SCOTUS. Or even the Court of Appeals bench.

Says you. It's easy to decide those you disagree with are intellectually shoddy.
And to blame race...well, that's just bigotry looking for an out. We've absolutely had worse Justices than her in the modern era, including plenty of white guys.

Right-wing race-baiting conventional wisdom aside, about all of lawyers I know think she's plenty qualified. And that includes no shortage of Republicans. I wish she was a bit more doctrinaire - more Scalia and less Kennedy - but that's not to say she's not qualified, or a pure affirmative action pick.

[David Nieporent]

Sotomayor went to Princeton undergrad, graduating summa, and Yale Law, where she was on law review. Can you explain what about her resume looks "mediocre" compared to, say, Sam Alito's?

[sparkstable]

OR... the cheapening of standards is the result of using a lower, and more base, bar when one was not needed. If the left did not hold race as essential to one's ability (where have I heard this before?) and instead used only merit but due to being willing to hear out and get to know diverse populations promoted more diverse people merely as a result... no one would care.

But by skipping the part about ability, moral character, intellect, and going to genetics alone... it does lower the bar because it means that even if THIS candidate could have and should have crossed a higher threshold, we can no longer know for sure because the test was never given. And all future applicants who are held to the similar lower standard will have their qualifications question, too. And right so because without the higher standard, there is no way to actually know even in the case where someone from a minority background is more than qualified. Without the higher standard the only thing we can rely on is that we were simply "told" they are qualified.

Take Sotomayor... IANAL so I don't know all her philosophy. But I am happily surprised that she does not always defer to the state in 4A cases. But the only thing I can say for sure leading up to her appointment is that based on the totality of leftist thought (both expressed and implied) her race and sex played a role in her selection. I am ignorant to how much meaning it is entirely possible is wasn't much... but based on the people moving her along onto the bench I would be safer to assume it was an arguable immoral, racist/sexist act in her favor to a degree enough to make me question her (which is entirely unfair... TO HER).

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think there is any evidence Justices these days are at a lower caliber than in days past.

And I see zero reason to think that any party is into the idea of letting unqualified people on the Court these days, except for Harriet Miers. Because 1) none of the other requirements regarding race and the like are restrictive enough disallow other threshold inquiries, and 2) well-qualified Justices that agree with your party's judicial philosophy are more helpful in advocating that philosophy than the reverse.

based on the people moving her along onto the bench I would be safer to assume it was an arguable immoral, racist/sexist act in her favor to a degree enough to make me question her
This is not established by the evidence. It's just some nonsense assholes on the right are yelling. I don't know why it as convincing to you.
Looking at the demographics of Justices has been going on since at least Reagan. It's a pretty pinched understanding of how our society treats race and gender to assume that's immoral.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A former clerk to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is accused of burnishing her Wiki bio, while sabotaging those of other contenders to replace Justice Breyer.

That particular passive-voiced generalization? Is that Adler, or someone else doing the accusing? I read that subhead as an amped-up interpretation of a Politico article which is itself more innuendo than otherwise. But that is just me guessing about where a mysterious accusation came from, because information was not supplied.

I am care-free about which SCOTUS candidate Biden might choose to nominate. I do not expect to be enthusiastic about any of them. I remain an optimistic fatalist by temperament. Perhaps Biden will turn up someone who combines the judicial temperament of John Marshall, the writing skills of Robert Jackson, and the commitment to justice of Thurgood Marshall.

I get that some uncontested facts about this Wikipedia business are themselves cautionary. What I do not see yet is proof that the edits now held up to criticism were not factually sound, out of the ordinary run of practice for the person making them, actually prejudicial to anyone, or linked in any direct way to presumptive-candidate Jackson, who might have been unaware of the edits, or even have opposed them had she known they were being made.

Seems like the condemnatory tone of comments here is thus unsupported by much of anything anyone ought to care about, let alone put reliance in before getting further information. I say that without intent that anyone should use it to conclude how I would bet about anything.

My point is to criticize a practice to presume facts tailored to prejudice acknowledged controversies, and then publish those presumptions world-wide. Commenters here do that constantly. It gets tiresome.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've looked at the history for her page, and I don't think the edits were outrageous, not much more than a cosmetic polishing.

