![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Chief Justice normally speaks first, and so has great influence in framing the discussion. Is there any evidence or research that addresses this issue? It seems like a very not encyclopedial at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.62.157 ( talk) 16:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this a secret service job, or US Marshall? or is he on his own?
I noticed an edit made a short time ago on Chief Justice of the United States where it was written wrote:
In particular, the phrase "and the Vice-President of the United States" was added. I looked through the U.S. Constitution and Impeachment#United States and neither seemed to explicitly indicate that the Chief Justice would preside over a VP's impeachment proceedings.
From the U.S. Constitution:
I have no particular reason to doubt it is the case however, so I was hoping someone could provide a source. Thanks! -- Jewbacca 23:37, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
From Rule IV of the United States Senate's Impeachment Rules (emphasis added):
Note that this rule only applies to the Vice President when the Vice President is Acting President. Otherwise, if the Vice President is being tried for impeachment while he is not acting as President, precedents would dictate that the President pro tempore would preside.
I haven't found any other acts/rules which would say otherwise, so I will edit accordingly. Pmadrid 05:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also have not been able to find a governing rule; however, I find this result somewhat odd. The reason for having the Chief Justice preside at a Presidential impeachment is to avoid a conflict of interest, since a presiding Vice President would assume office in the event of a conviction. In the same way, the conviction of the Vice President would elevate the President pro tempore in the order of succession and Senatorial precedence. Though this elevation would only be temporary (since the 25th Amdt. allows for appointments in the event of a Vice Presidential vacancy), it would seem a temptation weighing on the impartiality of the President pro tempore. I will continue to research. Xoloz 17:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised when I learned that a Chief Justice is usually nominated directly, versus being elevated from Associate. Is there a reason for that? I would have thought that someone with Supreme Court experience would be prefered. -- 15:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It is news to me also, but apparently there have only been three people out seventeen promoted from Associate Justice to Chief Justice. User:MPA
I'm guessing it is because it is much harder to confirm an Associate, given their detailed history of opinions on Supreme Court cases.
I also agree. I also find it kind of goofy to nominate to the arguably most powerful position in the government of the USA a man who has 3 years of experience as a judge and otherwise only opinions that he wrote and says don't represent him. Can't we find somone more qualified, or would then Bush-approved candidate have to fight too much of a battle? I would like to know these things. -- jns
Some interesting info and insights above, especially about reasons why the Chief usually gets appointed rather than elevated. Perhaps a bit of that explanation could be worked into the article space? i was wondering about it while reading Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine, which incidentally mentions another admin task/power of the CJ worth noting here, at least: controlling the weekly list of cert petitions under consideration, i.e. some say over the docket of cases... In one instance, Rehnquist kept re-listing a hot potato case (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) to keep it unresolved before the 1992 elections, some liberals on the court believed. Justice Stevens had to threaten to write a dissenting opinion about the re-listing, which would be unprecedented. So Rehnquist backed down. El duderino ( talk) 08:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to list John G. Roberts on the table, given that he is still only the nominee for the position? Jdhowens90 19:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
No. I will change and guard it. Xoloz 19:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It appears that some folks want Roberts on this table. My argument in opposition is John Rutledge -- it continues to be disputed by some scholars whether he was really Chief Justice, and he was appointed by Washington in a recess. Given his tenuous status, I find it odd to list Roberts before confirmation, whatever other WP precedent for lesser offices may be. Xoloz 19:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Also note, that there is no WP precedent for Chief Justice, and that office is unique in its own way, a Constitutional Officer who is the statuary head of a Constitutional Branch of Government. I argue that the special position of that office demands restraint in prematurely giving nominees the appearence of official imprimatur. Xoloz 20:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Until sworn in, he does not belong on the lists, just in the notes or text, explaining his status. That is standard procedure with judicial appointments - take a look at how nominations to the Circuit Courts are handled. The Rutledge tenure is recognized by the government and recess appointments are valid, what some scholars say is beside the point. Next you will be telling me that Atchinson was a President ;-) . NoSeptember 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
So, arguing against Roberts inclusion in the table, we have the following:
Given this, I will now restore the table sans Roberts. It will probably be only a month until he is there, but it is accurate, fair, and proper as a matter of respect to the dignity of the high office to keep him off the list until he assumes the office. Xoloz 01:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is accurate to call Rutledge "interim Chief Justice". He was a recess appointment later rejected by the Senate. Certainly a footnote to that effect would be appropriate (say, "Recess appointement, rejected by Senate"). Formally, he was Chief Justice until confirmed or the next session of the Senate ended. Section 2 of Article II reads "The President shall have the Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Rutledge had the commission of Chief Justice. It is certainly an odd case, since his is the only recess appointment to the Supreme Court whih was later rejected; and recess appointments who are later confirmed take the Oath again. But even then, their service is counted from their recess appointment, not their confirmed appointment. Thus, Warren was Chief Justice from 1953 to 1969, even though his nomination was submitted to the Senate in January 1954 and he was confirmed in March 1954, because his recess appointment began in 1953. Magidin 04:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
In the page it says, "Most Chief Justices, like William Howard Taft (a former President himself) and Earl Warren, are nominated to the highest position on the Court without any previous experience on the Court, or indeed in the entire United States Judiciary," which would perhaps imply (depending on how you read it) that Taft had no experience in the entire United States Judiciary, while, according to This article, he was a judge fo the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals before becoming President. Perhaps John Marshall or Earl Warren might be a better example of a relatively well known person with no federal judicial experience prior to becoming Chief Justice. Waterj2 07:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC) waterj2, Sept. 6, 2005
The assignment power of the Chief Justice is not really a "duty", nor is it specified anywhere. Like most internal procedures of the Court, it is an unwritten "rule", and certainly not a constitutional duty. I think it is best to say that, for the purposes of internal procedures of the Court, the Chief Justice is automatically considered to be the justice with most seniority regardless of his/her years of actual service in the Court. This makes the assignment power simply a corollary of seniority (which it is) rather than a specific power of duty of the Chief Justice. It also makes other powers/duties (speaking first in Conference, chairing Conference, and presiding over the Court when it sits) a consequence of seniority. I would suggest the following, breaking it up in several parts:
Would this be acceptable? It seems like a rather major reworking for me to just charge ahead and make it without opening it up for discussion first. Magidin 16:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate very much the corrections you've given here, but I think this might be a case were "splitting hairs" leads to less clarity. The Chief Justice has one clear constitutional duty: to preside in case of Presidential Impeachment before the Senate; and one implied constitutional duty: to preside over the Court. Beyond that, all his duties are statutory (Judicial Conference, annual reports, designations to special tribunals, rule revisions, etc.) traditional (Pres. Inaugural.) It is clear that traditional duties really exist -- Rehnquist limped onto the platform on 20 Jan. for a reason; not appearing would seem improper, a species of dereliction of duty. In the same way, assigning opinions is a traditional duty (though obviously not a constitutional one.) It is also true that opinion assignments are otherwise based on seniority.
