Talk:Chief Justice of the United States

message: The Chief Justice normally speaks first, and so has great influence in framing the discussion. Is there any evidence or research that addresses this issue? It seems like a very not encyclopedial at the moment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.62.157 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned and discussed in Armstrong and Woodward's The Brethren. Magidin (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature of Politics?

message: Is this a secret service job, or US Marshall? or is he on his own?
:According to the Secret Service page, , they do not. The U.S. Marshall's page  does identify protecting judges as part of their duties, and explicitly lists "163 instances of personal protective services to Supreme Court Justices" for the fiscal year 2002. However, this seems to be provided only as needed and not ongoing, since they only list four on-going long-term details, three in New York and one in Virginia. Magidin 16:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who protects the Chief Justice? 

message: Who administers it to the incoming CJ?  The senior Associate Justice?  Postdlf 03:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Traditionally, the Chief Justice administers the oath to incoming justices; but this is, as far as I can tell, just tradition. And there seems to be no specific tradition for an incoming Chief Justice. Burger administered the oath to Rehnquist, and Warren administered the oath to Burger. But according to Burger, as you can see in , when Burger asked Earl Warren to administer the oath, Warren replied that he (Warren) had expected Burger to ask one of Burger's colleagues in the Court of Appeals (since Warren and Burger did not get along very well), and it was at Burger's insistence that Warren administered the oath to emphasize continuity. That document also mentions that when Warren took office, at which time there was no departing Chief Justice (since Vinson had died) it was indeed Hugo Black, then the most senior Associate, who administered the oath. So I would expect Roberts to ask Justice Stevens to administer the oath, but he could, perhaps, ask some other judicial official. Magidin 16:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And indeed, Justice Stevens administered to oath to Roberts. Magidin 19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oath of office? 

message: During the shuffle of the past few days, I had added some trivia relating to the Chief Justiceship that got deleted; for instance, that Harlan Fiske Stone was the only justice to ever sit in all the chairs (having progressed from most junior to most senior justice and finally being elevated to Chief Justice), and that Roberts and Rehnquist are the only Chief Justices so far to have clerked for a Supreme Court Justice.  Then the end of the article was deleted, then some of the trivia restored (shortest and longest appointment, etc), then the trivia removed and the references restored. Should the other trivia be added, or would it make more sense in a separate page, e.g., "Trivia about the United States Supreme Court" or some such? Magidin 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be readded, but that's just me.  I haven't actually completely read the article yet, but I in part came here to see who served for the longest time as Chief Justice.  I think that information could actually be of some value beyond just trivia actually because it could indicate the relative influence of different Chief Justices.  But other information that I might consider trivial could also be of value to others.  If the inormation is or was in a seperate "Trivia" section perhaps it should be dispersed throughout the article. Theshibboleth 01:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The Chief Justice is Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institute?  What are his or her duties?  Is this just a figurehead position?  I felt that it was innapropriate for the Chancellor link to link to the article on Chancellors, meaning Chancellors for a whole country, so it now links to Chancellor_(education) since this would seem to be more of the sense of the title though not exact. Theshibboleth 01:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I now see that the Chancellor article specifically mentions the Chief Justice in his role as Chancellor of the Supreme Court.  I'll move this to the Chancellor_(education) article. Theshibboleth 01:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chancellor of the Smithonian Institute 

message: Actually, this correction had to do with the VP, but I thought that the previous version made it appear that prior to 1967, some VPs had served as Acting President for lengthier periods of time, when in fact, it was not even possible for a VP to become acting Prez until the 25th Amendment went into effect in 1967. Unschool 17:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VPs and Acting Presidents 

message: There are now 9 justices, but have there always been 9?   Tabletop 08:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The number has changed.  See United States Supreme Court#Composition.  (Mark Adler 12:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, so it is set by statute passed by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789 linked the number of justices to the number of circuits of lower federal courts (three circuits, and two Justices of the Supreme Court would ride circuit in each, giving a Supreme Court of size 6). In 1793 the number of justices per circuit was dropped to 1, but the Court remained of size six until 1801, when Congress reorganized the lower circuits and changed the size of the court to five. Then in 1802, under Jefferson, the size was restored to six. Then new justices were added whenever Congress established additional circuits: the seventh seat was created in 1807, the eight and ningth in 1837; the short-lived tenth seat which was in charge of the Pacific Coast circuit in 1863. The tenth seat was abolished in 1866, when antipathy towards Andrew Johnson resulted in Congress passing a law saying that the Court would be reduced from 10 to 7 seats by attrition. Then in 1869 the size was fixed at 9 (creating a vacancy since the Court had at the time only 8 justices), and the number of seats has remained nine since then. The only real attempt at changing the size again was FDR's Court-packing Bill. Magidin 20:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of justices 