The real outrage was the same person editing the pages for competing nominees to make them look worse.

[lucia_l]

I'd be interested to learn whether lots of judges have staff who actively edit their bosses Wikipedia pages and the degree to which this is known or encouraged by judges. Being editable, and open to "tweaking" by supporters and detractors is a feature of Wikipedia.

I don't think this sort of tweaking should be illegal, but it would be nice if this sort of political activity was somewhat transparent.
I"m waiting to see if this is the tip of an iceberg.

[benji]

Staffers for politicians get caught editing their pages all the time. Same for companies and other stuff. I remember some lawyers were editing their own pages to remove discussion about sanctions against them.

It's all against the rules so nobody will be transparent about it.

[Drewski]

I'm not sure if it's still the case, but for a long time Wikipedia blocked any congressional IP address from editing because it was such a problem. Of course, that didn't stop it, just made it less obvious.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Agreed. Editing your own page (or your judge's own page), as long as its truthful...OK sure.

Editing other people's pages to make them look worse? That's dishonest.

[Michael P]

Wikipedia's NPOV policy is very firmly against the first example too, not only the second. Editing the page of anyone or anything that one is affiliated with is frowned upon, even for well-sourced factual edits.

Unless you're part of the Wikipedia "in" crowd, in which case you aren't presumed guilty of an NPOV infraction.

[Carl_N_Brown]

The polishing of Jackson and smudging of the non-Jacksons is subtle. It's enough to attract attention of Wikipedia administrators.

"H2rty" may have thought they were helping friend. Sad.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The words "Politico reports" are what's called a "hyperlink"—if you click on them your web browser will load the article in Politico, which reviews the edits made by Wikipedia user "H2rty", and explains that other former clerks for Judge Jackson identifies H2rty as Matteo Godi. (The latter information is also in the excerpt quoted here.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, yeah, I read that. Did you see where I wrote, "more innuendo than otherwise?" Except for Godi's name (who is not a source for the accusatory tone of Adler's post), what, in your opinion, did you learn from that link about the accuracy of the alleged edits?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have trouble believing that it's possible to not understand this, but the issue is not that they're inaccurate. The issue is that they 1. removed or reframed unfavorable information about Judge Jackson and 2. added information about her rivals likely to be viewed unfavorably.

[benji]

Come now, this is Stephen Lathrop, you have no trouble believing it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, are the rival profiles more accurate or less accurate after their respective edits? Nothing you read gives you any factual insight into the answers, right?

[Carl_N_Brown]

The articles were neutral before, slanted after H2rty's edits.
Diff between fair and balanced reporting, opinion-editorial advocacy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's not that they don't understand. It's that they think the means justify the ends.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

So Matteo Godi wins the 2022 Ed Whelan Zillow award for line crossing while trying to advance or save a SCOTUS nomination of a friend and former coworker? (Well, it’s early in 2022 and the nomination process. I guess it’s conceivable that someone can yet outdo Godi/Whelan in what they will be willing to do, and what harm they can bring to their own reputations, in an effort to ensure a favored nomination replaces Monsieur Breyer on the bench.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Watch it . . . Ed Whelan has friends in important places at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Are you trying to get banned?

[F.D. Wolf]

It is interesting that the Left seems to believe that the contender perceived as the most left-wing has the best prospect of being selected. That belief is probably accurate. This administration may have concluded that a 51-50 confirmation that excites the base is more politically advantageous than one that attracts a few Republican votes.

[Nisiiko]

They're thugs.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is the same administration that thought they could make Saule Omarova Comptroller of the currency, Neera Tanden head of the OMB, and David Chipman head of the BATF. I put it to you that they have demonstrably bad judgement concerning how far left a nominee can be and still be viable in a 50-50 Senate.

They're so marinated in leftism that if they saw an actual moderate nominee, they'd accuse them of being a Nazi.

[Nisiiko]

I had always said that Manchin and Sinema would fall in line when it was important, but at least for Manchin, I stand corrected. He fought the ridiculous BBB at high cost to himself.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't know that it will cost Joe Manchin much.

