U.S. Supreme Court Members

Can you name all 9 members of the United States Supreme Court?
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: October 26, 2020
First submittedAugust 12, 2010
Times taken16,413
Rating4.27
3:00
Enter justice here:
0
 / 9 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
Confirmed
Justice
1991
Clarence Thomas
1994
Stephen Breyer
2005
John Roberts
2006
Samuel Alito
2009
Sonia Sotomayor
Confirmed
Justice
2010
Elena Kagan
2017
Neil Gorsuch
2018
Brett Kavanaugh
2020
Amy Coney Barrett
+1
Level 50
Feb 13, 2011
Hey, I got a perfect score. That is surprising! :D
+3
Level 63
Feb 17, 2016
Prepare to update this quiz!
+1
Level 80
Sep 10, 2016
I got 2. A little reminder that I should study this topic more.
+1
Level 45
Nov 13, 2020
I got 3, but I'm on the same boat as you.
+1
Level 67
Nov 12, 2016
Technically out of date since Scalia is dead, but I guess there's no point in updating until/unless his replacement is confirmed.
+1
Level 64
Apr 9, 2017
Neil Gorsuch should be added.
+1
Level ∞
Apr 10, 2017
Confirmed today.
+8
Level 72
Apr 10, 2017
Who is Stephen Breyer. Dude must fly so far under the radar. I've literally never heard of him. I got 8 and thought, who am I missing, thinking it was someone obvious that I was forgetting. Nope...someone I never heard of.
+4
Level 65
Apr 12, 2017
He is the fourth member of the liberal wing, but yes, he is often overshadowed by the other three liberal justices: Sotomayor and Kagan, because they were both appointed by Obama and are clearer in people's memories, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is the outspoken and de facto leader of the liberal wing.
+4
Level 72
Oct 28, 2020
3 years later and i remembered him this time :-)
+1
Level 54
Nov 14, 2020
third now ig o.o
+3
Level 76
Apr 12, 2017
1/9. I only knew The Notorious RBG!
+11
Level 69
Nov 13, 2020
I have some bad news from the future
+1
Level 79
Apr 12, 2017
I always forget one when trying to remember them all. This time it was Alito. Sigh.
+13
Level 79
Apr 12, 2017
Where's Merrick Garland. (Sits back, popcorn ready)
+2
Level 74
Apr 12, 2017
+1
+3
Level 64
Apr 12, 2017
Gorsuch is not a legitimate justice. Might wanna put an asterisk by his name.
+16
Level 71
Apr 13, 2017
Yours is not a "legitimate" comment.
+5
Level 64
Apr 13, 2017
I bet Vladimir Putin nominated Gorsuch, right?
+8
Level 80
Apr 14, 2017
ah I see what you're doing there, deflecting a valid criticism by bringing up your skepticism about another, completely unrelated, but even more valid and concerning criticism, here addressed in raging strawman form since while we know with absolute certainty some of the very shady/troubling/illegal things that have been going on concerning Russia if you start acting as if someone has paranoid delusions that Putin is behind everything, that minimizes those very real, very valid, very legitimate and well-founded concerns. Genius. Not really.
+6
Level 74
May 21, 2018
what?
+9
Level 88
Jun 22, 2018
Is there really a valid criticism of his legitimacy though? He was nominated and confirmed.
+18
Level 72
Oct 19, 2018
There is no VALID criticism of his legitimacy. You can dislike him, or the politicians that confirmed him...you can dislike the idea of constitutional textualist justices over more a liberal interpretation of the constitution...all that is fine and healthy criticism. What makes no sense is the sky-is-falling rhetoric calling into question his legitimacy or crying that "democracy is dead." Those are not valid arguments.
+9
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
Yes, there are very valid reasons to question the validity of Gorsuch. Obama nominated judge Merrick Garland for that seat over a year before the end of his presidency, and the Republicans in the Senate refused to even take it up for a vote, on the grounds that it was "an election year" - a completely BS argument and one that they would be proven to be shameless hypocrites for putting forward 4 years later when Amy Comey Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court DURING the actual election. The Republicans didn't technically do anything illegal, but it was arguably unconstitutional what they did, by any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution and specifically Article 1. What they did was unprecedented in the modern history of the United States, and it's perfectly valid to state that they stole that seat for the justice currently filling it.
