Talk:List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

Correcting the count

Charles Evans Hughes should be listed as 62nd Supreme court justice as he is now and as the 74th Supreme court justice because he served at 2 different points in time and was appointed by 2 different presidents AmYisroelChai (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The count is correct. Hughes was the 62nd justice, first from 10/10/1910 to 6/10/1916, and again from 2/24/1930 to 6/30/1941. The commonly used numbering pattern is SCOTUS justices are numbered only once, this includes those who served first as associate justice and then, after a period of years off the Court, as chief justice, as well as those elevated from associate justice to chief justice while serving on the Supreme Court. Drdpw (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

More clarification of multi-term justices

A reader noted the two entries for John Rutledge and initially thought it was an error. They now understand that the two entries refer to two separate terms (which also applies to some other justices). Would it help reduce confusion if the name in the left column was followed by a parenthetical e.g. (first-term), (second term)?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hidden anticipatory edits

I do not think it is either wise or appropriate to added commented-out materials to articles in advance of plausible future events, as @MinnesotanUser did in this revision (Add HIDDEN language in anticipation of Kav's possible confirmation, plus a fairly stern warning explaining things.). I'd say such things belong in a sandbox page, either in userspace or perhaps (?) mainspace. Is there any concensus on this point? I would be inclined to revert the entry. Thoughts? Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings Jhawkinson,

If I remember correctly, Wikipedia policy and manuals of style allow for such usages, and they seemed to me to be appropriate in this case. I will endeavor to point to the guideline immediately.MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@MinnesotanUser: I imagine you're refering to WP:HIDDEN: "Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future (such as when a known event will occur). Larger amounts of information should be prepared on a subpage of the article's talk page or in user space.". I don't disagree that it's permitted by the MOS, but I don't think it is a good idea, given the current degree of controversy. Also, looking at the content of your suggested edit, you write:

Do not un-hide this row just because kavanaugh has been confirmed by the senate (if that happens). By law, a person is not a supreme court justice until they take their oaths of office.

That doesn't seem right. Sure, Kavanaugh wouldn't be a justice, technically, but it would still be appropriate to have something on the page and to explain the interim situation. Further, your edit only covers one of the two places where he would appear (both "Current justices of the Supreme Court" and "All justices of the Supreme Court"). jhawkinson (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes and bingo, that's exactly the guideline I had in mind, you beat me to it! With regard to your latter points, my "stern warning" is intended to dissuade editors from making factual errors, precisely because what is at issue is a controversial current event where it is likely for disruptive edits to be made which might harm the encyclopedia. That's all. This is actually part of the value of hidden comments in Wikipedia articles. You are correct that the article could be reworked in the very-short-term on such-and-such circumstances, but these terms are likely to be so short for this particular article (a mere list article, someone either is or isn't a justice) as to be irrelevant here, in my view. To your final point, I (had) also intend(ed) to make a parallel edit at Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in the immediate future, and I may proceed.

I also want to keep perspective. We've been debating a short-term hidden edit intended as a future help, and which we've spent some time thinking and arguing and writing about. In other words, the thing under discussion is also a figment which will only last a matter of hours. None of this is worth sweating. We here are nowhere near the controversial character of the nomination and its salacious details. The only thing that actually matters on this article is: is he a Justice, or not? That was the motivation for my edit.MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Per the above discussion and as I said I might do, I've made a very similar edit at Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.MinnesotanUser (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have semi-protected the page with an expiration time of one month due to repeat vandalism from multiple IPs. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Appointment v Nomination

In re: Revision as of 13:16, October 4, 2018 Drdpw (Reverted good faith edits by Mink Butler Davenport) : "appointed by" is correct. (TW)) Tag: Undo

Appointment v Nomination – As exemplified by United States Military Academy (West Point), the U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Naval Academy, a nomination is required to obtain admittance, but in no way guarantees acceptance (admittance). Annually, over 4000 candidates are nominated to the academies, but only about 1500 are accepted/admitted/appointed/chosen. In NO WAY does a nomination guarantee an appointment.

Very nearly 1,200 Executive level jobs in the United States government may be filled only by individuals whom are appointed by the President, then approved by a simple majority vote of the Senate.

