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