+2
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
.... grumble grumble... why was my explanation to Jerry deleted? It was very well stated just went point by point explaining exactly what TinklePork meant and the thinking behind his comment. Frustrating.
+1
Level 54
Nov 14, 2020
lol clearly someone doesn't know what checks and balances are-- also low-key funny how you prob want 3 asterisks now, wish it were more :( damn you Putin, the Macedonians, FBI, Romanians, etc. !!!!!
+3
Level 65
Nov 14, 2020
That's not really checks and balances though. It's not like the Senate had legitimate concerns about Merrick Garland's qualifications. It was a naked power grab by the Republicans. Had nothing to do with checks and balances, as they made evident with the appointment of Justice Barrett.
+3
Level 80
Apr 14, 2017
How is it that I'm very familiar with all of these justices for one reason or another, but, I don't think I've ever even heard of Breyer before...
+2
Level 74
Aug 16, 2017
Yeah he's the only one I missed. Maybe he's the real puppet master behind the SC?
+3
Level 72
Oct 19, 2018
I miss him every time. I don't think he writes any decisions...he's not in the press....he just does his job. I'm not even sure if he's a liberal or a conservative judge. I think he's a liberal judge since he's a Clinton appointee, but I have no idea on what his actual jurisprudence is like.
+2
Level 58
Dec 6, 2017
Gorsuch!!
+6
Level 72
Sep 19, 2018
Please not Kavanaugh!!!
+5
Level 76
Oct 7, 2018
BOOM!
+6
Level 74
Oct 7, 2018
After the shambles of the 2018 confirmation, there's good reason to consider term limits on Supreme Court justices. They have become so politicised. Lifetime appointments cast such a biasing shadow on US politics regardless of which party is in control of the presidency, senate and house.
+3
Level 72
Oct 7, 2018
I've been interested a lot in the current political situation (especially the Midterms) in the US. I honestly think that the cultural division between Democrats and Republicans is getting bigger and bigger. Furthermore, I think that many politicians take "party over country". Maybe for SCOTUS not only term limits, but also minimum amount of senators (like 60 voting in favour). I clearly see that a two-party-system is not working in this case.
+5
Level 87
Oct 8, 2018
If we go back to the 60 vote requirement for confirmation, we’ll probably not get another justice confirmed in my lifetime (of course assuming that neither party gets more than than 60 Senate seats). The Dems will never forgive the Repubs for what they did to Garland and the Republicans will never forgive the Dems for what they did to Kavanaugh. A plague on both their houses as far as I am concerned. Term limits maybe.
+4
Level 72
Oct 19, 2018
"A plague on both their houses." That's an excellent quote, very applicable to this case.
+2
Level 77
Oct 7, 2018
In Europe two-third majority is usually required
+10
Level ∞
Oct 8, 2018
Agreed. We need a constitutional amendment to change how people are appointed to the Supreme Court. One good suggestion I have heard is that each President would appoint one justice every 2 years. Adding an 18 year term limit would keep the size of the court at 9 members. Senatorial confirmation should probably just be scrapped.
+3
Level 74
Oct 9, 2018
Great idea.
+2
Level 72
Oct 19, 2018
Yeah...I've heard this before as well. I like it. One of the big problems is that we've allowed the courts to become too powerful. Both Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers talked about the judicial branch as being the smallest and least powerful of the 3 branches, but now it's on par with the executive branch and both have left the legislative branch in the dust. Personally, I want 535 people that represent my voting interests making laws. Not 9 unelected life appointees.
+5
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
to buck: as awful and political (and biased way too much toward one party through questionable means) as the Supreme Court has become... I still trust them more than I trust Congress. The justices are not spending 90% of their time fundraising and so completely beholden to their party and their corporate donors. Also, Congress does make laws. The Supreme Court rules on how those laws should be interpreted and whether or not they are Constitutional. This isn't the same thing. People who complain about judges legislating from the bench usually are just upset that they aren't allowed to get away with passing any un-Constitutional law that they see fit.
+1
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
and my comment here about how Senate confirmation serves a valuable function and should be fixed and de-politicized but not scrapped was also deleted? WHHHHYYYYYYY??? Because I disagreed with you? Constitutional checks and balances are considered too inflammatory now?
+1
Level 72
Nov 14, 2020
I agree with the Quizmaster. This would permanently end the possibility of court-packing by either side.