Similarly, Federal Judicial nominees are exactly that – nominees. They must undergo scrutinizing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, pass the Committee’s approving vote, before being brought to a vote before the full U.S. Senate. Those are TWO stages where approval is required: After initial nomination, the nominee goes before the 1.) Senate Judiciary Committee, and then, if approved, the nominee goes to the 2.) full Senate for a vote. Those are BOTH required before CONFIRMATION occurs.

The principle difference with Appointment, is fairly straightforward – one is named to (placed in) the position. No confirmation required.

The “advice and consent” clause of the Constitution gives the Congress (in the Senate), the final say-so in the matter, to either accept, or reject, the nominee in two stages – the Committee first, and the full Senate second/last.

While the term “appointment” may be sometimes used when referring to Supreme Court candidates, it is more properly, and accurately, a nomination, which initiates a process.

See: [uscourts.gov]

See also: I. The Safeguards of the Appointments Clause The Appointments Clause provides: [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

-and-

“The word "appoint" was adopted and over the course of the Convention changed into phrasing that suggests something of an obligation on Congress to establish inferior federal courts.” In: Article III, Judicial Department [gpo.gov]

See also: “It is true that an individual not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause cannot technically be an officer of the United States: “Unless a person in the service of the Government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of Departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.” United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 307 (1888)” In: Officers of the United States Within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause [justice.gov]

See also: “As part of the process of making an appointment to an advice and consent position, the President submits a nomination to the Senate. Most nominations are referred to the appropriate Senate committee or committees on the day they are received. Such referrals are guided by Senate Rule XXV, which establishes the subject matter under the purview of each committee and directs that “all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating primarily to [those] subjects” be referred to that committee.” In: Presidential Appointee Positions Requiring Senate Confirmation and Committees Handling Nominations, by Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process; Michael Greene, Senior Research Librarian; May 3, 2017, Congressional Research Service [fas.org]

-and-

See also: List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

– M.B.D. (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• In theory, a President could make a recess appointment of a Justice to the Court, and then never actually nominate that Justice for confirmation by the Senate (meaning that the appointment would at some point expire and the seat would again be deemed vacant). My understanding is that official acts of the Justice during that time would still count, even if their name was never even submitted to the Senate. bd2412 T 19:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office into List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

The main list did not originally have a "Tenure length" column so the "by time in office" list was made. Now it does have a sortable column for time in office, so there is no purpose for the duplicate list. Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Not the worst idea, but I hesitate to merge a Featured List into a non-featured list. Maybe get this page up to FL status first, then merge? That way we don't lose a featured list in the process. I'd be glad to help with the nomination here. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Eh, it passed FL more than ten years ago now and would probably fail today; it's simply not necessary. This list could likely pass with little change though since it's quite well sourced. I would be happy to help with a simultaneous FLC and FLRC too. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No. I do not want it to be merged, because I liked how it is. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C401:9850:99F3:63D1:F9C:4846 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Mind explaining why...? Are you not aware that tables are sortable? Reywas92^Talk 07:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fine! I like having a separate page for Justices by time in office, because if you put it on the List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States page, it would make the page too long. Thank You!

Support proposal to merge, on the basis of the OP explanation -Rye 212 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would tend to oppose a merge, because incoming links are sometimes made to the "time in office" article by editors specifically highlighting the time that a justice spent in office. See, for example, the link in the lede of Stephen Johnson Field. Since that list is ordered by time, a reader arriving at it does not need to do anything to see the justices listed in that order. I would be okay with the merge if there were some way that an incoming link could be made to pre-sort the table on this page by time in office for those clicking that link. BD2412 T 14:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Since this has now sat idle for over five weeks, I'm calling it failed and removing the templates. BD2412 T 00:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Table needs to be corrected

The table lists the tenure length of Samuel Chase as 15 years an 135 days. In fact, it should be 15 years an 136 days. This can be verified using the following formula in Google Sheets

    =DATEDIF(StartDate, EndDate, "Y")&" years "&DATEDIF(StartDate, EndDate, "YD")&"days"

Google Sheets already accounts for the fact that there was no leap day in 1800.

