If the Chief Justice Was Elected Each Year?

[Skill and Chance]

On many state supreme courts, the justices vote on who will be CJ.  How would it play out if SCOTUS  operated that way?  One possibility is they agree to rotate it every so often starting with the longest serving justice, but that is kind of boring.  How would it work if the elections were ideological?

1993-2005: Either O'Connor or Kennedy is the median justice, and I think with RBG joining the court, she would easily be able to rally 5 votes to make O'Connor the 1st female CJ.   

2005-2018: Obviously Kennedy

2018-20: Obviously Roberts, but this time he only gets it for 2 years

2021-present: Thomas would surely challenge Roberts, but can he get every other conservative vote?  The 3 liberals would of course like to keep Roberts.  Before Dobbs, I would have said Kavanaugh would be deferential enough to keep Roberts as CJ with the understanding that he will take over after a couple years of "training."  I doubt this now, and would it even apply in a world where Roberts had only been CJ for 2 years?  I'm also not sure Kavanaugh's vote would actually be decisive for this?  Would all 3 liberals be willing to back him given the nature of his confirmation hearing?  Barrett would be "next in line" ideologically, but she's also brand new.  The 3 liberals and Roberts or Barrett could also make a deal with Gorsuch to block Thomas.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Since Chief Justice is a mostly ceremonial position, it wouldn't necessarily fall along ideological lines. However I could see the liberals being so disgusted with Thomas in general they'd deny it to him. Kennedy thus might've been Chief Justice prior to his retirement but not necessarily since 2005. Roberts probably would have it now, I don't think any of the other conservatives actively dislike him.

[Skill and Chance]

Since Chief Justice is a mostly ceremonial position, it wouldn't necessarily fall along ideological lines. However I could see the liberals being so disgusted with Thomas in general they'd deny it to him. Kennedy thus might've been Chief Justice prior to his retirement but not necessarily since 2005. Roberts probably would have it now, I don't think any of the other conservatives actively dislike him.

Now that I think about it, Kavanaugh and Barrett voting with the liberals to just keep Roberts as CJ is probably the most likely outcome. But like I said, there would be an expectation that it's "training" and that Roberts would back one of them in a couple of years.  Also, if he knows he can't keep it, Roberts is a huge institutionalist and would probably just be the 6th vote to give it to Thomas on seniority vs. shenanigans with the liberals and a Trump appointee.

[NewYorkExpress]

I think if the Chief Justice was elected by their colleagues I could see a deal where the non Alito/Thomas (and maybe even Alito) members of the conservative wing agree to name a member of the liberal wing Chief Justice, as the Chief's position is largely powerless when in the minority. My guess is that justice would be Kagan, and probably would have been Ginsburg prior to her death.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Since the chief is more of a 1st among equal sort of things I can see it operating more as a seniority thing historically rather than median justice. But certain justices could be passed over for a variety of reasons (ideological, age, ability to get along with the others)

Possible Modern Timeline of Chief Justice:

Assumes Rehnquest enters the 1990s as chief.

Soon after Ginsburg enters she tries to get O'Connor to be first woman Chief Justice. I don't think O'Connor accepts until later.

I think he holds it through the 90s

2001 there could be a push to name a liberal  after Bush v. Gore (Ginsberg?)

Assuming they don't do that I assume Rehnquest either holds on till the end or steps down from the Chief role due to health in the early 2000s and is replaced by O'Connor

O'Connor holds chief position in 2005 after Rehnquest's death regardless 8-0 or 7-1.

In 2006 I think Scalia beats Ginsberg 5-4. Stevens is seen as too old. Roberts and Alito are too new.

I don't think Kennedy goes for it yet, despite being the swing vote.

Scalia holds it through his death in 2016. Everyone seems to have liked him on the court and his death was sudden. Might even get reelected by acclamation some years.

Facing a prolonged period at 8 seats the Court quickly votes Kennedy. As he is both the most senior and swing justice.

Kennedy holds it until he leaves in 2018.

The 2018 election is very interesting and could go a number of different ways. In OTL Kennedy retired July 31, 2018 rather than on confirmation of a successor meaning that Kavanaugh could not vote. Would he change his retirement to confirmation of a successor? Otherwise we only have 8 votes.

Thomas would be a candidate. As both most senior just and most senior of the dominate. He would also the first African American Chief Justice. But the optics would be terrible given the ongoing Kavanaugh stuff. Trump also might openly endorse him for the role, which would piss off Roberts. I don't think he gets it.