But I hope and expect West Virginia will pay dearly.

[David Nieporent]

As always, you know just enough about a topic to expose how little you know about a topic. Neera Tanden was not rejected for being too far left. She was not far left at all; she was a mainstream Democrat, so much so that she did not have the support of progressives when controversy about her nomination arose.

And the controversy was not about her positions; the controversy was about her being an asshole on twitter.

[Brett Bellmore]

It certainly doesn't prove that they've been doing a bang up job of vetting nominees, now, does it?

[David Nieporent]

This is Brett Bellmore level stupidity. First, it makes an assumption that something that hasn't happened will happen, and then goes off on a flight of fancy to "explain" why this thing happened even though it hasn't.

I don't know what the basis is for the claim that KBJ is "perceived as the most left-wing," but if she's nominated, it will be because she has impeccable credentials and also was just confirmed recently so she has already been thoroughly vetted recently and received the votes of several GOPers at the time. (And yes, by several I mean "3," but it's the soft bigotry of low expectations here, as lockstep rejection of any nominee by the GOP seems most likely.)

[zztop8970]

It is not hairsplitting, it is what Wikipedia policy - a Wiki editor's opinions can't be presented , but notable opinions of others, published in reliable sources are. Again , read the article and tell me how many tome the opinions of Jane Mayer are quoted.
Then go bac and reread what I wrote in one of my first comments her e- "often the reason is given as "undue weight" or some similar crap, and when the majority is on your side, that's the way it goes."
Who determines what opinions are noteworthy? The same majority of like-minded, left-leaning editors.

[zztop8970]

sorry, meant to post this elsewhere, not as a response to you, DN.

[O Tempora]

Wouldn't this kind of stealth editing, done anonymously obviously intended to influence the SCOTUS nominating process, be an appropriate subject for an ethics complaint to the NY Bar Association (the suspect is an associate at Paul, Weiss) and any other state or Federal bar association of which he is a member? See, eg, NY Rules 8.4.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Aside from the face that Mr. Godi doesn't appear to be admitted in New York, what part of that rule do you think prohibits attempting to influence a Supreme Court nomination, anonymously or otherwise?

[zztop8970]

8.4(c) says a lawyer shall not "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation". There was clearly dishonesty, deceit and/or misrepresentation here, as Wikipedia rules state that "Editors with a COI [Conflict of Interest], including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content" - such COI was not disclosed.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside that this is not the sort of conduct covered by 8.4, this is your periodic reminder that "bias" and "conflict of interest" are different concepts. A former KBJ clerk would have the former, but not the latter.

[zztop8970]

...and once their account was blocked for those undisclosed edits, they created a sock puppet account to evade the block and continue the behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TB99999

[SimonP]

Gosh, and what standard of honesty could we hold you to, hmm?

The edits you're referring to don't even make sense as coming from Godi - they're edits that apparently undermine the purpose of his original edits - and the original attribution to Godi has subsequently been removed.

But you managed to post this comment within minutes of the mistaken attribution being made. You were so quick, so eager to defame Godi, that you didn't even let the facts sift out first. What is your agenda?

[zztop8970]

The standard I expect from others - not to engage in dishonest conduct.
The edits I am referring to were identified by a Wikipedia administrator as made by a sock-puppet account of H2rty. I didn't check them. Turns out that administrator is an idiot who made a mistake.

[SimonP]

The standard I expect from others - not to engage in dishonest conduct.

You say that. But then:

The edits I am referring to were identified by a Wikipedia administrator as made by a sock-puppet account of H2rty. I didn't check them. Turns out that administrator is an idiot who made a mistake.

So you didn't bother to even take a quick look at the edits in question; you merely assumed, based on a minutes-old administrator log, that since the edits were attributed to a Godi sock, that they were more of the same, and then rushed back here in the comments - up and down the thread - to let everyone know that Godi was up to his old tricks under a sock? Even though you actually had no reason to believe that?

Do you think that's "honest"? Because it's not.