+2
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
There have been many good ideas floating around out there to de-politicize the Supreme Court. One that I like is packing the court to extreme levels - make it not 9, 10, or 12 justices, but rather 30 or 60 or 100. Some lower courts have that many. Then, theoretically, decisions would not depend on one or two swing votes, but be more of a consensus thing. I actually think term limits could have the opposite effect, as, if a justice has to be thinking forward to his career AFTER serving on the Supreme Court there might be more pressure to decide cases a certain way. If he knows that he's going to die doing this job, he should, theoretically, be more free to vote his conscience.

But yes, the current condition of the court is shameful. Presidents appoint justices. Republicans have won the popular vote for president ONCE in the past 32 years. And yet 6 out of 9 justices have been appointed by Republican presidents.

+1
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
Including the last three which include one shameless raging conspiracy-minded partisan and probable rapist, one former Handmaid of a backward religious cult, and Gorsuch who sits in the seat stolen from Merrick Garland.
+1
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
if any of the comments I left yesterday were going to get deleted I assumed it would be this one. Not the 4 or 5 others which were making much better points. There was no good reason to delete any of those.
+1
Level 54
Nov 14, 2020
when non Americans try and change our rules bc "their" side is losing haha
+5
Level 74
Oct 11, 2018
In New Zealand, Supreme Court justices they are not voted into office by partisan votes of the legislature, but simply appointed to the court in a non-political way. The mandatory age of retirement is 70. Additionally, there is acceptance of the paramountcy of the legislature; thus the Court never seeks to "strike down" laws. Instead, they simply interpret and apply the law as it stands.
+3
Level ∞
Nov 3, 2018
What you've just described is how the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to work. (Except for the mandatory retirement age).
+1
Level 51
Oct 26, 2020
Similar here in India, but the chief justice retires every year.
+1
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
Though... it's worth pointing out that even with all those essentially non-partisan justice confirmations to the court prior to the year 2000, the court made one of its most shamelessly partisan judgments that very year in Bush v Gore. The Republican-appointed justices who voted to stop the ballot counting in Florida, effectively handing the presidency to Bush that year, even wrote that their decision should only ever apply to that one single instance. In a judicial system that relies on precedent as the American system does, this is remarkable. They were basically admitting that they were ruling for partisan reasons and warning that the same logic and interpretation of the law should never influence other cases, because they knew what a bad precedent it would set.
+1
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
and my comment above this makes no sense anymore as it was a follow-up to what I had just posted before it... about how justices used to get confirmed 99-0 when they weren't controversial or unqualified. And how this only changed since the year 2000 when a combination of Fox News, Karl Rove, George W Bush, the repeal of the fairness doctrine, the Internet, Facebook etc made everything much more polarized and political... W. T. H.
+1
Level 72
Nov 14, 2020
How can you pin this down on Fox? Sure, they are slightly right-leaning, but they are more centrist than all of the left-leaning other channels
+1
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
and my comment about how supreme court justice confirmation used to be relatively a-political got deleted as well??? Seriously... what the friggin hell?? What was offensive about that comment????? I usually don't mind some of my comments getting deleted I can sort of see the logic behind getting rid of some of them but this makes NO sense. Kinda pissed off now.
+2
Level 81
Nov 3, 2018
I feel like "RBG" should probably be an accepted answer, since that's come to be a common way of referring to her (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBG_(film)).
+2
Level ∞
Nov 3, 2018
Okay
+1
Level 54
Nov 14, 2020
uhhhhhhh...awkward o.o
+1
Level 57
Nov 9, 2018
Why is RGB accepted instead of RBG?
+4
Level ∞
Nov 10, 2018
Why do you ask hypothetical questions?
+2
Level ∞
Nov 10, 2018
But it's fixed now.
+7
Level 52
Nov 27, 2018
>insert extremely opinionated comment
+11
Level 69
Mar 16, 2019
When Ginsburg retires the court will be ruthless.
+7
Level 35
Oct 19, 2020
Welp.
+1
Level 66
Jul 21, 2020
That comment about the first justice retiring is no longer accurate (though it very well may be true again soon), I imagine it's an accidental carryover from a previous version
+1
Level ∞
Jul 22, 2020
Fixed, thanks.
+8
Level 62
Sep 18, 2020
RIP RBG :(
+3
Level 54
Sep 19, 2020
Oh God, they\re gonna steal a third SC seat.