Roberts votes with the liberals or spoils gives vote making no one have a majority. Leading to a whole host of options. Chief Justice Alito if he votes with the Conservatives after blocking Thomas and they agree to a different candidate. Or possibly Kagan, Breyer or Ginsberg if he backs the Liberals. We even might get Chief Justice Roberts 13 years later than OTL.      


    

[NewYorkExpress]

Since the chief is more of a 1st among equal sort of things I can see it operating more as a seniority thing historically rather than median justice. But certain justices could be passed over for a variety of reasons (ideological, age, ability to get along with the others)

As I think it would have gone for recent times

Assumes Rehnquest enters the 1990s as chief.

Soon after Ginsburg enters she tries to get O'Connor to be first woman SC. I don't think O'Connor accepts until later.

I think he holds it through the 90s

2001 there could be a push to name a liberal  after Bush v. Gore (Ginsberg?)

Assuming they don't do that I assume Rehnquest either holds on till the end or steps down from the Chief role due to health and is replaced by O'Connor

O'Connor holds chief position in 2005 after Rehnquest's death regardless 8-0 or 7-1.

In 2006 I think Scalia beats Ginsberg 5-4. Stevens is seen as too old. Roberts and Alito are too new.

I don't think Kennedy goes for it yet, despite being the swing vote.

Scalia holds it through his death in 2016. Everyone seems to have liked him on the court and his death was sudden. Might even get reelected by acclamation some years

Facing a prolonged period at 8 seats the Court quickly votes Kennedy. As he is both the most senior and swing justice.

Kennedy holds it until he leaves in 2018.

The 2018 election is very interesting and could go a number of different ways. In OTL Kennedy retired July 31, 2018 rather than on confirmation of a successor meaning that Kavanaugh could not vote. Would he change his retirement to confirmation of a successor? Otherwise we only have 8 votes.

Thomas would be a candidate. As both most senior just and most senior of the dominate. He would also the first African American Chief Justice. But the optics would be terrible given the ongoing Kavanaugh stuff. Trump also might openly endorse him for the role, which would piss off Roberts. I don't think he gets it.

Roberts votes with the liberals or spoils gives vote making no one have a majority. Leading to a whole host of options. Chief Justice Alito if he votes with the Conservatives after blocking Thomas and they agree to a different candidate. Or possibly Kagan, Breyer or Ginsberg if he backs the Liberals. We even might get Chief Justice Roberts 13 years later than OTL.     


   

I think if there was a push to change Chief Justices in this scenario after Bush v. Gore, it would probably be Breyer, (or possibly Kennedy, who already was essentially a swing vote), not Ginsberg.

[Skill and Chance]

Since the chief is more of a 1st among equal sort of things I can see it operating more as a seniority thing historically rather than median justice. But certain justices could be passed over for a variety of reasons (ideological, age, ability to get along with the others)

As I think it would have gone for recent times

Assumes Rehnquest enters the 1990s as chief.

Soon after Ginsburg enters she tries to get O'Connor to be first woman SC. I don't think O'Connor accepts until later.

I think he holds it through the 90s

2001 there could be a push to name a liberal  after Bush v. Gore (Ginsberg?)

Assuming they don't do that I assume Rehnquest either holds on till the end or steps down from the Chief role due to health and is replaced by O'Connor

O'Connor holds chief position in 2005 after Rehnquest's death regardless 8-0 or 7-1.

In 2006 I think Scalia beats Ginsberg 5-4. Stevens is seen as too old. Roberts and Alito are too new.

I don't think Kennedy goes for it yet, despite being the swing vote.

Scalia holds it through his death in 2016. Everyone seems to have liked him on the court and his death was sudden. Might even get reelected by acclamation some years

Facing a prolonged period at 8 seats the Court quickly votes Kennedy. As he is both the most senior and swing justice.

Kennedy holds it until he leaves in 2018.

The 2018 election is very interesting and could go a number of different ways. In OTL Kennedy retired July 31, 2018 rather than on confirmation of a successor meaning that Kavanaugh could not vote. Would he change his retirement to confirmation of a successor? Otherwise we only have 8 votes.

Thomas would be a candidate. As both most senior just and most senior of the dominate. He would also the first African American Chief Justice. But the optics would be terrible given the ongoing Kavanaugh stuff. Trump also might openly endorse him for the role, which would piss off Roberts. I don't think he gets it.

