Fort Towson

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

Law 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States 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.

The use of "underrepresented" and "overrepresented" in the section on "Reapportionment" are subjective and imply agreement with the finding of the court, rather than a description of the subject. The article should discuss, or reference, alternative interpretations of "representation", particularly in a bicameral legislature. See the Federalist Papers 62 (summary at http://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalist-papers/study-guide/section18/, beginning in the 3rd paragraph). I'm afraid I'm not really qualified to do more than recognize the issue, as I do not have a background in the law.

Joncard93 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am cofused by the last paragaph of the section Brown (1954). As an Australian with very little legal knowledge I am unsure if "stare decisis" is a legal term that need explanation, or if it is a misprint for 'state decisions' which would make contextual sense. Tiddy (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legal term that means reliance on precedent ie previous court decisions.Rjensen (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Warren's Role" (summation paragraph sans subheading): "Hugo Black and William O. Douglas led the opposing faction". Cites reference 20, Michael R. Belknap, The Supreme Court under Earl Warren, 1953-1969 (2005) pp. 13-14.

Under aforementioned heading, "Decisions" subheading: "William J. Brennan, Jr., a liberal Democrat appointed by Eisenhower in 1956, was the intellectual leader of the faction that included Black and Douglas." Cites reference 22, Powe (2000).

Minor points of contention:

• The apparent inconsistency (if not outright contradiction) regarding which Justices played a leadership role in said faction (and how, when, etc

• The framings have trappings of original research, bordering even editorializing.

• Powe (2000) seems to refer to that year's edition of Lucas Powe, Jr.'s The Warren Court and American Politics, whereas the 2002 edition exists as what is now reference 5. This suggests that the article is in want of source harmonization. 24.47.6.27 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]