Which court appointment approved by the senate

Roberts, Jr. Miers, also nominated by President Bush in The following resources suggest the reasons behind failed confirmations as well as charts listing brief information for all the failed confirmations:.

Georgetown Law Library Guides U. Search this Guide Search. Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide This guide explains the nomination process and suggests resources for further research into the nominations of more recently confirmed Supreme Court Justices.

Kennedy Confirmed Nomination of Neil M. Souter Confirmed Judge Samuel A. Rehnquist Confirmed Harriet E. The Process The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination. The full Senate debates the nomination. LSB Barry J. R Barry J. Supreme Court, including its development as an institution, the justices' backgrounds, nominations, and confirmations. The Senate Judiciary Committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee.

Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process. Court of appeals and district court judgeships are created by legislation that must be enacted by Congress.

The Judicial Conference through its Judicial Resources Committee surveys the judgeship needs of the courts every other year. A threshold for the number of weighted filings per judgeship is the key factor in determining when an additional judgeship will be requested.

Other factors may include geography, number of senior judges, and mix of cases. The Judicial Conference presents its judgeship recommendations to Congress. Figure 4 provides some historical context for the number of nay votes received by the five most recent nominations to the Court Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito, and Roberts.

Specifically, the figure identifies, of the 34 nominations since that received a final floor vote, the 10 nominations that received the greatest number of nay votes. Of the 10 nominations listed in the figure, 7 were confirmed by the Senate and 3 were rejected the Bork, Haynsworth, and Carswell nominations. Figure 4.

Ten U. Notes: This figure identifies the 10 Supreme Court nominations since that received the greatest number of nay votes during the final floor vote on the nomination. Of the seven nominations that were approved, five were for individuals currently serving on the Court—including the four most recent nominees Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Alito.

The level of opposition to Supreme Court nominations approved by the Senate, as measured by the percentage of Senators voting against a nomination, has been relatively greater in recent years than in the past. Since there have been 50 nominations that received an up-or-down roll call vote on the Senate floor that also resulted in the nomination being approved by the Senate 76 Of these 50 nominations, Figure 5 identifies the 10 for which the greatest percentage of Senators voted to oppose it.

Figure 5. Notes: This figure identifies, of the 50 Supreme Court nominations since that were approved by roll call vote in the Senate rather than by voice vote , the 10 nominations for which the percentage of Senators voting against the nomination was greatest. Of the 10 individuals listed in the figure, 4 are currently serving on the Court. For the 50 nominations, the median percentage of Senators voting "nay" on a nomination was The Senate typically deals with a motion to reconsider a Supreme Court confirmation in one of two ways.

Immediately following the vote to confirm, a Senator may move to reconsider the vote, and the motion is promptly laid upon the table by unanimous consent.

Sometimes, after a Supreme Court nomination has been reported, the Senate may delay considering or voting on the nomination, in order to have the Senate Judiciary Committee address new issues concerning the nominee or more fully examine issues that it addressed earlier.

Opponents of a nomination may also seek such delay, through recommittal of the nomination to the committee, to defeat the nomination indirectly, by burying it in committee.

Although the Senate has never adopted a motion to reconsider a Supreme Court nomination after a confirmation vote, there have been at least eight pre-confirmation vote attempts to recommit Supreme Court nominations to the Judiciary Committee. In the first of these two instances, in , the nomination, after being recommitted, stalled in committee until it was withdrawn by the President.

In the second instance, in , the Judiciary Committee re-reported the nomination, which the Senate then confirmed. On December 15, , on the second day of its consideration of the nomination of Attorney General George H. Williams to be Chief Justice, the Senate ordered the nomination to be recommitted to the Judiciary Committee. During that four-day interval, however, various allegations were made against Williams, including charges that while Attorney General he had used his office to influence decisions profiting private companies in which he held interests.

Although the Judiciary Committee held hearings after the recommittal, it did not re-report the nomination back to the Senate.

Amid press reports of significant opposition to the nomination both in the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole, 86 the nomination, at Williams's request, was withdrawn by President Ulysses S. Grant on January 8, Stone to the Judiciary Committee. Earlier, on January 21, the Judiciary Committee had favorably reported the nomination to the Senate.

However, one historian wrote, "Stone's unanimous Judiciary Committee approval ran into trouble when it reached the Senate floor. Walsh, demanded that the nomination be returned to the Judiciary Committee. Under lengthy cross examination by Senator Walsh and several other Senators, the nominee defended his role in the Wheeler investigation.