Roberts votes with the liberals or spoils gives vote making no one have a majority. Leading to a whole host of options. Chief Justice Alito if he votes with the Conservatives after blocking Thomas and they agree to a different candidate. Or possibly Kagan, Breyer or Ginsberg if he backs the Liberals. We even might get Chief Justice Roberts 13 years later than OTL.     


   

I think if there was a push to change Chief Justices in this scenario after Bush v. Gore, it would probably be Breyer, (or possibly Kennedy, who already was essentially a swing vote), not Ginsberg.

Assuming even a modest ideological component, the only way Ginsburg ever gets it is if Clinton wins in 2016 and Garland is confirmed in December.  Then she would be under extreme pressure to retire by summer 2018, or even 2017 if the VA special election is decisive for Senate control.  In Clinton wins with a Dem Senate world, Breyer is obviously the next in line for it, but I'm more confident he retires in 2017-18 than Ginsburg, so he may not be there to claim it.  If the left convinces both to retire while they can appoint liberals, it would be a left wing version of Thomas vs. Roberts with at least some of the conservatives backing Kagan to block Sotomayor even though she's less senior.  I don't think Kennedy retires until there's a Republican president.

[David Hume]

Since the chief is more of a 1st among equal sort of things I can see it operating more as a seniority thing historically rather than median justice. But certain justices could be passed over for a variety of reasons (ideological, age, ability to get along with the others)

Possible Modern Timeline of Chief Justice:

Assumes Rehnquest enters the 1990s as chief.

Soon after Ginsburg enters she tries to get O'Connor to be first woman Chief Justice. I don't think O'Connor accepts until later.

I think he holds it through the 90s

2001 there could be a push to name a liberal  after Bush v. Gore (Ginsberg?)

Assuming they don't do that I assume Rehnquest either holds on till the end or steps down from the Chief role due to health in the early 2000s and is replaced by O'Connor

O'Connor holds chief position in 2005 after Rehnquest's death regardless 8-0 or 7-1.

In 2006 I think Scalia beats Ginsberg 5-4. Stevens is seen as too old. Roberts and Alito are too new.

I don't think Kennedy goes for it yet, despite being the swing vote.

Scalia holds it through his death in 2016. Everyone seems to have liked him on the court and his death was sudden. Might even get reelected by acclamation some years.

Facing a prolonged period at 8 seats the Court quickly votes Kennedy. As he is both the most senior and swing justice.

Kennedy holds it until he leaves in 2018.

The 2018 election is very interesting and could go a number of different ways. In OTL Kennedy retired July 31, 2018 rather than on confirmation of a successor meaning that Kavanaugh could not vote. Would he change his retirement to confirmation of a successor? Otherwise we only have 8 votes.

Thomas would be a candidate. As both most senior just and most senior of the dominate. He would also the first African American Chief Justice. But the optics would be terrible given the ongoing Kavanaugh stuff. Trump also might openly endorse him for the role, which would piss off Roberts. I don't think he gets it.

Roberts votes with the liberals or spoils gives vote making no one have a majority. Leading to a whole host of options. Chief Justice Alito if he votes with the Conservatives after blocking Thomas and they agree to a different candidate. Or possibly Kagan, Breyer or Ginsberg if he backs the Liberals. We even might get Chief Justice Roberts 13 years later than OTL.      


    

Rehnquist was widely respected, even by the liberals. I think he would keep it for his life. O'Connor was a good friend with him since their twenties, and it's highly unlikely that she wanted to compete with him for chief. Also Ginsberg as the new comer couping against a well-liked chief is unthinkable.

After Rehnquist died in 2005, Scalia would get the job if he wanted, since Ginsburg was a good friend of her. Stevens was almost ninety and way too old. Souter hated the job and wanted to retire ASAP. Kennedy may want the job, since he is grandiose and would greatly enjoy the prestige and attention. Thomas would almost certainly not want it, as he made it clear in 2005.

Since Roberts was not CJ, he might care less about the reputation of the court and won't switch his vote to keep the Obama care in 2012. After Scalia died in 2016, it would likely went to Kennedy, who was the most senior and the median justice. After he retired in 2018, it would be between Roberts and Alito. Alito is the most reliable conservative vote (Thomas writes radical concurrences but does not vote as consistent as him), so Republicans likely openly rally for him. But Roberts would get the votes of the liberals.

