How many Chief Justices have there been since the inception of the Supreme Court?
17!
The chief justice is the highest-ranking officer of the U.S. federal judiciary; but that sounds fancier than the job really is. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants plenary power to the president of the United States to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, appoint "Judges of the supreme Court", who serve until they resign, retire, are impeached and convicted, or die.
However, Article II and Article III do not even mention a “Chief Justice” or any other form of higher-ranking “Judge of the supreme court” at all. The role of chief justice was created in Article One, Section 3, Clause 6 which states: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” Thus created the role and sole purpose of the chief. Aside from this passing mention in the constitution, the Chief Justice does not have any other constitutionally mandated duties. All other duties have been established through statute or custom.
The majority of the chiefly duties involve procedural matters of keeping oral arguments timely, leading the discussion for upcoming opinions and being the general point-person for the Court. Really, they are the equivalent of a department manager – they are the person to blame when the department messes up and they take the glory when the department does something right. Aside from these duties and presiding over the federal judiciary, the Chief does not have any special power above the associate justices. That is to say, the Chief does not have a greater vote on cases. However, if the Chief is in the majority, he acts as the most senior justice and therefore has the power to choose who writes the opinion (which means he can pick himself if he so wishes).
Other Chiefly Duties:
· Presides over impeachment trials (only 3 have ever done so: Chase, Rehnquist and Roberts)
· Influence the selection of cases for review
· Presides when oral arguments are held
· Leads the discussion of the cases
· Choses the writer (if in the majority)
· Administers the Presidential oath of office (though is not mandated to do so)
· Chief administrative officer for the federal courts
· Presides over the Judicial Conference
There have been 17 Chief Justices:
1. John Jay (1789-1795, Washington)
2. John Rutledge (1795-1795 [nomination was rejected], Washington)
3. Oliver Ellsworth (1796-1800, Washington)
4. John Marshall (1801-1835, Adams)
5. Roger Taney (1836-1864, Jackson)
6. Salmon P. Chase (1864-1873, Lincoln)
7. Morrison Waite (1816-1888, Grant)
8. Melville Fuller (1888-1910, Cleveland)
9. Edward Douglass White (1910-1921, Taft)
10. William Howard Taft (1921-1930, Harding)
11. Charles Evens Hughes (1930-1941, Hoover)
12. Harlan F. Stone (1941-1946, Roosevelt)
13. Fred M. Vinson (1946-1953, Truman)
14. Earl Warren (1953-1969, Eisenhower)
15. Warren E. Burger (1969-1986, Nixon)
16. William Rehnquist (1986-2005, Reagan)
17. John Roberts (2005-present, G.W. Bush)
One unofficial duty of the Chief Justice is to act as the consensus-builder, especially for contentious cases. The two Justices most known for this are John Marshall and Earl Warren.
Justice Marshall helped to develop the reputation that the court has today. Marshall required that the justices wear the black robes, signaling impartiality and equality of justice. Marshall also helped to bring the justices together – literally. During the Court session (the first Monday in February through the second or third week in March) the justices lived together in D.C. in a single boarding house. Prior to Marshall’s appointment, the justices would work separately and each draft their own opinions for each case. Marshall adopted the modern method of collaborating to present a single majority opinion. The most famous holding (probably of all-time) was Marshall’s majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison, where the Court upheld the separation of powers between the three branches of government.
Chief Justice Earl Warren similarly flexed his collaboration-skills while presiding over the watershed case, Brown v. Board of Education. Warren was faced with the challenge of balancing the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson, the protections of the 14th Amendment and the backdrop of social unrest amid raging racial tensions. As designed, the courts looked to Congress to correct the indignities that “separate but equal” laws presented. Courts and justices were hesitant to make abrupt rulings striking down such laws because of the backlash that could occur from a nation that is – unfortunately – not ready for change. Even if a court did strike down these laws, who would enforce them? Thus, at that time, even the Supreme Court was not convinced that it was ready to overturn Plessy. The Court heard oral argument on December 9-11, 1952. Chief Justice Vinson presided over these arguments but passed away in September of 1953 before a decision was made. President Eisenhower then appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice and another round of oral arguments took place on December 7-9, 1953. Chief Justice Warren understood the importance of presenting a unanimous opinion to exemplify the veracity of the holding. After several months of deliberation, Chief Justice Warren read the unanimous opinion on May 17, 1954: school segregation by law was unconstitutional. The Court then heard a third round of oral argument on April 11-14, 1955 to determine exactly how desegregation would be imposed (this case is known as Brown II). Only one month later, the Court – again, unanimous – held that states must begin desegregating “with all deliberate speed.”
In both the Marbury and the Brown cases, there was backlash to the holdings and there are still unresolved philosophical questions as to the enforceability of Court’s power to act the way that it did. However, both cases demonstrate how a resolute determination of a united Court triumphs. Even when we reflect upon contentious cases today, it is hard to dispute a unanimous holding. Yes: we might not like the outcome, but it is an innate characteristic of the American system to accept the result. At least a unanimous vote makes it easier to swallow. I, for one, have not been particularly enamored with some of the recent holdings of the Roberts court. But I can’t deny the immense respect that I have for Chief Justice Roberts and his ability to pull together our diverse bench to craft unanimous opinions.
Sources:
Comments