In , during debate on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, the Senate—without recommitting the nomination to the Judiciary Committee—delayed its scheduled vote on the nomination specifically to allow the committee time for additional hearings on the nominee. On October 8, , after four days of debate, the Senate, by unanimous consent, rescheduled its vote on the Thomas nomination, from October 8 to October The purpose of this delay was to allow the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on sexual harassment allegations made against the nominee by law professor Anita Hill, which had come to public light only after the Judiciary Committee had ordered the Thomas nomination to be reported, without recommendation, on September Under the Constitution, the Senate alone votes on whether to confirm presidential nominations, the House of Representatives having no formal involvement in the confirmation process.

If the Senate votes to confirm the nomination, the Secretary of the Senate then attests to a resolution of confirmation and transmits it to the White House. Next, the signed commission "is returned to the Justice Department for engraving the date of appointment determined by the actual day the president signs the commission and for the signature of the attorney general and the placing of the Justice Department seal. Once the President has signed the commission, the incoming Justice may be sworn into office.

Until recently, the most common practice of new appointees had been to take their judicial oath in private, usually within the Court, and, as desired by the Presidents who nominated them, to take their constitutional oaths in nationally televised ceremonies at the White House.

Subsequently, the Court itself, in its courtroom, also affords public recognition to the new Justice's appointment, in a formal ceremony called an "investiture," at which the Justice is sworn in yet again. This invitation-only event, for which reserved press seating is made available, is attended by the Court's other Justices, by family, friends, and former associates of the new Justice, and by outside dignitaries who may include the President and the Attorney General.

The author thanks [author name scrubbed], former Specialist on the Federal Judiciary, for his work on a prior version of this report; Amber Wilhelm, Graphics Specialist in the Publishing and Editorial Resources Section of CRS, for her work on the figures included in this report; and Raymond Williams, Research Assistant, for his work on this report. Mark O. Hatfield, "Nomination of Stephen G. For example, during Senate debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas, the criterion of professional qualification was cited by both supporters and opponents of the nominee to explain their votes.

A Senator supporting the Thomas nomination maintained that instead of the nominee's "philosophy on particular issues" which might come before the Supreme Court, the "more appropriate standard" was that the nominee "have outstanding legal ability and wide experience and meet the highest standards of integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence.

Frank H. Other Senators, however, used the criterion of professional competence to find Judge Thomas unqualified. One, for example, found the nominee's "legal background and experience" inadequate and added that, if a President did not nominate to the court "well-qualified, experienced individuals, the American people have the right to expect that the members of the Senate will reject the nomination.

During debate over the nomination of Clarence Thomas in , these criteria were used both by Senators favoring the nomination and by others opposing it. One Senator in support of the nomination, for example, declared his desire to have "Supreme Court Justices who will interpret the Constitution and not attempt to legislate or carry out personal agendas from the bench.

Richard C. By contrast, another Senator, explaining his opposition to confirming Judge Thomas, said that if Senators were "not confident that nominees possess a clear commitment to the fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms at the heart of our democracy, they should not be confirmed.

Edward M. Of course, that includes the nominee's fidelity to the Constitution. It involves that nominee's understanding of the limited role of the courts, and it involves what I hope is a commitment to judicial restraint. Charles E. Similarly evincing concern with both a nominee's professional qualification and his constitutional values was this Senate floor statement during debate on the nomination of Clarence Thomas: "When I face a Supreme Court nominee I have three questions: Is he or she competent?

Does she or he possess the highest personal and professional integrity? And, third, will he or she protect and defend the core constitutional values and guarantees around free of speech, religion, equal protection of the law, and the right of privacy?

Barbara A. More recently, Senator Chuck Schumer stated, "I have always had a consistent standard for evaluating judicial nominees. I use it when voting for them. I use it when joining in, in the nomination process. I did under President Bush and continue to under President Obama. Those three standards are excellence, moderation, and diversity.

Senator Mitch McConnell, for example, has stated "The American people also want a nominee with the requisite legal experience. They instinctively know a lifetime position on the Supreme Court does not lend itself to on-the-job training.

For recent examples of floor remarks by Senators highlighting the professional qualifications of nominees, see Sen. S; Sen. S36 Alito nomination ; and Sen.

Kagan was the first appointee to the Court since , when Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed, who was not serving as a U. In floor remarks about Kagan's nomination, Senator Mitch McConnell stated that "one does not need to have prior experience as a judge before being appointed to the country's highest Court, but it strikes me that if a nominee does not have traditional experience, they should have substantial litigation experience. Kagan has neither, unlike Justice Rehnquist, for instance, who was in private practice for 16 years prior to his appointment as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, a job he had at the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court.

In contrast, another Senator argued that Kagan, as a result of "more than 24 years of legal experience in a range of settings, she will bring a distinct perspective to judging that will serve both the Court and Americans well. Three political scientists, for example, wrote in that although "speculation about possible Supreme Court vacancies is usually met with much interest by court watchers, it is particularly intense at present due to the ideological balance of the current Court and the recent politics of the judicial confirmation process.

