Talk:Sessions v. Dimaya
 | A fact from Sessions v. Dimaya appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 May 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Weight of portrayal of Gorsuch's vote
Steelking22 recently made an edit removing and replacing some material. The previous material was: Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Trump and began serving in April 2017, broke a 4–4 tie in favor of the liberal justices on the Supreme Court, ruling against the Trump administration's position in upholding the existing law.
(directly sourced to swings against Trump in deportation case Politico). The edit added: ... ruling against clauses that had existed in U.S. immigration law since 1990
and By citing Justice Scalia, Justice Gorsuch confirmed his reputation as an "originalist." Justice Gorsuch did not create a new law from the bench, he simply and effectively struck down a vague clause in an existing law. By citing the work of Justice Scalia, Justice Gorsuch very clearly demonstrated that his legal opinion was certainly not taking the liberal side of an incorrectly reported liberal versus conservative conflict.
The original material was carefully considered and directly sourced – every word of it is true and represents a substantial position held by many reliable sources. The added material didn't come with any new sources and runs a bit afoul of our prohibition on original research. I agree that we need to discuss the fact that many commentators have noted Gorsuch didn't "become liberal" – but the article didn't say that he did. I have accordingly reverted the edit (don't worry, it hasn't been deleted – we can still get the content of your addition). I think adding a section about "Reception" or "Aftermath" of the decision would be good, and that there would be an appropriate place to discuss the analysis of Gorsuch's vote by reliable sources. Sound good, Steelking22? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- I will add, since I did the expansion, that it is clear that it is an opinion of analysts and journalists that Gorsuch, despite being Trump's nomination, did not side with the adminstration's side and thus ruled with the majority on the vagueness. They saw this as Gorsuch's first major action while on the Court that he wasn't blindly following Trump's ideals. We can't state this as fact, but can (and as indicated above, in fact did) state this as an opinion of analysts. --Masem (t) 13:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Citing a media opinion piece as FACT, when it isn't, is bad journalism and is further bad historical recording. Justice Gorsuch didn't "side with" or "side against" a political party or ideology. He ruled that a clause in existing US immigration law, in the law since at least 1990, was too vague, was bad law. To support his finding, he cited Justice Scalia, noted as a strict Constitutionalist. To make an analogy, if Bob cited Jesus to support an opinion, it would be silly to then report, "Bob, clearly rejects the teachings of Jesus." Directly sourcing some flawed reporting does not somehow make the flawed reporting accurate. That is the point I am making. -- [[User:Steelking22| —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry this is taking a while – I'm really busy at the moment in real life. I will get back to you soon, but if it helps, our policies on verifiability and original research might help explain our concentration on reliable secondary sources in lieu of our own analysis of the Court's ruling. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- This fell off my radar, but essentially, we are repeating the opinions of published sources, not analyzing the original opinion. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)