Talk:List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

message: Charles Evans Hughes should be listed as 62nd Supreme court justice as he is now and as the 74th Supreme court justice because he served at 2 different points in time and was appointed by 2 different presidents AmYisroelChai (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The count is correct. Hughes was the 62nd justice, first from 10/10/1910 to 6/10/1916, and again from 2/24/1930 to 6/30/1941. The commonly used numbering pattern is SCOTUS justices are numbered only once, this includes those who served first as associate justice and then, after a period of years off the Court, as chief justice, as well as those elevated from associate justice to chief justice while serving on the Supreme Court. Drdpw (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting the count 

message: A reader noted the two entries for John Rutledge and  initially thought it was an error. They now understand that the two entries refer to two separate terms (which also applies to some other justices). Would it help reduce confusion if the name in the left column was followed by a parenthetical e.g. (first-term), (second term)?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More clarification of multi-term justices 

message: I have semi-protected the page with an expiration time of one month due to repeat vandalism from multiple IPs.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: In re: Revision as of 13:16, October 4, 2018
Drdpw 
(Reverted good faith edits by Mink Butler Davenport) : "appointed by" is correct. (TW))
Tag: Undo
Appointment v Nomination – As exemplified by United States Military Academy (West Point), the U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Naval Academy, a nomination is required to obtain admittance, but in no way guarantees acceptance (admittance). Annually, over 4000 candidates are nominated to the academies, but only about 1500 are accepted/admitted/appointed/chosen. In NO WAY does a nomination guarantee an appointment. 
Very nearly 1,200 Executive level jobs in the United States government may be filled only by individuals whom are appointed by the President, then approved by a simple majority vote of the Senate. 
Similarly, Federal Judicial nominees are exactly that – nominees. They must undergo scrutinizing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, pass the Committee’s approving vote, before being brought to a vote before the full U.S. Senate. Those are TWO stages where approval is required: After initial nomination, the nominee goes before the 1.) Senate Judiciary Committee, and then, if approved, the nominee goes to the  2.) full Senate for a vote. Those are BOTH required before CONFIRMATION occurs. 
The principle difference with Appointment, is fairly straightforward – one is named to (placed in) the position. 
No confirmation required. 
The “advice and consent” clause of the Constitution gives the Congress (in the Senate), the final say-so in the matter, to either accept, or reject, the nominee in two stages – the Committee first, and the full Senate second/last.
While the term “appointment” may be sometimes used when referring to Supreme Court candidates, it is more properly, and accurately, a nomination, which initiates a process.
See: [uscourts.gov]
See also: I. The Safeguards of the Appointments Clause
The Appointments Clause provides: 
[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
-and-
“The word "appoint" was adopted and over the course of the Convention changed into phrasing that suggests something of an obligation on Congress to establish inferior federal courts.” 
In: Article III, Judicial Department [gpo.gov]
See also: “It is true that an individual not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause cannot technically be an officer of the United States: “Unless a person in the service of the Government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of Departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.” United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 307 (1888)”
In: Officers of the United States Within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause [justice.gov]
See also: “As part of the process of making an appointment to an advice and consent position, the President submits a nomination to the Senate. Most nominations are referred to the appropriate Senate committee or committees on the day they are received. Such referrals are guided by Senate Rule XXV, which establishes the subject matter under the purview of each committee and directs that “all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating primarily to [those] subjects” be referred to that committee.” 
In: Presidential Appointee Positions Requiring Senate Confirmation and Committees Handling Nominations, by Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process; Michael Greene, Senior Research Librarian; May 3, 2017, Congressional Research Service [fas.org]
-and-
See also: List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States
– M.B.D. (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appointment v Nomination 

message: The table lists the tenure length of Samuel Chase as 15 years an 135 days. In fact, it should be 15 years an 136 days.
This can be verified using the following formula in Google Sheets
     =DATEDIF(StartDate, EndDate, "Y")&" years "&DATEDIF(StartDate, EndDate, "YD")&"days"
Google Sheets already accounts for the fact that there was no leap day in 1800.
I have also independently verified the math on this by doing annual day count for each year (or part thereof) as as follows:
Anniversary	Number of Days
4 Feb 1796 	N/A
4 Feb 1797 	366
4 Feb 1798 	365
4 Feb 1799 	365
4 Feb 1800 	365
4 Feb 1801 	365
4 Feb 1802 	365
4 Feb 1803 	365
4 Feb 1804 	365
4 Feb 1805 	366
4 Feb 1806 	365
4 Feb 1807 	365
4 Feb 1808 	365
4 Feb 1809 	366
4 Feb 1810 	365
4 Feb 1811 	365
19 Jun 1811	135
This adds up to a total of 5613 days, which is consistent with the number of days listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices_by_time_in_office  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardinalSlug (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table needs to be corrected 

message: Why do none of the judges have their party listed? This is very important information and I feel it should be included, especially with current judges. Daleylife (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party Affiliation of Judges  

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) 19:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Court Justice and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Court Justice until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Court Justice" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This question exists in the archive, so I'm posting the response here so it's seen. The order of seniority of associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States goes back to § 1 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices are ranked in seniority by the date their judicial commissions bear; or if bearing the same date, by their age (read: dates of birth). This rule is still in effect to this day, codified at 28 U.S.C., § 4. So, even though James Wilson was the first to have his oath of office administered, he was still de jure junior to justices Rutledge and Cushing; and would have been junior to Robert Harrison, had Harrison accepted his commission to the court.
There appears to be some similar confusion as to justices Van Devanter and J. R. Lamar. Van Devanter's commission is dated Dec. 16, 1910, and Lamar's Dec. 17, the next day.
Similarly, between justices Powell and Rehnquist, Powell's commission is dated Dec. 9, 1971, and Rehnquist's Dec. 15, 1971.
Hope this clears up any and all future confusion. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering of associate justices 

message: Is it possible to add in the list that Breyer is soon retiring? As he will do so independenly of current matters in motion.
Asabiyya (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Breyer retirement 

message: ￼ Should there be some type of clarification made, such as an alternative color for tenure and/or tenure length, if the term of a justice's tenure is/was longer than average? If so, what color should be used? Personally, I'd go for D4AF37 or Metallic Gold Ravens (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I don't see a need for such clarification nor how adding color coded tenure-length classifications would enhance the table.  Drdpw (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding that information would allow the reader to better understand how long the average tenure is for a Supreme Court Justice Ravens (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification for Above Average Term 

message: The main images used for the Supreme Court justices are like massively outdated. Sotomayor and Kagan's portraits are over 10 years old. Thomas and Alito's are over 15 years old. Robert's photo is over 17 years old. Most of them look much physically different now than then. Isn't it therefore the right time to update their portraits? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should for others besides Gorsuch. As far as I can tell, all of the pictures on the page are the same as those on SCOTUS' website, but strangely the Gorsuch one is a different picture? I think if they update the picture on the website, then the picture should be updated with it. Pacamah (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update SC justice portraits?