There are nine Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States. There were originally six Justices—although this creates the obvious problem that there would be frequent instances of ties; however, it has been set at nine Justices for the majority of its history. The number of Supreme Court Justices is determined by Congress, not by the Constitution.

9 justices serve on the Supreme Court at a time. This ensures that no case ever ends in a tie with votes, and usually means that one justices vote is the deciding factor in a case.

Article Three of the Constitution leaves a great number of specifics about the Federal judiciary up to later developments. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," is the most detail it gives about specific courts. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court hears cases that have been through all levels of Federal appeals courts as well as through State appeals courts.

The method of organizing government by distributing power to different levels of government (usually national and state levels) is also known as Federalism. Separation of power is also a distribution of powers, but within different branches of the national government (legislative, judicial, and executive).

Unlike today, when it came to the selection and appointment of federal judges during the nation’s first century, geography played an important role. Presidents and Senators alike looked to a nominee’s geographic background, specifically which region of the country he (nominees in those days were exclusively male) was born in. Geographic considerations were so weighty because often, allegiance to either the Northern or Southern areas of the country carried with it a commonly-held set of opinions on the nation’s most divisive issues (especially slavery, popular sovereignty, and tariffs). In order to preserve the balance of the power in the nation’s capital, as well as the overall impartiality of federal courts, it was vital that a nominee’s geographic allegiances were taken into account, so as not to unduly imbalance decisions or to encourage biased rulings. However, since the close of the nineteenth century, geography has gradually ceased to be so vital; nowadays, the President and Senators tend to place more importance on a nominee’s partisan and/or ideological leanings, as well as their track records concerning both ethical and competent conduct.

Members of the federal judiciary are always appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They are never elected, and they serve lifelong terms unless they are impeached. Also, Congress decides how many justices to place in the Supreme Court, but the Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number at nine.

A diversity of citizenship case is a civil case that involves a plaintiff and defendant who reside in two separate states (for example, if a resident of New Jersey is suing someone from Oregon). This also applies to civil cases where a foreign national is involved, although this is less common. District courts ONLY have jurisdiction in diversity of citizenship cases if the case at hand involves at least seventy-five thousand dollars (either an amount in contention or sought in damages). Any diversity of citizenship case that involves less than this amount, regardless of the differing state laws involved, must instead be settled in state court. This restriction was placed by Congress upon diversity of citizenship cases because it is believed that when a large amount of money is disputed and/or sought, a district court is more appropriate to decide the matter than a state court, which may be unfairly biased in favor of its involved resident. A federal judge is presumed to be better suited to resolve the matter because they are impartial, without no respective state allegiance.

The first woman appointed to the Supreme Court was Sandra Day O’Connor, in 1981, by President Ronald Reagan.

This is a relatively difficult question, unless you have some background with the federal judiciary. That said, the answer choices should have narrowed your focus slightly. At any rate, the particulars in this question delve into hyper-technical aspects of the federal judiciary that are far beyond the scope of your course. In order to fully understand, however, we’ll touch on them briefly.

Federal (Article III) courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, which means they cannot hear any case that they want to—this reflects the principals of Federalism that are deeply embedded in our Constitution. Among the cases that they can hear are: “diversity” and “federal question.”

Put extremely simply, diversity cases must satisfy two requirements: (1) the plaintiff (the one bringing the case) and the defendant (the one against whom the case is brought) must be citizens of different states; and (2) the damages (that is, the ‘award’ for ‘winning’ the case) must satisfy the “amount in controversy” requirement—currently set at $75,000 (Congress changes this every so often to reflect inflation and other variables). In other words, in order to bring a diversity case, the parties on either side of the “v” must be citizens of different states AND must be asking for greater than $75,000 in damages.

The only other way (for the purposes of your course) to get a case into federal court is through a “federal question.” Federal question is exactly what it sounds like—the harm in the case must “arise under” federal law. Take, for example, a plaintiff who is suing his employer under the National Labor Relations Act—clearly this is a federal question because the harm arose under a federal law.

As for the other two answers—divorce and Probate—they are incorrect. The federal judiciary is actually explicitly forbidden from hearing matters of family law (i.e. divorce); that is, Congress has removed family law from the federal court’s jurisdiction altogether. Probate is incorrect because it is a type of court, one that often deals with issues of family law (such as wills).

The Chief Justice as of January 1, 2015 was John G. Roberts. He was preceded by William Rehnquist, who was preceded by Warren Burger, who was preceded by Earl Warren. Roberts was nominated to the position of Chief Justice by George W. Bush and took his seat in 2005. He is known to be conservative and to adhere to tradition and precedent.