Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Congress This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) thing(s). Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article the membership of the committee stands at 9 Democrats and 9 Republicans. Is this correct? As the Democrats currently control the Senate shouldn't they have a majority of the membership of the judiciary committee as is the case with the other committees? -- fdewaele, 9 January 2007, 15:21.

You are correct. Democrats have a 1 seat majority on all committees. Either a Democratic name is missing here or there is one too many Republicans listed. I don't have my list of Senate committee assignments handy, but will do some checking.Dcmacnut 03:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess my list was closer than I thought (thank you Google!). Updated the list to include Senator Durbin. That makes it 10 Dems and 9 Reps on the committee.Dcmacnut 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Already an idea how the Subcommittees will shape up? -- fdewaele, 10 January 2007, 16:07.

• File:Explainer Supreme Court Justices.webm

Suggested free use educational video file for use in the article.

Public domain as product of United States Federal Government -- VOA News.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After I explained in my edit summary that without citation to WP:RS, his edits violated WP:NOR, User:69.255.224.171 with these two edits—[1] and [2]—engaged in edit warring. Should he persist despite my repeated warnings, I shall report him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. KalHolmann (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the article itself, and the hyperlinked bios of the Senators, the sources? If you click on the 21 members you can see the facts in that paragraph. It should be in the article as it shows an interesting anomaly of overrepresentation. Most Americans aren't alum of Yale and only 2% at most of Americans are Mormon.69.255.224.171 (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@69.255.224.171: Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's foundational policy No original research, which I referenced in my comment above. If you cannot cite WP:RS then you must not add content to this or any other article. Your edit warring also violates one of Wikipedia's foundational policies. Please learn the rules and abide by them. KalHolmann (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My master's degree from Johns Hopkins University trumps your illogical citation rules (argument from authority). I'll follow the correct citation rules that I was taught at a world class university. 69.255.224.171 (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@69.255.224.171: I guarantee, with that attitude, you will not last long as a Wikipedia editor. Enjoy it while you're here. KalHolmann (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee you're a douche! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.224.171 (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Committee membership and leadership needs to be changed Bigfoot7822 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Committee appointments haven't been completed yet by both parties, so the 117th Congress membership list for the committee doesn't exist yet, in part because the organizing resolution hasn't yet been passed. When both parties have appointed their members, the article should certainly be updated. Circumspect (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is innaccurate-- it says Durbin is the chair and Grassley is the ranking member. But I believe, as of now, Graham is the chair and Durbin is the ranking member. Lindsay Graham's wikipedia page itself states that he is the Chairman of the committee, so something is incorrect and needs to be changed. Parzival1919 (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]