Who were all appointed vs Whom were all appointed.

[Ulysses]

Hello,

Should I use who or whom in this sentence construction?

There are five conservative judges on the Supreme Court, whom were all appointed by Reagon and Bush, and four liberal judges.

There are five conservative judges on the Supreme Court, who were all appointed by Reagon and Bush, and four liberal judges.

 

[emsr2d2]

Hello,

Should I use who or whom in this sentence construction?

There are five conservative judges on the Supreme Court, whom were all appointed by Reagon and Bush, and four liberal judges.

There are five conservative judges on the Supreme Court, who were all appointed by Reagon and Bush, and four liberal judges.

If you want to keep the word order the same, then you would say "who were all appointed".

If you want to use the word "whom", then you would say "There are five conservative judges on (in?) the Supreme Court, all of whom were appointed by Reagan and Bush......"

 

[corum]

they were appointed
who were appointed

'whom' is incorrect.

 

[Ulysses]

Thanks, yeah all of whom does sound better than who were all but I don't want to cut it into separate sentences.

 

[Barb_D]

It's still one sentence and "all of whom" reads much better indeed.

However, say Reagan OR Bush, not AND Bush. (And you should probably specify which Bush).

 

[corum]

'Reagan and Bush' is ambiguous. It can mean these:

1. one part of whom was appointed by Bush and another part of whom was appointed by Reagan
2. Reagan and Bush jointly appointed all of them

 

[Ulysses]

Yes I agree, it technically is one of them appointing the judges.

If I ever use whom with the verb appoint, it always means the appointee or the person who will get appointed right?

So I would use who like:

The Prime Minister appoints judges who share the same viewpoints as the prime minister because judges who share the same views as the Prime Minister.

and I would use whom like:

Whom to appoint.

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes I agree, it technically is one of them appointing the judges.

If I ever use whom with the verb appoint, it always means the appointee or the person who will get appointed right?

So I would use who like:

The Prime Minister appoints judges who share the same viewpoints as the prime minister because judges who share the same views as the Prime Minister.

and I would use whom like:

Whom to appoint.

You only use "whom" after a preposition:

I have 3 cousins, of whom 2 are girls.
I have an uncle, from whom I receive a birthday card every year.

And yes, I missed the point about the 2 presidents in the original question. It should indeed say "Reagan OR Bush".

 

[TheParser]

If you want to keep the word order the same, then you would say "who were all appointed".

If you want to use the word "whom", then you would say "There are five conservative judges on (in?) the Supreme Court, all of whom were appointed by Reagan and Bush......"

***** NOT A TEACHER !!!

Good afternoon, emsr2d2.

Thought you would like to know that in the United States, "on" is probably the preferred preposition.

From an article in today's edition of one of our most important newspapers:

to fill the latest vacancy ON the Supreme Court

to build consensus ON a court that

All nine sitting justices ON the court came from

Thank you.

 

[Barb_D]

And ironically, I've thought more about the Reagan and vs. Reagan or issue, and I think we may get away with "and" because between the two of them, they did the appointing.

These cookies were all made by kfred and barb.... we didn't necessarily work together, right? We may have each made a few dozen? But we can say "These cookies, all of which were made by kefred and barb, were the most popular at the bake sale."

So I'm changing my vote - either or OR and works. We get wiser as we get older, even if it's only by a few hours.

(However, you still would probably want to say which Bush. Was the elder in office long enough to appoint anyone?)