I have also independently verified the math on this by doing annual day count for each year (or part thereof) as as follows:

Anniversary	Number of Days
4 Feb 1796	N/A
4 Feb 1797	366
4 Feb 1798	365
4 Feb 1799	365
4 Feb 1800	365
4 Feb 1801	365
4 Feb 1802	365
4 Feb 1803	365
4 Feb 1804	365
4 Feb 1805	366
4 Feb 1806	365
4 Feb 1807	365
4 Feb 1808	365
4 Feb 1809	366
4 Feb 1810	365
4 Feb 1811	365
19 Jun 1811	135

This adds up to a total of 5613 days, which is consistent with the number of days listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices_by_time_in_office — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardinalSlug (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Party Affiliation of Judges

Why do none of the judges have their party listed? This is very important information and I feel it should be included, especially with current judges. Daleylife (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• JohnBlair.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Introducing a new timeline of justices

The existing timeline is, frankly, confusing and unusable. (Its many faults have been observed beyond Wikipedia.)

So I am introducing a new version that I believe it is far more legible:

LegoK9 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The SAS critique of the current graphical timeline makes some valid points. That said, I have several problems with your proposed table. You're trying to show too many different things in the same graph and compressing a lot of information into a smaller space. Overall, it's visually unappealing. The political party colors in the table are distracting and make the name hyperlinks difficult to read. The table provides information that is of secondary/tangential importance (at least in this article it is), we should not be assign political party affiliation to the justices and we do not need to know when the various judiciary acts were implemented. Additionally, in an effort to put all the presidents' names into one row you have created a confusing soup of initials. My question to you is, why didn't you simply create a table similar to the SAS custom timeline graph presented in the linked blog post? It's simple, practical, and legible. Your proposed new version is not. Drdpw (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

1. While I prefer the 1000px width to avoid a scroll bar, it can be expanded up to 1600px if that makes it more legible.
2. The colors can be adjusted or the names can be shifted to above the bars if that helps legibility.
3. Why not include political parties? Most historical justices were politicians that had a known party affiliation. (I learned that John McLean was known as the "The Politician on the Supreme Court" for being associated with so many parties.) Modern justices are objectively known to lean to the liberal or conservative wings of the court. The political makeup of the court is always being discussed in the media. I added a footnote to the template if that makes things clear.
4. The judiciary acts were included to show the addition and removal of seats. (I designed this chart to be used on this page and on List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat.)
5. The presidents’ initials have hyperlinks. The current chart has the presidents’ names overlapping over a mess of vertical lines. Is that any better? Otherwise, we can exclude the presidents altogether. LegoK9 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I like this table here better than the one in the article. Sure, it could be improved further—e.g., I don't see that the labels "AJ 1", "AJ 2" etc. add much—but I do not want to continue to wait for those changes to replace the existing table. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"Court Justice" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Court Justice and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Court Justice until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Ordering of associate justices

This question exists in the archive, so I'm posting the response here so it's seen. The order of seniority of associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States goes back to § 1 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices are ranked in seniority by the date their judicial commissions bear; or if bearing the same date, by their age (read: dates of birth). This rule is still in effect to this day, codified at 28 U.S.C., § 4. So, even though James Wilson was the first to have his oath of office administered, he was still de jure junior to justices Rutledge and Cushing; and would have been junior to Robert Harrison, had Harrison accepted his commission to the court.

There appears to be some similar confusion as to justices Van Devanter and J. R. Lamar. Van Devanter's commission is dated Dec. 16, 1910, and Lamar's Dec. 17, the next day.

Similarly, between justices Powell and Rehnquist, Powell's commission is dated Dec. 9, 1971, and Rehnquist's Dec. 15, 1971.

Hope this clears up any and all future confusion. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Breyer retirement

Is it possible to add in the list that Breyer is soon retiring? As he will do so independenly of current matters in motion. Asabiyya (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, he has not retired until he has retired. Although there is not a precedent for it, he could change his mind tomorrow, and remain on the Court indefinitely. BD2412 T 18:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification for Above Average Term

 Should there be some type of clarification made, such as an alternative color for tenure and/or tenure length, if the term of a justice's tenure is/was longer than average? If so, what color should be used? Personally, I'd go for D4AF37 or Metallic Gold Ravens (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@DRave1999: Why? I don't see a need for such clarification nor how adding color coded tenure-length classifications would enhance the table. Drdpw (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding that information would allow the reader to better understand how long the average tenure is for a Supreme Court Justice Ravens (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Colors scheme in Timeline of justices

When I created the page Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices on November 22, 2012, I chose colors for the graph lines and text that would be dark enough to see and were distinctive from each other. I also tried to choose colors consistent with the colors used in the Timeline of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The colors in the Timeline appear to have changed when it was moved to this page (Timeline of justices) on January 23, 2013 (or maybe before) and again when the seat numbers were adjusted on July 31, 2018 to correspond to the order in List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat.