Honestly, if CJ is elected, they might well develop the tradition to elect the most senior justice. Hence White would keep it till 1993. Blackmun might decline since he was very old and would retire in a year. Rehnquist kept it till 2005. Then Stevens may or may not decline due to age. Scalia till 2016. Kennedy till 2018. Then we would be in Thomas Court.

[Skill and Chance]

Since the chief is more of a 1st among equal sort of things I can see it operating more as a seniority thing historically rather than median justice. But certain justices could be passed over for a variety of reasons (ideological, age, ability to get along with the others)

Possible Modern Timeline of Chief Justice:

Assumes Rehnquest enters the 1990s as chief.

Soon after Ginsburg enters she tries to get O'Connor to be first woman Chief Justice. I don't think O'Connor accepts until later.

I think he holds it through the 90s

2001 there could be a push to name a liberal  after Bush v. Gore (Ginsberg?)

Assuming they don't do that I assume Rehnquest either holds on till the end or steps down from the Chief role due to health in the early 2000s and is replaced by O'Connor

O'Connor holds chief position in 2005 after Rehnquest's death regardless 8-0 or 7-1.

In 2006 I think Scalia beats Ginsberg 5-4. Stevens is seen as too old. Roberts and Alito are too new.

I don't think Kennedy goes for it yet, despite being the swing vote.

Scalia holds it through his death in 2016. Everyone seems to have liked him on the court and his death was sudden. Might even get reelected by acclamation some years.

Facing a prolonged period at 8 seats the Court quickly votes Kennedy. As he is both the most senior and swing justice.

Kennedy holds it until he leaves in 2018.

The 2018 election is very interesting and could go a number of different ways. In OTL Kennedy retired July 31, 2018 rather than on confirmation of a successor meaning that Kavanaugh could not vote. Would he change his retirement to confirmation of a successor? Otherwise we only have 8 votes.

Thomas would be a candidate. As both most senior just and most senior of the dominate. He would also the first African American Chief Justice. But the optics would be terrible given the ongoing Kavanaugh stuff. Trump also might openly endorse him for the role, which would piss off Roberts. I don't think he gets it.

Roberts votes with the liberals or spoils gives vote making no one have a majority. Leading to a whole host of options. Chief Justice Alito if he votes with the Conservatives after blocking Thomas and they agree to a different candidate. Or possibly Kagan, Breyer or Ginsberg if he backs the Liberals. We even might get Chief Justice Roberts 13 years later than OTL.      


    

Rehnquist was widely respected, even by the liberals. I think he would keep it for his life. O'Connor was a good friend with him since their twenties, and it's highly unlikely that she wanted to compete with him for chief. Also Ginsberg as the new comer couping against a well-liked chief is unthinkable.

After Rehnquist died in 2005, Scalia would get the job if he wanted, since Ginsburg was a good friend of her. Stevens was almost ninety and way too old. Souter hated the job and wanted to retire ASAP. Kennedy may want the job, since he is grandiose and would greatly enjoy the prestige and attention. Thomas would almost certainly not want it, as he made it clear in 2005.

Since Roberts was not CJ, he might care less about the reputation of the court and won't switch his vote to keep the Obama care in 2012. After Scalia died in 2016, it would likely went to Kennedy, who was the most senior and the median justice. After he retired in 2018, it would be between Roberts and Alito. Alito is the most reliable conservative vote (Thomas writes radical concurrences but does not vote as consistent as him), so Republicans likely openly rally for him. But Roberts would get the votes of the liberals.

Honestly, if CJ is elected, they might well develop the tradition to elect the most senior justice. Hence White would keep it till 1993. Blackmun might decline since he was very old and would retire in a year. Rehnquist kept it till 2005. Then Stevens may or may not decline due to age. Scalia till 2016. Kennedy till 2018. Then we would be in Thomas Court.

This is a good point.  O'Connor and Rhenquist were quite close and wouldn't turn on each other.  They dated seriously in their youth and we now know that Rhenquist even proposed to O'Connor.  However, I don't think Rhenquist would ever get to be CJ in this scenario. Assuming an ideological component, it would almost surely have been White, who would be retiring and be replaced by Ginsburg, opening it  up.  White was the median justice almost continuously from 1970 to 1990, so he could have been CJ for quite a while.  Black likely had it for a few years before White.