[zztop8970]

You apparently have a different definition of 'honest' than I, or most people, do. What I wrote was based on facts in my possession at the time - that the account had been blocked by a Wikipedia administrator, who had identified it as a sock-puppet account of the original account. So I had a very good reason to believe it was the case.
It later turned out out the administrator was incompetent, and made the wrong determination, but there's nothing 'dishonest' about what I wrote, based on the facts I knew at the time.

[SimonP]

The erroneous attribution, on which you entirely relied, was up for all of 24 minutes. So you were, for some reason, tracking that update closely, and rushed over here to defame Godi upon the first opportunity.

You claimed that he was up to his old tricks under his sock, but a cursory examination of the edits in question would make clear that this was unlikely.

Did you lie about what you knew? I'll grant that maybe you didn't know what you were saying was wrong. But you were, shall we say, recklessly disregarding the truth that was available to you. And now you're blaming an "incompetent" Wikipedia administrator for your misjudgment. I would describe that as deceitful and misrepresentative - "dishonest," if you like.

[zztop8970]

If you "grant that maybe you didn't know what you were saying was wrong" - how could it be dishonest?
I did not check how long that attribution was up, nor was I following the sequence of events closely or otherwise. At the time I wrote it, those were the facts, and they were revised later, when I was not actively editing here.
Let's look at our actions now, shall we?
Your statement of facts is wrong: the block for socking was made at 20:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC), and logged at 20:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC). The claim that it was a sock of the H2rty account was rescinded at 22:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC). So the account was blocked as a sock for for almost 2 hours, and the claim was up there for an hour and 22 minutes, and yet here you are, hours later, when all of this is known, claiming it was up for only 24 minutes. Shall I call you dishonest, or maybe just assume you got your timing wrong?

[SimonP]

Fair enough, I did the math wrong. Apologies.

It doesn't change the fact that you were speedy on the uptake, and that you posted multiple comments asserting that Godi had evaded his ban in order to continue making edits without looking to see what those actual edits were.

[zztop8970]

If I was "speedy on the uptake" , that was no more than by chance - I happened to be editing a few minutes after the block was made, and had been looking at the H2rty account to provide examples for the comment I was replying to , and saw that block for socking note.

I foolishly trusted the Wikipedia admin who made that block to be a competent Individual, whose actions were base on doing actual checking. Knowing the demographics of that site, that was probably unwise. My mistake, won't happen again.

[zztop8970]

And just to get that other nitpicking comment out of the way, the DC bar, where he **is** admitted has the exact same 8.4(c) rule

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope you are not a lawyer, O Tempora, especially a lawyer with clients.

[SimonP]

If we're now going to start ruining young lawyers' lives when they blip on the radar of a political scandal, then I propose we also consider whether Crystal Clanton ought to be investigated on similar grounds.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Crystal Clanton is on the fast track to a lofty position in the Republican Party, at the Federalist Society, or in a Republican adminstration.

She might even pop up at the Volokh Conspiracy, guest-blogging about how liberals are so touchy about vile racial slurs these days.

[Life of Brian]

Forget ethics rules -- certainly this must be "corruptly attempting to influence an official proceeding." Where's not guilty with his favorite hyper-flexible statute when you really need him?

[Sarcastr0]

OK, this is getting silly.

[Life of Brian]

It was silly a long time ago. Welcome aboard.

[Nisiiko]

In other news, the thug Democrats on the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering is only permissible if it's favor of Democrats.

[Estragon]

That seems like a surprising basis for a decision… do you have a link for that?

[Nisiiko]

Presumably you can use Google. It's all over the news.

[Estragon]

Oh I read the opinion. I’m wondering if you can point me to the section that says “gerrymandering is only permissible when it’s in favor of democrats.” I think I must have missed it…?

[Michael P]

It's like the gerrymandered maps in New York: okay as long as Democrats are doing it.

[Estragon]

Ok but no citation?

Follow up question: wasn’t the basis for this the North Carolina state constitution? What bearing, if any, do you think maps in other states should have on interpretation here?

[Michael P]

Exactly what citation do you want? Do you think judges will explicitly write "gerrymandering is only okay when Democrats do it"? They're not stupid -- they will dress it up in claims that the state constitution compels the result. FiveThirtyEight's analysis (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/) agrees, as does the Oregon Supreme Court -- even after Dems in Oregon s state legislature reneged on an agreement to try to make bipartisan maps.

