I went to Google® to put substance behind some of the comments I’d heard about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. While I didn’t research his background (That will come.), what I did do was research some interesting facts about the Supreme Court; and, in doing so, I understood better what impact Roberts might have.
The comment was made that, at age fifty, Roberts could expect to serve on the high court for thirty-five years. At first, I found that farfetched; but it isn’t necessarily so. Justice Sandra Day O’Conner was fifty-one when she joined the group; she is now seventy-five. Had her health held, she could have continued indefinitely. Chief Justice Rehnquist, for example, has served thirty-three years so far.
The longest serving justice was William O. Douglas who served over thirty-six years. For the record, John Rutledge (same initials as the current nominee) had the briefest Court tenure. He was appointed Chief Justice and served for four months, at which point the Senate rejected his nomination.
I also learned from Google® that the Chief Justice’s salary was $4,000 in 1789, while associate justices made $3,500. But those were the days when serving one’s country was felt to be an honorable and not necessarily a profitable thing to do. By 1997, however, the Chief Justice’s salary was $171,500, and associate justices received $164,100.
So here are some questions for which I’m still searching my own answers. 1. Do I want someone on the court for a possible thirty-five years? Few elected officials serve that long; and the president himself (or herself, in the future) can only serve ten years at most. Supreme Court justices have the best tenured positions in the country. 2. Do I think $164,100 guaranteed for the rest of one’s life is fair? 3. Why did President Bush choose the person he did, above the standard rhetoric that he was the “best qualified.” 4. What do I personally think of the nominee?
For the answer to that last question in particular, I’ll have to dig deeper.
Leave a Reply