<P> Article I, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice shall preside over impeachment trials of the President of the United States in the U.S. Senate . Two Chief Justices, Salmon P. Chase and William Rehnquist, have presided over the trial in the Senate that follows an impeachment of the president--Chase in 1868 over the proceedings against President Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist in 1999 over the proceedings against President Bill Clinton . Both presidents were subsequently acquitted . </P> <P> Many of the procedures and inner workings of the Court turn on the seniority of the justices . Traditionally, the chief justice has been regarded as primus inter pares (first among equals)--that is, the chief justice is the highest - ranking and foremost member of the Court, regardless of that officeholder's length of service when compared against that of any associate justice . This seniority and added prestige enables a chief justice to define the Court's culture and norms and, thus, influence how it functions . The chief justice sets the agenda for the weekly meetings where the justices review the petitions for certiorari, to decide whether to hear or deny each case . The Supreme Court agrees to hear less than one percent of the cases petitioned to it . While associate justices may append items to the weekly agenda, in practice this initial agenda - setting power of the chief justice has significant influence over the direction of the court . Nonetheless, a chief justice's influence may be limited by circumstances and the associate justices' understanding of legal principles; it is definitely limited by the fact that he has only a single vote of nine on the decision whether to grant or deny certiorari . </P> <P> Despite the chief justice's elevated stature, his vote carries the same legal weight as the vote of each associate justice . Additionally, he has no legal authority to overrule the verdicts or interpretations of the other eight judges or tamper with them . The task of assigning who shall write the opinion for the majority falls to the most senior justice in the majority . Thus, when the chief justice is in the majority, he always assigns the opinion . Early in his tenure, Chief Justice John Marshall insisted upon holdings which the justices could unanimously back as a means to establish and build the Court's national prestige . In doing so, Marshall would often write the opinions himself, and actively discouraged dissenting opinions . Associate Justice William Johnson eventually persuaded Marshall and the rest of the Court to adopt its present practice: one justice writes an opinion for the majority, and the rest are free to write their own separate opinions or not, whether concurring or dissenting . </P> <P> The chief justice's formal prerogative--when in the majority--to assign which justice will write the Court's opinion is perhaps his most influential power, as this enables him to influence the historical record . He "may assign this task to the individual justice best able to hold together a fragile coalition, to an ideologically amenable colleague, or to himself ." Opinion authors can have a big influence on the content of an opinion; two justices in the same majority, given the opportunity, might write very different majority opinions . A chief justice who knows well the associate justices can therefore do much--by the simple act of selecting the justice who writes the opinion of the court--to affect the general character or tone of an opinion, which in turn can affect the interpretation of that opinion in cases before lower courts in the years to come . </P>

Who's in charge of the supreme court