- $1 billion Empire State Building IPO: why it won't be like Facebook IPO
- In surprise move, GOP leaders admit defeat in payroll tax battle
- More than 30,000 Germans turn out against anti-piracy treaty ACTA
- Does Obama blueprint reduce budget deficit fast enough? (+video)
- Pentagon budget: Does it pit active-duty forces against retirees? (+video)
- Murdoch media crisis deepens with five new arrests
- How Pinterest combines the best parts of Facebook, Tumblr, and Etsy
- US, China face 'trust deficit' as China's heir apparent visits
Roberts tapped for higher court calling
(Page 2 of 2)
Although the chief justice casts only one vote like the other justices, the chief has the power when in the majority to assign who will write the majority opinion. In a closely divided court, the assigning power can sometimes be used strategically to draw an otherwise dissenting justice into the majority by naming that justice to write the opinion. The chief justice also has the power to assign the decision to him or herself and thus limit or expand the scope of a decision in subtle but meaningful ways.
The chief justice's personality is also important, legal analysts say. "He does have many of the qualities that potentially can make for a great and influential chief justice," says Professor Tobias. "He has that great intellect, which no one has denied, and a personality in many respects similar to Rehnquist's - a very charming, affable, low-key, modest personality that was able to make the court a much friendlier and somewhat less contentious place."
Liberal advocacy groups say they will continue to oppose the Roberts nomination. Ralph Neas, president of People For the American Way, says the group's objections apply to an even greater degree to efforts to elevate Roberts to chief justice.
"The nomination of John Roberts has evolved considerably since July, when the White House was successful in portraying him as a lawyer above the fray.... Almost daily revelations coming out of the Reagan presidential library show someone at the epicenter of a comprehensive assault on fundamental rights that have been part of the law for decades," says Mr. Neas.
The road to confirmation
Supreme Court nominations over the past three decades have encountered a variety of receptions by the Senate.
William Rehnquist
Nominated by President Nixon (R), 1971.
Democrats controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 68-26.
John Paul Stevens
Nominated by President Ford (R), 1975.
Democrats controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 98-0.
Sandra Day O'Connor
Nominated by President Reagan (R), 1981.
Republicans controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 99-0.
Antonin Scalia
Nominated by President Reagan (R), 1986.
Republicans controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 98-0.
William Rehnquist
Nominated as chief justice by President Reagan (R), 1986.
Republicans controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 65-33.
Robert Bork
Nominated by President Reagan (R), 1987.
Democrats controlled the Senate.
Senate rejected 42-58.
Anthony Kennedy
Nominated by President Reagan (R), 1987.
Democrats controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 97-0.
David Souter
Nominated by President George H.W. Bush (R), 1990.
Democrats controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 90-9.
Clarence Thomas
Nominated by President George H.W. Bush (R), 1991.
Democrats controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 52-48.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Nominated by President Clinton (D), 1993.
Democrats controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 96-3.
Stephen Breyer
Nominated by President Clinton (D), 1994.
Democrats controlled the Senate.
Senate confirmed 87-9.
Source: Congressional Directory
Page: 
1 | 2
