25 Nov 10
William Rehnquist had served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court for fourteen years before being appointed as chief justice. John Roberts and Warren Burger, on the other hand, were appointed directly to the chief justice post without any previous Supreme Court experience, having previous served on lesser circuits.
Should there be a requirement that a justice has served for a certain period of time in an associate position on the Supreme Court before they can be appointed to the position of Chief Justice?
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe Chief Justices does not have much more authority than the others. He assigns the writings of the opinions in which he is in the majority and has some ceremonial roles. But he gets 1 vote on the Court.
William Rehnquist had served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court for fourteen years before being appointed as chief justice. John Roberts and Warren Burger, on the other hand, were appointed directly to the chief justice post without any previous Supreme Court experience, having previous served on lesser circuits.
Should there be a requirement ...[text shortened]... ate position on the Supreme Court before they can be appointed to the position of Chief Justice?
There's no need for that requirement because there's little extra power that comes with the position.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76Good answer! Thanks for clearing that up.
The Chief Justices does not have much more authority than the others. He assigns the writings of the opinions in which he is in the majority and has some ceremonial roles. But he gets 1 vote on the Court.
There's no need for that requirement because there's little extra power that comes with the position.