Chief justice sets tone and legacy of the court
WASHINGTON -- In appointing a new chief justice to preside over the Supreme Court, President Bush will name someone with an unparalleled opportunity to establish a judicial legacy -- a legacy that, if history is a guide, could well exceed that of the president himself.
The chief justice gets only one vote in deciding cases, leaving him -- all 16 US chief justices have been men -- on equal footing with the eight associate justices in determining outcomes. But chief justices have used both formal and informal powers to shape the direction of a court that has differed greatly over the years in the way it has perceived its mission.
''The chief justice does set the tone," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. ''The title is chief justice of the United States, not of the Supreme Court. It's really the face of the federal judiciary."
The chief justice leads the Supreme Court's private deliberations, influencing the personal interactions and coalition-making that defines the court's operations. And once a case is decided by the court, the chief justice plays a sometimes overlooked role that often has huge import: When he is in the majority, he assigns the writing of the court's deciding opinion to either himself or one of his colleagues.
Even among justices who agree on a case, there are often vast differences in their reasoning, and the opinion writer can set precedents that last decades, said Scott Moss, law professor at Marquette University. As chief justice, Warren E. Burger was known to switch sides on some cases where he initially disagreed with the majority, to ensure a weakly written opinion. ''Assigning opinions is really the single biggest power the chief justice has," Moss said. ''The same decision might be very different if it's written by a different justice. Buried in an opinion can be a significant but brief declaration of a legal rule or principle."
In addition, the chief justice serves as chairman of the US Judicial Conference, which sets ethics and procedural guidelines and lobbies Congress for budgets and changes to the makeup of the courts. The chief justice's words are monitored closely by those who interact with the judicial branch, much like the chairman of the Federal Reserve can move markets with his comments.
The chief must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, even if the nominee is serving as an associate justice. Previous presidents have reached into the ranks of current justices, as President Reagan did in naming William H. Rehnquist to the post in 1986, or tap someone who has never served on the high court, as President Eisenhower did with Earl Warren in 1953.
In an indication of the outsized influence of chief justices, historians often associate eras of the court with the person who holds the post. The John Marshall Court of the early 19th century is known for establishing an independent judicial branch that has the power to nullify laws deemed to violate the Constitution. The Warren Court is remembered for sweeping decisions that brought vast social change, including upholding of civil rights laws. And as presidents have found out, they don't always get what they want in a chief; Eisenhower would call his appointment of Warren the ''the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made."