I do think that it is an implicit constitutional duty that the Chief preside at meetings, if only because Art. III mentions the Court and its Chief; I do not think that it is simply a traditional duty so much as a logical one inherent in his title. My point is that I believe it is a very fine matter which of the Chief's duties arise from seniority, and which from his office. I like your third paragraph very much, but I believe your second one ("By unwritten rule...") provides a false sense of clarity -- the origins of the Chief responsibilities are sometimes not so easy to assign to one source. I hope I have made sense. Xoloz 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Who administers it to the incoming CJ? The senior Associate Justice? Postdlf 03:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
During the shuffle of the past few days, I had added some trivia relating to the Chief Justiceship that got deleted; for instance, that Harlan Fiske Stone was the only justice to ever sit in all the chairs (having progressed from most junior to most senior justice and finally being elevated to Chief Justice), and that Roberts and Rehnquist are the only Chief Justices so far to have clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. Then the end of the article was deleted, then some of the trivia restored (shortest and longest appointment, etc), then the trivia removed and the references restored. Should the other trivia be added, or would it make more sense in a separate page, e.g., "Trivia about the United States Supreme Court" or some such? Magidin 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The Chief Justice is Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institute? What are his or her duties? Is this just a figurehead position? I felt that it was innapropriate for the Chancellor link to link to the article on Chancellors, meaning Chancellors for a whole country, so it now links to Chancellor_(education) since this would seem to be more of the sense of the title though not exact. Theshibboleth 01:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, this correction had to do with the VP, but I thought that the previous version made it appear that prior to 1967, some VPs had served as Acting President for lengthier periods of time, when in fact, it was not even possible for a VP to become acting Prez until the 25th Amendment went into effect in 1967. Unschool 17:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I understood it as this way. An impeachment trial of the Vice Presidnet (when not Acting President) is automatically presided over by the Senate President pro tempore. One can't preside over one's own Impeachment Trial. GoodDay ( talk) 21:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There are now 9 justices, but have there always been 9? Tabletop 08:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The current text mentions explicitly that Earl Warren switched votes in order to stay in the majority and affect the decision via the assignment power. I am not sure why Warren is being singled out; according to Woodward and Armstrong's "The Brethren", for instance, Warren Burger used this tactic very often (very notably after the first arguments in Roe v. Wade, when he assigned the decision even though the other justices remembered him as being in the minority). In any case, I think "voting strategically" would be a somewhat better term than "switching votes." Perhaps something along the lines of:
Any comments or better suggestions? Magidin 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
why must all wikipedia articles have a "Popular Culture" section? It is rarely relevant or informativeǃ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.52.155 ( talk) 03:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I missed it when it happened in April because it was the first of a series of changes. But is it really a good idea to have the images in the table of Chief Justices? They make the table unwieldly, making it extend too far vertically. It requires over three screenfulls, and most of the space is blank. For now I will make them smaller, around the size of the portraits in Supreme Court of the United States, but perhaps they should be dropped altogether; even at this size, the table is almost two screenfulls long. The point of a table like this is to be able to take in all the information easily. If the table is too large vertically, I believe it defeats the purpose. Magidin 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Recommend Cushing be removed entirely. See the newly cited portion of his article concerning this. Thanks. Foofighter20x ( talk) 20:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The table said that Rutledge's recess appointment ended on December 15, 1795, but that is incorrect. It is the date the Senate rejected his appointment, but under Article II Section 2 a recess appointment ends at the expiry of the next session, which was June 1, 1796 (see 4th United States Congress#Dates of sessions). His article states that he left office on December 28 (and gives a source), so he must have resigned -- so I have amended the table to December 28. Richard75 ( talk) 19:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
53 people watch this page, and yet nobody noticed that the entire "Origin, title, and appointment to the post" section was deleted for seven weeks (see here and here). Wake up, guys. Richard75 ( talk) 00:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone cite what law or Senate rule that describes the procedure of elevation of an associate justice to chief justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherkobin ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The article mentions the salary without any comment, but it is very interesting that it is quite staggeringly low, not much more than half that of the top judge in the UK, and not much more than new law graduates get in big law firms in New York. There must be some public discussion on this salary. What is the usual justification for it? Who supports it? Who thinks it should be raised to something more in line with what senior American lawyers make? What effect does the low salary have on the quality of the candidates for the office? Choalbaton ( talk) 17:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This article may need to be locked. Someone edited the Style to "Chief Turn Coat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.198.5 ( talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence under "Seniority" has to be revised.
"The Chief Justice is considered to be the justice with most seniority, independent of the number of years of service in the Supreme Court."
I have no Idea how the court works or anything but the sentence is - at best - not clear or - at worst - even factually incorrect. The article on seniority (which is linked to, right in this sentence) clearly describes seniority as something that comes with either age or years of service. That makes the sentence an oxymoron.
Literally interpreted the sentence could mean: "The office of chief justice is always held by the most senior judge." After further reading I know that that is false. But especially since the constitution does not specify anything it could very well be true and would make sense for a reader that is not informed (like me an hour ago).
I assume it is meant to say something like "The Chief justice has the most influence, independent of seniority."
A revision could be "The Chief justice has more influence on the court's decisions than the other judges, because he is normally allowed to speak first."
