Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides for a Supreme Court of the United States. It makes no mention of the office of a Chief Justice. The only place a Chief Justice is mentioned is in Article I, Section 3 where, in the unlikely event that the President of the United States is on trial in the Senate, then the CJ will preside over the trial.
That being said, aside from that one special “perk,” what makes the CJ of SCOTUS any different from any of the other justices? It’s not as if he gets an extra vote or gets to break a tie (as the VP does in the Senate). So, aside from the title and the presidential impeachments (and a larger paycheck), what else does s/he get?
The Chief has certain perks. due to the internal workings of the SCOTUS, which are set forth in their rules of procedure (some JD can give the actual title of the latter). These are not established by statute, just by the consensus of the Justices, but do have legal force. For example, he has the right to write the opinion or to assign the justice who will whenever he’s in the majority (if he’s not, the right devolves on the senior Associate Justice in the majority). He speaks on behalf of the Court in non-judicial situations (example: during the Court-packing crisis of 1937, Chief Justice Hughes testified before Congress that the additional justices were not needed on the pretext the President had set, a too heavy workload). And a couple of other “presiding judge” things.
But one of the many Judiciary Acts altered the status of the Chief in the later 1800s. I think Salmon P. Chase was the last (officially so titled) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Those since have been Chief Justice of the United States. The distinction is not just semantic; he has the legal authority to assign sitting judges to other courts as workload suggests is appropriate, to employ the non-judge and paralegal staff of the Federal court system, and a couple of other minor duties. And he gets more money and additional staff for doing this.
Not true. Rehnquist was not exactly high man on the totem pole when he replaced Burger in 1986. Brennan, Marshall, and one or two others (probably, I’m doing this from memory) had more seniority than him.
A president has the right to appoint a new justice to be the CJ, not just an existing justice.
I was taught in my law classes that the CJ is basically the “boss” on the court. It’s his voice that says “let’s all do this” and “we’ll discuss this case now guys, right?”
Unaminous decisions are usually authored by the Chief, as well.
I’m under the impression that, were Rehnquist to die or retire on February 1, 2001 (after Bush is inaugurated, to avoid complications), President Bush would have to nominate a new CJ, who’d need to be confirmed by Senate. This, even if the nominee were a currently sitting Associate Justice, right?
Say, Bush nominates Scalia (as has been rumored), and he’s confirmed as the new CJ. This would leave a vacant AJ seat, which would be filled by yet another nomination/confirmation sequence.
Is that essentially correct, or could Bush just say “OK, Scalia’s now CJ,” and the go about filling the vacant AJ seat in the usual fashion?
Chief Justice is considered a new job and any Associate Justice would have to be confirmed by the Senate to take over the Chief Justice.
[opinion]
With a 50-50 Senate, Antonin Scalia is likely not moving up to the center seat. You would see the filibuster from hell from the Democrats if it were tried.
[/opinion]
That’s a very good point. There’s no way Bush would even consider nominating Ginsberg, Souter or Breyer. Too liberal. As is The Court’s senior member, Stevens. Scalia would indeed invoke a difficult confirmation session, as would Thomas (again!) I guess O’Connor would be his best choice, although she wants to retire. The Dems would have to try and oppose her without appearing anti-woman. Wouldn’t that be fun to watch!
Hail Ants, you must mean Kennedy would be Bush’s choice if Rehnquist retires. If so, he’d face the mother of all grillings about the opinion he and O’Connor wrote but refused to sign in Bush v. Gore. Look for a new CJ nominee to be from outside the current Court.
Besides the administrative functions, Rehnquist added his own perk with those gold stripes on his robe sleeves. Story has it that he and his wife went to a production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado,” he liked the Lord High Executioner’s costume, and added the feature in time for all those pictures during the impeachment trial of the President of the United States. Somehow I doubt the next CJ will keep them, though.
Lyndon Johnson nominated Justice Abe Fortas to be CJ when Earl Warren passed away, but Fortas was rejected by the Senate. Rather than stay on as an AJ, he resigned that position, too, but he could have kept it.
Earl Warren didn’t die in office. He tendered his resignation toward the end of Johnson’s terms, so that Johnson could appoint a Chief Justice sympathetic to Warren’s approach. Fortas’s nomination got bogged down in the Senate, becasue of some financial dealings (can’t remember the details). Net result: no Chief Justice by the time Nixon took office, Nixon got to nominate Warren Burger.