Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

MOS:COLOUR/MOS:COLOR

LacrimosaDiesIlla, Snickers2686, JocularJellyfish, and BD2412: It has recently been brought to my attention that this page may be in violation of MOS:COLOUR (or MOS:COLOR, if you prefer). This is specifically regarding the passage Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. Right now, nominations that have been announced by the President, are pending before the Judiciary Committee, and reported by the Committee are all assigned different colours but no other identifying features. It has been suggested to me that *, **, †, ††, and ^ are the most commonly used. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding how this change (if it is to occur in the first place) should be implemented?

Sdrqaz (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

In a few weeks it will be a moot point. As soon as the current Congress is gaveled to a close on January 3, 2021, all pending nominations not yet acted on fail. It is possible that some can be resubmitted to the next Congress, convening that same day, but not terribly likely. BD2412 T 03:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: I agree that this problem will soon be moot, but it is not moot now. Nor will it be moot once Biden begins making judicial nominations. Just because an issue will become moot in the future should not preclude us from acting on the issue now. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It will only be moot soon in the sense that it will stop mattering in this particular article. But there will soon be another article which will presumably be patterned quite exactly after this one to keep track of Joe Biden's judicial nominations, so we might as well take the problem seriously now and try to solve it. Seems simple enough. Currently we use different colors for the different committees, but obviously that's not really necessary, so I think we only need to consider four cases: confirmed nominees, nominees waiting for a floor vote, nominees pending before a committee, and those whose nominations have been announced but not yet sent to the Senate. I think we can get away with not using a symbol for the confirmed nominees, so we only need three symbols. I think the dagger is awkward because, next to a person's name, some people's first instinct will be to think that it means the person has died. So I would skip the daggers and I think the caret is kind of ugly and inelegant, and we're dealing with three consecutive phases in an ongoing process, so I would suggest using degrees of asterisks: (*) for nominees waiting for a floor vote, (**) for nominees pending before a committee, and (***) for announced nominees waiting to be nominated. If there are strong feelings against using triple asterisks for the relatively transient cases of the announced-but-not-yet-nominated (of which there tend to be few at any given time), I would suggest using the caret (^). LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

LacrimosaDiesIlla, I concur. We might as well get this resolved before the new administration takes office. The colours used for the Finance, Veterans' Affairs, and Armed Services committees are slightly off-putting; standardising it across the page would be useful. The use of asterisks sounds good, but I would say that the (***) would not be necessary for announced nominees waiting to be nominated; they have pending in their nomination date, which should be enough to differentiate them from other nominees. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdrqaz I don't mind using different colors for the different committees, and I think it helps visually differentiate the fact that different nominees are processed by different committees in a way that strikes the casual viewer of this page (since it's a possibility that may not have occurred to readers before they arrive here). However, I would absolutely be open to reworking the color scheme for the other committees to make them more pleasing. If you think we can get by with no additional marking on pending nominees, I have no objection. What's the next step? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

LacrimosaDiesIlla, since we're just enforcing the Manual of Style, I think we can just go ahead and make the change. You make a good point about using different colours for different committees; I just think that the yellow used for the Armed Services Committee and the red used for the Veterans' Affairs Committee were a little garish. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@LacrimosaDiesIlla and Sdrqaz: I'm just catching up on the discussion here. I generally agree with the change, but can we move the asterisks to the # column, so colorblind users can sort by the status of the nominees? It might not matter for this page at this point, but it will for the Biden one. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 02:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: Edit carried out. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on table format

Should the tables of judges be changed to LacrimosaDiesIlla's proposed format? This change would apply to all lists of judges appointed by presidents. 02:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes involved:

• "Began active service" to "Commission date"
• "Ended active service" to "Termination date"
• Split "Ended senior status" to "Reason for termination" and "Senior service"

A mockup made by LacrimosaDiesIlla below:

