How many Chief Justices can you name? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

sailor15015 · #1 12-09-2005, 12:25 AM

Stop! Without scrolling down to read any posts after this one, and without using Google, see if you can answer these two questions. I guess you can just post if you knew it or not.

1. How many Justices are supposed to sit(maximum) on the Supreme Court?

2. How many can you name?

In my college political science class less than one quater of the popluation could name any justices but not-so-suprisingly-enough, over two thirds could name the Rice Cripsi guys; Snap, Crackle, and Pop. Go figure.

moparmike · #2 12-09-2005, 12:36 AM

Umm, I dont think Alito has been nominated yet, and O'Connor is supposed to retire, right? There is supposed to be nine, but my instincts tell me that there is eight due to a retirement.

Roberts
Ginsberg
O'Connor
Thomas
Scalia

sailor15015 · #3 12-09-2005, 12:51 AM

My mistake. I'm going to edit it to say how many are supposed to sit on the bench. O'Conner is going to retire as soon as Bush can get a nomintation past the Senate, if I remember correctly. My political science professor is very much in love with the courts. She especially likes the women justices. If I'm remembering this right, O'Conner did step down but agreed to come back for this session until she could be replaced.

Azimyth · #4 12-09-2005, 01:08 AM

Is this cheating?

Botnst · #5 12-09-2005, 07:33 AM

By tradition it is 9. But IIRC the Constitution is mute on the number.

I can name them all.

There's Happy, Doc, Grumpy, Dopey,....give me a minute...

kott · #6 12-09-2005, 11:26 AM

6 for certain,1 was a guess (was Stevens still in?).... but mostly due to the recent news coverage. The less recent new guys haven't had much press yet (Kennedy, Breyer), so I forgot them.

sailor15015 · #7 12-09-2005, 08:01 PM

Something that I learned about Congress in my political science class is that if they wanted to, they could desolve the entire bureacracy except for the president and the vice president. They could also get rid of every federal court and all the justices of the Supreme Court save for the Chief Justice. All of that with just one law. Even if the president vetoed it they could override his veto. Lets hope they never decide to try it. It really brings their power into perspective.

Botnst · #8 12-09-2005, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailor15015

Something that I learned about Congress in my political science class is that if they wanted to, they could desolve the entire bureacracy except for the president and the vice president. They could also get rid of every federal court and all the justices of the Supreme Court save for the Chief Justice. All of that with just one law. Even if the president vetoed it they could override his veto. Lets hope they never decide to try it. It really brings their power into perspective.

All true.

But they have no power to enforce their laws, even if enacted. That requires the cooperation of the Executive, which has a big-ass army.

Bot

Carleton Hughes · #9 12-09-2005, 09:35 PM

I recall my father's great uncle.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/pastjustices/hughes.html

Frank X. Morris · #10 12-09-2005, 09:40 PM

Howdy All,
I can name them all. Tom, Dick, Harry, George, Sam, Bob, Mary, Sally and Bot. How's that for names?¿

sailor15015 · #11 12-09-2005, 11:06 PM

Excuse my ignorance but I'm just starting to open my eyes to the way the government works and how people feel about it and such. Why the negative reactions to the Court?

Botnst · #12 12-10-2005, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailor15015

Excuse my ignorance but I'm just starting to open my eyes to the way the government works and how people feel about it and such. Why the negative reactions to the Court?

Not sure that "negative" is precise.

We tend to idealize the SC, mostly because their rulings (historically) rarely affected contemporaneous daily life. However since the Warren Court's shift to political responsiveness, the SC has gained prominence. Also, we tend to view the SC as being academic and philosophical and give them unearned stature. In the most recent 100 years or so the SC has had the ability to overrule the other two branches. This is an historical abberration.

Previously the people and other two branches feared the SC because they were unelected, lifetime appointees which was (at that time) a throw-back to nobility, a form of government firmly rejected in 1776, 1781 and the somewhat contemporaneous yet derivative, "droits d homme."

Currently the SC is undergoing another reallignment in which it is trying to stick itself back into a corset which it has outgrown--the attempted shift to a less activist, more contemplaive court.

Hope this helps.

B