Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 - 2006: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

The process of appointing Supreme Court Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but
its most basic feature, the sharing of power between the President and Senate, has remained
unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated
by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. A key role also has come to be played midway
in the process by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Table 1 of this report lists and describes actions taken by the Senate, the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and the President on all Supreme Court nominations, from 1789 to the present. The
table provides the name of each person nominated to the Court and the name of the President
making the nomination. It also tracks the dates of formal actions taken, and time elapsing
between these actions, by the Senate or Senate Judiciary Committee on each nomination, starting
with the date that the Senate received the nomination from the President.
Thirty-nine of the 42 Presidents in the history of the United States have made a total of 158
nominations to the Supreme Court, of which 122 (more than three-quarters) received Senate
confirmation. Also, on 12 occasions in the nation’s history, Presidents have made temporary
recess appointments to the Court, without submitting nominations to the Senate. Of the 36
unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were
withdrawn by the President, and 14 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress.
A total of 115 of the 158 nominations were referred to a Senate committee, with 114 of them to
the Judiciary Committee (including almost all nominations since 1868). Prior to 1916, the
Judiciary Committee considered these nominations behind closed doors. Since 1946, however,
almost all nominees have received public confirmation hearings. Most recent hearings have lasted
four or more days.
In recent decades, from the late 1960s to the present, the Judiciary Committee has tended to take
more time before starting hearings and casting final votes on Supreme Court nominations than it
did previously. The median time taken for the full Senate to take final action on Supreme Court
nominations also has increased in recent decades, dwarfing the median time taken on earlier
nominations.
For another perspective on Supreme Court nominations, focusing, among other things, on when
the Senate first became aware of each President’s nominee selections (e.g., via public
announcements of the President), see CRS Report RL33118, Speed of Presidential and Senate
Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2006, by R. Sam Garrett, Denis Steven Rutkus,
and Curtis W. Copeland. For an examination of floor procedures used by the full Senate in
considering Supreme Court nominations, see CRS Report RL33247, Supreme Court
Nominations: Senate Floor Procedure and Practice, 1789-2006, by Richard S. Beth and Betsy
Palmer.
This report will be updated upon the next occasion for a Court appointment.

Introduc tion ............................................................................................................................... 1
Description of Report’s Contents..............................................................................................1
Findings from the Nominations Table.......................................................................................3
Number of Nominations and Nominees..............................................................................3
Presidents Who Made the Nominations..............................................................................3
Date That Nominations Were Received in Senate..............................................................4
Referral of Nominations to Senate Judiciary Committee...................................................4
Nominations That Received Public Confirmation Hearings...............................................5
Nominations Reported Out of Committee to Full Senate...................................................8
Nominations Not Reported Out of Committee...................................................................9
Final Action by the Senate or the President......................................................................10
Days from Date of Senate Receipt of Nomination to First Hearing..................................11
Days from Senate Receipt to Final Committee Vote.........................................................12
Days from Senate Receipt to Final Senate or Presidential Action....................................13
Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court.....................................................................15
Concluding Observations........................................................................................................15
Table 1. Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-2006..............................17
Table 2. Senate Votes on Whether to Confirm Supreme Court Nominations: Number
Made by Voice Vote/Unanimous Consent (UC) or by Roll-Call Vote........................................41
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................41

The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for
by the Constitution in only a few words. The “Appointments Clause” (Article II, Section 2, clause
2) states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.” The process of appointing Justices has
undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature—the sharing of power between
the President and Senate—has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the
Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. An
important role also has come to be played midway in the process (after the President selects, but
before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Supreme Court appointments without the Senate’s
consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such “recess appointments,” however, were temporary,
with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate’s next session. The last recess appointments to
the Court were made in the 1950s.
The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice might or might not proceed smoothly. From the first
appointments in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 122 out of 158 Court nominations. Of the 36
unsuccessful nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while nearly all of the rest,
in the face of committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by
the President, or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate.
This report lists and describes actions taken by the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and
the President on all Supreme Court nominations, from 1789 to the present. The listing appears in
a Supreme Court nominations table, Table 1, later in this report. Preceding the table is summary
text, which highlights certain nominations statistics derived from the table. The text also provides
historical background information on the Supreme Court appointment process and uses
nominations statistics from the table to shed light on ways in which the appointment process has
evolved over time. Many of the statistical findings discussed, for example, provide historical
perspective on the emergence, and then increased involvement, of the Senate Judiciary
Committee in the appointment process.
Specifically, the table lists, for each Supreme Court nomination, the following:
• name of the person nominated (the nominee);
• name of the President who made the nomination;
• date the nomination was made by the President and received in the Senate;¹
• date(s) of any committee hearings held on the nomination that were open to the
public;

¹^Usua^lly^the^da^te^{on w}^h^ic^{h t}^h^e^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t f}^o^rm^a^l^l^y^m^a^ke^{s a}^nom^ina^tion,^by^sigⁿ^ing^a^nom^ina^tio^{n m}^e^s^s^a^g^e^,^{is the}^sa^m^e
^{as t}^h^{e d}^a^t^e^on^w^hⁱ^c^h^t^h^{e no}^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿⁱ^s^recei^vedⁱⁿ^t^h^e^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^.^In^Ta^bl^e¹^,^t^h^{ese t}^w^o^d^a^t^e^{s are t}^h^{e same f}^o^{r an}^y^gi^v^eⁿ
ⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^o^{n w}^h^en^oⁿ^l^y^oⁿ^e^d^a^t^eⁱ^s^sh^o^wⁿⁱⁿ^t^h^{e “Dat}^{e recei}^vedⁱⁿ^S^eⁿ^a^t^{e” co}^l^u^mⁿ^.^Ho^w^e^v^e^r,^f^o^{r t}^h^{e o}^ccasi^oⁿ^a^l
ⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^o^{n m}^a^d^e^b^y^{a P}^r^esi^d^en^t^on^{a d}^a^t^e^p^rⁱ^o^r^t^o^t^h^{e no}^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^’^s^recei^p^t^b^y^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^,^t^h^{e earl}ⁱ^e^{r presi}^d^en^tⁱ^a^l
ⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^o^{n d}^a^t^eⁱ^s^dⁱ^stⁱⁿ^gui^sh^ed^,ⁱⁿ^p^a^rent^h^e^ses,^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e d}^a^t^e^w^h^eⁿ^t^h^eⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^w^a^{s recei}^ved^b^y^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^.

• type and date of final committee action; and
• type and date of final action by the Senate or, in rarer instances, by the President
(when the final action taken on a nomination was its withdrawal by the
President).
Table 1 also shows the speed with which action was taken on each nomination, specifically
presenting the number of days that elapsed from the date the nomination was formally received in
the Senate until the following:
• the first day of public confirmation hearings (if any);
• the date of final committee action (if any); and
• the date of final Senate action or presidential withdrawal of the nomination.
The table also lists all recess appointments to the Supreme Court, as well as the later nomination
of each recess appointee.
Table 1, it should be emphasized, tracks the dates of formal actions taken by the President, the
Senate, and the Senate Judiciary Committee on each Supreme Court nomination. The table, for
example, records the dates that nominations were actually made and transmitted by the President
to the Senate. The table, however, does not track the dates on which Presidents announced the
intention to nominate someone to be a Justice or on which the Senate informally first became
aware of each President’s nominee selections. A discussion focusing more closely on such
informal steps in the Supreme Court appointment process can be found in CRS Report RL33118,
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2006.
Actions by the full Senate tracked systematically in Table 1 are those on which the Senate took
final action (ordinarily in the form of confirmation, and less often in the form of rejecting,
tabling, or postponing action on a nomination). For certain Supreme Court nominations, Table 1
also provides dates of procedural actions taken on the Senate floor, prior to or after final Senate
action, in order to put the final action in fuller context. The table, however, does not account for
all Senate procedural actions on, or for all dates of Senate floor consideration of, Supreme Court
nominations. For more comprehensive information on procedural actions taken by the full Senate
on past Supreme Court nominations, see CRS Report RL33247, Supreme Court Nominations:
Senate Floor Procedure and Practice, 1789-2006.
In listing all persons ever nominated to the Supreme Court, Table 1 includes the names of those
who were not confirmed as well as those who were confirmed but did not assume their appointive ²
office. A list solely of the 110 individuals who assumed office and served on the Court (with
judicial oath dates and service termination dates for each Justice) is available on the Court’s ³
website.

²^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^ideⁿ^tif^ie^s^eⁱ^g^h^{t Su}^pr^e^m^{e C}^our^tⁿ^o^mⁱ^ne^e^s^w^{ho s}^ubs^e^q^ue^nt^{to Se}^na^te^c^o^nf^ir^m^a^{tion did}^no^{t a}^s^s^u^m^e^the^of^fⁱ^c^e^to
^w^h^ic^{h the}^y^ha^{d be}^eⁿ^a^p^p^oⁱⁿ^te^d:^S^e^v^e^{n de}^c^line^d^t^h^e^of^fⁱ^c^e^,^a^{nd one}^die^d^be^f^o^r^e^a^s^s^u^mⁱ^ng^{it. I}^t^s^h^oul^d^be^no^te^d,
^how^e^v^e^r^{, tha}^t^one^of^the^se^v^e^{n w}^ho^de^c^line^d^the^of^fⁱ^c^e^,^W^illia^m^C^u^shing^—^c^o^nf^irm^e^{d to be}^C^h^ie^f^Justic^e^{in 1}⁷⁹⁶^—w^a^s
^a^t^the^tim^e^se^rv^ing^{on the}^Co^{urt a}^s^aⁿ^A^ssocⁱ^a^t^e^Justic^e^,^a^{nd c}^ontiⁿ^ue^{d t}^o^se^rv^e^{in tha}^t^c^a^p^a^c^ity^until¹⁸¹^{0. A}^not^he^{r of}
^the^se^v^e^{n, Joh}ⁿ^Ja^y^—^c^onf^ir^m^e^{d to be}^C^h^ie^f^Justic^e^{in 1}⁸⁰⁰^—ha^d^s^e^rv^e^d^e^a^r^lie^{r on the}^C^ourt^,^a^s^the^{Court’s f}ⁱ^{rst Chie}^f
^J^u^s^tic^e^,^f^r^om^{1789 t}^o¹⁷⁹⁵^.
³^T^h^e^lis^{t, a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.^s^upre^m^e^c^ourtus^.^g^o^v^/^a^bout^/^m^em^b^e^rs^.pdf^{, pre}^s^eⁿ^ts^fⁱ^rs^{t the}^na^m^e^s^of^{17 pe}^rs^oⁿ^s^w^ho
^h^a^{ve serv}^ed^{as Ch}ⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^ce,^f^o^l^l^o^w^e^d^b^y^t^h^{e 9}⁸^p^e^rson^{s w}^h^o^h^a^ve^served^as^A^sso^ci^at^{e Ju}^stⁱ^ces.^T^h^e^lⁱ^s^tⁱⁿ^{g o}^f¹¹⁵
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

Table 1 lists all 158 Supreme Court nominations since 1789. Each of the 158 nominations
entailed a President signing a nomination message, which was then transmitted to, and received
by, the Senate. A lesser number of separate individuals, 139, were actually nominated to the ⁴
Court, with some of them nominated more than once.
Of the 158 total nominations to the Court, 22 were to the position of Chief Justice and the other

136 to a position as Associate Justice. The 22 Chief Justice nominations involved 20 persons ⁵

nominated once, and one person nominated twice. The 136 Associate Justice nominations
involved 119 persons nominated once, seven persons nominated twice, and one person nominated
three times.
Thirty-nine of the 42 Presidents in the history of the United States have made nominations to the ⁶
Supreme Court. These 39 are listed in the second column of Table 1. All but one of the 39
Presidents succeeded in having at least one Supreme Court nomination receive Senate
confirmation. The one exception was President Andrew Johnson, whose only Court nomination,
of Henry Stanbery in 1866, was thwarted when the Senate enacted legislation eliminating the ⁷
Associate Justice position to which Stanbery had been nominated.

