I didn't know that the president appointed the Chief Justice. Guess I always thought that it went to the person whos been there the longest or maybe some kind of vote between themselves.

But does it really matter? Each has only one vote anyway.

If I understand correctly the chief justice has more say as to what cases are heard.

1. If the CJ is in the majority, he gets to decide who writes the majority opinion.

2. The CJ is the chair of the Judicial Conference of the US, which has some minor policy-making authority, and which makes recommendations to POTUS & the Congress re: adding judges.

3. He gets to sit in the middle when the Court hears arguments, and at the head of the table during private discussions.

4. He has no other "special" powers or duties.

Quoted: If I understand correctly the chief justice has more say as to what cases are heard.

I  guess thats not put to a vote either.

I would imagine it might piss off the other justices to have a new guy come in as the Chief after they've been there so many years. Its kinda like  gettin' screwed out of a promotion buy some new outsider appointed by the boss.

Chief Justice is a very influential position. If the CJ is on the majority side of a case, he assigns the opinion to himself or another Justice at his sole discretion. This is actually a substantial bit of power. The Chief Justice is also the de facto head of the Judicial branch. He has great power over the entire Federal judiciary. The CJ traditionally has the power to appoint the chair of the Federal Adminstrative Office of the judicial branch. By law, the CJ also has power to assign judges to special courts and panels.

It is not quite the meaningless title many suppose.

Quoted: Quoted: If I understand correctly the chief justice has more say as to what cases are heard. I  guess thats not put to a vote either. I would imagine it might piss off the other justices to have a new guy come in as the Chief after they've been there so many years. Its kinda like  gettin' screwed out of a promotion buy some new outsider appointed by the boss.

Cases go through a lengthy screening process. Ultimately, those cases not pre-screened out are, in fact, voted upon.

Did you guys know that Sandra Day O'Connor and Renhquist used to date each other in collage?

Quoted: If I understand correctly the chief justice has more say as to what cases are heard.

He directs the voting on which cases are heard, but everyone gets and equal say.

Quoted: Chief Justice is a very influential position. If the CJ is on the majority side of a case, he assigns the opinion to himself or another Justice at his sole discretion. This is actually a substantial bit of power. The Chief Justice is also the de facto head of the Judicial branch. He has great power over the entire Federal judiciary. The CJ traditionally has the power to appoint the chair of the Federal Adminstrative Office of the judicial branch. By law, the CJ also has power to assign judges to special courts and panels. It is not quite the meaningless title many suppose.

Very good points that many fail to consider.

The thing to remember is that he is not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  His official title is the Chief Justice of the United States.

probably wrong forum but I really think it bites that Bush didn't nominate Scalia.  It would piss me off to know end to be over looked for the seemingly "politically correct new guy."

Patty

Quoted: probably wrong forum but I really think it bites that Bush didn't nominate Scalia.  It would piss me off to know end to be over looked for the seemingly "politically correct new guy." Patty

Scalia is quite a bit older than Roberts. Bush wants his CJ there for a good long time.

In the history of the Court, a majority of Chief Justices were never Associate Justices prior to leading the Court.

Personally, I would love to see Scalia in the center chair, but it was not to be.

Quoted: He gets to pick out what they all wear. "OK. Today, we're going with the black robe. Tomorrow - black robe. Wednesday, since it's 'Hump Day' - black robe, Thursday -black robe. And Friday is Hawaiian Shirt Day, so please wear a Hawaiian shirt under your black robe."

That's funny shit there!

Quoted: Quoted: probably wrong forum but I really think it bites that Bush didn't nominate Scalia.  It would piss me off to know end to be over looked for the seemingly "politically correct new guy." Patty Scalia is quite a bit older than Roberts. Bush wants his CJ there for a good long time. In the history of the Court, a majority of Chief Justices were never Associate Justices prior to leading the Court. Personally, I would love to see Scalia in the center chair, but it was not to be.

Humm......well he still has another seat to fill.  Patty

Quoted: Quoted: If I understand correctly the chief justice has more say as to what cases are heard. I  guess thats not put to a vote either. I would imagine it might piss off the other justices to have a new guy come in as the Chief after they've been there so many years. Its kinda like  gettin' screwed out of a promotion buy some new outsider appointed by the boss.

Its not uncommon. From what I understand 50% of the Chiefs were noobs when they were apointed.

The Chief Justice of the United States is also responsible for appointing judges to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Most people have never heard of this court.

"In a highly restricted room inside the Department of Justice Building in Washington D.C. resides a federal court that meets in complete secrecy. Even though the rulings this secret court issues may result in criminal charges, convictions and prison sentences for US citizens, their writs and rulings are permanently sealed from review by those accused of crimes and from any substantive civilian review. This is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which considers surveillance and physical search orders from the Department of Justice and US intelligence agencies. During the 20-year tenure of the FISC the court has received over 10,000 applications for covert surveillance and physical searches. To date, not a single application has been denied."

Quoted: probably wrong forum but I really think it bites that Bush didn't nominate Scalia.  It would piss me off to know end to be over looked for the seemingly "politically correct new guy." Patty

Because there is no way Scalia or Thomas would get confirmed as Chief.  It would be an excuse
for the Democraps and the RINOS to get on TV for another 5 minutes.   Scalia and Thomas
both know this, they have been through these hearings before, and I bet you couldn't
DRAG either of them back through that ordeal again, for any reason.

Bush is playing it as best he can, moving Roberts, who was going to be confirmed easily enough
anyway, to Chief.  He then has the chance, if he is man enough to do it, of putting a really
harder core conservative in O'Connors seat later. Will be interesting to see.

I'm just curious to see if Roberts will keep those stupid assed gold stripes on the robe.....