Advantage: The Constitution

Speaking of American royalty (the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, that is), the following lines of succession have led to the present Court:

Chief Justice
Jay
Rutledge, J.* (elevated from associate justice)
Ellsworth
Marshall, J.
Taney
Chase, S.P.
White, M.R.
Fuller
White, E.D.*
Taft
Hughes*
Stone*
Vinson
Warren
Burger
Rehnquist*
Roberts, J.G.

Associate-1
Wilson
Washington
Baldwin
Grier
Strong
Woods
Lamar, L.Q.C.
Jackson, H.E.
Peckham
Lurton
McReynolds
Byrnes
Rutledge, W.B.
Minton
Brennan
Souter

Associate-2
Cushing
Story
Woodbury
Curtis
Clifford
Gray
Holmes
Cardozo
Frankfurter
Goldberg
Fortas
Blackmun
Breyer

Associate-3
Blair
Chase, S.
Duvall
Barbour
Daniel
Miller
Brown
Moody
Van Devanter
Black
Powell
Kennedy

Associate-4
Rutledge** (later elevated to Chief)
Johnson
Patterson
Livingston
Thompson
Nelson
Hunt
Blatchford
White, E.D.**
Lamar, J.R.
Brandeis
Douglas
Stevens

Associate-5 (line of succession ended in 1867)

Associate-6
Todd
Trimble
McLean
Swayne
Matthews
Brewer
Hughes**
Clarke
Sutherland
Reed
Whittaker
White, B.R.
Ginsburg

Associate-7 (line of succession ended in 1865)

Associate-8
McKinley
Campbell
Davis
Harlan, J.M.
Pitney
Sanford
Roberts, O.J.
Burton
Stewart
O'Connor
Alito

Associate-9
Field
McKenna
Stone**
Jackson, R.H.
Harlan, J.M. II
Rehnquist**
Scalia

Associate-10
Bradley
Shiras
Day
Butler
Murphy
Clark
Marshall, T.
Thomas

Sources: Appendix Two, "Nominations and Successions of the Justices," The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, edited by Kermit L. Hall, Oxford University Press, 1999; "Members of the Supreme Court of the United States," from the website of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Because Congress has from time to time changed the size of the Court, not all of today's justices hold a seat that was established in the earliest days of the Republic. The chief justiceship and associate justice seats 1 through 5 all date from 1789-90. The other associate justiceships were established in 1807 (#6), 1837 (#7), 1838 (#8), 1863 (#9), and 1870 (#10).

On the whole, the present members of the Court are more observant of the original Constitution than their predecessors. Here's how I rate them (+ is better, = is the same, x is worse):

+ Roberts (succeeded Rehnquist)

= Souter (Brennan)

= Breyer (Blackmun)

= Kennedy (Powell)

= Stevens (Douglas)

x Ginsburg (White)

+ Alito (O'Connor)

+ Scalia (Rehnquist)

+ Thomas (Marshall)

That's a net gain of three "strict constructionists." Progress, yes. But more is needed.

Related posts:
The Erosion of the Constitutional Contract
Unintended Irony from a Few Framers
A Timeless Indictment
When Must the Executive Enforce the Law?
More on the Debate about Judicial Supremacy
Another Look at Judicial Supremacy
Freedom of Contract and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy
Judicial Interpretation
Delicious Thoughts about Federalism
Is Nullification the Answer to Judicial Supremacy?
The Alternative to Nullification
No Way Out?
The Wrong Case for Judicial Review
An Agenda for the Supreme Court
What Is The Living Constitution?
The Supreme Court: Our Last, Best Hope for a Semblance of Liberty
The Case of the (Happily) Missing Supreme Court Nominee(s)
States' Rights and Skunks
An Answer to Judicial Supremacy?
The Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment
Substantive Due Process, Liberty of Contract, and States' "Police Power"
Amend the Constitution or Amend the Supreme Court?
Substantive Due Process Redux?
Hudson v. Michigan and the Constitution
Certain Unalienable Rights . . .
A New Constitution: Revised Again