281:
that McConnell broke a precedent if by precedent, one means
Wiktionary Sense #1, which is "An act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future". Using Wiktionary Sense #1, they would mean that the way he acted around Garland which could have been used by him as an example to help decide the outcome of whether to move ahead on Barrett, surely did not. Granting all that, I'm not comfortable using "precedent" because it has two meanings. What is for Wikitionary the second meaning is nevertheless a strong enough meaning that it is how Knowledge itself on its article actually defines it as the primary meaning. When there is ambiguity like that, such that a reader may either wonder which meaning of the word is intended, or actually think it means what WP thinks is the primary meaning, I think there could be an alternative phrase that doesn't potentially invite confusion.
31:
314:, " called on Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, to follow the 'precedent' he set in 2016 when he blocked President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court based on the reasoning that it was an election year." Otherwise, Markey said that his party "must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court".
215:
McConnell is allegedly breaking and this
Knowledge sentence is quoting that person because it doesn't think WikiVoice should be used in this case" or does it mean "The WP editors of this page don't think it really is a precedent so they're scare-quoting it." I'm also opposed to using the unadorned word (precedent) because it has a specific meaning (
245:, there's two different pertinent definitions: is the one our page is about and what you seem to be referencing, but there's also , which is the non-legal sense. I'd argue that what we're talking about here is the non-legal sense, and since reliable sources use it, I'm comfortable with us doing the same.
280:
above which you cited as "establish the existence of the precedent". The article doesn't use the word "precedent" though (that I see; might be blind). And there might be other RS that do use the actual word "precedent". If that's the case, noting those RSes would establish that plenty of RSes believe
214:
I'm opposed to both positions. I don't think it makes sense to use scare quotes around "precedent" because doing so makes it unclear to the reader just what those quotation marks mean. Do the scare quotes mean "someone, somewhere, in some reliable source used the word 'precedent' to describe what
126:
In this article, Chuck
Schumer is quoted as saying: “"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Then it is said that this is a quote,
319:
Boston.com may have put the word 'precedent' in quotes because that was the exact word that Markey used. If so, they took care to avoid the appearance that that was their choice of word, or that in their judgment McConnell's action actually
223:
case..." There should be a phrase or word to describe what McConnell did do that characterizes how his
Garland attitude differed from his Barrett attitude but I don't think the word "precedent" does the trick, with or without scare quotes.
135:
reverted my edits, insisting that the existing references supplied do show Mitch McConnell as saying those words verbatim. However, this misunderstands the meaning of "verbatim". The two existing references are
131:, of something that Mitch McConnell said. However, the two references supplied do not support that. I tried to correct this by supplying an appropriate reference showing McConnell saying those exact words but
59:
141:
172:
47:
17:
137:
219:) which doesn't clearly apply to what McConnell did. Specifically, WP defines the word to mean, "A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous
82:
365:
91:
277:
176:
339:
290:
263:
233:
208:
156:
115:
99:
171:
and I disagree about whether or not to use scare quotes around the word "precedent" regarding
Merrick Garland. I, as I
147:
I’ve done all I can do. It is a very minor matter. If there is anybody else who cares about this I leave it to you. —
83:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00224
190:
to introduce the scare quotes anyways, edit warring when I reverted to the status quo. Could others please weigh in?
38:
95:
183:, part of the "words to watch" guideline, means we should not use them here. Swood has repeatedly attempted
286:
229:
87:
335:
152:
111:
370:
282:
238:
225:
180:
366:"Supreme Court packing: Joe Biden campaign annoyed by Ed Markey's comments | Boston.com"
331:
148:
107:
242:
330:
would like this article to establish. Doing so is not supported by the source. —
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
311:
251:
216:
196:
132:
167:
25:
326:
324:
constituted a precedent, which is the understanding that
188:
186:
184:
307:
What if we just quote the source directly, like this:
179:establish the existence of the precedent, and that
18:Talk:Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination
8:
85:
175:, maintain that reliable sources such as
356:
241:, interesting perspective. Looking at
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
24:
29:
75:Missing Vote for Senator Cramer
1:
340:18:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
291:16:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
264:20:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
234:19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
209:17:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
79:See link for roll call vote.
157:23:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
116:14:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
100:04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
401:
42:of past discussions.
364:DeCosta-Klipa, Nik.
276:You linked to this
122:Does anybody care?
261:
249:
206:
194:
173:have argued above
106:Added. Thanks. —
102:
90:comment added by
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
392:
383:
382:
380:
378:
371:The Boston Globe
361:
329:
262:
259:
258:
256:
247:
207:
204:
203:
201:
192:
170:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
400:
399:
395:
394:
393:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
376:
374:
363:
362:
358:
325:
252:
250:
246:
197:
195:
191:
181:MOS:SCAREQUOTES
166:
164:
124:
77:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
398:
396:
385:
384:
355:
354:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
317:
316:
315:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
269:
268:
267:
266:
163:
160:
123:
120:
119:
118:
92:24.218.139.235
76:
73:
70:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
397:
373:
372:
367:
360:
357:
353:
341:
337:
333:
328:
323:
318:
313:
310:According to
309:
308:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
292:
288:
284:
279:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
265:
257:
255:
244:
240:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
222:
218:
213:
212:
211:
210:
202:
200:
189:
187:
185:
182:
178:
174:
169:
161:
159:
158:
154:
150:
145:
143:
139:
134:
130:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
104:
103:
101:
97:
93:
89:
84:
80:
74:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
375:. Retrieved
369:
359:
351:
321:
253:
220:
198:
165:
162:Scare quotes
146:
128:
125:
86:— Preceding
81:
78:
65:
43:
37:
283:Novellasyes
278:CNN article
239:Novellasyes
226:Novellasyes
36:This is an
377:7 November
352:References
312:Boston.com
243:Wiktionary
217:Precedent
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
332:Swood100
168:Swood100
149:Swood100
142:this one
138:this one
129:verbatim
108:Swood100
88:unsigned
39:archive
221:legal
16:<
379:2020
336:talk
327:Sdkb
287:talk
254:Sdkb
248:{{u|
230:talk
199:Sdkb
193:{{u|
153:talk
140:and
133:Sdkb
112:talk
96:talk
322:had
177:CNN
368:.
338:)
289:)
260:}}
232:)
205:}}
155:)
144:.
114:)
98:)
381:.
334:(
285:(
228:(
151:(
110:(
94:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.