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
ⁿ^a^m^e^{s i}ⁿ^al^l⁽¹⁷⁺⁹⁸⁾ⁱⁿ^cl^ud^{es t}^h^o^s^{e o}^f^fⁱ^v^e^Chⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^ces^w^h^o^earlⁱ^e^{r h}^a^d^served^{as A}^sso^ci^at^{e Ju}^stⁱ^c^es,^h^eⁿ^{ce red}^u^cⁱⁿ^g
^{to 1}¹⁰^the^t^o^ta^l^num^be^r^of^pe^r^s^on^s^w^{ho ha}^v^e^s^e^r^v^e^d^a^s^m^e^m^b^e^r^s^of^the^C^o^ur^t.
⁴^S^p^eci^fⁱ^cal^l^y^,^ei^gh^t^p^e^rsoⁿ^s^w^e^reⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^at^ed^t^wⁱ^{ce t}^o^t^h^{e sam}^e^Co^u^r^t^p^o^sⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ^(seven^t^o^b^e^A^sso^ci^at^e^Ju^stⁱ^ce,^oⁿ^e^t^o^b^e
^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e⁾^{; one}^pe^r^s^oⁿ^w^a^s^no^mⁱ^na^te^{d thr}^e^e^tim^es^{to be}^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^J^u^s^tic^e^;^a^nd^nine^pe^r^s^ons^w^e^r^e^nom^ina^t^e^d^fⁱ^r^s^{t to}
^be^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^J^u^s^tic^e^a^{nd la}^te^r^to^b^e^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e^.^T^h^e^s^u^m^o^f^{19 (}^t^h^e^num^be^r^of^C^our^t^nom^ina^tio^ns^th^a^t^w^e^r^e^{not a}
^pe^r^s^on’^s^fⁱ^r^s^{t n}^o^mⁱ^na^{tion t}^o^t^h^e^C^our^t)^a^nd¹³^{9 (}^t^heⁿ^u^m^b^e^r^of^pe^r^s^ons^nom^ina^t^e^d^to^the^C^our^t^a^t^le^a^s^{t onc}^e⁾^is¹⁵⁸
⁽^t^ota^l^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^{t n}^o^mⁱ^na^tions⁾^.
⁵^T^h^e^na^{tion’s f}ⁱ^{rst Ch}^ie^f^Justic^e^,^John^Ja^y^,^w^a^{s nom}^ina^t^e^d^{to tha}^t^po^sition^tw^ic^e^.^Ja^y^wa^s^fⁱ^{rst nom}^ina^t^e^d^{, a}ⁿ^d
^c^onf^ir^m^e^{d, in Se}^pte^m^be^r¹⁷⁸^{9. H}^e^r^e^sⁱ^gⁿ^e^d^a^s^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e^{in 17}⁹⁵^to^s^e^r^v^e^a^s^g^o^v^e^r^nor^of^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{. I}ⁿ^D^e^c^e^m^b^e^r
¹⁸⁰^{0, J}^a^y^w^a^s^nom^ina^t^e^d^a^{nd c}^oⁿ^f^ir^m^e^{d a}^s^e^c^{ond tim}^e^a^s^C^h^ief^J^u^s^tic^e^,^but^de^c^line^d^the^a^p^p^o^intm^eⁿ^{t. For}^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^of
^the^pr^oc^e^s^s^by^w^h^ic^{h a}^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e^is^a^ppoi^nte^d^,^acco^m^p^anⁱ^e^d^b^y^{a l}ⁱ^s^t^o^f^al^l^Chⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^r^o^m¹⁷⁸⁹^to
^the^pr^e^s^eⁿ^{t (}ⁱ^nc^lu^ding^t^h^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion^,^c^o^nf^ir^m^a^{tion, j}^udicⁱ^a^l^oa^th,^a^{nd e}ⁿ^d-^of^-^s^e^r^vⁱ^c^e^da^te^s^of^C^h^ie^f^Jus^tic^e^nom^ine^e^s^,
^a^s^w^e^{ll a}^s^theⁱ^r^a^g^e^s^a^t^tim^e^of^a^p^poi^ntm^e^{nt a}^nd^up^{on te}^r^m^ina^tio^{n o}^f^s^e^r^v^ic^e⁾^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³²⁸²¹^,^T^h^e^Chie^f
^J^u^stic^e^{of t}^h^e^Unite^d^St^ate^s^{: Re}^sp^onsib^ilitie^s^{of t}^h^e^Offic^e^a^{nd Pr}^oc^e^{ss for App}^oⁱⁿ^tmeⁿ^t^,^by^D^e^nis^Ste^v^eⁿ^R^u^tk^us^aⁿ^d
^L^o^rrain^{e H. T}^oⁿ^g^.
⁶^T^h^e^thre^e^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^ts^not^to^ha^v^e^m^a^de^aⁿ^y^Supre^m^e^{Court n}^o^mⁱ^na^{tions w}^e^re^W^illia^m^He^nr^y^Ha^rris^on,^Za^c^h^a^r^y
^T^a^y^l^o^r^,^an^d^Ji^mmy^C^a^rt^er,^wⁱ^t^h^no^Cou^r^t^vacan^ci^{es h}^a^viⁿ^g^o^ccu^rred^w^hⁱ^l^e^t^h^ey^w^e^{re i}ⁿ^o^f^fⁱ^ce.^S^{ee “}^T^ab^l^e³^.^S^u^p^r^em^e
^C^our^{t N}^o^mⁱ^na^tions^,^by^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t^,¹⁷⁸⁹^{to O}^c^t^obe^r²⁰^05,”ⁱⁿ^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³¹¹⁷^1,^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^t^N^o^mⁱ^na^tio^ns^N^o^t
^C^onfir^m^e^d,¹⁷⁸⁹^-²⁰⁰⁷^,^b^y^Hen^r^y^B.^Ho^gu^e,^w^hⁱ^c^h^lⁱ^s^t^s^t^h^{e nu}^m^b^{er o}^f^vacan^ci^{es o}ⁿ^t^h^{e Cou}^r^t^t^h^at^exi^s^t^e^d^du^riⁿ^g^each
^p^r^esi^d^en^cy^,^f^r^o^m^G^e^o^r^g^e^W^a^shⁱⁿ^gt^oⁿ^t^o^G^e^o^r^{ge W}^.^Bu^sh^.^W^hⁱ^l^eⁱ^tⁱ^s^uⁿ^r^em^arkab^l^{e t}^h^atⁿ^o^vacan^ci^{es o}^ccu^rred^du^riⁿ^g
^the^s^hor^t-^liv^e^d^pr^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^of^H^a^r^rⁱ^s^{on (}^M^a^r^{. 4}^{to A}^p^r^.^4,¹⁸⁴¹⁾^aⁿ^{d T}^a^y^l^or⁽^M^a^r^{. 5,}¹⁸⁴⁹^t^o^J^u^ly^9,¹⁸⁵⁰⁾^,^Jⁱ^m^m^y
^C^a^r^t^e^r^’^s^pr^e^s^ideⁿ^c^y⁽^J^aⁿ^{. 20,}¹⁹⁷⁷^to^J^a^n.^20,¹⁹⁸¹⁾^is^r^e^m^a^rka^b^le^a^s^the^on^ly^one^la^sting^a^f^u^{ll te}^rm^duriⁿ^g^w^h^ic^{h no}
^S^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^t^vacan^ci^{es o}^ccu^rred^.
⁷^Se^e^My^r^{on J}^a^c^obs^te^{in a}ⁿ^{d R}^o^y^{M. Me}^r^s^k^y^,^T^h^{e R}^e^j^ect^ed^(Milpit^a^s^{, CA}^:^T^ouc^aⁿ^V^a^lle^y^Public^a^tⁱ^o^{ns, 1}⁹⁹³^),^pp^{. 6}⁹^-
⁷⁴^.^(Hereaf^t^e^{r ci}^t^e^d^{as Jaco}^b^s^t^eⁱⁿ^an^d^M^e^rsky^,^T^h^{e R}^e^j^ect^ed^.)

As Table 1 shows, the number of nominations made to the Supreme Court has varied greatly
from President to President. For any given President, the number of nominations will be affected
by various factors, including the length of time the President was in office, the number of
vacancies occurring on the Court during that presidency, and whether more than one nomination
was required to fill a Court vacancy due to a previous nomination’s failure to be confirmed.
Examination of the nominations to the Court for each President reveals that half of the 42
Presidents made four or more nominations, and half made three or fewer. Half of the 42
Presidents saw three or more of their Court nominations confirmed, and half saw two or fewer
confirmed.
The President with the most Supreme Court nominations and confirmations was George
Washington with 14 nominations, 12 of which were confirmed. The two Presidents with the
second-largest number of Court nominations were John Tyler and Franklin D. Roosevelt, with
nine each. Only one of Tyler’s nine nominations, however, received Senate confirmation, while
all nine of FDR’s were confirmed. The President with the largest number of Supreme Court
confirmations in one term (apart from the first eight of George Washington’s nominations—all in
his first term, and all confirmed) was William Howard Taft, who, during his four years in office,
made six Court nominations, all of which were confirmed. Six Presidents made only one Supreme ⁸
Court nomination each, with the nominations of five of these Presidents receiving confirmation.
And, as noted above, three of the nation’s 42 Presidents were unable to make a single nomination
to the Court, because no vacancies occurred on the Court during their presidencies.
The Supreme Court appointment process officially begins when the President signs a message to
the Senate nominating someone for appointment to the Court. Usually on the date of the signing,
the message is delivered to the Senate and recorded in the Senate Executive Journal as having ⁹^th
been received that day. However, in 30 instances (all but two prior to the 20 century), Supreme
Court messages were recorded in the Senate Executive Journal as received in the Senate on a day
after they were signed by the President—usually the next day. In Table 1, in the “Date received in
Senate” column, a second date is provided in parentheses (as the “Nom. date”), whenever a
President made a nomination on a day prior to its receipt by the Senate.
Although referral of Supreme Court nominations to the Senate Judiciary Committee is now
standard practice, such referrals were not always the case. Table 1 shows that 115 of 158

⁸^T^h^{e f}ⁱ^v^e^P^r^esi^d^en^t^s^w^h^o^s^{e si}ⁿ^g^l^e^S^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^tⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^recei^ved^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^coⁿ^fⁱ^r^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^w^e^{re F}^r^an^klⁱⁿ^Pⁱ^erce,
^Ja^m^e^s^A^.^G^a^r^f^ie^{ld, W}^illia^m^Mc^Ki^nle^y^{, Ca}^lv^{in Coolidg}^e^{, a}ⁿ^d^G^e^ra^l^d^{R. F}^o^r^d^{. A}^s^m^e^ntione^d^a^bov^e^,^t^h^e^one^Pre^s^ideⁿ^t
^w^h^o^s^{e si}ⁿ^g^l^e^Co^u^r^tⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^o^{n d}ⁱ^d^no^t^recei^{ve co}ⁿ^fⁱ^r^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^w^a^s^An^d^r^ew^J^ohns^oⁿ^.
⁹^A^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t m}^a^y^a^nnou^nc^e^the^s^e^le^c^tion^of^a^nom^ine^e^w^e^{ll be}^f^o^re^traⁿ^s^m^itting^a^nom^ina^{tion m}^e^s^s^a^ge^{to t}^h^e^Se^na^te^.
^{For i}ⁿ^staⁿ^c^e^,^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t G}^e^org^e^{W. Bush}^aⁿⁿ^o^uⁿ^c^e^d^hⁱ^{s se}^le^c^tion^of^Sa^m^u^e^l^A^.^A^{lito Jr. to}^be^a^Su^pre^m^e^Court^nom^ine^e
^{on Oc}^t.³¹^{, 2}⁰⁰⁵^,^bu^{t f}^o^rm^a^l^l^y^si^gne^{d a}ⁿ^{d tra}ⁿ^sm^itte^{d the}^nom^ina^tⁱ^on^of^A^{lito to t}^h^e^Se^na^te^oⁿ^Nov^.^10,²⁰⁰⁵^{. F}^o^{r a}
^c^o^m^p^le^te^{list, f}^r^o^m¹⁹⁰^{0 to}²⁰⁰⁶^,^of^the^da^te^{s o}ⁿ^w^h^ic^h^P^r^esi^d^ent^s^anⁿ^o^uⁿ^{ced t}^h^ei^r^S^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^tⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^{ees (a}^s
^disting^u^is^he^{d f}^r^om^w^h^eⁿ^the^y^signe^{d a}ⁿ^{d tra}ⁿ^sm^itte^{d n}^o^mⁱ^na^tion^d^o^c^u^m^e^{nts to the}^Se^na^te^{), se}^e^CRS^Re^{port RL}³³¹¹^8,
^Spe^e^d^{of Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^tial^a^nd^Seⁿ^a^te^Ac^tions^on^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^{t N}^o^mⁱⁿ^a^tio^ns^,¹⁹^00-²⁰⁰⁶^,^by^R^.^Sa^m^G^a^r^r^e^{tt, D}^e^nis^Ste^v^eⁿ
^R^u^tk^us^{, a}ⁿ^{d C}^u^r^tis^W^.^C^ope^la^nd.

Supreme Court nominations have been referred to a Senate committee, 114 of them to the
Judiciary Committee.
The first standing legislative committees of the Senate, including the Judiciary Committee, were
created in 1816. Only once previously was a Supreme Court nomination referred to committee,
when, in 1811, the Senate referred the nomination of Alexander Wolcott to a select committee of
three Members. For roughly half a century afer the Judiciary Committee’s creation, nominations,
rather than being automatically referred to the committee, were referred by motion only. From
1816 to 1868, more than two-thirds of the nominations (26 out of 38 nominations), were referred
to the committee. During this period, the confirmation success rate was roughly the same for
nominations referred, 15 of 26, as it was for those not referred, seven out of 12.
In 1868, Senate rules were changed to provide that all nominations be referred to appropriate ¹⁰
standing committees, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate. Subsequently, from 1868 to the
present day, 87 of 94 Supreme Court nominations have been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The seven not referred to committee were persons who, at the time of their nomination, were a
former President, a Senator, a former Senator, an Attorney General and former U.S. ¹¹
Representative, or a former Secretary of War, and all were easily confirmed. The last Supreme
Court nomination not referred to the Judiciary Committee was that of Senator James F. Byrnes in

1941. The Senate by unanimous consent considered and confirmed the Byrnes nomination,

without referral to committee, on the day it received the nomination from the President.
Table 1, in the “Public hearing date(s)” column, lists dates on which the full Judiciary
Committee, or a Judiciary subcommittee, held public confirmation hearings on Supreme Court
nominations. Included in this listing are public sessions of the committee at which either Supreme
Court nominees testified on their own behalf and/or outside witnesses testified for or against the
nominees.
Before 1916, the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court nominations behind closed
doors. Thus, until that year, there are no entries in the “Public hearing date(s)” column. Rather,
committee sessions on Court nominations typically were limited to committee members
discussing and voting on a nominee in executive session, without hearing testimony from outside

¹⁰^S^{ee U.}^S^.^C^oⁿ^g^ress,^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^Co^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^t^h^{e Ju}^di^ci^ary^,^Hi^st^o^r^{y o}^f^t^h^{e Co}^mmi^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^t^h^e^J^u^dicⁱ^ar^y^,^Uⁿ^ite^{d State}^s
^Se^nate^,¹⁸¹⁶^-¹⁹⁸^1.^Se^{n. D}^o^c^.^N^o^.^97-¹⁸^{, 9}⁷^th^Cong^.,¹^st^s^e^s^s^.⁽^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O^,¹⁹⁸²⁾^,^{p. iv}^{; a}^l^s^o^,^U^.^{S. Se}^na^te^,
^Hi^st^o^r^{y o}^f^t^h^{e Co}^mmi^t^t^ee^oⁿ^R^u^le^s^an^{d Adm}ⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tio^n—Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^Se^nate^,^pr^e^p^a^r^e^d^by^Floy^d^{M. R}ⁱ^ddic^k^,^th^st
^P^a^rlia^m^e^nta^r^ia^{n Em}^e^r^{itus of}^the^S^e^na^te^{, 96}^Co^ng^{., 1}^s^e^s^s^{., S}^.^D^o^c^.^N^o^.^96-²⁷⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,¹⁹⁸⁰⁾^.^Rⁱ^ddic^k
^pr^ov^ide^s^,^on^pp^{. 2}¹^-²^8,^the^f^u^{ll te}^x^t^of^the^g^e^ne^r^a^{l r}^e^vⁱ^sⁱ^{on of}^the^S^e^na^te^r^u^le^s^,^a^d^o^p^te^dⁱⁿ¹⁸⁶⁸^{, i}ⁿ^c^l^udi^ng^{, o}ⁿ^p^.²⁶^,^the
^f^o^llowⁱ^ng^rule^{: “}^W^he^{n nom}^ina^tio^{ns sha}^ll^be^m^a^de^b^y^the^P^r^e^s^id^eⁿ^t^of^the^Unite^d^Sta^t^e^s^to^the^Se^na^te^{, the}^y^sha^{ll, unle}^ss
^othe^rw^is^e^orde^re^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^,^be^re^f^e^rre^{d to a}^ppr^opria^te^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^s^{.... ”}
¹¹^T^h^e^nom^ina^{tions f}^r^om¹⁸⁶^{8 t}^o^t^h^e^pre^s^eⁿ^{t n}^o^{t re}^f^e^rre^{d to}^t^h^e^Judicⁱ^a^r^y^Com^m^itte^e^w^e^re^those^of^{: Ed}^wⁱ^{n M. Sta}ⁿ^t^oⁿ
^{in 1}⁸⁶⁹⁽^a^{t t}ⁱ^m^e^of^nom^ina^{tion, f}^o^r^m^e^r^Se^c^r^e^t^a^r^y^o^f^Wa^r⁾^;^Edw^a^r^d^D^.^W^h^iteⁱⁿ¹⁸^{94 (}^S^eⁿ^a^t^or⁾^;^J^o^s^e^ph^{M. Mc}^K^eⁿⁿ^aⁱⁿ
¹⁸⁹^{7 (}^A^ttorⁿ^e^y^G^e^ne^r^a^{l, a}^{nd f}^o^r^m^e^r^U^.^{S. R}^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^e⁾^{; Ed}^w^a^{rd D. W}^h^ite^a^g^aⁱ^{n, i}ⁿ¹⁹^10,^this^ti^m^e^{to be}^Ch^ie^f
^Justic^e^(A^ssocⁱ^a^t^e^Justic^e^a^t^ti^m^e^of^nom^ina^tion,^aⁿ^d^f^o^rm^e^r^Se^na^to^{r); W}^illia^m^Ho^w^a^{rd Ta}^f^t^{in 1}⁹²¹^(f^or^m^e^{r P}^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t);
^G^e^or^ge^Suthe^r^laⁿ^dⁱⁿ¹⁹²²⁽^f^or^m^e^r^Se^na^tor⁾^;^an^d^Jam^e^{s F. B}^y^rn^{es in}¹⁹⁴¹^(Seⁿ^ato^r).

witnesses.¹² In 1916, for the first time, the committee held open confirmation hearings on a
Supreme Court nomination—that of Louis D. Brandeis to be an Associate Justice—at which
outside witnesses (but not the nominee) testified. More days of public hearings (19) were held on
the Brandeis nomination than on any Supreme Court nomination since. The Brandeis hearings,
however, did not set immediately into place a new policy of open confirmation hearings for
Supreme Court nominations, since each of the next six nominations (during the years 1916 to