There is also no citation to clarify any of this.
Why didn't John Jay administer the oath of office at Washington's second inauguration? 101090ABC ( talk) 22:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states that there's only 3 ways a Chief Justice's tenure ends - 1) death, 2) resignation or 3) impeachment/conviction. Chief Justice's do not retire, as there's no mandatory retirement. GoodDay ( talk) 13:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chief Justice of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I reverted a wholesale un-capitalization of titles, which has now been reverted. According to MOS:JOBTITLES, while job titles like "president" and "chief justice" usually go uncapitalized, they should be capitalized in three main instances: when they preface the name of a specific individual; when they refer to a specific and obvious person; and when it is addressed as a title or position in and of itself. For example, "Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre.
Thus, in particular, I believe the following instances should be capitalized:
More open to discussion is the following:
Magidin ( talk) 21:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
(Oh, the MOS changed in the relatively recent past... that explains a lot, including why I'm finding it less easy to understand than before... Magidin ( talk) 17:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC))
In the lede, the title is preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article): The chief justice of the United States. We don't capitalize "The president of the United States". Why would we capitalize "The chief justice of the United States"? Eyer contact 19:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual of Style gives the following examples as correct: "the chief justice; John G. Roberts Jr., chief justice of the United States; Chief Justice Roberts". In other words, "civil titles are capitalized only when used as part of the name". Surtsicna ( talk) 10:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
There are some 9 places in this page where the 'senior associate justice' is also interesting, yet this reverting edit re-added text to one specific place regarding seniority. I don't agree with that. I think it should be removed, or at most moved to a place more likely to be seen for the other uses of the text. -- Izno ( talk) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The edit made by @ Foofighter20x: is obviously contrary to MOS:FIRST, which states, “ Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject”, not to mention at odds with the usage of all other articles about political offices. I’m not reverting due to WP:3RR, but given that this is a chance to a long-standing consensus treatment of the lede sentence, the onus is on Foofighter to explain why the lede ought to be modified in a fashion so clearly contradictory to an MOS guideline. If they are not willing or able to do so, prior consensus stands. Wallnot ( talk) 20:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@ BD2412: I’m sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? Your reference to the lord high treasurer of Ireland is yet another non sequitur. This is getting awfully close to WP:DONTLIKE. I’d appreciate if you’d address the guideline at issue here rather than trying to confuse the issue by introducing faulty analogies and irrelevant comparisons. Can you please just respond to the question I’ve now asked several times: why do you believe that the guideline I’ve cited, which clearly calls for “chief justice” to be lowercase, does not apply here? Wallnot ( talk) 03:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say the chief justice was a person—I used your exact language, "designation of the person".
You seem unable to actually address the guideline—why is the usage of chief justice in the lede sentence of the article different from the usage of president in the example I cited? There is also no person named president of the United States, so by your argument, the example should read, Richard Nixon was the President of the United States
.
You analogize chief justice to proper nouns like Commerce Department—but chief justice is a common noun by the very terms of the guideline, so this is (another) false analogy.
If it were otherwise, the title of the article would be different, since we don't unnecessarily capitalize title terms any more than lede terms.
This is simply false: because JOBTITLES calls for titles to be lowercase when preceded by a modifier but uppercase when not, it requires that the article title uppercase the title while the lede sentence lowercases it. Read the guideline instead of inventing distinctions and trying to muddy the issue.
We seem to be going in circles because you refuse to address the guideline at issue here, including the text and examples I've quoted. Your arguments don't make sense because the distinctions you draw are absent from the MOS guidelines. This reeks of WP:DONTLIKEIT and WP:SSF. Wallnot ( talk) 05:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
dangerously close to personal attacksThere are no personal attacks here. My comments concern the substance of your arguments, which as yet has failed to address any of the references I’ve made to the guideline itself. So I ask again: why is the modifier rule not relevant here?
Your responses are also basically WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT.I’m not sure how my replies are WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT when I’ve addressed your points head on by referring to specific language in both your responses and the guideline itself, as I will do here again.
the office of "Chief Justice of the United States" is not a person.I never said that it was a person, nor does the guideline say that it only applies to a person. Where are you getting that from?
It is not a title.The guideline does not only apply to titles but also to "[o]ffices . . . and positions". When it is preceded by a modifier like “the”, it is an office; when it is unmodified, it is a title, according to the guideline: see above discussion of table of example's division between "[u]nmodified [usages], denoting a title" and "[m]odified or reworded [usages], denoting an office".
It is not a common noun.Yes, it is. The guideline clearly states that "[o]ffices, titles, and positions . . . are common nouns".
It is the name of a thing.Sure, although I’m not sure what work this claim does for your argument, given that all nouns denote a person, place, or thing and that many nouns are lowercase. See generally the definition of a noun.
If it were otherwise, . . . the title of the article would be Chief justice of the United States, not Chief Justice of the United States.I will repeat my explanation of why this is false again. In the title of the article, “Chief Justice of the United States” is not preceded by a modifier such as “the”. As I’ve explained several times, when a title or office is not preceded by a modifier, JOBTITLES requires it to be capitalized, so the title of the article receives initial caps. In the lede sentence of the article chief justice must be preceded by a modifier (“the”) because of MOS:FIRST, so it must be lowercase. So no, the rule as I describe it (which is the plain meaning of the rule, as evinced by the fact that you still haven’t explained why the presence of a determiner here does not require the title/office to be lowercase) would not require the article title to be changed at all.
just as the title is lowercase in List of chief judges of the New York Court of Appeals.This is a false analogy; the job title in the article title of that article is lowercase because it is plural. See bullet three of JOBTITLES, which states that "a formal title for a specific entity" is capitalized only when, inter alia, it "is not plural". If there were such an article as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, the article title should be capitalized the same as the article title of Chief Justice of the United States, even under the guideline as I correctly interpret it.
If you want to start an rfc . . .I have started RFCs on this. But you’ll note that, in those RFCs, the question was whether a particular class of articles should be exempted from the guideline—not whether the guideline requires titles to be lowercase, which all editors, even those opposed to MOS’s general rule against unnecessary capitalization, acknowledged to be the case.