[Sarcastr0]

You have a lot of assumptions in this post.

That the NY gerrymander is the same as the NC one
That a new gerrymander being struck down in state court means you need to go back and strike down all other ones nationwide
That NY politicians are as blatant and dumb as NC politicians.
That two different courts in two different states gotta rule the same.

I am all for blind algorithmic districting. Now that the right's ox is getting gored, maybe we'll get a bit closer to that.

[SimonP]

The problem in New York is that we passed a law against partisan gerrymanders. I don't think it would be exactly unfair if a court were to call out the shenanigans in our case.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said, I'm all for blind algorithmic districting. If that's ruling, bring it on.

[Michael P]

The New York and Illinois maps are both extremely blatant and dumb. North Carolina's map had reasonably compact districts except for one part of southwest Watauga county. The New York and Illinois maps, in contrast, have a lot of very stretched out and meandering districts.

[Sarcastr0]

None of which is relevant to an NC court.

[SimonP]

And there's both a Republican lawsuit against that gerrymander pending, and potentially a Voting Rights Act challenge, as well.

I'll grant that many New Yorkers upset over the gerrymanders in Texas, Ohio, and other more solidly "red" states are satisfied with the New York gerrymander. But not me. I have the unusual distinction of having lived in one district that was once geographically cohesive but now sprawls across a widely disparate set of neighborhoods, and now live in another district that should continue to be represented by the same politicians, but now find myself grouped with residents in a far-flung part of Brooklyn.

If only there were a national standard that could level the playing field!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Until Republicans agree to stop redistricting abuse in every state, I root for New York Democrats to pitch a shutout. May votes from Manhattan cancel the relevance of hayseeds 150 miles to the northwest.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but from what I've seen of the Democratic proposals, they'd level it down, not up; They'd mandate pro-Democrat gerrymandering in the guise of prohibiting gerrymandering, by using a definition of "gerrymandering" that doesn't take into account how voters are distributed.

So meeting their anti-gerrymandering standard actually requires you to gerrymander, in many states.

[SimonP]

This is nonsense. You haven't read the proposed legislation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm familiar with what Democratic voting rights activists advocate. They typically focus on a crude "efficiency gap" measure, which actually has nothing to do with gerrymandering as such. You could literally create a map that was an Escher tiling of salamanders, and minimize the efficiency gap, or have an ideally compact map drawn totally without any information on voting habits, and get a high efficiency gap.

In fact, minimizing the efficiency gap usually requires, as I said, actual gerrymandering.

[Estragon]

Brett I’d be curious about what you’ve read on this subject, because I’m genuinely curious… please don’t say it’s one piece from 2018 tho

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm a regular reader at Hasen's Election Law Blog, and of 538's redistricting articles. Both sites have a very pronounced political bias, but they none the less point you at useful papers on the topic.

The key issue here is what's called "political geography"; That is to say, how the voters are physically distributed. The efficiency gap calculations don't take it into account. AT ALL. And, remember, "gerrymandering" does NOT mean, "fails to reproduce the outcome proportional representation would have". It means drawing contorted districts to produce a predetermined outcome.

It's quite possible for the voters to be distributed in a manner where you can't achieve a low efficiency gap without engaging in genuinely awful gerrymanders. Worse for the efficiency gap is the fact that that's how the voters are distributed in practice, in many states.

As a thought experiment, the state I was born in, Michigan, consists of 2 peninsulas, separated by the Great lakes. Suppose that the lower peninsula were 55% Republican, and 45% Democratic, uniformly so. And the upper peninsula were 70% Democratic and 30% Republican, also uniformly. And the lower peninsula had 4 times the population of the upper, so that the total numbers of Democrats and Republicans were equal.

In any compact, equal population districting scheme, Republicans would win 80% of the resulting districts. The efficiency gap would be horrific, and all without the slightest bit of gerrymandering! Only a map that sliced the state up into long, thin stripes that crossed many miles of water to connect people living hundreds of miles apart could achieve a low efficiency gap. Gerrymandering, IOW.