+6
Level 83
Oct 27, 2020
Steal??
+14
Level 83
Oct 27, 2020
Not really steal. More like break their own rule of not appointing justices during an election year.
+3
Level 78
Oct 27, 2020
I don't think you know what stealing is...
+3
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
pretty much stealing, yes. When you haven't won a popular vote but once in 32 years, and you've got a 6-3 majority, you are clearly not playing by the rules.
+1
Level 54
Nov 14, 2020
lol you do realize this is a constitutional REPUBLIC not a "pure" democracy right? Popular vote arguments mean nothing hahahaha
+5
Level 65
Nov 14, 2020
We know the rules. It's still upsetting to watch such odious and hypocritical behavior. It should embarrass you too. Ideological differences are fine, but you should not excuse unprincipled behavior by your government just because it favors your side. Lindsey Graham needs to be blasted into the sun.
+2
Level 62
Sep 19, 2020
Also, speaking of RBG, she should be removed from this list.
+2
Level 83
Sep 22, 2020
They'll remove her when her replacement has been confirmed.
+4
Level 70
Oct 26, 2020
...which was today. Quiz should be updated soon.
+2
Level 83
Oct 27, 2020
And that was fast!
+2
Level 58
Sep 29, 2020
remove ginsburg she is no longer on the scotus
+18
Level 78
Oct 27, 2020
Congratulations Justice Amy Coney Barrett!
+18
Level 76
Oct 27, 2020
My condolences to the USA.
+8
Level 87
Oct 27, 2020
Why? Although Dems and Reps have both been hypocrites on this notion of getting justices on the Court during an election year, that's not Barrett's fault. And although I personally disagree with some of what appear to be her personal stances (if the media are to be believed), she is well qualified for the Court.

To me, it's always been a good idea to study some ideas - (1) expanding the Court and then selecting randomly a subset to hear any given case (which is the way that the Circuit Courts usually operate) in order to cut down on the importance of any single judge or (2) having term limits so each President gets to have 1 or 2 appointments. Or something else to get out of this morass of the Court zinging one way or the other depending on how many appointments any single President has and the two parties always voting against the other parties' nominees regardless of qualifications and credentials.

+7
Level 73
Oct 31, 2020
I never thought the day would come when the Democrats started vilifying a Female, Catholic, extremely well-accomplished justice who adopted two Haitian children. The nomination process? Sure. The nominator? Of course. But I never thought that they would stoop to that level.

I guess I was wrong.

+5
Level 55
Nov 1, 2020
A female justice who also happens to support repealing Roe v Wade and the Affordable Care Act
+4
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
Barrett should not have been confirmed for many reasons other than the outrageous hypocrisy and outright lies and rushing to confirmation thing. She's just not fit to sit on the Supreme Court. Though she is better than Kavanaugh.
+2
Level 87
Nov 14, 2020
If Barrett is not qualified to be on the Court because of what are perceived on her personal views (rated well qualified by the ABA, but what the hell do they know), then neither is Sotomayor or Alito. Gorsuch and Kagan are examples of what may appear to be partisan judges, but, unlike the above, they have superior intellects (Scalia of all people pushed for Kagan even though they probably often disagreed) and can construct legal arguments in support of their views. Alito and Sotomayor are partisan political hacks. If you're going to call out justices, then do it consistently regardless of political view.
+3
Level 65
Nov 14, 2020
Alito made it his business to prove your point with his preposterous little tantrum this week. I agree that Kagan and Gorsuch, along with Chief Justice Roberts, are the intellectual heavyweights on the court (Scalia and Ginsburg were their peers in this respect). I don't like Breyer's writing, but I generally find his reasoning to be sound. Thomas is awful in pretty much every respect. Bad writing, bad reasoning, absent during oral argument. He just reflexively takes the most conservative position on pretty much every issue. It's dispiriting to see a justice who engages so little with the cases before him.
+3
Level 83
Oct 27, 2020
With only 9 names, I would think that 2 minutes would be plenty. Don't you? (You can add the time back later if 4 additional justices are added next year. :) )
+6
Level ∞
Oct 27, 2020
If the court is packed, the quiz will be deleted. It's simply too depressing. It creates an unstable equilibrium that can only be resolved when every American citizen becomes a member of the Supreme Court. The Constitution should be amended to specify nine justices, an 18 year term, and the President can nominate whoever they want without the Senate. I'm not holding my breath.
+2
Level 32
Oct 27, 2020
yes, because the Dems will make it 13 if they get elected, so it will be 7-6 in their favor, then when the republicans get elected, they'll increase it to 15, then 17, 19,21 so on
+4
Level 77
Oct 27, 2020
That would be completely ridiculous, that a single politician can choose a random lawyer to decide about the country. There are plenty of better systems around the world.
+2
Level 32
Oct 27, 2020
That’s America, if you control all segments of government, you can do virtually anything
+3
Level 71
Nov 13, 2020
Letting the president appoint anyone without checks and balances is a horrible idea. Trump would probably appoint one of his own children!
+2
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
and my comment here deleted as well... why? Because I said that the argument that court packing sets a bad precedent is dumb? It is dumb. So is this page's moderation...
+2
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
To briefly reiterate what I said yesterday: the number of justices on the court has fluctuated multiple times. There's nothing at all depressing about the idea of court packing and the Democrats absolutely should do it if they can. If Republicans can reduce the number of seats on the USC to 8 for 2015-2016 then Dems should be able to increase it to 13. And as for this setting a bad precedent, this argument is invalid for multiple reasons. 1. Republicans do not care about precedent. At all. They've demonstrated this over and over again the last 4 years especially. 2. The precedent was already set in the past. The USC has had as few as five justices and as many as ten. It's been expanded and shrunk before and it never led to every American being a justice. 3. The court has already been packed with partisan and unqualified justices through highly questionable probably unconstitutional parliamentary tricks and undemocratic practices. Further packing would help fix something already broken.
+3
Level ∞
Nov 13, 2020
I'm struggling with your volume of comments lately @Kal. We tolerate things from you that would easily earn a ban for any other user. I'm not sure this policy is working. I don't want to spend my time moderating political debate. If anything we are likely to become less tolerant on this front.
+2
Level 80
Nov 14, 2020
If the comment above that you made yourself is fine, the comment I made in response to it was fine. There was no discernible difference between them and you're being inconsistent and hypocritical. If you feel this deserves a ban... well that's up to you. I'm not participating in the conversation to create more work for you.
+1
Level 72
Nov 14, 2020
I'm pretty sure that most other users would get a ban if they said that the moderation here was dumb.
+1
Level 80
Nov 14, 2020
I call it like I see it. Anyway, I'm out. Peace.
+1
Level 71
Nov 7, 2020
Ugh, I missed the justice pictured, despite knowing this topic fairly well.
+1
Level 73
Nov 8, 2020
I can name 3 US supreme court members off the top of my head, 2 of which are dead. That's one more than for my own country's constitutional court.
+1
Level 80
Nov 13, 2020
This time my first 3 guesses were people who died...
+1
Level 72
Nov 13, 2020
Breyer is tough; I never read majority opinions or dissents by him, or even hear about him in the news
+1
Level 60
Nov 13, 2020
Annoyingly I thought of Breyer but thought it was who Kagan replaced, and then when I couldn't think of anyone else I'd forgotten his name again...
+1
Level 82
Nov 13, 2020
I always remember him because his name reminds me of the ice cream brand.
+1
Level 72
Nov 13, 2020
@vermiciousknid Thanks, I got him my second time thru! All I had to think of was “the slightly left-of-center vanilla bean ice cream” justice
+3
Level 65
Nov 14, 2020
I need to defend my favorite branch of government here: the spurious process by which justices are appointed is no reflection of the justices themselves, who work hard to apply the law correctly. There is a perception of partisanship because the most contested cases, which usually go 5-4, get all the attention. But 9-0 is actually the most common decision, and more than 50% of cases go 7-2 or better. They are not as partisan as people think. I also need to speak up for Chief Justice Roberts. He is very protective of the dignity of the court, and while the other two branches have turned into an absolute sideshow, he has worked hard to maintain the court's integrity. I think if Trump's ridiculous election claims end up before the Court, Roberts will line up the troops for a 9-0 or at least 7-2 (can't count on Kavanaugh or Alito) to let it be known he will not let the court stoop to the level of shameless overwhelming the rest of our government.
+1
Level 24
Nov 21, 2020
Why is this discussion so partisan?
+2
Level 24
Nov 21, 2020
All the Justices deserve respect, they have been appointed to the highest court of the land. Can you say any better?