Your interpretation of the rule is plain wrong.: see above.
I’d be happy to address your question: The MOS expressly allows for the subject of the lede sentence to vary from the article title: “When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form”.
In this instance, the MOS requires such a difference in form, because the job title as it appears in the lede sentence is preceded by the modifier “the” and thus is lowercase, while the job title as it appears in the article title lacks such a modifier and therefore is capitalized. Wallnot ( talk) 20:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
As long as the word "The" isn't being used? then the lead opens with Chief Justice of the United States. Otherwise it would be chief justice of the United States. For goodness sake, let's not start pushing these half-cap styles (Prime minister, Chief justice, Vice president, Secretary general, etc) in the office intros. GoodDay ( talk) 21:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted to the previous stable version and also removed the superfluous references from the beginning of the lead sentence because I could not figure out what exactly they were supposed to verify. There is no need for redundancy or bending over backwards to capitalize something that the Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, Oxford Manual of Style, and virtually every other major style guide in the world says should not be capitalized. See the President of the United States article, which does not say: "President of the United States is the title of the president of the United States of America." Surtsicna ( talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I've no objections to 'deleting' the word "The" from the intros of offices and/or positions, if that's what it'll take to have them capitalised. GoodDay ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It has still not been made clear (and perhaps either User:Surtsicna or User:Wallnot can speak to this) why, if the point of the rule is that "justice" is a common noun here, everyone agrees that the title of the article should be "Chief Justice of the United States".
I apologize, I thought I'd addressed this issue a number of times:
because JOBTITLES calls for titles to be lowercase when preceded by a modifier but uppercase when not, it requires that the article title uppercase the title while the lede sentence lowercases it.
In the title of the article, “Chief Justice of the United States” is not preceded by a modifier such as “the”. As I’ve explained several times, when a title or office is not preceded by a modifier, JOBTITLES requires it to be capitalized, so the title of the article receives initial caps.
the job title as it appears in the lede sentence is preceded by the modifier “the” and thus is lowercase, while the job title as it appears in the article title lacks such a modifier and therefore is capitalized.
Perhaps it is still unclear to you. Let's review JOBTITLES.
Offices, titles, and positions . . . are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically . . . . They are capitalized only in the following cases:
. . .
When (a) a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) (b) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, (c) is not plural, (d) is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and (e) is not a reworded description
Let's apply this rule: the title of the article is "Chief Justice of the United States". (a) This is the formal title for a specific entity. (b) It is being addressed as a title or position in and of itself, as opposed to, say, a substitute for John Roberts's name. (c) It is singular. (d) It is not preceded by a modifier, including a definite or indefinite article. (e) It is not a reworded description of the role.
That is why the job title (or whatever term of art you wish to use for it) in the article title is uppercase.
Why is the job title in the lede sentence lowercase? It fails requirement (d).
It is also not clear why Lord High Treasurer of Ireland and Lord High Constable of Sweden and High Steward of Westminster Abbey should be any different.
They shouldn't be—the fact that the job titles in the lede sentences of these articles are uppercase is inconsistent with the JOBTITLES guideline. That said, there's no requirement I'm aware of that these be fixed before addressing the error in the lede sentence of this article. As I wrote above, Many Wikipedia articles fail to conform to MOS guidelines. That does not make those guidelines any less worth applying in specific instances.
Thanks,
Wallnot (
talk)
02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
BD2412, I'm afraid this misunderstanding is the product of an uneasy compromise between those who want Wikipedia's style guide to be based on academic and press style guides and those who want titles capitalized apparently simply because they like it so. The compromise, therefore, is to capitalize titles that are not preceded by modifiers, including the definite article, and thus the title of the article is such as it is. If Wikipedia were to simultaneously follow both academic and press style guides and its own system of using sentence case in article and section titles, the title of this article would indeed be Chief justice of the United States (as in, say, Britannica). Surtsicna ( talk) 09:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Trying to use the US Constitution as an ersatz style guide is so wrongheaded I can't believe anyone's trying it. It was written at the tail of the Early Modern English period, and engages in a wide variety of style shenanigans that English has long since abandoned (like, say, capitalizing random nouns and noun phrases, and doing it inconsistently at that). Here's just the first sentence: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." PS: "Defence" is no longer standard in American English (since
ca. 1928. Should we go rename
United States Department of Defense to match the constitution's spelling?
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
00:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I never have had this phenomenon anywhere. On Android phone Chrome browser, images of the histoeical judges at first seem to download normally but as I scroll down the page, suddenly all of them disappear. It happened many times in a row and no, I am not crazy neither was I intoxocated. 81.197.102.184 ( talk) 03:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The lead section states that the Chief Justices "acts as a chief administrative officer for the federal courts." However, this is directly contradicted by Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which stated in its 2013 annual report that that office's director "is the chief administrative officer for the federal courts." TortillaDePapas ( talk) 23:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
If the chief justice refuses to carry out a task that the justice ordinarily would (e.g. recusal), is in a condition that renders the justice unable to act, or is outright vacant, the understanding is that the most senior associate justice would act in that role.
Are there sources that talk about this in the context of impeachment trial of a president? Analogous to how other impeachments are presided over by either the vice president or the president pro tempore of the Senate. If the vice president won't be chairing over the trial for whatever reason, the president pro tempore fills in the chair role as the substitute.
I bring this up in the context of Trump's second impeachment, of which the trial occurred after he left office. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to participate in this one, and the Senate proceeded with then-president pro tempore Patrick Leahy (with the vice president abstaining as well, just like with the rest of the White House administration deciding to stay out of the matter). Some in the Senate wanted the constitutional clause of the chief justice's role to apply a former president, but the Senate decided that it didn't apply. But some news reporting at the time talked about this as if because the chief justice was absent the role got passed over to the preside pro tempore, which... doesn't sound right? As stated above, if the chief justice is unavailable, it should be the senior associate justice that steps in instead. 2600:1012:A023:670C:1F0:BD8F:F26F:EAAB ( talk) 03:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Chief Justice normally speaks first, and so has great influence in framing the discussion. Is there any evidence or research that addresses this issue? It seems like a very not encyclopedial at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.62.157 ( talk) 16:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this a secret service job, or US Marshall? or is he on his own?