#	Judge	Circuit	Nomination date	Confirmation date	Confirmation vote	Commission date	Termination date	Reason for termination	Senior service
30	D. Michael Fisher	Third	May 1, 2003	December 9, 2003	voice vote	December 11, 2003	February 1, 2017	Assumed senior status	Incumbent
31	Charles W. Pickering	Fifth	May 25, 2001	N/A	N/A	January 16, 2004	December 8, 2004	Appointment expired	–
32	William H. Pryor Jr.	Eleventh	April 9, 2003	June 9, 2005	53–45	February 20, 2004	Incumbent	–	–
33	Franklin Van Antwerpen	Third	November 21, 2003	May 20, 2004	96–0	May 24, 2004	October 23, 2006	Assumed senior status	2006–2016
45	John David Kelly	Eighth	January 27, 1998	July 31, 1998	voice vote	August 3, 1998	October 21, 1998	Death	–
46	Kim McLane Wardlaw	Ninth	January 27, 1998	July 31, 1998	voice vote	August 3, 1998	Incumbent	–	–
47	William Byrd Traxler Jr.	Fourth	July 10, 1998	September 28, 1998	voice vote	October 1, 1998	August 31, 2018	Assumed senior status	Incumbent
48	Sonia Sotomayor	Second	June 25, 1997	October 2, 1998	67–29	October 7, 1998	August 7, 2009	Elevated	–
22	Ken Starr	D.C.	September 13, 1983	September 20, 1983	voice vote	September 20, 1983	May 26, 1989	Resigned	–
48	Alex Kozinski	Ninth	June 5, 1985	November 7, 1985	54–43	November 7, 1985	December 18, 2017	Retired	–

Survey

• Yes, so that the column headers more accurately represent the content of the columns. Moreover, the change to 'commission date' would prevent conflicts with the U.S. Code, as elaborated in elsewhere in the talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Strong yes on change one: the page uses commission dates, not when they are sworn in and to continue using 'began active service' would be misleading. Change two: as pointed out by another user, the use of 'termination date' for when a judge ends active service is inaccurate and I therefore oppose change two. For the reasons stated beforehand, 'termination' should not be used for change three. 'Notes', as another editor proposed, seems acceptable. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Agree with 'commission date' change, disagree with 'termination date' as FJC doesn't use that term for judges assuming senior status, may I suggest having a column called 'Notes' like this or some such. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

#	Judge	Circuit	Nomination date	Confirmation date	Confirmation vote	Commission date	Ended active service	Notes	Ended senior status
5	Amy Coney Barrett	Seventh	May 8, 2017	October 31, 2017	55–43	November 2, 2017	October 26, 2020	Elevated	–
1	Gerard E. Lynch	Second	April 2, 2009	September 17, 2009	94–3	September 18, 2009	September 5, 2016	Assumed senior status	Incumbent

That's a good point. The FJC page of Franklin Van Antwerpen, one of the examples in Lacrimosa's mockup, has a termination date of 2016 instead of 2006. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So which version of the table is under consideration here? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Snickers2686, I had envisioned the RfC as an up-down vote on Lacrimosa's proposed format, but if you disagree with some aspects of it (like the IP editor above), you can vote on each of three 'proposed changes' listed. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Done with Trump?

JocularJellyfish, I thought Trump was done appointing Judges, because he is leaving on January 20. Can you please delete the nominations that were renominated? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:427F:F84E:D9B6:A9A5:F381:B676 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@2600:6C48:427F:F84E:D9B6:A9A5:F381:B676: The White House announced some nominations were sent back to the Senate on January 20th. I added them because of that. Please see this link. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominations

Do not remove current nominees until Biden actually sends withdrawal to senate. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

ABA ratings

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden#ABA ratings column?, regarding the potential for the inclusion of this information in that article which will be precedential for inclusion in this article. Please discuss and make comments there. Any comments made here will be transferred to the centralised discussion to reduce discussion dispersal. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)