1923) was either considered directly by the Senate, without referral to the Judiciary Committee,

or was acted on by the committee without the holding of confirmation hearings.
From 1925 to 1946, public confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominations became the
more common, if not invariable, practice of the Judiciary Committee. In 1925, Harlan F. Stone
became the first Supreme Court nominee to appear in person and testify at his confirmation ¹³
hearings. During the next two decades, the Stone nomination was one of 11 Court nominations
that received public confirmation hearings before either the full Judiciary Committee or a ¹⁴
Judiciary subcommittee, while five other nominations did not receive public hearings. One of
the five nominees not receiving a public confirmation hearing was Senator James F. Byrnes,
whose nomination in 1941, as noted earlier, was considered directly by the Senate without ¹⁵
referral to the Judiciary Committee.
Not indicated in the “Public hearing date(s)”column is the precise length (in minutes or hours) of
each public hearing session. The hearing sessions for a few Supreme Court nominations during

¹²^A^t^l^east^oⁿ^{ce i}ⁿ^t^h^{e 1}⁹^th^cen^t^u^ry^,^h^o^w^ever,ⁱⁿ¹⁸⁷³^,^t^h^{e J}^u^dⁱ^ci^ary^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee d}ⁱ^d^h^{ear w}ⁱ^tⁿ^{esses t}^e^stⁱ^f^y^coⁿ^cernⁱⁿ^g^a
^Supre^m^e^Court^nom^ina^tion—^tha^t^of^Ge^org^e^{H. W}^illia^m^s^{to be}^Chie^f^Justic^e^—^{but the}^s^e^tw^{o da}^y^s^of^h^e^a^r^ing^s^{, on De}^c^.
^{16 a}ⁿ^d^17,¹⁸⁷³^{, w}^e^r^e^he^{ld in}^c^l^o^s^e^d^s^e^s^sⁱ^{on. T}^h^e^c^l^os^e^d^-^d^o^o^r^s^e^s^sⁱ^ons^w^e^r^e^he^{ld to}^e^x^am^ine^doc^um^ents^aⁿ^d^he^a^r
^te^stim^on^y^f^r^om^w^itne^sse^{s re}^le^va^{nt to a}^c^o^ntr^o^v^e^rs^y^tha^t^a^r^ose^ov^e^r^the^W^illia^m^s^nom^ina^tion^only^a^f^te^{r the}^c^o^m^m^itte^e
^ha^{d r}^e^p^o^r^t^e^d^t^h^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion^to^th^e^Se^na^te^{. T}^h^e^c^ontr^o^v^e^r^s^y^pr^om^pte^d^the^Se^na^te^{to r}^e^c^o^m^m^{it the}^no^mⁱ^na^{tion to}^the
^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^a^{nd to a}^u^t^h^o^r^iz^e^the^c^o^m^m^itte^e^“^t^{o s}^e^{nd f}^o^r^pe^r^s^ons^aⁿ^{d pa}^pe^r^s^.”^U^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^Se^na^te^,^J^o^ur^nal
^o^f^t^h^{e E}^xecu^tⁱ^{ve P}^r^o^ceedⁱⁿ^g^s^o^f^t^h^{e S}^e^na^t^e^o^f^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^a^t^{es o}^f^A^m^eri^c^a^{, v}^o^l.^{19 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O^,¹⁹⁰¹⁾^,^p.¹⁸^9.
^A^f^te^r^holding^t^h^e^tw^{o c}^l^os^e^d^-^d^oor^s^e^s^sⁱ^ons^oⁿ^D^e^c^.¹⁶^aⁿ^{d 1}⁷^{, t}^h^e^c^o^m^m^itte^e^{did no}^{t r}^e^-^r^e^por^t^the^no^mⁱ^na^{tion to}^the
^Se^na^te^{. A}^m^{id pr}^e^s^s^r^e^por^ts^of^sⁱ^gnifⁱ^c^aⁿ^{t op}^pos^iti^on^to^the^nom^ina^tion^bo^{th i}ⁿ^t^h^e^J^u^dicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itt^e^e^a^{nd the}^Se^na^te
^a^s^a^w^hole^,^theⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^{tion, a}^t^Wⁱ^llia^m^s^’^s^re^que^{st, w}^a^s^w^ithdra^w^{n by}^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t Uly}^sse^{s S. G}^r^aⁿ^{t on J}^a^{n. 8,}¹⁸⁷⁴^{. Se}^e
^J^a^c^obs^te^{in a}ⁿ^{d Me}^r^s^k^y^,^T^h^{e R}^e^j^e^c^t^ed^{, p}^p^.^82-⁸⁷^.
¹³^F^o^{r a}^dⁱ^scu^ssi^on^o^f^t^h^{e a}^d^ven^t^o^f^S^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^tⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^{ee ap}^p^earan^{ces b}^e^f^o^{re t}^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^Ju^dⁱ^ci^ary^C^o^mmⁱ^t^t^ee,
^s^t^a^r^ting^w^{ith H}^a^r^l^aⁿ^{F. S}^t^oⁿ^eⁱⁿ¹⁹²⁵⁽^a^nd^c^a^r^r^y^ing^thr^oug^{h t}^h^eⁿ^o^m^ina^tions^of^A^b^e^For^t^a^s^a^{nd H}^o^m^e^r^T^hor^nbe^r^r^yⁱⁿ
¹⁹⁶⁸⁾^,^see,^Ja^m^e^s^A^.^T^h^o^r^p^e^,^“T^h^e^A^p^p^earan^{ce o}^f^S^u^p^r^{eme Co}^u^r^t^No^mⁱⁿ^{ees Be}^f^o^{re t}^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^Ju^dⁱ^ci^ar^y^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^ee,^”
^J^ourⁿ^a^{l o}^f^P^ublic^Law^,^v^o^l.^18,¹⁹⁶⁹^{, p}^p^.³⁷^1-⁴⁰²^.
¹⁴^A^sch^o^l^{ar exa}^mⁱⁿⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^{e p}^r^o^{cedures f}^o^l^l^o^w^e^d^b^y^t^h^{e co}^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee i}ⁿⁱ^t^s^coⁿ^sⁱ^d^eratⁱ^o^{n o}^f¹⁵^S^u^p^r^em^{e C}^o^u^r^t
^nom^ina^tions^r^e^f^e^r^r^e^{d to i}^t^be^tw^e^e^{n 1}⁹²³^aⁿ^{d 1}⁹⁴⁶^f^o^u^nd^tha^t^{, w}^ith^tw^{o e}^x^ce^ptions^—^t^heⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tions^of^C^h^a^r^le^s^Ev^aⁿ^s
^H^u^g^h^e^s^{in 1}⁹³⁰^aⁿ^{d H}^a^r^o^l^d^H^.^B^u^r^t^oⁿ^t^o^be^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{in 1}^945—^a^l^{l of}^the^nom^ina^tions^w^e^r^e^fⁱ^r^s^{t “}^p^r^o^c^e^s^s^e^{d by}
^a^subc^om^m^itte^e^{prior t}^o^c^onsi^d^e^r^a^tion^by^the^f^u^{ll c}^o^m^m^itte^e^m^e^m^b^e^r^ship.”^Da^vⁱ^{d G}^r^e^g^g^Fa^rre^ll^y^,^“^O^pe^ra^tiona^{l A}^s^pe^c^t^s
^of^the^Se^na^te^J^u^dicⁱ^a^r^y^Co^m^m^ittee^,^”^(Ph.D^.^dis^s^.,^Princ^e^t^oⁿ^Uⁿ^iv^e^r^s^ity^{: 1949),}^p^p^.¹⁸^4-1^85.^(H^e^r^e^a^f^t^e^{r c}^ite^{d a}^s^Fa^rre^lly^,
^“Op^e^ratⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^A^s^p^ect^s.^”)
¹⁵^T^h^{e f}^o^u^r^o^t^h^e^rⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^no^t^r^ecei^viⁿ^g^public^c^o^nf^irm^a^{tion he}^a^r^ing^s^e^v^eⁿ^tho^u^g^h^re^f^e^rre^{d to the}^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y
^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^ee^{were o}^f^f^o^r^m^{er Ne}^w^Yo^{rk go}^vern^o^r^an^{d f}^o^{rmer S}^u^p^r^e^m^{e Co}^u^r^t^A^sso^ci^at^{e Ju}^stⁱ^{ce Ch}^arl^e^{s E}^v^an^{s Hu}^gh^{es i}ⁿ
¹⁹³^{0, f}^o^r^m^e^r^f^e^de^r^a^{l pr}^os^e^c^u^tor^O^w^e^{n J}^.^R^obe^r^t^sⁱⁿ¹⁹^30,^Se^na^t^o^r^H^u^g^o^L^.^B^l^a^c^k^{in 1}⁹³⁷^{, a}ⁿ^{d Se}^na^tor^H^a^r^o^l^d^H^.
^B^u^r^t^onⁱⁿ¹⁹⁴⁵^.
^Fa^r^r^e^lly^{, in “}^O^pe^r^a^tiona^{l A}^s^pe^c^t^s^,^”^a^l^s^o^lis^ts^the^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^{t no}^mⁱ^na^{tion of}^f^o^r^m^e^r^Mic^h^ig^aⁿ^g^o^v^e^r^nor^Fr^aⁿ^k
^M^u^rph^yⁱⁿ¹⁹⁴⁰^{as o}ⁿ^eⁿ^o^t^recei^viⁿ^g^{a co}ⁿ^fⁱ^r^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^h^eariⁿ^g.^F^a^rrel^l^yⁿ^o^t^es,^at^p^p^.¹⁹¹^-¹⁹²^,^t^h^at^t^h^e^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^Ju^dⁱ^ci^ary
^s^ubc^om^m^itte^e^w^h^ic^{h f}ⁱ^r^s^{t pr}^oc^e^s^s^e^{d the}^nom^ina^tion^“^v^ote^d^a^g^aⁱ^nst^pub^lic^he^a^r^ing^s^.”^T^h^a^t^v^o^teⁿ^o^tw^ithsta^ndi^ng^{, t}^h^e
^nom^ine^e^v^o^lunta^r^ily^a^ppe^a^r^e^d^be^f^o^r^e^the^s^u^bc^om^m^itte^e^{on J}^a^n.¹¹^,¹⁹⁴^0,^{in a}^pu^blic^s^e^s^sⁱ^on^a^t^w^h^ic^{h f}^our^Se^na^tor^s^“^a^ll
^que^s^tio^ne^d^Mr^{. M}^u^r^p^hy^a^bout^his^vⁱ^ew^s^of^the^C^ons^tit^utio^{n a}ⁿ^{d t}^h^e^dut^ie^s^of^a^Supr^e^m^e^C^our^{t J}^u^s^t^ic^e^.^”^“^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^B^ody
^B^a^c^k^s^Mur^phy^f^o^r^C^our^t,”^{New Y}^o^{rk Times}^{, J}^a^n.^12,¹⁹⁴⁰^,^p.^{1. B}^a^s^e^{d on}^this^a^nd^othe^r^sⁱ^m^ila^r^ne^w^s^pa^pe^r^a^c^c^ounts^of
^the^s^ubc^om^m^itte^e^s^e^s^sⁱ^{on, J}^a^n.¹¹^{, 19}⁴⁰^is^lis^te^d^be^l^o^w^,ⁱⁿ^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^a^s^a^publ^ic^he^a^r^ing^da^te^f^o^r^t^h^e^M^u^r^p^hy^nom^ina^tion.

the 1925 to 1946 period lasted for hours, extending over several days;¹⁶ others, however, were
brief and perfunctory in nature, held only long enough to accommodate the small number of ¹⁷
witnesses who wished to testify against a nominee.
From Tom C. Clark’s appointment in 1949 through the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. in

2005-2006, all but three of 34 Supreme Court nominations have received public confirmation ¹⁸

hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee. The first of the
three exceptions involved the 1954 nomination of John M. Harlan II, made less than a month
before the final adjournment of a Congress. At the beginning of the next Congress, however, ¹⁹
Harlan was re-nominated, and hearings were held on that nomination. The second and third
exceptions involved the Associate Justice nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Harriet E. Miers
in 2005, both of which were withdrawn by the President before the scheduled start of
confirmation hearings.
The number of days given to public confirmation hearings has varied greatly from one Supreme
Court nomination to another, particularly in recent decades. Following the 19 days of hearings
held on the Brandeis nomination in 1916, Court nominations through the Associate Justice
nomination of Abe Fortas in 1965 typically received either one or two days of hearings. However,
from 1967 through January 2006, 15 of the 21 Court nominations which advanced through the
hearings stage received four or more days of open confirmation hearings. Four of the 15 ²⁰
nominations received 11 or more days of hearings, while another received eight days of ²¹
hearings. By contrast, only three of the 21 nominations received two or fewer days of ²²
hearings.