Substitute "rural" and "urban" for "lower" and "upper" in my thought experiment, and you've got many states. Rural areas tend to be predominantly, but not overwhelmingly, Republican. Urban areas tend to be wildly Democratic. The parties are not distributed in a symmetric manner, the Democrats' end of the distribution has a fat tail, and the Republican end a skinny tail.

The result is that any compact district map drawn without regard to how people vote tends to disadvantage Democrats.

If you use the efficiency gap as a test of "gerrymandering", the result is that any neutrally drawn map starts out halfway or more to being declared a "gerrymander", and Democrats can gerrymander to their hearts' content and not violate the criteria.

Jowie Chen and David Cotrell have been doing some really good work, using computers to randomly generate many thousands of district maps using traditional districting criteria, compactness, equal population, respecting natural and lower level political boundaries. Then they use precinct level data from previous elections to project the outcome of elections in the new districts.

Here's such an analysis of the Wisconsin case, by Chen. (2019. ????) As you can see, the Republicans absolutely DID gerrymander, no question about it. But, the median map favored the Republicans, it did NOT have a zero efficiency gap. So using the efficiency gap criteria for 'gerrymandering' the Democrats proposed, (No more than a 5% gap.), in Wisconsin, the Republicans could hardly put a thumb on the scale at all without being called out on it, while the Democrats could gerrymander to their hearts' content, and never be dinged for doing it.

It's a lousy measure for gerrymandering, because it isn't measuring gerrymandering at all, it's measuring how close you're getting to proportional representation.

My own proposal is that we use Chen and Cotrell's methods to generate a very large set of proposed maps, totally without regard to voting behavior.) and then let each of N ballot qualified parties eliminate 1/(N+1) of those maps, presumably the ones they did worst under. (Similar to voir dire.) Then a map would be chosen from among the remaining ones by public use of some randomizing device, such as a bingo cage.

The result would deny any party the ability to rig the outcome of redistricting, even surreptitiously, while respecting the actual facts on the ground. It would genuinely prevent gerrymandering, not mandate it.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, here is one article on the subject. If nothing else it points out some of the difficulties.

It mentions that 'neutral' redistricting, for some definitions of neutral, favor Republicans w/o going into detail. I think the logic underlying that goes something like this: party A wants to have as many districts as possible vote 51% for party A. Winning, say, 75% of the votes means you would like to move the extra 24% of votes to help you win some other district. The last thing you want to do is win districts by large percentages, or to put it another way, you want your voters evenly dispersed, not clumped into geographical areas where you win by huge margins. Urban areas, though, tend to vote D by large margins, and represent the kind of clumping you want to avoid if you want to win the maximum number of seats with the fewest votes. I think that is the general logic, anyway. You'd have to look at the actual numbers for a given state.

[Michael P]

Exactly what integral is intended by the supposed definition of bias in that Grofman paper? No wonder the rest of the paper is a muddle.

[SimonP]

I'm familiar with what Democratic voting rights activists advocate.

Except not, apparently, with the actual legislation that you've proposed.

I appreciate that electoral reform advocates are fond of the "efficiency gap," as this is a very evocative way of demonstrating the "problem." The Freedom to Vote Act does not incorporate it. Rather, it requires, first, that legislators draw maps to preserve minority representation (in line with existing VRA case law), and second, to draw districts that are designed to be geographically/culturally/etc. cohesive.

Separate from this priority, there is a prohibition of drawing maps with the intent or the effect of benefiting a particular political party. Whether a map is determined to have this kind of "effect" depends on the totality of the circumstances, but involves analysis of how past elections would have turned out under the new map, how the proposed map compares to other possible maps that would comply with the above priority, and so on. There is no apparent requirement that House delegations need to proportionately reflect how votes are cast, on a statewide basis. It would appear (as I read the statute, and would expect it to be interpreted) that wild gerrymanders intended to work around political geography would neither be required - or, perhaps, even permitted - under the proposed legislation.

