In honor of the fact that John Roberts's confirmation hearings begin on Monday, I'd like to present a little musing on the role of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Specifically, I'd like to point out that I don't really understand what the big deal is about the Chief Justice.

The Constitution only makes a distinction between the Chief Justice and the associate justices in that the Chief Justice "shall preside" over impeachment hearings of the President. That's all. And that doesn't even really require doing anything. Just lending judicial prestige to the bickering in Congress.

Tradition holds that he also gets to administer the oath of office to the President, determine who writes opinions (when he's in the majority), and otherwise preside over administrative matters of the court. He probably has some specific administrative duties that I'm not aware of.

Oh, and since the time of Chief Justice Rehnquist, he gets to wear those really nifty yellow stripes on his robe.

So my question is: so what? The Chief's vote only counts as one vote when deciding cases, just like everyone else's vote. Sure, he may have some administrative control over the Court, but he can't make them decide cases the way he wants them to be decided.

So why is everyone saying that now that Roberts has been nominated for Chief, there's a "higher standard"? Before the second nomination, were they seriously going to look at some spot on his record (as if they could find one) and say, "Well, that concerns us, but since you're just going to be an associate justice, not the Chief, we can let it slide."? I don't think so.

If you ask me, there isn't much difference between the Chief and the associates except that the Chief has more ceremonial and administrative duties. I suppose he's more likely to be the "face of the court," and that can carry some weight. But that's no big deal.

After all, take a good look at Antonin Scalia's face, and tell me you want that to be the face of the court. Roberts is far better-looking!