I noticed an edit made a short time ago on Chief Justice of the United States where it was written wrote:
In particular, the phrase "and the Vice-President of the United States" was added. I looked through the U.S. Constitution and Impeachment#United States and neither seemed to explicitly indicate that the Chief Justice would preside over a VP's impeachment proceedings.
From the U.S. Constitution:
I have no particular reason to doubt it is the case however, so I was hoping someone could provide a source. Thanks! -- Jewbacca 23:37, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
From Rule IV of the United States Senate's Impeachment Rules (emphasis added):
Note that this rule only applies to the Vice President when the Vice President is Acting President. Otherwise, if the Vice President is being tried for impeachment while he is not acting as President, precedents would dictate that the President pro tempore would preside.
I haven't found any other acts/rules which would say otherwise, so I will edit accordingly. Pmadrid 05:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also have not been able to find a governing rule; however, I find this result somewhat odd. The reason for having the Chief Justice preside at a Presidential impeachment is to avoid a conflict of interest, since a presiding Vice President would assume office in the event of a conviction. In the same way, the conviction of the Vice President would elevate the President pro tempore in the order of succession and Senatorial precedence. Though this elevation would only be temporary (since the 25th Amdt. allows for appointments in the event of a Vice Presidential vacancy), it would seem a temptation weighing on the impartiality of the President pro tempore. I will continue to research. Xoloz 17:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised when I learned that a Chief Justice is usually nominated directly, versus being elevated from Associate. Is there a reason for that? I would have thought that someone with Supreme Court experience would be prefered. -- 15:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It is news to me also, but apparently there have only been three people out seventeen promoted from Associate Justice to Chief Justice. User:MPA
I'm guessing it is because it is much harder to confirm an Associate, given their detailed history of opinions on Supreme Court cases.
I also agree. I also find it kind of goofy to nominate to the arguably most powerful position in the government of the USA a man who has 3 years of experience as a judge and otherwise only opinions that he wrote and says don't represent him. Can't we find somone more qualified, or would then Bush-approved candidate have to fight too much of a battle? I would like to know these things. -- jns
Some interesting info and insights above, especially about reasons why the Chief usually gets appointed rather than elevated. Perhaps a bit of that explanation could be worked into the article space? i was wondering about it while reading Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine, which incidentally mentions another admin task/power of the CJ worth noting here, at least: controlling the weekly list of cert petitions under consideration, i.e. some say over the docket of cases... In one instance, Rehnquist kept re-listing a hot potato case (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) to keep it unresolved before the 1992 elections, some liberals on the court believed. Justice Stevens had to threaten to write a dissenting opinion about the re-listing, which would be unprecedented. So Rehnquist backed down. El duderino ( talk) 08:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to list John G. Roberts on the table, given that he is still only the nominee for the position? Jdhowens90 19:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
No. I will change and guard it. Xoloz 19:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It appears that some folks want Roberts on this table. My argument in opposition is John Rutledge -- it continues to be disputed by some scholars whether he was really Chief Justice, and he was appointed by Washington in a recess. Given his tenuous status, I find it odd to list Roberts before confirmation, whatever other WP precedent for lesser offices may be. Xoloz 19:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Also note, that there is no WP precedent for Chief Justice, and that office is unique in its own way, a Constitutional Officer who is the statuary head of a Constitutional Branch of Government. I argue that the special position of that office demands restraint in prematurely giving nominees the appearence of official imprimatur. Xoloz 20:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Until sworn in, he does not belong on the lists, just in the notes or text, explaining his status. That is standard procedure with judicial appointments - take a look at how nominations to the Circuit Courts are handled. The Rutledge tenure is recognized by the government and recess appointments are valid, what some scholars say is beside the point. Next you will be telling me that Atchinson was a President ;-) . NoSeptember 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
So, arguing against Roberts inclusion in the table, we have the following:
Given this, I will now restore the table sans Roberts. It will probably be only a month until he is there, but it is accurate, fair, and proper as a matter of respect to the dignity of the high office to keep him off the list until he assumes the office. Xoloz 01:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is accurate to call Rutledge "interim Chief Justice". He was a recess appointment later rejected by the Senate. Certainly a footnote to that effect would be appropriate (say, "Recess appointement, rejected by Senate"). Formally, he was Chief Justice until confirmed or the next session of the Senate ended. Section 2 of Article II reads "The President shall have the Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Rutledge had the commission of Chief Justice. It is certainly an odd case, since his is the only recess appointment to the Supreme Court whih was later rejected; and recess appointments who are later confirmed take the Oath again. But even then, their service is counted from their recess appointment, not their confirmed appointment. Thus, Warren was Chief Justice from 1953 to 1969, even though his nomination was submitted to the Senate in January 1954 and he was confirmed in March 1954, because his recess appointment began in 1953. Magidin 04:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
In the page it says, "Most Chief Justices, like William Howard Taft (a former President himself) and Earl Warren, are nominated to the highest position on the Court without any previous experience on the Court, or indeed in the entire United States Judiciary," which would perhaps imply (depending on how you read it) that Taft had no experience in the entire United States Judiciary, while, according to This article, he was a judge fo the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals before becoming President. Perhaps John Marshall or Earl Warren might be a better example of a relatively well known person with no federal judicial experience prior to becoming Chief Justice. Waterj2 07:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC) waterj2, Sept. 6, 2005
The assignment power of the Chief Justice is not really a "duty", nor is it specified anywhere. Like most internal procedures of the Court, it is an unwritten "rule", and certainly not a constitutional duty. I think it is best to say that, for the purposes of internal procedures of the Court, the Chief Justice is automatically considered to be the justice with most seniority regardless of his/her years of actual service in the Court. This makes the assignment power simply a corollary of seniority (which it is) rather than a specific power of duty of the Chief Justice. It also makes other powers/duties (speaking first in Conference, chairing Conference, and presiding over the Court when it sits) a consequence of seniority. I would suggest the following, breaking it up in several parts:
Would this be acceptable? It seems like a rather major reworking for me to just charge ahead and make it without opening it up for discussion first. Magidin 16:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate very much the corrections you've given here, but I think this might be a case were "splitting hairs" leads to less clarity. The Chief Justice has one clear constitutional duty: to preside in case of Presidential Impeachment before the Senate; and one implied constitutional duty: to preside over the Court. Beyond that, all his duties are statutory (Judicial Conference, annual reports, designations to special tribunals, rule revisions, etc.) traditional (Pres. Inaugural.) It is clear that traditional duties really exist -- Rehnquist limped onto the platform on 20 Jan. for a reason; not appearing would seem improper, a species of dereliction of duty. In the same way, assigning opinions is a traditional duty (though obviously not a constitutional one.) It is also true that opinion assignments are otherwise based on seniority.