¹⁶^S^ee,ⁱⁿ^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^{, t}^h^e^m^u^ltiple^he^a^r^ing^da^y^s^f^o^{r the}ⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^{tions of}^Fe^lix^Fraⁿ^k^f^urte^{r in 1}⁹³⁹^aⁿ^{d Ro}^be^{rt H. Ja}^c^k^{son in}
¹⁹⁴^1.
¹⁷^For^e^x^a^m^ple^,^a^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^s^ubc^om^m^itte^e^he^a^r^ing^{on the}¹⁹³²^nomⁱⁿ^a^tion^of^B^e^nja^m^{in N}^.^C^a^r^doz^{o la}^s^t^e^d^oⁿ^ly^fⁱ^v^e
^mⁱ^nute^s^{, duri}ⁿ^g^w^h^ic^{h one}^w^itne^{ss te}^stif^ie^{d in o}^p^p^o^sitio^{n. L}ⁱ^k^e^wⁱ^s^e^{, w}^h^eⁿ^the^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^Co^m^m^itte^e^e^x^te^nde^{d o}^p^eⁿ
^inv^ita^tio^{ns f}^o^{r w}^itne^sse^{s to te}^stifyⁱⁿ^op^positi^on^a^t^the^c^onf^irm^a^{tion he}^a^r^ing^s^f^o^{r Sta}ⁿ^le^y^{F. Re}^e^dⁱⁿ¹⁹³⁸^{, W}^illia^m^O.
^D^oug^la^sⁱⁿ¹⁹^39,^H^a^r^l^aⁿ^F.^St^one⁽^f^or^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e⁾^{in 1}⁹⁴¹^{, W}^ile^y^B^.^R^u^tle^dg^e^{in 1}⁹⁴³^{, a}ⁿ^{d Fr}^e^d^M.Vⁱ^ns^oⁿ⁽^f^or^C^h^ie^f
^J^u^s^tic^e⁾ⁱⁿ¹⁹^46,ⁿ^o^w^itne^s^s^e^s^a^ppe^a^r^e^d^{to pr}^ote^s^{t a}^g^aⁱ^ns^{t D}^o^ug^la^s^or^Stoⁿ^e^,^aⁿ^{d “}^o^nly^one^or^tw^{o pe}^r^s^ons^f^ile^{d pr}^ote^s^ts
ⁱⁿ^each^{case agai}ⁿ^s^t^Reed^,^Vⁱⁿ^s^oⁿ^an^d^R^u^t^l^e^d^g^e.^{” F}^a^rrel^l^y^,^“Op^e^ratⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^A^s^p^ect^s,^{” p}^p^.¹⁹⁴^-¹⁹^5.
¹⁸^T^h^e^la^s^t^Supr^e^m^e^C^our^{t n}^o^mⁱ^na^tion^{on w}^h^ic^{h a}^Se^na^te^J^u^dicⁱ^a^r^y^s^u^bc^om^m^itte^e^he^{ld he}^a^r^ing^s^w^a^s^{the 19}⁵⁴
^nom^ina^tion^of^Ea^r^l^W^a^r^r^e^{n to be}^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e^.^T^h^e^s^ubc^om^m^itte^e^he^ld^pu^blic^he^a^r^ing^s^{on t}^h^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion^on^Fe^b.^{2 a}ⁿ^d
^19,¹⁹⁵⁴^{, a}^f^te^r^w^h^ic^{h the}^f^u^{ll c}^o^m^m^itte^e^,^{on Fe}^b.²⁴^{, 1}⁹⁵⁴^{, v}^o^te^{d t}^o^r^e^por^t^the^nom^ina^tion^f^a^v^o^r^a^bl^y^.^A^{ll s}^ubs^e^que^nt
^he^a^r^ing^s^on^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^{t nom}^ina^tio^ns^w^e^r^e^he^{ld by}^the^f^u^{ll J}^udi^cⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^.
¹⁹^T^h^e^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^he^{ld tw}^{o da}^y^s^of^c^onf^ir^m^a^{tion he}^a^r^ing^s^oⁿ^the^s^e^c^o^{nd H}^a^r^l^aⁿⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion,^on^Fe^b.^{24 a}^nd
^25,¹⁹⁵⁵^{. T}^h^e^Fe^b.²⁴^s^e^s^sⁱ^on,^he^{ld i}ⁿ^cl^o^s^ed^s^e^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^,^he^a^r^{d t}^h^e^te^s^tim^on^y^of^nine^w^itne^s^s^e^s⁽^s^ev^eⁿ^{in f}^a^v^o^r^of
^c^onf^ir^m^a^{tion, a}ⁿ^{d tw}^{o o}^p^p^o^s^e^d)^.^L^u^the^r^A^.^H^u^s^t^{on, “}^H^a^r^la^{n H}^e^a^rⁱⁿ^g^H^e^{ld by}^Se^na^tor^s^,”^{New Y}^o^{rk Times,}^Fe^b.²⁵^,
¹⁹⁵^5,^p.^{8. T}^h^e^c^o^m^m^itte^e^a^l^s^o^be^g^a^{n the}^Fe^b.²⁵^he^a^r^ingⁱⁿ^c^l^os^e^d^s^e^s^sⁱ^{on, to}^he^a^r^t^h^e^te^s^tim^ony^o^f^additi^ona^l
^wⁱ^tⁿ^esses.^Ho^w^e^ver,^f^o^{r Ju}^d^g^{e H}^a^rl^an^,^w^h^o^w^a^{s t}^h^{e l}^a^st^sch^e^d^u^l^ed^wⁱ^tⁿ^ess,^t^h^{e co}^mmⁱ^t^t^ee^“vo^t^ed^t^o^o^p^eⁿ^t^h^e^h^eariⁿ^{g t}^o
^ne^w^s^pa^pe^r^r^e^por^te^r^s^f^o^r^his^te^s^tim^ony^.”^L^u^the^r^A^.^H^u^s^t^{on, “}^H^a^r^laⁿ^Dⁱ^s^a^v^o^w^s^‘^O^ne^W^o^r^l^d’^Aⁱ^m^s^{in Se}^na^te^Iⁿ^q^u^ir^y^,^”
^{New Yo}^{rk Times,}^Fe^b.²⁶^,¹⁹^55,^p^.^1.
²⁰^T^h^e^s^e^w^e^r^e^the^nom^ina^tions^of^R^obe^r^t^H^.^B^o^r^kⁱⁿ¹⁹⁸⁷⁽¹²^he^a^r^ing^da^y^s⁾^,^C^l^a^r^eⁿ^c^e^T^hom^as^{in 1}⁹⁹¹⁽¹¹^da^y^s⁾^,^a^nd
^A^b^e^For^t^a^s^a^{nd H}^o^m^e^r^T^hor^nbe^r^r^y^{in 196}^{8 (}¹¹^da^y^s^f^o^r^theⁱ^r^joiⁿ^t^he^a^r^ing^s⁾^.
²¹^Iⁿ¹⁹^69,^eⁱ^g^h^{t da}^y^s^of^c^onf^ir^m^a^ti^on^he^a^r^ing^s^w^e^r^e^he^{ld on t}^h^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tio^{n of}^C^l^e^m^eⁿ^{t F. H}^a^yⁿ^sw^or^t^h^.
²²^On^{e d}^a^y^o^f^h^eariⁿ^{gs each}^w^a^{s h}^e^l^d^on^t^h^{e no}^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^o^f^W^a^rren^E^.^Bu^{rger (t}^{o b}^e^C^hⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce) i}ⁿ¹⁹⁶⁹^and^Harry
^A^.^B^l^a^c^km^{un in}¹⁹^70,^w^h^ile^tw^{o da}^y^s^o^f^he^a^r^ing^s^w^e^r^e^he^{ld on}^the^nom^ina^tio^{n of}^Aⁿ^toni^{n Sc}^a^liaⁱⁿ¹⁹⁸^6.

Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary Committee have almost always been
reported to the Senate. If a majority of its members oppose confirmation, the Judiciary Committee
technically may decide not to report a Supreme Court nomination. (This tactic would prevent the
full Senate from considering the nominee, unless the Senate were able to undertake successfully
the discharge of the committee.) Table 1, however, shows that the committee has almost never
employed the strategy of not reporting. Of the 114 Supreme Court nominations referred to the ²³
Judiciary Committee, 106 were reported to the Senate. The committee has reported these
nominations in the following four ways.
For most of the first five decades in which the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court
nominations (1828 to 1863), its usual practice was simply to report these nominations to the
Senate, without any official indication of the committee members’ opinions regarding them.
Twenty-three nominations were reported to the Senate in this way, and 15 of them were
confirmed.
In 1870, the Judiciary Committee initiated the practice of reporting to the Senate an explicit
recommendation in favor of confirmation whenever a majority of members supported a Supreme
Court nominee. Over the course of almost a century and a half, the committee has favorably ²⁴
reported 72 Supreme Court nominations, with 66 receiving Senate confirmation.
On four occasions—three times in the late 19^th century and once in the late 20^th century—the
Judiciary Committee has voted to report a Supreme Court nomination while explicitly stating it
was not making a recommendation to the Senate. On each occasion, the committee reported a ²⁵
nomination without urging the Senate either to confirm or to reject. The Senate confirmed three ²⁶
of the nominations that were reported in this way, while rejecting the fourth.

²³^A^s^note^d^e^a^r^lie^{r, o}ⁿ^ly^onc^e^prio^r^{to t}^h^e^e^s^ta^blishm^eⁿ^t^of^the^Judⁱ^cⁱ^a^r^y^Co^m^m^itte^e^{in 1}⁸¹⁶^w^a^{s a}^Supr^e^m^e^Court
^nom^ina^tion^re^f^e^rre^{d to c}^o^m^m^itte^e^,^a^nd^tha^t^nom^ina^tio^{n w}^a^{s re}^porte^{d to}^the^Se^na^te^a^s^w^e^{ll. Se}^eⁱⁿ^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^the
ⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^o^{n i}ⁿ¹⁸¹¹^o^f^A^l^ex^an^d^e^{r W}^o^l^c^o^t^t^,^w^hⁱ^c^h^w^a^{s co}ⁿ^sⁱ^d^ered^by^{a sel}^ect^co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee an}^d^t^h^en^repo^rt^ed^t^o^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^,
^w^h^{ere i}^t^w^a^{s rej}^ect^ed^b^y^{a 9}^-²⁴^v^o^t^e^.
²⁴^T^h^{e si}^{x favo}^rab^l^y^rep^o^r^t^e^d^no^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^w^hⁱ^c^h^f^aⁱ^l^e^d^t^o^recei^{ve S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^coⁿ^fⁱ^r^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^vo^l^v^ed^t^h^{ese n}^o^mⁱⁿ^ees:
^G^e^orge^{H. W}^illia^m^s^,^f^o^{r Chie}^f^Justic^e^,^{in 1}⁸⁷³⁽^nomⁱⁿ^a^tio^{n w}^ithdr^a^w^{n); Ca}^le^{b Cushing}^,ⁱⁿ¹⁸^{74 (}ⁿ^o^m^ina^tion
^w^ithdr^a^wⁿ⁾^{; P}ⁱ^e^r^c^e^B^u^tle^rⁱⁿ¹⁹²²⁽ⁿ^{o a}^c^tio^{n ta}^k^e^{n by}^Se^na^te^{); A}^b^e^Forta^s^{, f}^o^{r Chie}^f^Justic^e^,ⁱⁿ¹⁹⁶⁸⁽ⁿ^om^ina^tion
^w^ithdr^a^wⁿ⁾^{; C}^l^em^eⁿ^{t F. H}^a^yⁿ^sw^o^r^{th J}^r^{. i}ⁿ¹⁹^{69 (}^r^e^je^c^t^e^d^by^Se^na^te⁾^;^a^{nd G}^.^H^a^r^r^o^ld^C^a^r^s^w^e^{ll in 19}⁷⁰⁽^r^e^je^c^t^e^d^by
^Se^na^te⁾^.^B^u^tle^r^,^{it s}^h^ou^ld^beⁿ^o^te^d^,^w^a^s^r^e^-^nom^ina^t^e^d^a^{nd c}^onf^ir^m^e^d.
²⁵^A^rep^o^r^t^t^h^at^st^at^{es i}^tⁱ^s^no^t^accom^p^anⁱ^e^d^b^y^{a reco}^mmen^d^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^caⁿ^b^e^{a w}^a^y^t^o^al^ert^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^t^h^at^{a su}^b^s^t^aⁿ^tⁱ^a^l
^num^be^{r of}^c^o^m^m^ittee^m^e^m^b^e^r^s^h^a^v^e^s^o^m^e^re^s^e^rv^a^tions^a^bout^theⁿ^o^mⁱ^ne^e^w^h^ic^{h, h}^o^w^e^ve^{r, do}^not^ri^s^e^{, a}^t^tha^t^p^oⁱⁿ^{t, t}^o
^the^le^v^e^{l of}^opp^os^iti^on;^{it m}ⁱ^g^h^{t a}^l^s^o^be^a^w^a^y^{to br}^idg^e^or^d^o^w^npla^y^di^f^f^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^s^be^t^w^ee^{n c}^o^m^m^itte^e^m^e^m^b^e^r^s^w^ho
^f^a^v^o^r^c^onf^ir^m^a^{tion a}ⁿ^{d ot}^he^r^m^e^m^b^e^r^s^w^{ho op}^pos^e^it.^T^h^e^la^tte^r^,^f^o^r^e^x^am^ple^,^w^a^s^sa^{id to}^be^the^pu^r^pos^e^f^o^r^the
^Judicⁱ^a^r^y^Co^m^m^itte^e^{in 18}^{88 re}^p^o^rting^t^h^e^Chie^f^Justic^e^nom^ina^tio^{n of}^Me^lv^ille^W^.^Fulle^{r w}^ith^{out re}^c^o^m^m^e^nda^tion;
^the^a^c^tion^w^a^s^de^s^c^rⁱ^be^{d in a}^ne^w^s^a^c^c^{ount a}^s^a^“^c^o^m^p^r^o^mⁱ^s^e^be^t^w^e^eⁿ^the^D^e^m^o^c^r^a^tic^mⁱ^nor^ity^w^{ho de}^sⁱ^r^e^{d a}^r^e^p^o^r^t^t^o
^the^Se^na^teⁱⁿ^f^a^v^o^r^of^c^onf^ir^m^a^{tion, a}ⁿ^{d t}^h^e^R^e^pu^blic^aⁿ^m^a^jor^ity^,^w^ho^de^sⁱ^r^e^{d t}^o^de^f^e^a^t^the^nom^ina^tio^{n ...}^{. ”}^“^M^r^.
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

On seven occasions—five times in the 19^th century and twice in the 20^th century—the Judiciary
Committee voted to report a Supreme Court nomination with a recommendation to the Senate that
it reject the nomination. Only two of the seven nominations received Senate confirmation (and ²⁷²⁸
each only by a close roll call vote); the Senate rejected four of the others and postponed taking ²⁹
action on the fifth.
Of the 114 Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary Committee since its
establishment, eight were not reported by the committee to the Senate. The final outcome for all
eight nominees, however, was determined not by the failure of their nominations to be reported
out of committee, but by action, or lack of action, taken outside the committee—by the Senate,
Congress as a whole, or the President. While five of the nominees were never confirmed to the ³⁰³¹
Court, the other three ultimately were, after being re-nominated.

