Talk:United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

United States: Mississippi / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal 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.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

United States courts and judges High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges 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.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law B‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal 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
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"As of 2004"

I am getting ready to revert somebody's change, and since it isn't clear vandalism, I'd like to explain why I'm doing this. Jmabel changed the clause "The judges currently on the court are:" to "The judges currently on the court as of 2004 are:". This was annoying for several reasons:

The whole of the phrase "as of 2004" was made into a link which redirects to "2004".
The phrases "currently" and "as of 2004" are repetitive now and conflict as of January 1, 2005.
A reader could infer from "as of 2004" either that the composition of the court didn't change during 2004 or that the list was the composition of the court as of January 1, 2004; neither is true, since Judge Pickering joined the court (via recess appointment) in 2004.
Attaching a "sell-by" date to this information would be appropriate in a book; in Wikipedia, however, it is totally inappropriate. If you are truly concerned with when an article was last update, you can use the History feature. In the meantime, writing something such as, "The judges on the court as of 2004 are:" is just asking for somebody to make revisions that solely affect the date rather than any substantive content.

Therefore, I am reverting Jmabel's change.

DLJessup 01:35, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. I believe what I did is simply correct policy, but I'm certainly not getting into an edit war over it. (See also Wikipedia:As of) -- Jmabel | Talk 02:22, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, dern it. My revert was incorrect. My first three bullet points still stand, though. Let me see if I can patch this. — DLJessup 02:45, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

Ought this sub-section be removed now as no longer relevant? Just curious as to what others think here. 72.183.240.231 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an interesting historical note to include (wasn't the circuit temporarily headquartered in Houston?), but I agree it doesn't need its own section any more. Libertylaw 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. deleting the subheader but including a mention under the History section with its temporary headquarters in Houston (I think that's correct, but since neither of us seems 100% sure, we should probably verify before editing) seems exactly right. something like "The court temporarily based its operations in Houston, Texas after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005"? (placed immediately before the 5th Circuit Four subheader - though while we're at it, it might make sense either to make note of them in the History section without a separate subhead also, or perhaps even in the introductory paragraph...I don't think losing the subhead would belittle their importance, especially with the quicklink to the wiki article on them (I'd advocate improving/expanding it though, listing important decisions of the era, etc.), but I can understand some might feel that way, and at the same time, it may not be a perfect fit with what you'd want in an introductory summary, so maybe keeping the subhead is a better alternative to that, I don't know). 72.183.240.231 03:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Edith H. Jones and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Re:The Compaq Case for tax avoidence. Judges Edith H. Jones, Jerry E. Smith and Harold R. DeMoss Jr.

In the case it is very obvious that the only reason that the original verdict was overturned was because Judge Edith H. Jones is trying to get on the U.S. Supreme Court and with Compaq having such huge political ties, there was never any way that they were going to uphold the original verdict.

In the book "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston I quote "Judge Jones has inveighed against what she sees as the evils afflicting American society, saying that the legal system has become morally corrupt. America needs, she said in 2003, "a recovery of moral principal, the sine qua non of an orderly society." Shame on you Judge Jones, and your associates, you have opened the floodgates for corruption from corporations to not pay their taxes while touting that the legal system is corrupt. You might want to look in the mirror because you have helped in that corruption.

Your holier than thou stance is another person in prominence in our goverment that screws all of the little people for money, position and agendas. You and all of the jerks in government who daily make and enforce laws on those least able to defend themselves while bending over backwards to allow corporations and the richest Americans to get away with not paying their taxes and not enforcing tax laws equally across the board.

Since I started reading the book "Perfectly Legal", I realize how the goverment of the United States of America only provides for those who can contribute alot of money for their campaigns and that the smoke and mirrors of "Campaign Reform", "Tax Relief", and all of the other things touted by the politicians which are enforced by the courts are just BS! I will not stand for this anymore, I will be on "YOUTUBE" and everywhere I can start getting things turned around in this country. I will make myself heard. All of you make me sick. Yea and that is not a physical threat so do not even go there. You do not deserve to be on the Supreme Court, you do not even deserve to be on the Court of Appeals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WorriedinUtah (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table standardization

Please note and contribute to this discussion. Billyboy01 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rulings section?

Is there any place or section where I could write about a ruling the court made? Or is it not part of Wikipedia's policy to do that on the Circuit Court's page? PleiadesTraveler (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]