Chief JusticeBecause 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).
Rutledge, J.* (elevated from associate justice)
Rutledge** (later elevated to Chief)
Associate-5 (line of succession ended in 1867)
Associate-7 (line of succession ended in 1865)
Harlan, J.M. II
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.
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.
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
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