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^Fulle^{r’s Nom}ⁱ^na^tio^n,”^Wa^shⁱⁿ^g^t^on^Po^st^,^J^u^ly^3,¹⁸^88,^p.^1.
²⁶^T^h^e^thre^e^nom^ine^e^s^c^onf^irm^e^{d b}^y^the^Se^na^te^a^f^te^{r the}^Judicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^e^x^plic^itly^re^porte^{d the}ⁱ^r^nom^ina^tio^ns
^w^{ithout re}^c^o^m^m^e^nda^{tion w}^e^re^{: Me}^lv^ille^W^.^Fulle^{r, f}^o^{r Chie}^f^J^u^s^tic^e^,ⁱⁿ¹⁸^88;^G^e^org^e^Shira^s^J^r^{. in 1}⁸⁹²^{; a}ⁿ^{d Cla}^r^eⁿ^c^e
^T^hom^as^{in 1}⁹⁹¹^{. A}^f^our^th^nom^ina^{tion r}^e^por^te^d^w^ithout^r^e^c^o^m^m^eⁿ^da^tio^{n, W}^h^e^e^l^e^r^H^.^P^e^c^k^ha^m^,^{in 1}⁸⁹⁴^{, w}^a^s^r^e^je^c^t^e^d
^by^the^Se^na^te^.
²⁷^S^{ee i}ⁿ^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^the^s^e^c^o^nd^nomⁱⁿ^a^tion^of^Staⁿ^le^y^Ma^tthe^w^s^{in 1}⁸⁸¹⁽^c^onf^ir^m^e^{d 24-}²³⁾^aⁿ^{d t}^h^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tio^{n of}^L^u^cⁱ^us
^Q^.^C^.^L^a^m^a^r^{in 18}^{88 (}^c^onf^ir^m^e^{d 32-}²⁸⁾^.
²⁸^T^h^{e n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^re^p^o^r^t^e^{d un}^f^a^vo^rab^l^y^an^d^t^h^en^rej^ect^ed^b^y^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^eⁱⁿ^vo^l^v^ed^t^h^{ese no}^mⁱⁿ^ees:^E^b^en^{ezer R.}^Ho^{ar i}ⁿ
¹⁸⁶^{9 (re}^je^c^t^e^d^24-^33);^W^illia^m^B.^Horn^blow^e^r^{in 1}⁸⁹⁴^(re^je^c^t^e^d²⁴^{-30); J}^o^hⁿ^J.^P^a^rk^e^rⁱⁿ¹⁹³⁰^(re^je^c^t^e^d³⁹^-4^{1); a}ⁿ^d
^R^obe^r^t^H^.^B^o^r^kⁱⁿ¹⁹⁸⁷⁽^r^e^je^c^t^e^d^42-⁵⁸⁾^.
²⁹^T^h^{e Sen}^a^{te in}¹⁸²⁹^p^o^s^t^p^oⁿ^ed^ta^kⁱⁿ^g^actioⁿ^oⁿ^t^h^{e n}^o^mⁱⁿ^a^tioⁿ^o^f^Jo^hⁿ^Critten^d^en^af^{ter receiv}ⁱⁿ^g^an^ad^v^e^{rse rep}^o^r^t
^{on t}^h^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^{tion f}^r^om^the^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^.
³⁰^In¹⁸^53,^the^nom^ina^tion^of^W^illia^m^{C. Mic}^o^u^w^a^{s re}^f^e^rr^e^d^{to t}^h^e^Judicⁱ^a^r^y^Com^m^itte^e^a^{nd on}^the^sa^m^e^da^y^orde^re^d
^dis^c^ha^r^g^e^d^by^the^Se^na^te^{, w}^h^e^r^e^{no a}^c^tio^{n w}^a^s^ta^k^e^{n. I}ⁿ¹⁸⁶⁶^{, t}^h^e^nom^ina^tion^of^H^e^nr^y^Sta^nbe^r^y^w^a^s^r^e^f^e^r^r^e^d^{to t}^h^e
^Ju^dⁱ^ci^ary^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^ee,^b^u^t^sho^r^t^l^y^af^t^e^r^w^ard^s^,^w^hⁱ^l^e^t^h^{e n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^w^a^{s p}^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^,^t^h^{e A}^sso^ci^at^{e Ju}^stⁱ^ce
^positi^on^{to w}^h^ic^h^Staⁿ^be^ry^ha^{d be}^eⁿ^nom^ina^t^e^d^w^a^{s e}^lⁱ^m^ina^t^e^d^by^s^t^a^t^ute^.^In¹⁸⁹³^{, t}^h^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion^of^W^illia^m^B.
^H^o^rⁿ^b^l^ow^e^r^w^a^s^r^e^f^e^r^r^e^{d to the}^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^,^but^not^r^e^por^te^{d; la}^te^r^tha^t^y^e^a^r^{, in a}^ne^w^s^e^s^sⁱ^on^of^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,
^H^o^rnb^l^ow^e^r^w^a^s^re^-nom^ina^t^e^d^{, re}^porte^d^uⁿ^f^a^v^o^ra^bl^y^b^y^the^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^Co^m^m^ittee^{(in e}^a^r^ly^{1894), a}ⁿ^{d re}^je^c^t^e^d^by^the
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^,²⁴^-30^.^Iⁿ¹⁹⁶⁸^,^t^h^{e Jud}ⁱ^ci^ar^y^Co^mmi^t^t^{ee d}^eclⁱⁿ^ed^t^o^rep^o^r^t^t^h^{e no}^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^Ho^m^e^r^T^h^o^rⁿ^b^err^y^t^o^su^cceed
^A^s^so^ci^at^{e Ju}^stⁱ^{ce A}^b^{e F}^o^rt^{as u}ⁿ^tⁱ^l^t^h^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^l^ou^t^c^o^m^{e o}^f^t^h^e^nom^ina^tion^of^Forta^s^to^be^C^h^ie^f^Justic^e^wa^{s de}^te^rm^ine^d^.
^T^h^e^T^hor^nbe^r^r^y^a^{nd For}^t^a^s^nom^ina^tions^w^e^r^e^both^w^ithdr^a^w^{n by}^the^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t a}^f^te^r^a^m^o^{tion to}^c^l^os^e^de^ba^te^oⁿ^t^h^e
^Forta^sⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^{tion f}^a^ile^{d to}^pa^{ss i}ⁿ^the^Se^na^te^{. (T}^he^f^a^ilu^re^of^Forta^s^{’s Chie}^f^Justic^e^nom^ina^{tion e}^lim^ina^t^e^d^t^h^e
^prospe^c^tiv^e^A^ssocⁱ^a^t^e^Justic^e^va^c^a^nc^y^tha^t^T^horn^b^e^rry^ha^{d b}^e^eⁿⁿ^o^m^ina^t^e^d^{to f}^{ill.) In}²⁰⁰⁵^{, the}^nom^ina^tio^{n of}^Ha^rrie^t
^E^.^Mⁱ^{ers w}^a^s^wⁱ^t^h^d^r^awⁿ^b^y^t^h^{e P}^r^esi^d^en^t^b^e^f^o^{re t}^h^{e Jud}ⁱ^ci^ary^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee h}^e^l^d^h^eariⁿ^{gs o}ⁿ^t^h^{e no}^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.
³¹^Iⁿ^Fe^br^ua^r^y¹⁸⁸¹^{, j}^u^s^t^be^f^o^r^e^the^fⁱ^na^{l a}^d^jour^nm^eⁿ^{t of}^the⁴⁶^th^Co^ngress,^t^h^{e Ju}^dⁱ^ci^ary^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee vo}^t^e^d^t^o^po^st^p^oⁿ^e
^ta^kⁱ^ng^a^c^{tion o}ⁿ^t^h^e^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^{t nom}^ina^tioⁿ^of^Staⁿ^le^y^Ma^tthew^s^;^s^hor^tly^a^f^te^r^w^a^r^ds^{, how}^e^v^e^r^{, in a}^s^p^e^cⁱ^a^l^s^e^s^sⁱ^on^th
^of^the⁴⁷^C^o^ng^r^e^s^s^,^Ma^tthe^w^s^w^a^s^r^e^-^nom^ina^t^e^d^{, a}^nd,^a^lth^oug^h^hi^s^s^e^c^ond^nom^ina^tion^w^a^s^r^e^por^te^{d unf}^a^v^or^a^b^ly^b^y^rd
^the^Judⁱ^cⁱ^a^r^y^Co^m^m^itte^e^,^{it wa}^{s c}^onf^irm^e^{d b}^y^the^Se^na^te^{, 2}⁴^-2^{3. I}ⁿ^Nov^.¹⁹⁵⁴^{, la}^teⁱⁿ^t^h^e⁸³^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^the
ⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^o^{n o}^f^Jo^hn^M^.^Harl^an^II^w^a^{s re}^f^e^rred^t^o^t^h^{e Jud}ⁱ^ci^ary^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^ee,^w^h^{ere n}^o^actⁱ^oⁿ^w^a^{s t}^a^ken^;ⁱⁿ¹⁹⁵⁵^,^Harl^an
^w^a^s^r^e^-^nom^ina^t^e^d^{, c}^ons^ide^r^e^d^aⁿ^{d r}^e^por^te^{d f}^a^v^o^r^a^bly^b^y^the^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^,^a^{nd c}^onf^ir^m^e^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^{. I}ⁿ
^Se^pt.²⁰^05,^be^f^o^r^e^the^s^c^he^d^u^le^d^s^t^a^r^{t of}^c^onf^ir^m^a^{tion he}^a^r^ing^s^{, t}^h^e^nom^ina^tio^{n of}^J^o^hⁿ^G^.^R^obe^r^t^s^J^r^{. to}^be^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e
^Ju^stⁱ^{ce w}^a^{s w}ⁱ^t^h^d^r^a^wⁿ^an^d^,^oⁿ^t^h^{e sa}^m^e^d^a^y^o^f^t^h^e^wⁱ^t^h^d^r^aw^al^,^Ro^b^e^rt^{s w}^a^{s re-n}^o^mⁱⁿ^at^ed^f^o^{r Ch}ⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^ce;^t^h^{e seco}^nd
^R^obe^r^t^sⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion^w^a^s^r^e^por^te^{d f}^a^v^o^r^a^bly^b^y^the^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^a^{nd c}^o^nf^ir^m^e^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^.

From the first Supreme Court appointments in 1789 to the present day, Presidents have made 158
nominations to the Court. Table 1 shows, in the “Final action by Senate or President” column, ³²
that the Senate confirmed 122 of these nominations, or roughly three-fourths. Of the 36 ³³
nominations that were not confirmed, 11 were rejected by the Senate (all in roll-call votes), 11 ³⁴
were withdrawn by the President, and 14 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress without a ³⁵
Senate vote cast on whether to confirm.
While the invariable practice of the Senate in recent decades has been to vote on Supreme Court
nominations by roll call, this historically was usually not the case. Table 2, at the end of this
report, shows that of the 133 Senate votes on whether to confirm (resulting in 122 confirmations
and 11 rejections), 60 decisions were reached by roll-call votes, and the other 73 by voice vote or
unanimous consent.
Initially, for some 40 years, the Senate rarely used roll-call votes to decide Supreme Court
nominations. Starting in the 1830s, however, and continuing through the 1880s, the Senate used
roll-call votes on Supreme Court nominations somewhat more often than unrecorded votes. The
trend reversed between 1890 and 1965, when fewer than one-third of Senate decisions on
confirming Court nominations were by roll-call vote. Since 1967, though, every Senate vote on
whether to confirm a Supreme Court nomination has been by roll call. Table 2 shows these trends
within the four historical periods just noted, by breaking down the number of Senate decisions on
confirmation within each period according to whether made by voice vote or unanimous consent

³²^T^h^{e exact}^coⁿ^fⁱ^r^matⁱ^oⁿ^p^e^rcen^t^a^{ge i}^s⁷⁷^.²^%^,^reach^{ed b}^y^dⁱ^vi^dⁱⁿ^g¹²²^coⁿ^fⁱ^r^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^b^y^{158 nom}^ina^tions^.
³³^T^h^e^e^a^r^lie^s^t^Se^na^te^r^e^je^c^{tion of}^a^Supr^e^m^e^C^our^t^nom^ina^tion^oc^c^u^r^r^e^dⁱⁿ¹⁷⁹⁵^{, w}^h^eⁿ^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t G}^e^or^g^e^Wa^s^h^ing^t^on’^s
^nom^ina^tion^of^Johⁿ^Ru^tle^dg^e^to^b^e^Chie^f^Justic^e^fa^ile^{d on a}^10-¹⁴^v^o^te^{. T}^h^e^la^te^{st insta}ⁿ^c^e^w^a^{s the}^Se^na^te^{’s re}^je^c^tion
^of^R^obe^r^t^H^.^B^o^r^kⁱⁿ¹⁹⁸⁷^{, by}^a⁴²^-⁵^{8 v}^o^te^{. B}^e^tw^e^eⁿ^R^u^tle^dg^e^a^nd^B^o^r^k^{, the}^f^o^llowⁱ^ngⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tions^w^e^r^e^a^l^s^o^r^e^je^c^t^e^d^:
^A^l^ex^a^nde^r^W^o^lc^{ott in}¹⁸¹¹^{, J}^o^hn^C^.^Speⁿ^c^e^rⁱⁿ¹⁸^44,^G^e^or^g^e^W^.^W^oodw^a^r^{d in 1}⁸⁴⁶^,^Ebeⁿ^{ezer R.}^Ho^{ar i}ⁿ¹⁸⁷⁰^,
^W^illia^m^{B. Hornbl}^ow^e^r^{in 1}⁸⁹⁴^,^W^h^e^e^l^e^r^{H. P}^e^c^k^ha^m^{in 189}^{4, J}^o^{hn J.}^P^a^rk^e^r^{in 1}⁹³⁰^{, C}^l^e^m^eⁿ^{t F. Ha}^yⁿ^s^w^{orth Jr. i}ⁿ
¹⁹⁶^{9, a}^{nd G}^.^H^a^r^r^o^l^d^C^a^r^s^w^e^{ll in 197}^0.
³⁴^T^h^e^f^o^llowⁱ^ng^Supr^e^m^e^C^our^{t no}^mⁱ^na^tions^w^e^r^e^w^ithdr^a^w^{n, in the}^y^e^a^r^s^indic^a^t^e^d^{, w}^{ith the}^Pr^e^s^ideⁿ^ts^w^{ho w}^ithdr^e^w
^the^m^show^{n in pa}^re^nt^he^se^{s: T}^h^e^{first nom}^ina^tio^{n of}^W^illia^m^P^a^te^rson,ⁱⁿ¹⁷⁹³^(G^e^o^rg^e^W^a^shing^t^on)^{; the}^fⁱ^rst
^nom^ina^tion^of^R^e^ube^{n H}^.^W^a^lw^or^{th, i}ⁿ¹⁸^{44 (}^J^oh^{n T}^y^l^e^r⁾^;^the^s^e^c^ond^nom^ina^tio^{n of}^J^o^hⁿ^C^.^Speⁿ^c^e^r^{, in}¹⁸⁴⁴⁽^J^ohⁿ
^Ty^le^r⁾^;^the^thir^d^nom^ina^tio^{n of}^R^e^ube^{n H}^.^W^a^lw^or^{th, in}¹⁸⁴⁵⁽^J^ohⁿ^Ty^le^r⁾^;^the^s^e^c^{ond n}^o^mⁱ^na^tion^of^Edw^a^r^d^Kⁱ^ng^{, in}
¹⁸⁴^{5 (J}^oh^{n Ty}^le^{r); Ge}^org^e^{H. W}ⁱ^llia^m^s^a^{nd Ca}^le^{b Cushi}ⁿ^g^,^b^o^thⁱⁿ¹⁸⁷⁴^(Uly^ss^e^s^{S. G}^r^aⁿ^{t); A}^b^e^Forta^s^a^{nd Hom}^e^r
^T^hor^nbe^r^r^y^{, bot}^{h i}ⁿ¹⁹⁶⁸⁽^L^y^{ndon B}^.^J^o^hⁿ^s^on)^{; J}^o^{hn G}^.^R^o^be^r^t^s^J^r^{. a}^{nd H}^a^r^rⁱ^e^r^E^.^Mie^r^s^,^bo^{th i}ⁿ²⁰^{05 (}^G^e^o^r^g^e^W^.
^{Bush). L}^e^{ss tha}ⁿ^a^w^e^e^k^a^f^te^{r his f}ⁱ^{rst nom}^ina^{tion w}^a^s^w^ithdr^awⁿ^,^P^a^t^e^rson^w^a^{s re-n}^o^mⁱⁿ^at^ed^b^y^P^r^esi^d^en^t^W^a^shⁱⁿ^gt^oⁿ
^a^{nd c}^o^nf^ir^m^e^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^on^t^h^e^s^a^m^e^day^.^Oⁿ^the^s^a^m^e^day^that^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t^B^u^s^h^w^ithdr^e^w^the^R^o^be^r^t^s^nom^ina^tioⁿ
^{to be}^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^J^u^s^tic^e^,^he^r^e^-ⁿ^o^m^ina^t^e^d^R^obe^r^t^s^to^be^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e^,^a^{nd t}^h^e^la^tte^rⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^{tion w}^a^s^c^onf^ir^m^e^d.
³⁵^T^h^e¹⁴^nom^ina^tions^tha^t^la^ps^e^d^a^t^the^eⁿ^{d of}^a^s^e^s^sⁱ^on^of^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^w^ithout^a^Se^na^te^c^o^nf^ir^m^a^{tion o}^r^r^e^je^c^{tion v}^o^te
^or^a^w^ithdr^a^w^a^l^by^the^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t^ha^vⁱ^ng^oc^c^u^r^r^e^{d, c}^aⁿ^be^br^ok^eⁿⁱⁿ^{to t}^h^e^f^o^llowⁱ^ng^g^r^oups^acco^rdⁱⁿ^{g t}^o^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^actⁱ^oⁿ^s^,
^or^la^c^k^of^Se^na^te^a^c^tions^{, ta}^k^e^n:^Oⁿ^thr^e^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tions⁽^J^oh^{n C}^r^itt^e^nde^{n i}ⁿ¹⁸^29,^the^fⁱ^r^s^{t n}^o^mⁱ^na^{tion of}^R^o^g^e^r^T^a^neyⁱⁿ
¹⁸³^{5, a}^{nd G}^e^or^g^e^{E. B}^a^dg^e^rⁱⁿ¹⁸⁵³⁾^,^t^h^e^Se^na^te^v^o^te^d^to^pos^t^p^oⁿ^e^ta^kⁱ^ng^a^c^{tion; t}^h^e^Se^na^te^ta^ble^d^tw^{o nom}^ina^tions
⁽^t^he^fⁱ^r^s^{t nom}^ina^tion^of^Edw^a^r^d^Kⁱ^ngⁱⁿ¹⁸⁴⁴^a^nd^Edw^a^r^d^A^.^B^r^a^d^f^o^r^dⁱⁿ¹⁸⁵²⁾^;^oⁿ^oⁿ^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion,^the^Se^na^te
^rej^ect^ed^{a m}^o^tⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^p^r^o^ceed^(Jeremⁱ^a^h^S^.^Bl^{ack i}ⁿ¹⁸⁶¹^,^b^y^{a 2}⁵^-²⁶^vo^t^e^);^and^on^ei^gh^t^no^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^t^h^{ere w}^a^{s n}^o
^re^c^o^{rd of}^aⁿ^y^v^o^te^ta^k^e^{n (the}^s^e^c^ond^nom^ina^tio^{n of}^Re^ubeⁿ^H^.^W^a^lw^{orth in}¹⁸^44,^J^o^hⁿ^{M. Re}^a^dⁱⁿ¹⁸⁴⁵^{, W}^illia^m^C.
^Mic^ouⁱⁿ¹⁸⁵³^{, H}^e^nr^y^Sta^nbe^r^yⁱⁿ¹⁸⁶⁶^{, t}^h^e^fⁱ^r^s^{t nom}^ina^tio^{n of}^St^aⁿ^le^y^Ma^tthew^s^{in 18}^81,^the^fⁱ^r^s^t^nom^ina^tion^of
^W^illia^m^{B. Hornbl}^ow^e^r^{in 1}⁸⁹³^{, t}^h^e^fⁱ^{rst nom}^ina^tion^of^Pⁱ^e^r^c^e^Butl^e^r^{in 1}⁹²²^{, a}^{nd t}^h^e^fⁱ^{rst nom}^ina^tio^{n of}^Johⁿ^M^.
^H^a^r^l^aⁿ^I^Iⁱⁿ¹⁹⁵⁴⁾^{. H}^o^w^e^v^e^r^,^f^our^of^the¹⁴^pe^r^s^oⁿ^s^w^hos^eⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tions^la^ps^e^dⁱⁿ^oⁿ^e^s^e^s^sⁱ^on^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^s^w^e^r^e^r^e^-
^nom^ina^t^e^dⁱⁿ^the^ne^x^t^c^ong^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^{l s}^e^s^sⁱ^{on a}ⁿ^{d c}^o^nf^ir^m^e^{d (}^T^aⁿ^eyⁱⁿ¹⁸^35,^Ma^tthe^w^s^{in 1}⁸⁸¹^{, B}^u^tl^e^r^{in 1}⁹²²^{, a}^nd
^H^a^r^l^aⁿⁱⁿ¹⁹⁵⁵⁾^.