I do think that it is an implicit constitutional duty that the Chief preside at meetings, if only because Art. III mentions the Court and its Chief; I do not think that it is simply a traditional duty so much as a logical one inherent in his title. My point is that I believe it is a very fine matter which of the Chief's duties arise from seniority, and which from his office. I like your third paragraph very much, but I believe your second one ("By unwritten rule...") provides a false sense of clarity -- the origins of the Chief responsibilities are sometimes not so easy to assign to one source. I hope I have made sense. Xoloz 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Who administers it to the incoming CJ? The senior Associate Justice? Postdlf 03:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
During the shuffle of the past few days, I had added some trivia relating to the Chief Justiceship that got deleted; for instance, that Harlan Fiske Stone was the only justice to ever sit in all the chairs (having progressed from most junior to most senior justice and finally being elevated to Chief Justice), and that Roberts and Rehnquist are the only Chief Justices so far to have clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. Then the end of the article was deleted, then some of the trivia restored (shortest and longest appointment, etc), then the trivia removed and the references restored. Should the other trivia be added, or would it make more sense in a separate page, e.g., "Trivia about the United States Supreme Court" or some such? Magidin 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The Chief Justice is Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institute? What are his or her duties? Is this just a figurehead position? I felt that it was innapropriate for the Chancellor link to link to the article on Chancellors, meaning Chancellors for a whole country, so it now links to Chancellor_(education) since this would seem to be more of the sense of the title though not exact. Theshibboleth 01:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, this correction had to do with the VP, but I thought that the previous version made it appear that prior to 1967, some VPs had served as Acting President for lengthier periods of time, when in fact, it was not even possible for a VP to become acting Prez until the 25th Amendment went into effect in 1967. Unschool 17:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I understood it as this way. An impeachment trial of the Vice Presidnet (when not Acting President) is automatically presided over by the Senate President pro tempore. One can't preside over one's own Impeachment Trial. GoodDay ( talk) 21:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There are now 9 justices, but have there always been 9? Tabletop 08:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The current text mentions explicitly that Earl Warren switched votes in order to stay in the majority and affect the decision via the assignment power. I am not sure why Warren is being singled out; according to Woodward and Armstrong's "The Brethren", for instance, Warren Burger used this tactic very often (very notably after the first arguments in Roe v. Wade, when he assigned the decision even though the other justices remembered him as being in the minority). In any case, I think "voting strategically" would be a somewhat better term than "switching votes." Perhaps something along the lines of:
Any comments or better suggestions? Magidin 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
why must all wikipedia articles have a "Popular Culture" section? It is rarely relevant or informativeǃ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.52.155 ( talk) 03:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I missed it when it happened in April because it was the first of a series of changes. But is it really a good idea to have the images in the table of Chief Justices? They make the table unwieldly, making it extend too far vertically. It requires over three screenfulls, and most of the space is blank. For now I will make them smaller, around the size of the portraits in Supreme Court of the United States, but perhaps they should be dropped altogether; even at this size, the table is almost two screenfulls long. The point of a table like this is to be able to take in all the information easily. If the table is too large vertically, I believe it defeats the purpose. Magidin 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Recommend Cushing be removed entirely. See the newly cited portion of his article concerning this. Thanks. Foofighter20x ( talk) 20:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The table said that Rutledge's recess appointment ended on December 15, 1795, but that is incorrect. It is the date the Senate rejected his appointment, but under Article II Section 2 a recess appointment ends at the expiry of the next session, which was June 1, 1796 (see 4th United States Congress#Dates of sessions). His article states that he left office on December 28 (and gives a source), so he must have resigned -- so I have amended the table to December 28. Richard75 ( talk) 19:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
53 people watch this page, and yet nobody noticed that the entire "Origin, title, and appointment to the post" section was deleted for seven weeks (see here and here). Wake up, guys. Richard75 ( talk) 00:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone cite what law or Senate rule that describes the procedure of elevation of an associate justice to chief justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherkobin ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The article mentions the salary without any comment, but it is very interesting that it is quite staggeringly low, not much more than half that of the top judge in the UK, and not much more than new law graduates get in big law firms in New York. There must be some public discussion on this salary. What is the usual justification for it? Who supports it? Who thinks it should be raised to something more in line with what senior American lawyers make? What effect does the low salary have on the quality of the candidates for the office? Choalbaton ( talk) 17:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This article may need to be locked. Someone edited the Style to "Chief Turn Coat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.198.5 ( talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence under "Seniority" has to be revised.
"The Chief Justice is considered to be the justice with most seniority, independent of the number of years of service in the Supreme Court."
I have no Idea how the court works or anything but the sentence is - at best - not clear or - at worst - even factually incorrect. The article on seniority (which is linked to, right in this sentence) clearly describes seniority as something that comes with either age or years of service. That makes the sentence an oxymoron.
Literally interpreted the sentence could mean: "The office of chief justice is always held by the most senior judge." After further reading I know that that is false. But especially since the constitution does not specify anything it could very well be true and would make sense for a reader that is not informed (like me an hour ago).
I assume it is meant to say something like "The Chief justice has the most influence, independent of seniority."
A revision could be "The Chief justice has more influence on the court's decisions than the other judges, because he is normally allowed to speak first."
