NEWS: What's So Special About 'Chief Justice'?

POLITICS: What's So Special About 'Chief Justice'?

When Bush announced last week that he was nominating John Roberts to the position of Chief Justice of the United States, a great deal of confusion seemed to stir about why this was any different than his previous nomination as an Associate Justice. While it's true that the Chief Justice gets one vote like each of the other eight Justices on each case before the Court, the Chief Justice also has a slew of responsibilities and powers that the other Justices do not.

Roberts would also have a great deal of influence over behind-the-scenes workings of the Court, such as how many cases the Court will hear, and how those cases will be chosen.

Some academics also note that Rehnquist became less of a strict ideologue when he took over the role of Chief Justice. He dissented much less often, and took on more of a moderator role. While Rehnquist remained squarely on the right, his opinions overall were more towards the center than they were when he was an Associate Justice. But Roberts, of course, has no established reputation on the Court. No one knows if he was going to take a hard right role or was going to embrace the center (or, in many liberals' fantasies, the left). So no one knows whether a position as Chief Justice will alter that in any way.

The Senate hearings on the Roberts nomination begin on Monday.

Am I to take it from this article that the Chief Justice of the United States is entitled to prevent a judge who wishes to write their own opinion to do so? If that is the case, I am shocked and appalled. And if not, then surely any opinion will represent the views of all willing to attach their name.

[Edited on Sep 12, 2005 12:46AM]

oops.



[Edited on Sep 12, 2005 12:45AM]

Note to the editor:

There is no such position as "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court", the correct title for the position is "Chief Justice of the United States"

Wikipedia: Chief Justice of the United States

No, that's not the case. Every Justice can write their own opinion if they choose. Once they have decided that there is a majority (i.e., 5 of them are voting on one side), the Chief Justice then decides who should write the opinion that is going to represent that 5 vote. Justices can choose to attach their name to that opinion, or they can agree in the result (i.e., keep their vote as one of the 5), but write their own opinion, called a Concurrence. Those Justices who do not vote on the side of the majority have the choice to write Dissents. Again, Justices can attach their names to another Justice's Dissent or write their own.

It isn't unheard of for a Justice to vote one way, read the opinion that is going to represent the Court, and then switch their vote. This can mean the majority switches and someone new has to write the opinion (most famous example, Roe v. Wade).

Noted, but I hate Wikipedia, just for the record.

[Edited on Sep 12, 2005 by MissTyrios]

Well, I'll say this: the chance of Bush nominating a liberal as any justice, let alone the Chief Justice are roughly equivalent to the chances of the entire populations of the US and China simultaneously converging in zeppelins upon the precise location Amelia Earhart was last heard from and performing a 24-hour long intricate ritual dance involving purple tweezers and the disembowelment of their first born child. All at 4 pm tomorrow.

Where is there a discussion here about nomination of a liberal?

Yeah, I don't trust it as much as a real encyclopedia, I only cite it if I'm too lazy to go find a good explanation of something I already know for a fact.

I could have just posted no link

But if a judge is able to write their own opinion if they disagree with the way the draft of a majority decision turns out, then surely any influence the chief justice has by assigning someone to write a majority opinion is inconsequential, isn't it?

Just so you know, these sorts of comments are more appreciated in the News group than on the Boards.

From the news article. That's where there's talk of a liberal appointee.

No, it isn't inconsequential. In many instances, Justices want to set forth a unified opinion (such as in Brown v. Board of Ed) to show strength and to highlight the importance of the decision. When a case comes down that has a vote that goes one way, but there are 6 different opinions written, it shows that the decision was extremely contentious and that can have a huge impact on the decision's implications.

Most opinions have maybe one concurrence, and it's usually a Justice who wants to specifically point out that s/he agrees in the result, but disagrees with some specific way of getting there, or has something specific to add.

By assigning a majority opinion, one Justice has to invest the time in writing in and the other Justices then decide afterwards whether to join or write a concurrence (or respond in a dissent), so there's a practical aspect to it as well.

Ha - no, it isn't. It's talking about the liberals' fantasies that he's going to become the next O'Connor and see the light. My purpose in writing this article was not to start YET ANOTHER debate about right v. left, but to actually explain the role and position of Chief Justice. Talk about what you want, though, I just write the stories, I don't monitor the comments.

Well, and I'm saying that you'd have to go to a parallel universe to find Bush appointing anyone who's not pretty hardline right wing. Whether Roberts mellows over time is another story, and is unlikely to happen before any major issues come before the court. Assuming, of course, that he's approved.

Now the practical part I can see but in that case it's not the fault of the chief justice but the other justice who felt differently but didn't take the time to write their own opinion.

And of course I've never sat on any court or been a justice, but I would like to think that if somebody was at a substantive difference with the majority, they would write their own judgment, despite any wish to show solidarity. I realize I'm just repeating the argument above, of course.

Interestingly enough, the leading Canadian on abortion, R. v. Morgantaler, actually did split in the majority, with I think three separate opinions (maybe only two). I'd never actually thought of comparing the two in the respect of keeping one opinion in order to present a united front, but it is an interesting thought.

[Edited on Sep 12, 2005 1:20AM]

evidenced by the fact that you've provided a reply for almost every post in this thread so far.

[Edited on Sep 12, 2005 by Helter]

I thought I put you on ignore already.

By monitor the comments, I mean that I obviously cannot decide what people can and cannot post. I can engage in discussions just like anyone else, jackass.


[Edited on Sep 12, 2005 by MissTyrios]

apparantly not.

It depends on if you think those concurrent opinions are given the same weight in matters of precidence as the majority opinion.

In short, we're all fucked. It won't be long before the entire government is solidly right-winged. Not the worst of this is that it will be completely unrepresentative of the desires of the public who elected it.

"Chief Justice" different from "Associate Justice"? Duhhh! That's like a CEO being different from a middle-manager!

I'm concerned about this country turning into a fundamentalist religious colony where anyone caught listening to "degenerate" music or with subscriptions to Suicide Girls will be will be sent away to re-education camps. However, since I cannot afford to move to Costa Rica, we need to find other solutions to this crisis.

it seems weird to me that you could just go straight from not being in the supreme court at all to chief justice. wouldn't it make more sense for one of the current justices to be appointed? someone with more knowledge and experience? i bet this is a slap in the face to the dudes who have been serving for years. after all their hard work, bush cheats on them with a younger, hotter justice.

there's also the little fact that it is a lifelong position, so if roberts gets appointed it'll be at least a good 35 years or more under his iron "there of course is no such right [to freedom from discrimination]" thumb.

Would you prefer he nominate ... Scalia ?

I find it amusing when Ted Kennedy pro-
claims anyone morally unfit to hold a court
seat.