(UC) on the one hand, or by roll-call vote, on the other. As already mentioned, all 11 Senate
rejections of Supreme Court nominations were accomplished by roll-call votes.
Historically, recorded vote margins on Supreme Court nominations have varied considerably. ³⁶
Some roll-call votes, either confirming or rejecting a nomination, have been close. Most votes, ³⁷
however, have been overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation.
For Supreme Court nominations, the amount of time elapsing between Senate receipt and start of
confirmation hearings has varied greatly. Table 1 shows that, for all 43 Court nominations
receiving public confirmation hearings (starting with the Brandeis nomination in 1916), the
shortest time that elapsed between Senate receipt and start of hearings was four days, for the
nominations of both Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 and William O. Douglas in 1939; the second
shortest time interval of this sort was five days, for the nominations of both Stanley F. Reed in
1938 and Felix Frankfurter in 1939. The longest time elapsing between Senate receipt and first
day of confirmation hearings was 82 days, for the nomination of Potter Stewart in 1959; the next-
longest time interval of this sort was 70 days, for nominee Robert H. Bork in 1987.
In recent decades, from the late 1960s to the present, the Judiciary Committee has tended to take
more time in starting hearings on Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. Table 1
reveals that prior to 1967, a median of 10 days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court
nominations and the first day of confirmation hearings. From the Supreme Court nomination of
Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to be Associate Justice ³⁸
in 2005-2006, a median of 21 days elapsed between Senate receipt and first day of confirmation ³⁹
hearings.

³⁶^T^h^{e cl}^o^s^est^ro^l^l^cal^l^s^{ever cast}^oⁿ^S^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^tⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^w^e^r^e^t^h^{e 24}^-23^vo^t^eⁱⁿ¹⁸⁸¹^con^fⁱ^r^mⁱⁿ^g^S^t^an^l^e^y
^M^a^t^t^h^ew^s,^t^h^{e 2}⁵^-²⁶^vo^t^eⁱⁿ¹⁸^{61 rej}^ectⁱⁿ^{g a m}^o^tⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^p^r^o^ceed^t^o^coⁿ^sⁱ^d^{er t}^h^{e no}^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^Jere^mi^ah^S^.^B^l^ack,^an^d
^the²⁶^-²^{5 Se}^na^te^v^o^teⁱⁿ¹⁸⁵³^to^pos^tp^one^c^onsⁱ^d^e^r^a^tion^of^theⁿ^o^m^ina^{tion of}^G^e^or^g^e^{E. B}^a^dg^e^r^{. Sinc}^e^the¹⁹⁶⁰^s^,^t^h^e
^cl^o^s^est^ro^l^l^cal^l^s^on^S^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^tⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^w^e^{re t}^h^{e 5}²^-⁴⁸^vo^t^eⁱⁿ¹⁹⁹¹^con^fⁱ^r^mⁱⁿ^g^Cl^aren^ce^T^h^o^m^as,^t^h^{e 4}⁵^-⁵¹
^v^o^teⁱⁿ¹⁹^{70 re}^je^c^ting^G^.^Ha^rrold^Ca^rs^w^e^{ll, the}⁴⁵^-5^{5 v}^o^teⁱⁿ¹⁹⁶⁹^re^je^c^ting^Cle^m^eⁿ^{t Ha}^yⁿ^s^w^{orth Jr.}^,^the^58-^{42 v}^o^t^eⁱⁿ
²⁰⁰^{6 c}^o^nf^irmⁱ^ng^Sa^m^u^e^l^A^.^A^{lito Jr., the}^42-⁵⁸^v^o^teⁱⁿ¹⁹⁸⁷^re^je^c^tⁱⁿ^g^Robe^{rt H.}^Bork^{, a}ⁿ^{d t}^h^e⁶⁵^-3³^v^o^te^c^onf^irmⁱ^ng
^W^illiam^H^.^Re^hnqu^is^{t t}^o^be^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^eⁱⁿ¹⁹^86.^A^l^s^o^note^w^orthy^w^a^s^the^45-43^v^o^teⁱⁿ¹⁹⁶⁸^re^je^c^ting^a^m^o^{tion t}^o
^cl^o^s^{e d}^e^b^a^t^e^on^t^h^{e no}^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^A^b^{e F}^o^rt^{as t}^o^b^e^Chⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^ce;^ho^w^e^v^e^r,^t^h^{e ro}^l^l^cal^l^w^a^{s n}^o^t^{as cl}^o^s^{e as t}^h^{e nu}^m^b^ers
^by^them^s^e^l^v^e^s^s^u^g^g^e^s^te^{d, s}ⁱ^nc^e^pa^s^s^a^g^e^o^f^the^m^o^{tion r}^e^q^u^ir^e^d^a^tw^o-thir^{ds v}^o^te^of^the^Me^m^b^e^r^{s pre}^s^eⁿ^{t a}ⁿ^d^v^o^ting^.
³⁷^T^h^e^m^o^s^t^lops^ide^d^of^the^s^e^v^o^te^s^w^e^r^e^the^una^nim^ous^r^o^ll^c^a^{lls c}^oⁿ^f^ir^mⁱ^ng^{Morrison R}^.^W^a^ite^{to be}^Chie^f^Justic^eⁱⁿ
¹⁸⁷^{4 (}^63-⁰⁾^{, H}^a^r^r^y^A^.^B^l^a^c^k^m^{un in 1}⁹⁷⁰⁽^94-⁰⁾^{, J}^o^hⁿ^P^a^ul^Ste^v^eⁿ^sⁱⁿ¹⁹^{75 (}^98-⁰⁾^,^Sa^ndr^a^D^a^y^O^’^C^onn^orⁱⁿ¹⁹^{81 (}^99-
⁰⁾^{, A}ⁿ^toⁿⁱⁿ^Sc^a^liaⁱⁿ¹⁹⁸⁶⁽⁹^8-⁰⁾^,^a^{nd A}ⁿ^th^ony^{M. K}^e^nne^dyⁱⁿ¹⁹⁸⁸⁽⁹^7-⁰⁾^;^aⁿ^d^the^ne^a^r^-^unaⁿⁱ^m^ous^v^o^te^s^c^onf^ir^mⁱ^ng
^N^o^a^h^H^.^Sw^ay^ne^{in 1}⁸⁶²⁽^38-¹⁾^,^W^a^r^r^e^{n E. B}^u^r^g^e^r^{in 1}⁹⁶⁹^t^o^be^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e⁽^74-³⁾^{, L}^e^wⁱ^s^F.^P^o^w^e^{ll J}^r^{. in}¹⁹⁷¹⁽⁸^9-
¹⁾^{, a}ⁿ^{d R}^u^{th B}^a^de^r^Gⁱ^ns^bur^gⁱⁿ¹⁹⁹³⁽⁹^6-³⁾^.
³⁸^In^cal^cu^l^a^tⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^{e m}^e^dⁱ^an^el^ap^sed^tⁱ^m^e^f^o^{r t}^h^{e co}ⁿ^t^em^p^o^r^ary^p^e^ri^o^d^,^t^h^{e M}^a^rsh^a^l^l^no^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ¹⁹⁶⁷^w^a^{s s}^e^l^ect^ed^as
^the^sta^r^ting^p^oⁱⁿ^{t f}^o^{r the}^f^o^ll^ow^ing^re^a^s^{on. T}^h^e^Ma^rsha^{ll n}^o^mⁱ^na^tⁱ^oⁿ^,ⁱ^t^co^u^l^d^b^e^argu^ed^,^m^a^rked^t^h^{e st}^art^o^f^an^{era i}ⁿ
^w^h^ic^{h the}^c^onf^ir^m^a^{tion he}^a^r^ing^s^of^m^o^s^t^{, if}^{not a}^l^l^,^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^t^nom^ine^e^s^w^e^r^e^hig^h^ly^c^h^a^r^ge^{d e}^v^eⁿ^ts^{, c}^o^v^e^r^e^d
^c^l^os^e^l^y^b^y^the^ne^w^s^m^e^dia^,^w^{ith nom}^ine^e^s^inte^r^r^o^g^a^te^{d r}ⁱ^g^o^r^ous^ly^a^{nd e}^x^te^ns^iv^e^l^y⁽^a^{nd f}^o^r^m^o^r^e^thaⁿ^a^da^y⁾^a^{bout the}ⁱ^r
^judicⁱ^a^l^phi^los^o^phy^a^s^w^e^{ll a}^s^theⁱ^r^vⁱ^ew^s^{on c}^ons^t^itutⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^is^s^u^e^s^a^{nd t}^h^e^pr^ope^r^r^o^le^of^the^Su^pr^e^m^{e C}^our^tⁱⁿ^the^U^.^S.
^go^vern^m^eⁿ^t^.^F^o^{r t}^h^{e M}^a^rsh^a^l^l^nomⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^,^t^h^{e el}^a^p^sed^tⁱ^m^{e b}^e^t^w^e^eⁿ^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^recei^p^t^and^st^art^o^f^coⁿ^fⁱ^r^matⁱ^oⁿ^h^eariⁿ^gs
^w^a^s^{30 da}^y^s^.
³⁹^Se^e^bot^tom^r^o^w^s^of^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^f^o^r^m^e^diaⁿ^num^be^r^of^da^y^s^tha^t^e^l^a^p^s^e^{d f}^r^om^the^da^te^Supr^e^m^e^C^our^{t n}^o^mⁱ^na^tions^w^e^r^e
^recei^vedⁱⁿ^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^t^o^fⁱ^rst^h^eariⁿ^{g d}^a^t^e^s,^f^o^{r t}^h^{ree di}^f^f^eren^t^tⁱ^m^e^sp^an^s.

Starting in the 1990s, the inclination of the Judiciary Committee has been to allow at least four
weeks to pass between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the start of confirmation
hearings. This block of time is intended to be used by the committee members and staff for
thorough study and review of background information about nominees and issues relevant to their
nominations, in preparation for the hearings. In the case of five of the six most recent Court
nominations to receive confirmation hearings (starting with the David H. Souter nomination in ⁴⁰

1990), the shortest elapsed time between Senate receipt and first day of hearings was 28 days.

While the elapsed time for the sixth nomination, of John G. Roberts Jr. to be Chief Justice in
2005, was only six days, another, longer time interval is more meaningful. Table 1 shows that
Roberts’s earlier nomination to be Associate Justice—later withdrawn, in order to have Roberts
be re-nominated for Chief Justice—was received by the Senate 45 days prior to the start of
hearings on his Chief Justice nomination.
The time elapsing between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations from the President and
final committee votes has also varied greatly. Table 1 shows that, for the 108 Court nominations ⁴¹
that received final committee votes, the nomination receiving the most prompt committee vote
was of Caleb Cushing in 1874, which was reported by the Judiciary Committee on the same day ⁴²
that the Senate received it from the President. The committee votes on 14 other nominations to ⁴³
the court occurred three days or less after the dates of Senate receipt. At the other extreme was
the 1916 nomination of Louis D. Brandeis, on which the Judiciary Committee voted 117 days ^th
after Senate receipt and referral to the committee. Five other nominations as well, one in the 19 ^th
century and four in the 20, received committee votes more than 80 days after Senate receipt ⁴⁴
from the President.
In recent decades, the Judiciary Committee has taken much more time in casting a final vote on
Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. Table 1 shows that prior to 1967, a median of
nine days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the committee’s ⁴⁵
final vote on reporting them to the full Senate. From the Supreme Court nomination of