There is also no citation to clarify any of this.
Why didn't John Jay administer the oath of office at Washington's second inauguration? 101090ABC ( talk) 22:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states that there's only 3 ways a Chief Justice's tenure ends - 1) death, 2) resignation or 3) impeachment/conviction. Chief Justice's do not retire, as there's no mandatory retirement. GoodDay ( talk) 13:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chief Justice of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I reverted a wholesale un-capitalization of titles, which has now been reverted. According to MOS:JOBTITLES, while job titles like "president" and "chief justice" usually go uncapitalized, they should be capitalized in three main instances: when they preface the name of a specific individual; when they refer to a specific and obvious person; and when it is addressed as a title or position in and of itself. For example, "Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre.
Thus, in particular, I believe the following instances should be capitalized:
More open to discussion is the following:
Magidin ( talk) 21:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
(Oh, the MOS changed in the relatively recent past... that explains a lot, including why I'm finding it less easy to understand than before... Magidin ( talk) 17:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC))
In the lede, the title is preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article): The chief justice of the United States. We don't capitalize "The president of the United States". Why would we capitalize "The chief justice of the United States"? Eyer contact 19:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual of Style gives the following examples as correct: "the chief justice; John G. Roberts Jr., chief justice of the United States; Chief Justice Roberts". In other words, "civil titles are capitalized only when used as part of the name". Surtsicna ( talk) 10:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
There are some 9 places in this page where the 'senior associate justice' is also interesting, yet this reverting edit re-added text to one specific place regarding seniority. I don't agree with that. I think it should be removed, or at most moved to a place more likely to be seen for the other uses of the text. -- Izno ( talk) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The edit made by @ Foofighter20x: is obviously contrary to MOS:FIRST, which states, “ Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject”, not to mention at odds with the usage of all other articles about political offices. I’m not reverting due to WP:3RR, but given that this is a chance to a long-standing consensus treatment of the lede sentence, the onus is on Foofighter to explain why the lede ought to be modified in a fashion so clearly contradictory to an MOS guideline. If they are not willing or able to do so, prior consensus stands. Wallnot ( talk) 20:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@ BD2412: I’m sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? Your reference to the lord high treasurer of Ireland is yet another non sequitur. This is getting awfully close to WP:DONTLIKE. I’d appreciate if you’d address the guideline at issue here rather than trying to confuse the issue by introducing faulty analogies and irrelevant comparisons. Can you please just respond to the question I’ve now asked several times: why do you believe that the guideline I’ve cited, which clearly calls for “chief justice” to be lowercase, does not apply here? Wallnot ( talk) 03:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say the chief justice was a person—I used your exact language, "designation of the person".
You seem unable to actually address the guideline—why is the usage of chief justice in the lede sentence of the article different from the usage of president in the example I cited? There is also no person named president of the United States, so by your argument, the example should read, Richard Nixon was the President of the United States
.
You analogize chief justice to proper nouns like Commerce Department—but chief justice is a common noun by the very terms of the guideline, so this is (another) false analogy.
If it were otherwise, the title of the article would be different, since we don't unnecessarily capitalize title terms any more than lede terms.
This is simply false: because JOBTITLES calls for titles to be lowercase when preceded by a modifier but uppercase when not, it requires that the article title uppercase the title while the lede sentence lowercases it. Read the guideline instead of inventing distinctions and trying to muddy the issue.
We seem to be going in circles because you refuse to address the guideline at issue here, including the text and examples I've quoted. Your arguments don't make sense because the distinctions you draw are absent from the MOS guidelines. This reeks of WP:DONTLIKEIT and WP:SSF. Wallnot ( talk) 05:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
dangerously close to personal attacksThere are no personal attacks here. My comments concern the substance of your arguments, which as yet has failed to address any of the references I’ve made to the guideline itself. So I ask again: why is the modifier rule not relevant here?
Your responses are also basically WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT.I’m not sure how my replies are WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT when I’ve addressed your points head on by referring to specific language in both your responses and the guideline itself, as I will do here again.
the office of "Chief Justice of the United States" is not a person.I never said that it was a person, nor does the guideline say that it only applies to a person. Where are you getting that from?
It is not a title.The guideline does not only apply to titles but also to "[o]ffices . . . and positions". When it is preceded by a modifier like “the”, it is an office; when it is unmodified, it is a title, according to the guideline: see above discussion of table of example's division between "[u]nmodified [usages], denoting a title" and "[m]odified or reworded [usages], denoting an office".
It is not a common noun.Yes, it is. The guideline clearly states that "[o]ffices, titles, and positions . . . are common nouns".
It is the name of a thing.Sure, although I’m not sure what work this claim does for your argument, given that all nouns denote a person, place, or thing and that many nouns are lowercase. See generally the definition of a noun.
If it were otherwise, . . . the title of the article would be Chief justice of the United States, not Chief Justice of the United States.I will repeat my explanation of why this is false again. In the title of the article, “Chief Justice of the United States” is not preceded by a modifier such as “the”. As I’ve explained several times, when a title or office is not preceded by a modifier, JOBTITLES requires it to be capitalized, so the title of the article receives initial caps. In the lede sentence of the article chief justice must be preceded by a modifier (“the”) because of MOS:FIRST, so it must be lowercase. So no, the rule as I describe it (which is the plain meaning of the rule, as evinced by the fact that you still haven’t explained why the presence of a determiner here does not require the title/office to be lowercase) would not require the article title to be changed at all.
just as the title is lowercase in List of chief judges of the New York Court of Appeals.This is a false analogy; the job title in the article title of that article is lowercase because it is plural. See bullet three of JOBTITLES, which states that "a formal title for a specific entity" is capitalized only when, inter alia, it "is not plural". If there were such an article as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, the article title should be capitalized the same as the article title of Chief Justice of the United States, even under the guideline as I correctly interpret it.
If you want to start an rfc . . .I have started RFCs on this. But you’ll note that, in those RFCs, the question was whether a particular class of articles should be exempted from the guideline—not whether the guideline requires titles to be lowercase, which all editors, even those opposed to MOS’s general rule against unnecessary capitalization, acknowledged to be the case.