message: The current text mentions explicitly that Earl Warren switched votes in order to stay in the majority and affect the decision via the assignment power. I am not sure why Warren is being singled out; according to Woodward and Armstrong's "The Brethren", for instance, Warren Burger used this tactic very often (very notably after the first arguments in Roe v. Wade, when he assigned the decision even though the other justices remembered him as being in the minority). In any case, I think "voting strategically" would be a somewhat better term than "switching votes." Perhaps something along the lines of:
:Some Chief Justices (notably Earl Warren and Warren Burger) are said to have voted strategically in particular cases specifically so as to be in the majority and be able to moderate a decision through the assignment power.
Any comments or better suggestions? Magidin 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while, but I went ahead and made a change similar to the one above. I don't see why Warren was being singled out. I could mention the recent opinion in the Washington State scholarship cases in which Rehnquist voted with the majority to allow the state to forbid the scholarships being used for religious training as an example where it seems likely the Chief Justice voted with a majority he disagreed in order to assign the opinion and do damage control (Rehnquist wrote that opinion, which was very narrowly written). Magidin 17:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switching votes 

message: why must all wikipedia articles have a "Popular Culture" section? It is rarely relevant or informativeǃ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.52.155 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more of a "to each his own" thing. I'm sure every reader would be happy to have Wikipedia contain only the things they care about, and not bother with the rest. BD2412 T 19:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture? 

message: I missed it when it happened in April because it was the first of a series of changes. But is it really a good idea to have the images in the table of Chief Justices? They make the table unwieldly, making it extend too far vertically. It requires over three screenfulls, and most of the space is blank.  For now I will make them smaller, around the size of the portraits in Supreme Court of the United States, but perhaps they should be dropped altogether; even at this size, the table is almost two screenfulls long. The point of a table like this is to be able to take in all the information easily. If the table is too large vertically, I believe it defeats the purpose. Magidin 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in Table 

message: Recommend Cushing be removed entirely. See the newly cited portion of his article concerning this. Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no reason to remove him completely. Even if he was never chief justice, the fact that the president nominated him and he was confirmed by the Senate is sufficient reason to include a reference to him. Richard75 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But he never accepted the spot. Think of the precedent this sets. You'd have to count among members of the court Senate-approved candidates who declinde their position, like Robert H. Harrison and William Smith. Foofighter20x (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, I could see mentioning Cushing's nomination, confirmation, and declination in the article, but I wouldn't go so far as to put him in the table. Read Cushing's article. He had dispatched his declination before the Feb 3-4 hearings, so he never truely sat as CJ. Foofighter20x (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your response, I didn't see it. Harrison and Smith were nominated as associate justices, not chief justices (at least their articles don't say chief justice), so Cushing is the only example of this happening in the office of chief justice. Richard75 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. Just to clarify, I said the precedent set would be counting those other two guys as members of the court, not as Chief. :p :) Foofighter20x (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wm. Cushing on list of CJs 

message: The table said that Rutledge's recess appointment ended on December 15, 1795, but that is incorrect. It is the date the Senate rejected his appointment, but under Article II Section 2 a recess appointment ends at the expiry of the next session, which was June 1, 1796 (see 4th United States Congress#Dates of sessions). His article states that he left office on December 28 (and gives a source), so he must have resigned -- so I have amended the table to December 28. Richard75 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. He never resigned. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "removed" is accurate either; removal requires impeachment and conviction. I've changed the table to state his recess appointment was rejected by the Senate. Magidin (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, Rutledge did resign, on December 28, 1795. Even though the Senate rejected his nomination on Deember 15, 1795, his recess appointment would not have expired until June 1, 1796. He could have dug-in his heals and attempt to persevere (man-in-the-arena-like); but did not. On December 26, he attempted suicide, and resigned a few days later. Drdpw (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of John Rutledge's term as Chief Justice 

message: 53 people watch this page, and yet nobody noticed that the entire "Origin, title, and appointment to the post" section was deleted for seven weeks (see here and here). Wake up, guys. Richard75 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Can someone cite what law or Senate rule that describes the procedure of elevation of an associate justice to chief justice?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherkobin (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a law or a Senate Rule. If the President simply nominates someone who is currently an Associate Justice to become Chief Justice,  then the nominee must go through the confirmation process; if successful, he resigns his current position and takes the Chief Justice position; if unsuccesful, he retains his position as Associate Justice (just like an unsuccessful appelate court judge nominee would still be in the appelate court). Magidin (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth noting here the ealier section above with more detail and some interesting speculation. El duderino (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation to Chief Justice 

message: The article mentions the salary without any comment, but it is very interesting that it is quite staggeringly low, not much more than half that of the top judge in the UK, and not much more than new law graduates get in big law firms in New York. There must be some public discussion on this salary. What is the usual justification for it? Who supports it? Who thinks it should be raised to something more in line with what senior American lawyers make? What effect does the low salary have on the quality of the candidates for the office? Choalbaton (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Their pay is indexed against what Congressional members are paid, with the added constitutional caveat that if Congress ever decides to take a pay cut (*snicker*), the justices' salaries cannot be reduced. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Incredibly low salary

message: This article may need to be locked.  Someone edited the Style to "Chief Turn Coat".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.198.5 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock article? 