⁴⁰^F^o^{r t}^h^{e f}ⁱ^{ve n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^t^h^{e el}^ap^sed^tⁱ^m^{e b}^e^t^w^e^eⁿ^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^recei^p^t^o^fⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^aⁿ^d^t^h^{e f}ⁱ^rst^d^a^y^o^f^coⁿ^fⁱ^r^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^he^a^r^ing^s^w^a^s^{50 da}^y^s^f^o^r^D^a^vⁱ^{d Soute}^rⁱⁿ¹⁹^90,⁶⁴^da^y^s^f^o^r^C^l^a^r^eⁿ^c^e^T^hom^a^s^{in 19}^91,²⁸^da^y^s^f^o^r^R^u^{th B}^a^de^r
^Gⁱ^nsburg^{in 1}⁹⁹³^,⁵⁶^da^y^s^f^o^{r Ste}^phe^{n G}^.^Bre^y^e^r^{in 199}^4,^a^nd⁶⁰^d^a^y^s^f^o^{r Sa}^m^u^e^l^A^.^A^{lito Jr. i}ⁿ²⁰⁰⁵^-2⁰⁰^6.
⁴¹^A^s^a^l^r^e^a^d^y^m^e^ntione^d,^the^fⁱ^r^s^{t s}^u^c^hⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion^,^of^A^l^e^x^a^nde^r^W^o^lc^ottⁱⁿ¹⁸¹¹^{, w}^a^s^r^e^por^te^{d by}^a^s^e^le^c^t^c^o^m^m^itte^e^;
^a^{ll s}^ubs^e^q^ue^ntly^r^e^por^te^d^nom^ina^tions^w^e^r^e^r^e^por^te^d^by^the^Se^na^te^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^.
⁴²^I^r^onic^a^lly^{, f}ⁱ^v^e^day^s^af^te^r^the^c^o^m^m^itte^e^’^s^f^a^v^o^r^a^ble^,^a^{nd e}^x^tr^em^ely^pr^om^{pt, r}^e^c^o^m^m^e^nda^{tion of}^C^u^s^h^ing^,^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t
^U^l^y^s^s^e^s^S.^G^r^aⁿ^{t w}^ithdr^e^w^the^no^mⁱ^na^tion.
⁴³^Fⁱ^{ve n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^w^e^{re vo}^t^e^d^oⁿ^b^y^t^h^{e Ju}^dⁱ^ci^ary^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^e^da^y^a^f^t^e^{r t}^h^ei^{r recei}^p^t^b^y^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^:^Ro^b^e^rt^C.
^G^rⁱ^e^{r i}ⁿ¹⁸⁴⁶^;^J^o^hn^A^.^Cam^p^b^e^l^lⁱⁿ¹⁸⁵³^;^M^o^rri^s^oⁿ^R^.^W^aⁱ^t^e^,^t^o^b^e^Chⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^ce,ⁱⁿ¹⁸⁷⁴^;^Ho^{race Gra}^yⁱⁿ¹⁸⁸¹^;^an^d
^Ha^{rold H. B}^u^rtoⁿⁱⁿ¹⁹^45.^Sixⁿ^o^m^ina^{tions w}^e^re^v^o^te^{d o}ⁿ^by^the^c^o^m^m^itte^e^t^w^{o da}^y^s^a^f^te^{r Se}^na^te^re^c^eⁱ^{pt: Ja}^m^e^{s M.}
^W^a^yⁿ^e^{in 183}^{5; Sa}^m^u^e^l^N^e^ls^{on i}ⁿ¹⁸⁴⁵^{; N}^o^a^h^H^.^Sw^ay^ne^{in 186}^2;^D^a^vⁱ^{d D}^a^vⁱ^s^{in 18}⁶²^{; Ste}^p^he^{n J}^.^Fie^l^{d i}ⁿ¹⁹⁶³^{; a}^nd
^Olⁱ^v^{er W}^eⁿ^d^e^l^l^Ho^l^m^e^sⁱⁿ¹⁹⁰²^.^T^h^{ree n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^w^e^{re vo}^t^e^d^oⁿ^b^y^t^h^{e co}^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^h^{ree d}^a^y^s^a^f^t^e^{r S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^recei^p^t^:
^Ho^{race H. L}^u^rtoⁿⁱⁿ¹⁹⁰⁹^;^W^illis^V^aⁿ^Dev^aⁿ^t^{er in}¹⁹¹⁰^{; an}^d^Jo^sep^h^{R. L}^a^{mar in}¹⁹¹⁰^.
⁴⁴^T^h^e^fⁱ^{rst of}^Re^ube^{n H. W}^a^l^w^orth^{’s th}^re^e^nom^ina^tio^{ns to}^the^C^ourt^{in 1}⁸⁴⁴^w^a^{s v}^o^te^{d on}^by^the^Judicⁱ^a^r^y^Com^m^itte^e
⁹³^da^y^s^a^f^te^{r Se}^na^te^re^c^e^{ipt a}^{nd c}^o^m^m^itte^e^re^fe^rra^{l. During}^the²⁰^th^c^eⁿ^tury^{, the}^Judicⁱ^a^r^y^Com^m^itte^e^,^{in a}^dditⁱ^oⁿ^to^its
¹⁹¹⁶^vo^t^e^oⁿ^t^h^{e Brand}^eⁱ^s^no^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^vo^t^e^d^oⁿ^t^h^{e f}^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g^no^miⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^m^o^{re t}^h^an⁸⁰^d^a^y^s^a^f^t^e^r^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^recei^p^t^:
^Potte^r^S^t^e^w^a^r^{t in 19}^{59 (}⁹³^da^y^s⁾^;^R^obe^r^t^H^.^B^o^r^kⁱⁿ¹⁹⁸⁷⁽⁹¹^da^y^s⁾^,^A^b^e^For^t^a^s^{, to}^be^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e^,^{in 1}⁹⁶⁸⁽⁸³^da^y^s⁾^;
^a^{nd C}^l^a^r^eⁿ^c^e^T^hom^a^s^{in 19}^{91 (}⁸¹^da^y^s⁾^.
⁴⁵^A^{ll of}^the^{15 a}^f^or^e^m^eⁿ^tione^{d n}^o^m^ina^tions^on^w^h^ic^{h the}^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^v^o^te^{d thr}^e^e^da^y^s^or^le^s^s^a^f^t^e^r^Se^na^te
^recei^p^t^w^e^r^e^m^a^d^e^p^rⁱ^o^{r t}^o¹⁹⁴⁶^,^an^d¹⁴^o^f^t^h^{e 15}^w^e^re^m^a^d^e^p^rⁱ^o^r^t^o¹⁹¹¹^.

Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2005 (voted on by
the committee in 2006), a median of 50 days elapsed between Senate receipt and final committee ⁴⁶
vote.
Somewhat earlier, during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower (1953 to 1961), two of five
Supreme Court nominations were pending, prior to Judiciary Committee vote, in excess of the

1967-to-2006 median of 50 days for that time interval (while two other nominations were pending ⁴⁷

44 and 49 days respectively before receiving committee action); however, the corresponding
time intervals for the next three Court nominations (two by President John F. Kennedy and one by ⁴⁸
President Lyndon B. Johnson) were all well below the 50-day median.
The Supreme Court confirmation process now typically extends over a much longer period of
time than it once did. Table 1 shows that from the appointment of the first Justices in 1789, ^th
continuing into the early 20 century, most Senate confirmations of Supreme Court nominees
occurred within a week of the nominations being made by the President. In recent decades, by
contrast, it has become the norm for the Court appointment process—from Senate receipt of
nominations from the President to Senate confirmation or other final action (such as Senate
rejection, or withdrawal by the President)—to take more than two months.
The last column of Table 1 shows the number of days that elapsed from the dates Supreme Court
nominations were received in the Senate until the dates of final Senate or presidential action. The
number of elapsed days is shown for 150 of the 158 nominations listed in the table, with no
elapsed time shown for the pending Alito nomination or for eight nominations on which there was ⁴⁹
no record of any kind of official or effective final action by the Senate or by the President. At
the bottom of the table, the median number of elapsed days from initial Senate receipt until final

⁴⁶^Se^e^bot^tom^r^o^w^s^of^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^f^o^r^m^e^diaⁿ^num^be^r^of^da^y^s^tha^t^e^l^a^p^s^e^{d f}^r^om^the^da^te^Supr^e^m^e^C^our^{t n}^o^mⁱ^na^tions^w^e^r^e
^recei^vedⁱⁿ^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^t^o^fⁱⁿ^a^l^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^vo^t^e^d^a^t^e^s,^f^o^{r t}^h^{ree di}^f^f^eren^t^tⁱ^m^{e sp}^an^s.
⁴⁷^T^h^{e f}^o^u^r^Eⁱ^sen^h^o^w^{er n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^o^{ns f}^o^{r w}^hⁱ^c^h⁴⁴^o^r^m^o^{re d}^a^{ys el}^ap^sed^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e d}^a^t^e^recei^v^e^dⁱⁿ^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^t^o^t^h^{e d}^a^t^e
^v^o^te^{d o}ⁿ^by^the^Se^na^te^J^u^dicⁱ^a^r^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^w^e^r^e^thos^e^of^{: Ea}^r^l^W^a^r^r^e^{n to}^be^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^eⁱⁿ¹⁹^54,⁴⁴^da^y^s^{; J}^{ohn M.}
^Ha^rlaⁿ^{II in}¹⁹⁵⁵^{, 5}⁹^da^y^s^;^W^illia^m^{J. Bre}^nna^{n Jr. in}¹⁹⁵⁷^,⁴⁹^da^y^s^{; a}^nd^Potte^r^Ste^w^a^r^{t in 19}⁵⁹^{, 9}³^d^a^y^s^{. T}^h^re^e^o^f^the
ⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^ees—W^arren^,^Brenⁿ^aⁿ^,^and^S^t^ew^art^—^w^e^{re al}^re^ad^y^oⁿ^t^h^{e C}^o^u^r^t^{as recess ap}^p^oⁱⁿ^t^ees,^{a ci}^rcumst^an^{ce t}^h^at^served
^pe^rha^p^{s t}^o^m^a^ke^a^c^{tion o}ⁿ^t^h^eⁱ^{r n}^o^mⁱ^na^{tions se}^e^m^le^{ss urge}^nt^{to t}^h^e^c^o^m^m^itte^e^thaⁿ^if^theⁱ^{r se}^a^t^{s on}^the^Co^urt^ha^{d be}^eⁿ
^vacan^t^.^Harl^an^,^h^o^w^ever,^w^a^{s n}^o^t^{a recess a}^ppointe^e^a^t^the^tim^e^of^his^nom^ina^tio^{n. Se}^e^“^T^he^H^a^r^l^aⁿ^N^o^mⁱ^na^tion,”^New
^Yor^k^Tim^e^s^,^F^e^b.²⁵^,¹⁹⁵⁵^,^p.²⁰^,^dⁱ^scu^ssiⁿ^g^,^acco^rdⁱⁿ^{g t}^o^t^h^{e ed}ⁱ^t^ori^a^l^,^t^h^{e “i}ⁿ^e^xcu^s^ab^l^e^d^e^l^a^{y” o}ⁿ^t^h^{e p}^a^rt^o^f^t^h^e
^c^o^m^m^itte^e^{in a}^c^ting^oⁿ^the^nomⁱⁿ^a^{tion a}ⁿ^{d t}^h^e^o^b^je^c^tio^{ns to}^the^no^mⁱ^na^{tion v}^o^ic^e^d^by^a^f^e^w^o^f^the^c^o^m^m^itte^e^’^s
^me^m^b^{ers. (Ultimatel}^y^,^th^{e co}^mmⁱ^{ttee v}^o^ted¹⁰^-4^to^re^p^o^rt^th^eⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^f^a^v^o^rab^l^y^.^{) Receiv}ⁱⁿ^g^m^u^c^h^m^o^re
^e^x^pe^ditious^c^o^m^m^itte^e^a^c^{tion w}^a^s^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t^Eis^e^nh^ow^e^r^’^s^fⁱ^f^t^{h a}^{nd f}ⁱ^na^{l Supr}^e^m^e^C^our^{t n}^o^mⁱ^na^tion,^of^C^h^a^r^le^s^E.
^W^h^itta^k^e^r,^w^h^ic^{h w}^a^{s a}^pprov^e^d^b^y^the^Judicⁱ^a^r^y^Com^m^itte^e^{16 da}^y^s^a^f^te^{r Se}^na^te^re^c^e^ipt.
⁴⁸^T^h^{e d}^a^y^s^th^{at elap}^sed^f^r^o^m^th^{e d}^a^{te receiv}^e^dⁱⁿ^t^h^{e Sen}^a^{te t}^o^th^e^d^a^{te v}^o^ted^oⁿ^b^y^th^{e Sen}^a^{te Ju}^dⁱ^ciary^Co^mm^itte^e
^w^e^r^e^eⁱ^g^h^{t day}^s^a^{nd 2}⁵^da^y^s^f^o^r^t^h^e¹⁹⁶²ⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tions^of^B^y^r^{on R}^.^W^h^ite^a^{nd A}^r^thur^J^.^G^o^ldbe^r^g^aⁿ^{d 1}³^da^y^s^f^o^r^the
¹⁹⁶⁵^nom^ina^tio^{n of}^A^b^e^For^t^a^s^to^be^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^J^u^s^tic^e^.
⁴⁹^Besi^d^e^{s n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^h^at^recei^ved^o^f^fⁱ^ci^al^fⁱⁿ^a^l^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^actⁱ^o^{n i}ⁿ^t^h^{e f}^o^r^m^o^f^coⁿ^fⁱ^r^matⁱ^oⁿ^o^r^rej^ectⁱ^oⁿ⁽¹²²^an^d¹¹
^resp^ectⁱ^v^el^y⁾^,^o^r^t^h^at^w^e^re^wⁱ^t^h^d^r^awⁿ^b^y^t^h^{e P}^r^esi^d^en^t⁽¹¹⁾^,^si^{x o}^t^{hers are t}^r^eat^edⁱⁿ^t^h^{e t}^a^b^l^{e as al}^so^recei^viⁿ^g^fⁱⁿ^a^l
^a^c^{tion, a}^l^be^{it n}^o^t^of^a^de^fⁱ^nitiv^e^offⁱ^cⁱ^a^l^sort—^w^{ith thre}^e^ha^vⁱ^ng^be^eⁿ^p^o^stp^one^d^by^the^Se^na^te^{, tw}^{o ta}^ble^d^{, a}^nd^one^(t^he
ⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^o^{n o}^f^Jere^mⁱ^ah^S^.^Bl^{ack i}ⁿ¹⁸⁶¹⁾ⁿ^o^t^coⁿ^sⁱ^d^ered^af^t^e^{r a}^mo^tⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^p^r^o^ceed^w^a^{s d}^e^feat^ed^b^y^{a 2}⁵^-²⁶^vo^t^e^.
^W^h^ile^the^six^nom^ina^tio^{ns re}^m^aⁱⁿ^e^d^peⁿ^d^ingⁱⁿ^t^h^e^Se^na^te^a^f^t^e^{r t}^h^{e n}^o^t^{ed act}ⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^t^h^{e ef}^f^e^ct^o^f^t^h^{e act}ⁱ^oⁿ^s^,ⁱ^t^can^b^e
^a^r^g^u^e^d^{, w}^a^s^de^cⁱ^sⁱ^ve^{in e}^lim^ina^ting^aⁿ^y^pr^os^pe^c^t^of^c^onf^ir^m^a^{tion, a}^{nd t}^hus^c^ons^tit^ute^d^a^fⁱ^na^{l Se}^na^te^a^c^{tion f}^o^r^tim^e
^m^e^a^s^ur^em^eⁿ^{t pur}^pos^e^s^{. A}^c^c^o^r^dⁱⁿ^g^l^y^,^f^o^r^the^s^e^sⁱ^x^nom^ina^tions^{, t}^h^e^num^be^r^of^da^y^s^e^l^a^p^s^e^{d is}^m^e^as^ur^e^d^f^r^om^da^te^of
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^recei^p^t^t^o^t^h^e^d^a^t^e^{s o}^f^effe^ctⁱ^v^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^l^actⁱ^oⁿ^j^u^stⁿ^o^t^e^d^.

action by the Senate or the President is shown for three historical periods—1789-2006, 1789-

1966, and 1967-2006.

