How are supreme court justices selected?
357214
They are nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate.
290556
Well it ultimately up to the Justices of the Supreme Court who decided what case to take...
1017376
the supreme courts are swamped.  cases are viewed in the order they come in, before a case can be reviewed a sentence must be obtained, then the attorneys must go through every point of law to determine what to file an appeal on, I believe this procedure is allowed 3 times.
262618
There are no qualifications for the position. The President nominates someone and the Senate approves or disapproves of him. However, since the advent of the modern law school (relatively recent), basically all the justices have had law degrees. James F. Byrnes was the last appointed to have not had one.
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
74275
"The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Court-packing Bill); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely recognized that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. The plan failed in Congress and the court changed course to accommodate the President's desires (see The switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint a large number of Justices."\n\nI'm not sure where the majority rule came about, but I'm sure it's an outgrowth of having an odd number of justices.
758166
Well, it is C. the supreme court.
371123
Federal law requires that a grand jury be selected at random from a fair cross section of thecommunity in the district or division in which the federal grand jury convenes. Thus, all citizens havean equal opportunity and obligation to serve.Pursuant to law, the names of prospective grand jurors are drawn at random from lists ofregistered voters or lists of actual voters, or other sources when necessary, under proceduresdesigned to ensure that all groups in the community will have a fair chance to serve. Those personswhose names have been drawn and who are not exempt or excused from service are summoned toappear for duty as grand jurors. When these persons appear before the court, the presiding judgemay consider any further requests to be excused. The judge will then direct the selection of 23qualified persons to become the members of the grand jury.
99465
The new Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is John Roberts.
64298
Judges do that all the time.  I am not saying that they are perfect.  They normally make decisions based on the law that exist at the time.\n\nAs long as the majority of the Supreme Court is able to be unbias, then I am happy.
806626
There are three situations.\n\nFirst, there are some cases where the Supreme Court has original (not appellate) jurisdiction, as defined in Article III of the Constitution. In such cases, the Supreme Court must take the case.\n\nThere are also some situations where there is a mandatory appeal from either a state Supreme Court or a federal Appellate court. These are defined by statute, and again, the Supreme Court must take the case.\n\nHowever, most cases heard by the Supreme Court are discretionary appeals, either from a state Supreme Court or a federal Appellate court. In such situations, the party filing the appeal asks the Supreme Court to hear the case. This is called a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (meaning "to make certain"). If the Court agrees to hear the case, it "grants cert". Else it "denies cert". So, in this third category, it's up to the Supreme Court itself whether they hear the case or not.
340101
The Supreme Court hears arguments from both parties to the case.  A party may decide to use public opinion as part of their argument, but decisions on constitutional questions are typically decided based on the text of the constitution, the historical reasons for adopting the provision in question & previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court.  Decisions from lower courts, both state and federal, are relevant considerations, but it's not necessary for them to decide.
30392
You can find everything you want to know about The Supreme Court at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/\n\nThe biographies of the current justices are listed at:\nhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf
289479
These are the names of the Justices:\n\nChief Justice: Warren Burger \n\nAssociate Justices:\n\nWilliam O. Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, William Rehnquist \n\nThis was their stance:\n\nMajority by: Blackmun \nJoined by: Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell \n\nConcurrence by: Burger \nConcurrence by: Douglas \nConcurrence by: Stewart \n\nDissent by: White \nJoined by: Rehnquist \nDissent by: Rehnquist \n\nSource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
394209
check out Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution.  There you will find the powers laid out for you.  \n\nThe judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the Constitution.  They are not supposed to legislate, the legislative branch does that.  (Congress)  \n\nThe Supreme Court is able to interpret and change laws...to hand down decisions that become law, but are not statutes.  I realize some judges are elected...but many of them are appointed.  This serves to seperate them from elected officials who tend to make decisions that will get them reelected.  For example, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.  This is supposed to ensure that they will not make politically biased decisions in an effort to get votes.\n\n--The Supreme Court has a good website with lots of info.  \n\nThe judicial branch is seperate from the executive and the judicial branches---this was done purposely so that each branch could provide checks and balances on the others....
160239
they take a judge and dip them into a solution. The judge turns either red or blue and this is used to decide whether they are fit for office :-)\n\nseriously, it is the use of individuals position on a single issue (i.e. abortion) to determine their suitability for a judicial positions
121879
-John Roberts \nJohn Paul Stevens \nAntonin Scalia \nAnthony Kennedy\nDavid Souter \nClarence Thomas \nRuth Bader Ginsburg \nStephen Breyer\nSamuel Alito