message: The first sentence under "Seniority" has to be revised.
"The Chief Justice is considered to be the justice with most seniority, independent of the number of years of service in the Supreme Court."
I have no Idea how the court works or anything but the sentence is - at best - not clear or - at worst - even factually incorrect. The article on seniority (which is linked to, right in this sentence) clearly describes seniority as something that comes with either age or years of service. That makes the sentence an oxymoron. 
Literally interpreted the sentence could mean: "The office of chief justice is always held by the most senior judge." After further reading I know that that is false. But especially since the constitution does not specify anything it could very well be true and would make sense for a reader that is not informed (like me an hour ago).
I assume it is meant to say something like "The Chief justice has the most influence, independent of seniority." 
A revision could be "The Chief justice has more influence on the court's decisions than the other judges, because he is normally allowed to speak first."
There is also no citation to clarify any of this.
: No, it is not meant to mean anything about "influence". If you read the article on Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States, you will see that there are many aspects of the way in which the Court works which are linked to seniority. For example: the most senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion for the Court; the Justices speak and vote in order of seniority in their conference; and so on. However, while the seniority of the Associate Justices is determined strictly by length of service, the Chief Justice is always considered to be the most senior justice for all procedural purposes, regardless of how long he has been serving. But the influence of a justice is not linked to their seniority, so to revise it as you propose would not only be misleading, it would be factually incorrect. Your claimed potential interpretation would automatically clash with the second clause of the sentence, by the way, so I disagree that it is possible interpretation.  The sentence you object to is not factually incorrect. Magidin (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, rather than modify the correct sentence, I've added some introductory sentences to help explain how seniority plays before making the statement about the CJ. Magidin (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seniority unclear 

message: Why didn't John Jay administer the oath of office at Washington's second inauguration? 101090ABC (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Inauguration of 1793 

message: The article states that there's only 3 ways a Chief Justice's tenure ends - 1) death, 2) resignation or 3) impeachment/conviction. Chief Justice's do not retire, as there's no mandatory retirement. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would "mandatory retirement" be required for retirement to be possible? There is a provision allowing for retirement in the Judiciary Act, and when a justice takes that route, it's considered a retirement, not a resignation. If the article fails to mention that route, that's what needs fixing, not the table. For example, Earl Warren is described as having "retired from the bench" in his biography at Earl Warren College. Magidin (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

text: P.S. "Resignation" and "retirement" are not the same thing. Justices who retire are allowed to retain office space, staff support, assume "Senior Status", receive a pension, and may be assigned to hear circuit cases. Justices who resign are not. You must have a certain length of tenure before you are allowed to retire, which is why some justices (e.g., Fortas, Goldberg) resigned rather than retire. Also, early in the history of the Court, there was no provision to retire. Magidin (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still relinquishing your seat on the bench, which requires a resignation. If there's a truly a distinction? then indeed that should be pointed out in the article. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Origin, title, and appointment to office section now states that "a justice's tenure of office ends only when they die, retire, resign, or are removed from office through the impeachment process." Drdpw (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Justices don't retire. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chief Justice of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203094226/http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/daysevents/potusswearingin05.cfm to http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/daysevents/potusswearingin05.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are some 9 places in this page where the 'senior associate justice' is also interesting, yet this reverting edit re-added text to one specific place regarding seniority. I don't agree with that. I think it should be removed, or at most moved to a place more likely to be seen for the other uses of the text. --Izno (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senior associate justice 

message: I never have had this phenomenon anywhere. On Android phone Chrome browser, images of the histoeical judges at first seem to download normally but as I scroll down the page, suddenly all of them disappear. It happened many times in a row and no, I am not crazy neither was I intoxocated. 81.197.102.184 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judge images disappear suddenly 

message: The lead section states that the Chief Justices "acts as a chief administrative officer for the federal courts." However, this is directly contradicted by Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which stated in its 2013 annual report that that office's director "is the chief administrative officer for the federal courts." TortillaDePapas (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "acts as a chief administrative officer for the federal courts" ?? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion