Talk:Chief Justice of the United States

Judge images disappear suddenly

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)

"acts as a chief administrative officer for the federal courts" ??

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)

Impeachment of president: what if the Chief Justice abstains/is unavailable?

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)

I don't know what "news reporting at the time" you are refering to; what I recall was that it was always framed as Roberts declining on the grounds that Trump was no longer the President, and therefore the constitutional mandate that he preside over impeachments of the President was not applicable. So then the process is that of a "normal" impeachment trial by the Senate. The Constitution gives the Senate "sole power" to conduct impeachment powers. In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 244 (1990) (this is not the case about President Richard Nixon; this is a case about the impeachment of the Chief Judge for the District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter Nixon), the Supreme Court essentially said that the Senate may conduct impeachment trials in whatever way it wants provided it satisfies due process. The Senate rules for conducting impeachment specify that if the trial involves President, or a Vice President 'upon whom the powers and duties of the Office of the President shall have devolved", the Chief Justice "shall preside" (emphasis added), and talks about "a case requiring the Chief Justice to preside" (emphasis added), so it does not appear that the Senate contemplates a case in which the Chief Justice is unavailable. Otherwise, it simply speaks of the "Presiding Officer" of the Senate, which presumably will be any Senator that can serve as Presiding Officer pursuant to the rules of the Senate. In summary, there does not appear to be any provision allowing the most senior Associate Justice to take the place of the Chief Justice in presiding over an impeachment of a President or Vice President acting as President; which is not terribly surprising: there was no provision for the Vice President not presiding over their own impeachment either. (And my understanding was that the Senate changed its rules to ask the Chief Justice to preside in that case, but the rules as I read them now do not seem to contemplate that, and only do so in the case where the VP is the acting president, presumably pursuant to the 25th Amendment.) Magidin (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

28 U.S.C. § 3 states, Whenever the Chief Justice is unable to perform the duties of his office or the office is vacant, his powers and duties shall devolve upon the associate justice next in precedence who is able to act, until such disability is removed or another Chief Justice is appointed and duly qualified. Given that presiding over a presidential impeachment trial is, in a way, the most preeminent of the chief justice's "powers and duties" (as it's stated in the constitution itself as the only time the position is mentioned), one may legitimately wonder if this code would indeed apply to the impeachment trial.

The Senate rule requiring the chief justice seems to be a requirement more for the Senate itself (affirming the constitutional clause), so that the Senate cannot continue with the trial bypassing a chief justice who is willing and able. But that doesn't seem to preclude the possibility that the chief justice isn't willing or able and therefore the task needs to be passed down to the next justice in seniority. 2600:1012:A023:4FDC:4416:AB68:9952:4740 (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It does not preclude, but does not require. Like I said, it would appear to be a gap that would need to be resolved should the situation present itself. If your argument is that, due to your understanding of federal law by piecing together several explicit provisions, something will happen, then I would invite you to write it up and submit it to a law review; however, Wikipedia is not the place for original research, and as such we cannot add such a conclusion to the page. If, on the other hand, your entire purpose has been to engage in discussion, then be aware that this is not what the talk pages are for. Magidin (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)