The Chief Justice of the United States: Responsibilities of the Office and Process for Appointment (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (48 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Sept. 23, 2005 |
| Report Number |
RL32821 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Denis Steven Rutkus and Lorraine H. Tong, Government and Finance Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Sept. 12, 2005 (47 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium March 17, 2005 (45 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
The lifetime appointment of the Chief Justice of the United States is an event of major
significance
in American politics because of the enormous power that the Supreme Court exercises as the highest
appellate court in the federal judiciary. The Chief Justice, like each of the Court's other
eight
Justices, casts one vote when the Court rules on cases. However, the Chief Justice is also
"first
among equals" and exercises a unique leadership role as the presiding officer of the Court,
as the
manager of the Court's overall operations, and as head of the federal judicial branch of
government.
There is no formal list of qualifications for the job; the Constitution's only mention of the
Chief
Justice is as presiding officer of the Senate during an impeachment trial of the President. Chief
Justice appointments occur infrequently, with only 16 individuals having served in that position
since 1789 -- an average tenure of 13½ years per Chief Justice.
The process for appointing a Chief Justice is the same as for appointing Associate Justices and
typically involves a sharing of responsibilities between the President, who nominates the Justices,
and the Senate, which provides "advice and consent." (Exceptions to this have been
rare instances
when the President has made temporary "recess appointments" to the Court, which
do not require
the Senate's approval.) Vacancies on the Court can occur as a result of death, retirement,
or
resignation of a Justice. Chief Justice nominees may be selected from the ranks of sitting Associate
Justices (as three of the 16 Chief Justices were) or from outside the Court, with each approach, from
the perspective of the President, having certain advantages and disadvantages. The criteria that
Presidents use in selecting a Supreme Court nominee vary, but typically involve policy and political
considerations as well as a desire to select a person with outstanding professional qualifications and
unquestioned integrity. Leadership qualities may also be important when the Chief Justice position
is involved. Presidents have also varied in the degree to which they have sought or used advice from
Senators in selecting Supreme Court nominees.
As part of Senate consideration, the Judiciary Committee holds hearings on the nominee and
votes on whether to report the nomination favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation.
Regardless of the outcome of that vote, the reporting of a Supreme Court nomination sends it to the
full Senate for debate and a vote. Like the President, Senators may evaluate the nominee by such
standards as professional excellence, integrity, and leadership qualities, but may also (again, as the
President is free to do) focus on the nominee's judicial philosophy, views on constitutional
issues,
or how they believe the appointment might affect the Court's future direction on major legal
and
constitutional issues.
Under any circumstances, the appointment of a new Chief Justice will command the attention
of Congress, especially the Senate, which votes on whether to confirm judicial nominations. Even
more attention could be expected concerning such an event in the current political environment, in
light of the controversy that has recently surrounded the judicial appointment process and the
importance the President and Senators of both parties have attached to upcoming Supreme Court
appointments.