For my part, I straightforwardly acknowledge that political geography is just going to be a problem for Democrats frustrated by their lack of representation in our system. I am not entirely sure that Republicans should be quite so happy about that state of affairs - democratic systems that do not accurately reflect the will of the people tend to be unstable - but short of switching our system entirely so that slates of legislators are selected in at-large districts, according to lists that may be drawn up by parties, I don't see a real way of solving that problem.

I think the Freedom to Vote Act strikes a good, principled balance on this point. I myself live in a new, bizarrely gerrymandered district, and I dislike the idea that my votes will be grouped with people living miles away, but not a few blocks over. The Freedom to Vote Act would mean I vote with my neighbors, not the people I visit when I want out of the city.

[David Nieporent]

They typically focus on a crude "efficiency gap" measure, which actually has nothing to do with gerrymandering as such.

If you think "gerrymandering" simply means "drawing weirdly shaped districts," then you're right, but that's a "crude" definition of gerrymandering. If one instead interprets it to mean "drawing district lines for the primary purpose of favoring a particular party," then the efficiency gap has everything to do with it. (I don't think it works as a legal standard, because there's no judicially ascertainable standard for what is too much of a "gap," but that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with gerrymandering.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whining, bigoted clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Carry on, Nisiiko. So far as your betters permit, anyway.

[Ben_]

Leftists like propaganda.

[Bored Lawyer]

The real scandal here is not what the person did. It's what it implies:

(1) Acc. to Politico, the goal of these edits was to make Brown seem more progressive, and her rivals less so. Would progressives not support any of these nominees? Are they the one's calling the shots now? One would think that if you were editing bios, you would try to make your favored candidate seem more mainstream and accomplished. (Maybe that's my Gen X sensitivities.)

(2) Is a Wikipedia article the way to influence whom the president selects among the qualified candidates? If that is true, we are worse off than I thought.
Trump outsourced his selections to functionaries of the Federalist Society. They thoroughly vetted candidates for the federal bench. A stunt like this would not have had any sway, and a clerk for a right wing candidate would know that.

[Michael P]

Regarding (1), I think the progressive faction knows they are calling the shots within the White House, and it would take a particular track record to keep moderates from confirming the nomination. That length of track record is not en vogue for judicial nominees in recent decades. So they see the big hurdle to be winning the nomination, not confirmation. They do that by looking maximally progressive.

(2) Well, progressives are no Federalist Society. They mistake their (waning) popularity for intellectual rigor, so why not use a popular resource for information?

[Sarcastr0]

Biden can be looking to please the left among other factors without progressives 'calling the shots.' Influence is a continuum, not an all or nothing thing.

One would think that if you were editing bios, you would try to make your favored candidate seem more mainstream
You cannot be naiive about the dynamics behind picking a Justice since Bork. It's a one-party game; you want your candidate to appeal to the maximum *in your party*. As well as put the other party in a bind if not supporting them looks partisan. That's it.

Trump outsourced his selections to functionaries of the Federalist Society. They thoroughly vetted candidates for the federal bench.
You assume this was only done because the editor had rock-solid certainty wikipedia mattered? That's not how humans work.
Moreover, your faith that the Federalist Society is far too diligent to ever rely on wikipedia is also a failure to understand how often sloth and corner cutting occur.

[nonzenze]

There's hope in the universe folks, the user in question was banned indefinitely from further editing for their shenanigans.

The system, imperfect as it is, did eventually undo the damage and prevent it from happening again. Not a great showing, but I'd give them a hearty "good enough".

Jonathan, could you edit the top post to include this material fact 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

Yet, if Ms. Random Progressive had done this editing, (Or been enlisted by Godi to do the actual log in and typing, even!) they'd probably have gotten away with it, at worst it would have been partially undone. Godi's crime in the view of Wikipedia wasn't the details of the edits, it was the violation of the conflict of interest rules.

[Sarcastr0]

You have no support for your assumption.

I can't be sure it's otherwise either - neither you nor I seem very up on wikipedia editing policies.

But I'm not the one making up persecution out of nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

My basis for saying it is that the edits weren't particularly egregious, and that the actual basis for the blocking of that account was in fact the violation of conflict of interest.

[Sarcastr0]

You're just flying blind based on what you think would count as egregious.

Again, I don't know the policies well enough, end neither do you.