Can someone knowledgeable explain Supreme Court nominations for me, please?

I have two simple questions that probably require complex answers. The first is: why was John Roberts selected for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after Reihnquist died? Shouldn't someone else already on the court be promoted instead? How can you go from nothing to Chief?

Secondly, Bush's nomination for Sandra Day O'Connor's spot is a woman that wasn't even a judge. Apparently, that isn't a requirement, but is it wise? Is it common? I can't imagine going straight from attorney to Supreme Court Justice, with nothing in between. If anyone could shed some light on these questions, it would be much appreciated.

Both of these situations have happened commonly in the past. We as a country go through phases where we have politicians on the court, for example. William Taft became Chief Justice after he was President.

So neither of these is unusual on the surface. The big issues are of course political, and that's normal for these times.

Do a search on "Supreme Court Justice" at www.findlaw.com, or check www.historynet.com, for more information.

I can't imagine going straight from attorney to Supreme Court Justice, with nothing in between. If anyone could shed some light on these questions, it would be much appreciated.

Neither can I imagine it. It would be highly unorthodox in Commonwealth countries at least. Seems to be perculiar to the USA's constitutional conventions.
Partially because of the untrammelled power the Supreme Court theoretically holds (1/3) which seems to require political involvement of some form. Partially because of a chain of historical precedents that seems to issue from the early 19th Century.

What this means in terms of independance of the judiciary in the 21st Century is matter of some personal dismay.

It seems we swing from the SC as an arm of political action, to the SC as simply the end of the judicial appeals chain, cautious in it's interpretations. Obviously, Bush would rather see the former, to recreate the success that Presidents like FDR enjoyed in tying legal precedent to political goals.

Any 'promotion' of an Associate Justice to Chief Justice would require that the Justice in question be re-confirmed. Not very desirable with two openings and at least two nominations before the Court can be reconstituted. Also, the Chief Justice's duties are mostly superficial.

GioClark wrote:

Any 'promotion' of an Associate Justice to Chief Justice would require that the Justice in question be re-confirmed. Not very desirable with two openings and at least two nominations before the Court can be reconstituted. Also, the Chief Justice's duties are mostly superficial.

But he does get the spiffy hat.

Huh. I didn't know that. You mean they can *throw out* a justice, just for promotion?

I've read some essays recently by people like Felix Frankfurter, and they seem to think the position is very important in bringing together the court on the cases they work. I don't think it's superficial at all.

Robear wrote:

Huh. I didn't know that. You mean they can *throw out* a justice, just for promotion?

Oliver Wendell Holmes is an example of this process (and Rehnquist, IIRC). I don't think there is a precedent for a Justice being but up for promotion yet failing to be confirmed. It would be an interesting Constitutional dilemna (or crisis) if a Justice failed re-confirmation. It could point out a glaring loophole and possibly give the President a powerful trump card. (A Scalia or Ginsburg nomination might set the stage for this battle.) My guess is that a Justice would still retain their original Associate position. But we've never had to confront that. Perhaps better Google-Fu might shed more light.

I've read some essays recently by people like Felix Frankfurter, and they seem to think the position is very important in bringing together the court on the cases they work. I don't think it's superficial at all.

Possibly. I mean that it's more of a First among Equals type position with little if any power beyond that of any other Justice. Most notably, the Chief Justice has the privilege of writing the opinion for his faction in any case. We remember Chiefs such as Holmes or Warren as opposed to other Chiefs that are frequently in the minority, such as Rehnquist. Minority opinions tend to be forgotten as quickly as silver medalists.

Well, I see it a bit differently.

he Chief Justice, as presiding officer of the Court, is responsible by statute for its administration, in addition to hearing cases and writing opinions. The duties of the Chief Justice relating to the Court are spelled out in 20 paragraphs of the federal law, and range from assigning Associate Justices (and himself) to the circuits to approving regulations for the protection of the Court building and grounds. In practice, all matters affecting the Justices, procedures of the Court, and other weighty matters are discussed and sometimes voted in conference.

But the statutory duties of the Chief Justice, spelled out in an additional 44 paragraphs of the federal code, extend far beyond the court. He is responsible for the administrative leadership of the entire federal judicial system. He is Chairman of the Judicial Conference of the United States, a "board of trustees" for the federal courts. He chairs the Federal Judicial Center, with its programs of research and education, and oversees the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, "housekeeper" and statistician for the federal court system. The Chief Justice has an administrative assistant, Sally M. Rider, to help with these responsibilities.

By statute, the Chief Justice is on the boards of three cultural institutions"”the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Hirshorn Museum.

So I'd argue it's a lot more than just a formal nicety, and that the Chief Justice is literally the leader of the court. He's also the only Justice who is empowered to talk to Congress and the Executive on matters other than direct budgetary issues, so that is a lot of influence right there.

http://www.supremecourthistory.org/0...

Robear wrote:

Well, I see it a bit differently.

I stand corrected.

It will be interesting if there are any notable differences in how Roberts chooses to exercise these duties.

I'm betting that his interest in the position is that of a career SC lawyer - process, rather than ideology at the forefront.