Your interpretation of the rule is plain wrong.: see above.
I’d be happy to address your question: The MOS expressly allows for the subject of the lede sentence to vary from the article title: “When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form”.
In this instance, the MOS requires such a difference in form, because the job title as it appears in the lede sentence is preceded by the modifier “the” and thus is lowercase, while the job title as it appears in the article title lacks such a modifier and therefore is capitalized. Wallnot ( talk) 20:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
As long as the word "The" isn't being used? then the lead opens with Chief Justice of the United States. Otherwise it would be chief justice of the United States. For goodness sake, let's not start pushing these half-cap styles (Prime minister, Chief justice, Vice president, Secretary general, etc) in the office intros. GoodDay ( talk) 21:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted to the previous stable version and also removed the superfluous references from the beginning of the lead sentence because I could not figure out what exactly they were supposed to verify. There is no need for redundancy or bending over backwards to capitalize something that the Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, Oxford Manual of Style, and virtually every other major style guide in the world says should not be capitalized. See the President of the United States article, which does not say: "President of the United States is the title of the president of the United States of America." Surtsicna ( talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I've no objections to 'deleting' the word "The" from the intros of offices and/or positions, if that's what it'll take to have them capitalised. GoodDay ( talk) 01:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It has still not been made clear (and perhaps either User:Surtsicna or User:Wallnot can speak to this) why, if the point of the rule is that "justice" is a common noun here, everyone agrees that the title of the article should be "Chief Justice of the United States".
I apologize, I thought I'd addressed this issue a number of times:
because JOBTITLES calls for titles to be lowercase when preceded by a modifier but uppercase when not, it requires that the article title uppercase the title while the lede sentence lowercases it.
In the title of the article, “Chief Justice of the United States” is not preceded by a modifier such as “the”. As I’ve explained several times, when a title or office is not preceded by a modifier, JOBTITLES requires it to be capitalized, so the title of the article receives initial caps.
the job title as it appears in the lede sentence is preceded by the modifier “the” and thus is lowercase, while the job title as it appears in the article title lacks such a modifier and therefore is capitalized.
Perhaps it is still unclear to you. Let's review JOBTITLES.
Offices, titles, and positions . . . are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically . . . . They are capitalized only in the following cases:
. . .
When (a) a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) (b) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, (c) is not plural, (d) is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and (e) is not a reworded description
Let's apply this rule: the title of the article is "Chief Justice of the United States". (a) This is the formal title for a specific entity. (b) It is being addressed as a title or position in and of itself, as opposed to, say, a substitute for John Roberts's name. (c) It is singular. (d) It is not preceded by a modifier, including a definite or indefinite article. (e) It is not a reworded description of the role.
That is why the job title (or whatever term of art you wish to use for it) in the article title is uppercase.
Why is the job title in the lede sentence lowercase? It fails requirement (d).
It is also not clear why Lord High Treasurer of Ireland and Lord High Constable of Sweden and High Steward of Westminster Abbey should be any different.
They shouldn't be—the fact that the job titles in the lede sentences of these articles are uppercase is inconsistent with the JOBTITLES guideline. That said, there's no requirement I'm aware of that these be fixed before addressing the error in the lede sentence of this article. As I wrote above, Many Wikipedia articles fail to conform to MOS guidelines. That does not make those guidelines any less worth applying in specific instances.
Thanks,
Wallnot (
talk)
02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
BD2412, I'm afraid this misunderstanding is the product of an uneasy compromise between those who want Wikipedia's style guide to be based on academic and press style guides and those who want titles capitalized apparently simply because they like it so. The compromise, therefore, is to capitalize titles that are not preceded by modifiers, including the definite article, and thus the title of the article is such as it is. If Wikipedia were to simultaneously follow both academic and press style guides and its own system of using sentence case in article and section titles, the title of this article would indeed be Chief justice of the United States (as in, say, Britannica). Surtsicna ( talk) 09:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Trying to use the US Constitution as an ersatz style guide is so wrongheaded I can't believe anyone's trying it. It was written at the tail of the Early Modern English period, and engages in a wide variety of style shenanigans that English has long since abandoned (like, say, capitalizing random nouns and noun phrases, and doing it inconsistently at that). Here's just the first sentence: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." PS: "Defence" is no longer standard in American English (since
ca. 1928. Should we go rename
United States Department of Defense to match the constitution's spelling?
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
00:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I never have had this phenomenon anywhere. On Android phone Chrome browser, images of the histoeical judges at first seem to download normally but as I scroll down the page, suddenly all of them disappear. It happened many times in a row and no, I am not crazy neither was I intoxocated. 81.197.102.184 ( talk) 03:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The lead section states that the Chief Justices "acts as a chief administrative officer for the federal courts." However, this is directly contradicted by Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which stated in its 2013 annual report that that office's director "is the chief administrative officer for the federal courts." TortillaDePapas ( talk) 23:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
If the chief justice refuses to carry out a task that the justice ordinarily would (e.g. recusal), is in a condition that renders the justice unable to act, or is outright vacant, the understanding is that the most senior associate justice would act in that role.
Are there sources that talk about this in the context of impeachment trial of a president? Analogous to how other impeachments are presided over by either the vice president or the president pro tempore of the Senate. If the vice president won't be chairing over the trial for whatever reason, the president pro tempore fills in the chair role as the substitute.
I bring this up in the context of Trump's second impeachment, of which the trial occurred after he left office. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to participate in this one, and the Senate proceeded with then-president pro tempore Patrick Leahy (with the vice president abstaining as well, just like with the rest of the White House administration deciding to stay out of the matter). Some in the Senate wanted the constitutional clause of the chief justice's role to apply a former president, but the Senate decided that it didn't apply. But some news reporting at the time talked about this as if because the chief justice was absent the role got passed over to the preside pro tempore, which... doesn't sound right? As stated above, if the chief justice is unavailable, it should be the senior associate justice that steps in instead. 2600:1012:A023:670C:1F0:BD8F:F26F:EAAB ( talk) 03:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)