Given the delicate ideological balance on the current Court, a single vacancy could produce a dramatic shift in the ideological direction of future rulings. Manning, Bruce A. Carroll, and Robert A. Carp, "George W. At the end of the Court's October term the first full term with both Justices Roberts and Alito on the Court , Greenhouse reported that "[f]ully a third of the court's decisions, more than in any recent term, were decided by 5-to-4 margins.

Most of those, 19 of 24, were decided along ideological lines, demonstrating the court's polarization whether on constitutional fundamentals or obscure questions of appellate procedure. Breyer—prevailed in only six While the percentage of all opinions that were rulings for the term was the fourth highest of the 10 terms since , the percentage of rulings that were decided along ideological lines was sixth highest during these same 10 terms.

For example, during floor debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Stephen G. Breyer, one Senator said of the nominee's views, "Certainly in terms of an expansive definition of the Constitution, I have no doubt that Judge Breyer is going to make rulings that represent a different interpretation of the great document than I have and that people who share my views have.

But I also believe that Judge Breyer's views are mainstream liberal views. I believe that anyone who voted for Bill Clinton knew or should have known that the chances [of] anyone more conservative than Judge Breyer being nominated by Bill Clinton were almost zero. Phil Gramm, "Nomination of Stephen G. Most recently, the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Kennedy is considered controversial by some Senators because of the possibility that Judge Kavanaugh's appointment to the Court would shift the Court's ideological balance in a more conservative direction on one or more issues.

See, for example, floor statements by Sen. S; by Sen. S; and by Sen. Prior to the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Kennedy, one reason for Senate division over the nomination of Samuel A. Alito was nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, perceived by many as a moderate or "swing" vote on the Court. A18 editorial describing the nomination as "the moment conservatives have been waiting for" and predicting a "confirmation battle" in the Senate.

Earlier, in , Senate concern with a nominee's judicial philosophy was also especially heightened when President Reagan nominated appellate court judge Robert H.

Bork to the Court. The nomination sparked immediate controversy, and polarized the Senate generally along party lines, in large part because of the nominee's judicial philosophy of "original intent" and the perception that he had been nominated by President Reagan to move the Court in the future in what was characterized as a more conservative direction. Hereafter cited as Massaro, Supremely Political. In a Senate floor statement shortly after the Bork nomination was made, the then-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen.

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. D-DE , faulted the President for his choice. Senator Biden declared that when a President selects nominees "with more attention to their judicial philosophy and less attention to their detachment and statesmanship," a Senator "has not only the right but the duty to respond by carefully weighing the nominee's judicial philosophy and the consequences for the country.

Biden Jr. S first quote and p. S second quote. Various Senators who favored Judge Bork's confirmation, however, disagreed with Senator Biden regarding the importance of the nominee's judicial philosophy. Some expressed a preference for a narrower scope of Senate inquiry, focusing on Judge Bork's legal competence and character.

Others considered Judge Bork's judicial philosophy and views of the Constitution appropriate areas of inquiry, but the crucial determination for the Senate to make in these areas, they argued, was whether his views fell within a broad range of acceptable thinking, not whether individual Senators agreed with those views.

Further, some Senators maintained, to evaluate a nominee according to political or judicial philosophy, or to vote to confirm only if Senators agreed with the nominee's views, would politicize the Supreme Court and undermine its independence of the legislative branch.

See, for example, statements by Sen. Soon thereafter, on September 4, , the same Senate Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on a related issue involving judicial nominations—namely, does the "burden of proof" lie with the nominee, to demonstrate that he or she merits appointment to the federal bench, or with Senate opponents, to demonstrate that the nominee is unfit for confirmation?

SS; by Sen. S ; by Sen. See Watson and Stookey, Shaping America , pp. For example, while the legislative Congress has the power to create law, the executive president can veto any legislation; an act that can be overridden by Congress. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has the power to invalidate as unconstitutional any law passed by the Congress. Thus, the nomination and appointment process of federal judges serves as an important component of the checks and balances process.

The president has the power to nominate candidates for Supreme Court and other federal judge positions based on the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. Every judge appointed to the court may be categorized as a federal judge with approval from the Senate. The president nominates all federal judges, who must then be approved by the Senate. The appointment of judges to lower federal courts is important because almost all federal cases end there.

Judges may time their departures so that their replacements are appointed by a president who shares their views. For example, Supreme Court Justice Souter retired in and Justice Stevens in , enabling President Obama to nominate — and the Democratic controlled Senate to confirm — their successors.

A recess appointment is the appointment, by the President of the United States, of a senior federal official while the U. Senate is in recess. To remain in effect a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again; in current practice this means that a recess appointment must be approved by roughly the end of the next calendar year. Chief Justice Roberts : John G. Roberts, Jr. Federal judges, such as Supreme Court Justices, must be nominated.