To me, there is some value in having consistency between the colors on the Timeline and those on the Ideological Leanings graphs. At this point, the easiest way to make them consistent would be to change them on this page to correspond to those on the Idelological Leanings page since that only requires adjusting the color section of this page.

So here is my suggestion for making that change. These are the RBG colors I used in the graphs in the Idelological leanings page designated in hexadecimal and decimal:

Chief J:   Black       #000000  or  0, 0, 0
Seat 1:    Green       #00CC00  or  0, 204, 0
Seat 2:    Purple      #993366  or  153, 51, 102
Seat 3:    Gray        #666699  or  102, 102, 153
Seat 4:    Red         #FF0000  or  255, 0, 0
Seat 5:    Dark Green  #006600  or  0, 102, 0
Seat 6:    Orange      #FF6600  or  255, 102, 0
Seat 7:    Blue        #0066FF  or  0, 102, 255
Seat 8:    Brown       #993300  or  153, 51, 0
Seat 9:    Lavender    #CC99FF  or  204, 153, 255
Seat 10:   Lt. Blue    #00CCFF  or  0, 204, 255

Note that the graphs on the Idelological leanings page do not include Seats 5 and 7 so I have chosen colors for those seats that are similar to those currently used on the timeline.

Turning these RGB values into percent of maximum values, the code that goes onto this page would read:

Colors =

 id:Chief_J value:black
 id:seat1   value:rgb(0,0.8,0)
 id:seat2   value:rgb(0.6,0.2,0.4)
 id:seat3   value:rgb(0.4,0.4,0.6)
 id:seat4   value:rgb(1,0.0,0)
 id:seat5   value:rgb(0,0.4,0)
 id:seat6   value:rgb(1,0.4,0)
 id:seat7   value:rgb(0,0.4,1)
 id:seat8   value:rgb(0.6,0.2,0)
 id:seat9   value:rgb(0.8,0.6,1)
 id:seat10  value:rgb(0,0.8,1)
 id:blank   value:white
 id:POTUS   value:tan1

If anyone has any objection to me making this change, please let me know and explain why. Thank you. Randy Schutt (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

First, please explain what value you see in "having consistency between the colors on the Timeline and those on the Ideological Leanings graphs." At this point I can see no practical advantage to making this change. Drdpw (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The main value I see is just that anyone who is trying to track various justices or the shifting political/ideological balance on the Supreme Court will not be confused by different color schemes on different pages — just as it is helpful for all Wiki pages to use consistent numbering for Supreme Court seats and consistent numbers for the justices themselves. Admittedly, having a consistent color scheme will benefit few people, but it is also an easy change that doesn't seem to have any downside. Is there a reason not to make this change? Randy Schutt (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

In 2022, I did not actually duplicate the colors on the Ideological Leanings graphs for Seats 2 and 9 correctly. I have now corrected those two seats to this:

Seat 2: Purple #993366 or 153, 51, 255

Seat 9: Pink #FF99CC or 255, 153, 203

They should all be consistent now and it should be easier to distinguish one color from the other. Randy Schutt (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Update SC justice portraits?

The main images used for the Supreme Court justices are like massively outdated. Sotomayor and Kagan's portraits are over 10 years old. Thomas and Alito's are over 15 years old. Robert's photo is over 17 years old. Most of them look much physically different now than then. Isn't it therefore the right time to update their portraits? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should for others besides Gorsuch. As far as I can tell, all of the pictures on the page are the same as those on SCOTUS' website, but strangely the Gorsuch one is a different picture? I think if they update the picture on the website, then the picture should be updated with it. Pacamah (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)