Talk:Earl Warren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Contents 1 Random 2 Expansion 3 Other 4 Simpsons 5 King of the Hill 6 Strangiosity 7 Family

[edit] Random

This completely random, but I was wondering about Warren's 1946 feat of winning all 3 primaries. It says 'California law at the time'...has this changed since then? Does anyone have any source on electoral law either way? I'm partially curious whether it has been changed, and I'd also just like to know more about that in general...seems strange but cool. :P Doregasm 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In relationship to the California primaries at the time: California had a primary system that made it so you didn't have to run under any one party ticket. You could just run and all parties could vote together either for you or somebody else. In Warren's case, he ran as an Independent and won all primaries (Republican, Democratic, and Independent).

[edit] Expansion

I don't know what needs to be expanded in this article. Warren "presided over" many significant decisions but he was not really the intellectual leader of the Court at that time. I don't think a long section on Warren's jurisprudential philosophy is warranted. Read "The Warren Court and American Politics" for more on that.

[edit] Other

Brown vs Board was presaged by Warren doing the same for hispanics in CA, as governor. Tempe Normal schools (AZ) in the 1940s almost did the same desgregation plug too, I may dig up data.
~ender 2003-10-27 11:18:MST

Eisenhower quote on the appointment of Warren as Chief Justice. "The biggest dam-fool mistake I ever made".

[edit] Simpsons

Why does Marge debate Homer by saying "Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!" ?

Haha that line cracks me up :P The humour I think lies in it being a totally non-sequitur moment. Also it is a Simpsons running gag that Homer knows a great deal about the Chief Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Kewpid 05:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree the line is hilarious, but I've seen every episode of The Simpsons and don't recall Homer ever mentioning a Supreme Court justice besides Earl Warren. 69.118.235.3 14:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In one episode (I think, Homer Goes to College, Homer is horrified to learn that David Souter is a nerd. "Oh, no! Not Souter!", or words to that effect. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I am fairly sure Homer has drooled to Warren Burger. So, not all Chief Justices, but at least two :) Kewpid 09:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

While 'Simpson Quote' is funny and all (it could use a reference from snpp.com) I don't really see how it is that relevant in a Article on one of the most important Supreme Court Justices. Can we remove it or put it somewhere else?

[edit] King of the Hill

From King of the Hill: PEGGY: Oh, give me a break. I don't see how having a girl on the team would ruin it. Did a woman judge ruin the Supreme Court? HANK: Yes, and that woman's name was Earl Warren.

[edit] Strangiosity

Does anyone else think it is really strange that Earl Warren was followed by Warren Burger? Not only that, but the two had almost opposite judicial and political ideologies. Is this some sort of Ying/Yang thing, e.g., Earl/Warren/Burger, or maybe just some sick twisted conspiracy designed to fuck with our minds? Goddammit, I'm not getting any sleep tonight. Does anyone know how tall EARLWARRENBURGER was.

I think about the same as Lawrence Eagleburger. Postdlf 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly aside here, but this coincidence of names has actually caused confusion in real life: I was going through a retired judge's papers at the National Archives, and there was an dated document (ca. 1968-70) on "Chambers of The Chief Justice" stationery marked "received from Warren" and it was actually difficult to tell whether it was from Earl Warren or Warren Burger.

The greater tragedy of names, of course, is that Justice Burger never got to serve with Justice Frankfurter. On the other hand, Justice White served for 9 years with Justice Black, and the first Justice White served with Justice Brown and Justice Gray. Newyorkbrad 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family

I removed the following paragraph from the bottom of the article:

However Warren is not the grandfather of actor Tim Daly and actress Tyne Daly. Tyne and Tim are not related to Justice Warren. They were born well before the 1960 marriage of Daly and Warren. Their father, James Daly, not John Charles, has no obvious connection to the Justice.

One of the peculiarities of Wikipedia is that articles are sometimes skewed out of proportion. Trivial items of interest to a contributor may take up as much space as the more serious facts. Thus, for example, we often see 50% of an article is information about some rock band or comic book that just happened to take its name from some historic person or place. Usually one can just ignore such extraneous items. However, there comes a point where an article gets overloaded. Here is a case in point. In a relatively short page for someone of Warren's importance, a paragraph has been appended with the purpose of disabusing readers of notion that they didn't have in the first place. Where does it end? Should we add another paragraph to inform readers that the subject wasn't related to Lesley Ann Warren? And why stop there? We could list billions of people he wasn't related to.