Talk:Bush v. Gore

This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page.

I have changed this page from a straight redirect page to a linking page for all of the source documents spawned by the case. My opinion (pun unintended) is that they should be linked from the same place, and this seems like the best place to do it. Thoughts? –Pakman044 21:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is eactly how it should be setup. We currently have alot of variations in the naming of court cases (See:Portal:Case law), it you have any ideas on how these should be standardized I would appreciate the input on the talk page over there.--BirgitteSB 10:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the way this case is set up - as for naming, just use the last (final) official short name, with a redirect from the previous short names (if any) and the official "long name." --Tim4christ17 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a wikification question: In situations where something could be linked to either Wikisource or Wikipedia, which one should take precedence? For example, I can link to the Equal Protection Clause in Wikisource, or I can link to Wikipedia:Equal Protection Clause. I'm not really sure which is better since Wikisource has the ten or so words in the text, whereas Wikipedia has the text plus the history, interpretation, and analysis. –Pakman044 17:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

TO DO

• Opinions:
  • Redo dissents (/Dissent/Stevens, /Dissent/Souter, /Dissent/Ginsburg, /Dissent/Breyer)
  • Wikify opinions: Intra-Wikisource links to justice's opinions and Constitutional Constructions (e.g., Due Process Clause). Wikipedia-links for other items.
    • Done: /Syllabus, /Opinion of the Court
    • To go: /Concurrence/Rehnquist, /Dissent/Stevens, /Dissent/Souter, /Dissent/Ginsburg, /Dissent/Breyer
  • Proofread opinions
  • Author tags
• Oral Argument Transcript: [1].
  • Is this in the public domain (the transcript was produced by the Alderson Reporting Company, so it could be construed as a contracted product; however, the transcript was of a Court proceeding)?
  • Should Supreme Court Oral Arguments transcripts be included in Wikisource?
• Need the list of questions presented.
• Petition for stay and reply in opposition.
• Merits briefs.
• Amicus Curiae briefs.
• Relevant statutory law(?):
  • 3 U.S.C. § 5 (Jan. 2001)
  • 3 U.S.C. §§ 6, 7, 12 (Jan. 2001)
  • 3 U.S.C. § 15 (Jan. 2001)
  • Supreme Court Rule 12.6 (Oct Term 2000)??
  • Florida Statutory Law--these are all on hold while their public domain status is assessed (see ) (see : Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 97.012, 101.015, 101.46, 101.5606, 101.5611, 101.5614, 102.111, 102.112, 102.141, 102.166, 102.168, 103.011, 106.23. Available online)

The three next-to-last (Petitions, merits briefs, amicus briefs) are probably only available via one of the Court services (e.g., Lexis/Nexis). Then again, it may be better to go to a hard copy to retain the formatting of the original (Lexis/Nexis formatting is poor to say the least!) –Pakman044 04:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)