How is Chief Justice of SCOTUS selected?
By tenure, group vote, or what?
Is it known who steps into that role after Kennedy?
The Chief Justice is nominated by the President and confirmed by the senate.
The position is not a “promotion” from associate justice. The President may nominate one of the associates to become Chief, nominate a judge from a different court, or nominate someone who isn’t even a lawyer.
Anthony Kennedy was not Chief Justice, he was an associate justice who happened to have the longest tenure on the court.
Chosen by the president. Kennedy is not the Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This is true even if the Chief Justice is a serving justice.
And no we don’t know yet who will replace Kennedy. We don’t even know whom Trump will appoint.
Right, he’s just the senior justice, and were Chief Justice Roberts to suddenly die or become incapacitated he’d fill in until the vacancy were resolved.
Both Chief and Associate Justiceships appointments are at the entire discretion of the President and as mentioned already there is no requirement of “climbing through the ranks” or of a particular CV, but mostly in practice it comes down to respectable experience in the Law + political affinity to the Prez.
All Presidents these days arrive with previously assembled lists of potential nominees - some with multiple such lists.
Nitpick: the title is actually “Chief Justice of the United States”: no “Supreme Court” in there.
My bad. I was under the impression Kennedy was chief justice. The press has been talking about his importance nonstop.
Thank you for clarifying.
His importance is due to his often being the swing vote in 5-4 decisions. Replacing him with a more conservative justice will tip the current balance in the Supreme Court.
Because SCOTUS is relatively small, Kennedy was a frequent swing vote. That said, it’s not at all unusual to see other justices end up being just as “swingy” depending on the points of law involved. All Supreme Justices are 100% equal, because each vote is equal. Some of them are more or less likely to vote in certain ways, however, and it was often a good idea to appeal to Kennedy in arguments. If he voted your way, there was a good chance he’d carry 4 justices as well. In terms of legal thinking, he’s probably not as respected as Scalia, Thomas or Ginsberg.
The Chief Justice historically tends to be somewhat more prominent and respected, but does not have any special powers except in case of an actual impeachment trial of the President - which has happened twice so far!
Edit: and Wikipedia mention that the Chief Justice is considered “senior” even if he or she is newer to the court. Which doesn’t mean that much.
There are some minor powers associated with the Chief Justice, mostly by tradition. For instance, if the Chief is on the majority side in deciding a case, he’s the one who writes the official decision, which means that he gets to decide which points of law were most important in reaching that decision.
Does the Chief Justice write dissenting opinions or is that usually jobbed out to an Associate ?
The Chief Justice can write a dissenting opinion, as can any other Justice. Any justice who wishes to express dissent can write a dissent in any case.
For example Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in Obergefell v Hodges (pdf link), the case which legalized same sex marriage nationwide. And Justices Scalia and Thomas joined in that dissent.
However there is not a limit of just one dissent. Justices Scalia also wrote a separate dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, in the same case. And Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent in that same case and Justice Thomas joined that dissent too.
Not so (and impracticable in any case). If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he decides who will write the opinion. He can choose himself, but he usually shares it out – there’s no time for him to write every opinion in a court’s term.
If the chief is in the minority, then the senior justice in the majority assigns the writing of the opinion.
I believe there are also assorted housekeeping rules about how the court and its offices work that are the prerogative of the Chief Justice. IIRC he can assign the writing of the majority opinion once the case is decided, although everyone who agrees will also toss in some contributions.
Tje official title is “Chief Justice of the United States,” but “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court” is a perfectly accurate description of the position. There’s no reason to avoid it when used descriptively.
Same with “queen of England.”
John Roberts was initially nominated to be an associate justice, replacing Sandra D O’Conner. When William Rehnquist died, Bush submitted a new nomination for John Roberts as Chief Justice.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/
It’s common in history to refer to the time that a Chief Justice serves as their court. For example, if I mention, ‘The Taney Court,’ most people will immediately think of the Dred Scott decision. If I mention, ‘The Warren Court,’ most people will think of a liberal Supreme Court and the expansion of civil rights.
I think Iggy is right in this case. There have been more than one dissenting opinion in the form of:
Justice A: I dissent from the majority decision because blah, blah, reason 1.
Justice B: I also dissent but because blah, blah, reason 2.
It would seem to be excessive micromanaging if the Chief Justice had to get involved in who writes what in such cases.
The POTUS could nominate an existing justice, but IIRC it’s more typical that whoever replaces the previous chief will be the new one.
I’m pretty sure RealityChuck meant “the majority opinion” (emphasis added). So, they’re both right. Iggy is just more explicitly correct. 
But even if you’re in the majority, and you’re not chosen to write “the opinion”, you can still write a concurring opinion: *which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons as the basis for his or her decision. *
This is what happened when Warren Burger retired. William Rehnquist was already an associate justice, appointed in 1971 by Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan then appointed Rehnquist as Chief Justice in 1986. Reagan then appointed Scalia to fill Rehnquist’s seat as associate justice.