What is the diff. between the position of Chief Justice & Assoc. Justice?

[napi21]

Each only has one vote, so why the BIG DEAL about who is named CJ?

[SofaKingLiberal]

1. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States

[gatorboy]

2. Check here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States

[liberaliraqvet26]

3. It looks largely symbolic

[still_one]

4. sets the agenda

IT IS IMPORTANT

[eddiebrowns]

5. ahhhhh

presides when the Senate tries to impeach the president; presides over impeachment trial of veep. Interesting

[still_one]

6. and there is not much that we can do about it

they cannot filibuster it for one year until the 2006 election, can they?

[T Town Jake]

7. One only of "primus et pares"....

..."First among equals"

[HamdenRice]

8. It's the difference between "outcome" and "legal precedent"

The chief justice decides who writes the opinion when he is in the majority. The voting system of the Supreme Court is very difficult to explain, until you have read a couple of opinions.

Basically when the court decides an issue, there is a basic decision of who wins; and there is a more subtle decision of what the law is. What the law is, is written in the opinion.

The CJ for example will think, if I write the opinion this way I can get 5 votes; if I write it another way I only can get 4 votes. By votes, I mean other justices concurring with the opinion of the court, or writing a concurring opinion.

Maybe it's best to explain using a concrete example. When Brown v. Board of Ed was decided, there were several possible ways to go. The majority could have decided that segretation was legal, if the situation was separate but equal; but that the school system of Topeka was grossly unequal. Or it could have decided that segregation in Topeka was separate and equal. Or it could have decided that separate but equal was the wrong standard.

At one point, CJ Warren thought he could get a majority to find segregation illegal in those states on the grounds that separate but equal was OK, but that the school systems in question were in fact not equal.

Warren really wanted to actually get rid of separate but equal, and lobbied his fellow justices, had analytical memos written, had the case reheard, etc., until he got not just a majority, but a unanimous opinion that separate but equal was wrong.

By circulating draft opinions, he was able to get all the justices to agree on the reasoning that separate but equal was actually unconstitutional and that Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong.

If CJ Warren had gone with, separate but equal is legal, but Topeka isn't equal, the US would have been stuck with segregation for decades.

Hope this helps.

[OneBlueSky]

9. you get to put scrambled eggs on your robes . . . n/t

.