Although election to the Supreme Court had always been an honor, several justices have chosen to resign.

There was a debate, to be sure, but instead of being the constitutionality of affirmative action, the subject was the suitability of the well-known case the justices had chosen as the vehicle for addressing that contested issue.

While there is widespread interest in the subject of the case, its lasting significance could lie in how the justices choose to approach the First Amendment question.

The justices addressed themselves solely to the procedural route that such lawsuits must take, and chose the route that is by far the more inmate-friendly from the two options that the case presented.

In other words, the justices choose to heard about 1 percent of the appeals that they receive.

The justices choose one of their number to serve a four-year term as chief justice; the first chief justice was Samuel Steinfeld, who had been the chief justice of the Appeals Court since 1972.

That calculation will change, of course, if a second justice, also chose to leave the court, creating a different situation.

All the remaining available justices were Republicans, so the four justices already selected chose Justice Joseph P. Bradley, who was considered the most impartial remaining member of the court.

Do the justices choose their clerks based on ideology, or do they care more about writing skill and law school grades?

While there is no way of knowing why the justices chose to hear the Guantánamo cases, here are some of the voices that weighed in on the argument.