Historically, it has been more common to appoint an outsider to the position of Chief Justice than to elevate an existing member of the court. Rehnquist, Stone, and White were the only Chief Justices who were elevated from the court. That's 3/16, 3/15 if you want to exclude the first Chief Justice.
However, that doesn't mean that I think it is a good idea, just because of precedent. A judge appointed to the Supreme Court acts differently when they are in that position than they did before. When elevating an Associate Justice, we have a much clearer idea of how they will act on the court than an outsider.
I wrote an e-mail to Bush. Not like it will ever be read by him, but it makes me feel better knowing I've put my 2ยข into the mix.
From: William ************ <***********@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Roberts isn't the best pick for Chief Justice
Date: September 5, 2005 11:33:07 AM PDT
To: comments@whitehouse.gov
Cc: vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Dear President Bush,
I am disappointed that you chose to nominate John Roberts to the position of Chief Justice. While I had no problem with him as an Associate Justice, putting him in charge of the Supreme Court is a bit premature. People change when they are put on the Supreme Court. The appellate courts are a whole different ballgame than the Supreme Court. It is common knowledge that a judge's record before appointment to the Supreme Court often doesn't tell us much about how they will act once they are on the court. Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy are perfect examples of this. Considering the enormous power the Chief Justice wields, it is unwise to throw somebody so unknown into the position. I believe it would be best to elevate an existing Associate Justice to the position because we would have a better idea of how they will act in the position than we would with an outsider. I believe that Clarence Thomas' record is among the most exemplary in the history of the court. You have passed him over for someone who is many ways, a rookie. I urge you to reconsider.
I understand that you feel it is important that the office of Chief Justice be filled before the next term starts. I know that passing three nominations through the Senate is considerably more of a hassle than two. I understand that Thomas would be a tough sell in the Senate. However, consider that the next Chief Justice will probably hold the office for quarter of a century or more. Such a permanent decision should not be influenced by such small matters such as having this vacancy filled before the next term starts or the difficulty of confirming the man truly qualified for the job. They are small matters compared to the effect the Chief Justice will have on this nation for decades to come.
Sincerely,
William ************
***********@ucdavis.edu
Davis, California
