Anderson For YDA

Stop asking me all these questions! Read the following.

People are asking me about the Supreme Court. As a future lawyer my insight is limited. As a political operative I am 100% anti-Bush: his policies, his appointments and his politics. Please read this column courtesy of www.theweek.com. I think it offers a lot of insight regarding the Court.


The power of the chief justice John Roberts this week took his seat as the 17th chief justice of the United States.

Exactly what does a chief justice do?

How does the Constitution define the job?

It doesn’t. In creating the three branches of government, the Founding Fathers said very little about the Supreme Court—and even less about the chief justice. The title “chief justice” appears only once in the Constitution, and that is in a section setting out procedures for impeachment of the president: “When the President of the United States is tried [by the Senate], the Chief Justice shall preside.” When John Jay presided over the first Supreme Court in 1790, it was a weak, ill-defined entity. So over the course of two centuries, Congress, the federal judiciary, and the chief justices themselves have had to carve out the job description.What are the chief justice’s duties? Today, 53 duties are spelled out in federal law. Most of them ceremonial, such as presiding over presidential inaugurations, and administrative, such as serving as head of the Judicial Conference, the administrative body that sets rules and policies governing federal court operations. (For these extra duties, the chief justice is paid about $9,000 more than the eight associate justices, with a total annual salary of $203,000.) But by statute and by tradition, the chief justice plays his most important role behind the scenes, in shaping the court’s agenda.

How much power will Roberts really have?

Less than the title would suggest: He’s a team leader more than a boss, and cannot push a recalcitrant court in a direction the other eight justices do not want it to go. But if he possesses strong personal and management skills, he will be far more than just one of nine votes. The chief justice’s influence begins even before a case is argued. Each year, the Supreme Court receives about 7,000 appeals of lower court rulings; the high court hears only about 80. It’s the chief justice who (with ample help from law clerks) compiles the initial list of cases the court should consider. He also leads the weekly closed-door “conferences,” in which justices make these decisions by an oral vote. During these conferences, the chief justice speaks first—thus having a chance to frame the cases, and the legal issues involved, as he sees them.

What role does he play in deciding cases?

He has no special influence over other justices, but if the chief justice votes along with the majority, he gets an important privilege: He decides who will write the majority opinion. (If not, the senior justice in the majority makes that decision.) The tone and language of the opinions are critical, for it is through them that rulings can become narrow, or set a broad, historic precedent. So the chief justice usually assigns the majority opinion to himself, or to the justice who most closely shares his views. Chief justices also use the assignment process to cultivate other justices, and to forge ideological alliances with them. How have other chief justices used their power?Some have left greater marks than others. The nation’s fourth chief justice, John Marshall, was easily the boldest. At a time when the court had little power, he wrote the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, which established the right of the Supreme Court to review laws passed by Congress and pronounce final judgment on their constitutionality. During his record 34-year tenure (1801–1835), Marshall firmly cemented the power of the judicial branch—and established the chief justice as one of the most powerful positions in the federal government. Chief Justice Earl Warren also greatly expanded the court’s power; from 1953 to 1969, the Warren court declared public school segregation unconstitutional, and greatly expanded civil liberties and rights. Other chief justices have been less influential, including Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee who presided over the court from 1969 to 1986. Burger was viewed as pompous and egotistical by the other justices; his fellow conservative William Rehnquist and Rehnquist’s law clerk at the time, John Roberts, often mocked him behind his back.

So what makes a great chief justice?

A mix of a keen legal intelligence, leadership skills, and pragmatism. Unpretentious and good-natured, John Marshall had a gift for building a consensus and often spoke for a unanimous court. The gregarious judge fostered bipartisan friendships and good relations between justices (he insisted they all room together in the same boardinghouse). By contrast, Marshall’s successor, Roger B. Taney (1836–1864), was reticent, stubborn, and determined to embarrass the Lincoln administration. Taney—who ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks had no rights and could never be citizens—watched a collegial court break apart.

What kind of boss will Roberts be?

It’s anybody’s guess. Most analysts predict that Roberts’ intelligence, integrity, and humility will sit well with the other justices. But the court is sharply divided between conservatives and liberals, and Roberts assumes the role of chief justice at a very contentious time in U.S. history. During his tenure on the court, the 50-year-old Roberts and his colleagues may well decide whether to overturn Supreme Court rulings on abortion and affirmative action, and will almost certainly set new precedent on such emotional issues as same-sex marriage, the public observance of religion, and human cloning. For that reason alone, Roberts may one day take his place among the most influential chief justices in history.

posted by Kris Anderson @ 9:20 PM