In recent decades, the median elapsed time for Supreme Court nominations to receive final action
has increased dramatically, dwarfing the median time taken on earlier nominations. Table 1
shows that from 1967 (starting with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall) through January 30,
2006 (the date on which the Senate confirmed the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr., a median of
69 days elapsed from when a Supreme Court nomination was received in the Senate until the date
it received final action, compared with a median of seven days for the same interval for the prior ⁵⁰
years of 1789 to 1966. Most of the Supreme Court nominations receiving final action within a
relatively brief period of time—for example, within three days of initial receipt in the Senate—^th⁵¹
occurred before the 20 century, while most of the nominations receiving final action after a
relatively long period of time—for example, 75 days or more after receipt in the Senate—^th⁵²
occurred in the 20 century (and nearly all of these since 1967).
The presence of Senate committee involvement has clearly tended to increase the overall length
of the Supreme Court confirmation process. Of the 26 Court nominations made prior to the
establishment of the Judiciary Committee in 1816, only one, of Alexander Wolcott in 1811,
received final action more than seven days after initial Senate receipt (being rejected by the
Senate nine days after receipt). It also was the only Court nomination prior to 1816 which was
referred to, and considered by, a select committee. Subsequently, until the Civil War, six
nominations received final action more than 50 days after initial Senate receipt. All six were first
considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee. During the same period, other Court
nominations were considered and acted on by the Senate more quickly—some with, and some
without, first being referred to committee.
Subsequent historical developments involving the Senate Judiciary Committee further served to
increase the median length of the Supreme Court confirmation process. One such development
was the Senate’s adoption of a rule in 1868 that nominations be referred to appropriate standing
committees, resulting in the referral of nearly all Supreme Court nominations thereafter to the ^th
Judiciary Committee. Another was the increasing practice of the Judiciary Committee in the 20
century of holding public confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominations (ultimately to
become standard practice). A third, more recent, historical trend has involved the pace and
thoroughness of the Judiciary Committee in preparing for and conducting confirmation hearings.
Since the late 1960s, close and thorough examination of the background, qualifications, and
views of Supreme Court nominees has become the norm for the Judiciary Committee, an

⁵⁰^A^t^fⁱ^rst^gl^an^ce,^t^h^{e m}^o^st^recen^t^l^y^coⁿ^fⁱ^r^medⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^o^n,^o^f^Jo^hn^G^.^Ro^b^e^rt^{s Jr.}^f^o^{r C}^hⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^ce,^ap^{pears t}^o^b^e^a
^d^e^vi^atⁱ^oⁿ^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e 1}⁹⁶⁷^t^o²⁰⁰⁵^medⁱ^anⁱⁿ^t^e^rval^f^r^o^m^d^a^t^e^recei^ve^d^t^o^fⁱⁿ^a^l^actⁱ^oⁿ^o^f⁶⁹^d^a^y^s^,^{as t}^h^{e n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^w^a^s
^coⁿ^f^irmed^oⁿ^l^y²³^d^a^y^s^a^f^{ter its i}ⁿ^{itial recei}^p^tⁱⁿ^t^h^{e Sen}^a^{te. H}^o^w^e^v^e^{r, it can}^b^e^arg^u^ed^t^h^{at a m}^o^{re mean}ⁱⁿ^g^f^u^l^coⁿ^t^ex^t
ⁱ^s^t^o^{see t}^h^{e R}^o^b^e^rt^{s C}^hⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^(recei^vedⁱⁿ^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^oⁿ^S^e^p^t^.⁶^,²⁰⁰⁵^{) i}ⁿ^rel^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^t^h^{e earl}ⁱ^e^{r Ju}^l^y²⁹^,
²⁰⁰^5,^nom^ina^tioⁿ^of^Judg^e^Robe^r^t^{s to}^be^A^ssocⁱ^a^t^e^Justic^e^.^Af^te^{r the}^de^a^t^{h of}^Chie^f^Justic^e^W^illia^m^{H. Re}^hn^quist^on
^Se^pt.^3,²⁰^05,^the^R^obe^r^t^s^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^J^u^s^tic^e^nom^ina^tion^w^a^s^w^ithdr^a^w^{n, a}^{nd he}^w^a^s^r^e^-^nom^ina^t^e^d^to^be^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e^.
^H^e^a^r^ing^s^{on the}^R^obe^r^t^s^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^J^u^s^tic^e^nom^ina^tion^,^s^e^{t to}^be^gⁱⁿ^on^Se^pt.^{6, w}^e^r^e^c^aⁿ^c^e^lle^{d, a}^{nd r}^e^s^c^he^dule^d
^h^eariⁿ^gs,^oⁿ^t^h^{e C}^hⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce n}^o^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^b^e^gan^on^S^e^p^t^.¹²^.^T^h^e^o^v^eral^l^tⁱ^m^{e t}^h^at^el^ap^sed^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e A}^sso^ci^at^{e Ju}^stⁱ^ce
^nom^ina^tion^of^Judg^e^Ro^be^{rts o}ⁿ^J^u^ly^{29 u}ⁿ^til^Se^na^te^c^onf^ir^m^a^tion^of^{his Chie}^f^Justic^e^nom^ina^tio^{n o}ⁿ^Se^pt^{. 2}⁹^w^a^{s 62}
^da^y^s^.
⁵¹^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^sh^o^w^{s t}^h^at⁴³^no^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^recei^ved^fⁱⁿ^a^l^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^o^r^p^r^esi^d^en^tⁱ^a^l^actⁱ^o^{n t}^h^{ree d}^a^y^s^o^r^l^e^{ss af}^t^e^{r d}^a^t^e^o^f^recei^p^t
^{in t}^h^e^Se^na^te^{. T}^h^irty^-six^of^the⁴³^w^e^re^pre^-²⁰^th^c^eⁿ^tury^nom^ina^tion^s^.
⁵²^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^sh^o^w^{s t}^h^at¹⁶^no^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^recei^ved^fⁱⁿ^a^l^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^o^r^p^r^esi^d^en^tⁱ^a^l^actⁱ^o^{n m}^o^{re t}^h^an⁷⁵^d^a^y^s^a^f^t^e^{r d}^a^t^e^o^f
^recei^p^tⁱⁿ^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^.^T^w^el^v^e^o^f^t^h^{e 1}⁶^w^e^{re 2}⁰^th^c^eⁿ^tur^y^nom^ina^tions^{, w}^ith^{10 m}^a^de^sⁱ^nc^e¹⁹⁶⁷^.

approach that typically extends the confirmation process by at least several weeks, as a result of
preparation for and holding of confirmation hearings.
On 12 occasions in the nation’s history, Presidents have made temporary recess appointments to
the Supreme Court without submitting nominations to the Senate. Table 1 identifies all of these
12 appointments, showing how each was related to a later nomination of the appointee for the
same position. The table shows that nine of the 12 recess appointments were made before the end ⁵³
of the Civil War, with the last three made almost a century later, in the 1950s, during the ⁵⁴
presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Each of the 12 recess appointments occurred when a President exercised his power under the ⁵⁵
Constitution to make recess appointments when the Senate was not in session. Historically,
when recesses between sessions of the Senate were much longer than they are today, recess
appointments served the purpose of averting long vacancies on the Court when the Senate was
unavailable to confirm a President’s appointees. The terms of these recess appointments,
however, were limited by the constitutional requirement that they expire at the end of the next
session of Congress (unlike the lifetime appointments Court appointees receive when nominated ⁵⁶
and then confirmed by the Senate).
Despite the temporary nature of these appointments, every person appointed during a recess of
the Senate except for one—John Rutledge, to be Chief Justice, in 1795—ultimately received a
lifetime appointment to the Court after being nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. As Table 1 shows, all 12 of the recess appointees were subsequently nominated to the
same position, and 11 (all except for Rutledge) were confirmed.
The preceding discussion suggests that Senate treatment of Supreme Court nominations has gone
through various phases during the more than 200 years of the Republic. Initially, such
nominations were handled without Senate committee involvement. Later, from 1816 to 1868,
most nominations to the Supreme Court were referred to the Judiciary Committee, but only by
motion. Since 1868, as the result of a change in its rules, the Senate has referred nearly all Court ^th^th
nominations to the Judiciary Committee. During the rest of the 19 century and early 20 century,
the committee considered nominations without public hearings. Subsequently, public hearings

⁵³^S^{ee i}ⁿ^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^the^r^e^c^e^s^s^a^p^p^o^int^m^eⁿ^ts^of^T^hom^a^s^J^ohns^oⁿⁱⁿ¹⁷⁹¹^{, J}^o^hn^R^u^tle^dg^e⁽^t^{o be}^C^h^ie^f^J^u^s^tic^e⁾^{in 1}⁷⁹⁵^,
^B^u^s^h^r^o^{d W}^a^s^h^ing^t^oⁿⁱⁿ¹⁷⁹⁸^{, H}^.^B^r^oc^k^hols^t^Lⁱ^vⁱ^ng^s^t^{on i}ⁿ¹⁸^06,^S^m^{ith T}^hom^ps^{on in}¹⁸^23,^J^o^hⁿ^Mc^Kⁱ^nle^y^{in 18}^37,
^L^e^vⁱ^W^oodbu^r^y^{in 18}^45,^B^e^nja^m^{in R}^.^C^u^r^tisⁱⁿ¹⁸⁵¹^{, a}^{nd D}^a^vⁱ^{d D}^a^vⁱ^s^{in 18}⁶²^.
⁵⁴^S^{ee i}ⁿ^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^the^re^c^e^{ss a}^p^p^o^int^m^eⁿ^{ts of}^Ea^{rl W}^a^rre^{n (to be}^Ch^ie^f^Justic^e⁾^{in 19}⁵³^{, W}^illia^m^{J. Bre}^nna^{n Jr}^{. in}¹⁹⁵⁶^,
^a^nd^Potte^r^Ste^w^a^r^{t in}¹⁹^58.
⁵⁵^Sp^ecifⁱ^call^y^,^A^r^{ticle II, Sectio}ⁿ²^,^clau^{se 3}^o^f^th^{e U.S. C}^oⁿ^s^ti^tu^ti^oⁿ^em^p^o^w^e^{rs th}^{e P}^r^esid^eⁿ^{t “to}^f^{ill u}^p^all^V^acan^cies
^t^h^at^m^a^y^h^a^p^p^eⁿ^du^riⁿ^g^t^h^{e Reces}^{s o}^f^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^,^b^y^gr^an^tⁱⁿ^{g Co}^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^w^hⁱ^c^h^sh^al^l^expⁱ^{re at}^t^h^e^Eⁿ^{d o}^f^t^h^ei^rⁿ^e^xt
^S^e^ssioⁿ^.^”
⁵⁶^For^ba^c^k^g^r^ound^on^the^his^t^or^y^of^r^e^c^e^s^s^a^ppointm^e^nts^{to t}^h^e^S^upre^m^e^{Court, a}ⁿ^{d t}^h^e^p^o^lic^y^a^{nd c}^oⁿ^s^tituti^ona^{l is}^s^u^e^s
^a^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^d^w^{ith thos}^e^a^p^poi^ntm^e^nts^,^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³¹¹^12,^Re^c^e^s^s^Appoi^ntm^e^nts^{of Fe}^de^r^a^{l J}^u^dg^e^s^,^by^L^ouis
^Fis^h^e^r^{; a}ⁿ^{d H}^e^nry^{B. H}^o^g^u^e^,^“^T^he^L^a^w^:^Re^c^e^s^s^A^ppointm^e^nts^to^A^r^tic^le^{III Courts}^,”^Poli^tic^{al Sc}^ie^nc^e^Quarte^rly^,^vo^l^.
^{34, Se}^pte^m^be^r²⁰⁰^{4, p. 65}^6.

gradually became the more common, if not invariable, committee practice, although many of the
earlier hearings were perfunctory and held simply to accommodate a small number of witnesses ^th
wishing to testify against the nominees. Gradually, however, in the latter half of the 20 century,
public hearings on Supreme Court nominations lasting four or more days, with nominees present
to answer extensive questioning from committee members, would become the usual practice.
Also, the overall length of time taken by the Supreme Court confirmation process has, in general,
increased significantly over the course of more than 200 years. From the appointment of the first ^th
Justices in 1789, continuing well into the 20 century, most Supreme Court nominations received
final action (usually, but not always, in the form of Senate confirmation) within a week of being
submitted by the President to the Senate. In recent decades, by contrast, it has become the norm
for the confirmation process to take from two to three months.
Other trends and historical phases may be discerned from Tables 1 and 2. Still other trends, of
course, may be revealed by future nominations that Presidents make and by the actions taken on
them by the Senate and its Judiciary Committee.

Table 1. Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-2006
^{Days from}^{date received in Senate}
^to:^{Senate committe}^{e actions}^{Final action by Senate or}
^President^Date
^{Nominee President}^{received in}^First^Committee^Final
^Senate^a^Public^public^{final vote}^{action by}
^hearing^{Final vote}^date^b^{Final vote}^Date^{Final action}^c^hearing^date^date^{Senate or}^President
^date(s)
^{John Jay}^of^{Washington 09/2}^4/1⁷⁸⁹^09/2^6/1⁷⁸⁹^Confirmed^—^—²
^{New York}
^{(Chief Justice,}
^hereafte^r
^{C. J.)}
^{John Rutledge}^{Washington 09/2}^4/1⁷⁸⁹^09/2^6/1⁷⁸⁹^Confirmed^—^—²
^{of South}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33225}^Carolina
^g/w^Will^iam^{Washington 09/2}^4/1⁷⁸⁹^09/2^6/1⁷⁸⁹^Confirmed^—^—²
^s^.or^{Cushing of}
^le^ak^Massach^usetts
^Robert^{Washington 09/2}^4/1⁷⁸⁹^09/2^6/1⁷⁸⁹^Confirmed^{— —}²^{Nomination predated creation of}^Judiciary^{Committee in 12/1}^0/1⁸¹^{6. No re}^{cord of}
^://wiki^{Harrison of}^(Nominee
^h^ttp^Maryland^declined)^{other committee refe}^rral.
^{James Wilson}^{Washington 09/2}^4/1⁷⁸⁹^09/2^6/1⁷⁸⁹^Confirmed^—^—²
^{of Pennsylvania}
^{John Blair Jr. of}^{Washington 09/2}^4/1⁷⁸⁹^09/2^6/1⁷⁸⁹^Confirmed^—^—²
^Virginia
^{James Iredell of}^{Washington 02/0}^9/1⁷⁹⁰^02/1^0/1⁷⁹^{0 Confirmed}^—^—¹
^{North Carolina}^{(Nom. Date}
^02/0^8/1⁷⁹⁰⁾
^Reces^{s Appoint}^{ment, 08/05/1791}^Thomas^Washington
^{Johnson of}^11/0^1/1⁷⁹¹^11/0^7/1⁷⁹^{1 Confirmed}^—^—⁶

^Maryland^{Nomination predated creation of}^Judiciary
^{(Nom. Date}^{Committee in 12/1}^0/1⁸¹^{6. No re}^{cord of}^{other committee refe}^rral.
^10/3^1/1⁷⁹¹⁾

^{New York}^(Nominee
^{(C. J.)}^declined)

^{New York}^Committee.
^{(Nom. date}
^12/5/¹⁸²³⁾

^(25-20)^{Barbour of}^{of hearing}
^Virginia^03/1^5/1⁸³^{6 Confirmed}
^(30-11)

^{Spencer of}^Committee.
^{New York}

^{Grier of}^{of hearing}
^Pennsylvania

^{of Iowa}^Committee.

^{of Pennsylvania}^{(Nom. date}^{of hearing}^favorably
^02/0^7/1⁸⁷⁰⁾

^{Harlan of}^{of hearing}^favorably
^Kentucky

^{Fuller of Illinois}^{(Nom. date}^{of hearing}^without^(41-20)
^{(C. J.)}^04/3^0/1⁸⁸⁸⁾^recommen-
^dation

^18/1⁸⁹³^{Hornblower of}^{of hearing}^(24-30)
^{New York}^01/0^8/1⁸⁹^{4 Reported}
^adversely

^{Lurton of}^{of hearing}^favorably
^Tennessee

^{McReynolds of}^{of hearing}^favorably^(44-6)
^Tennessee

^Minnesota^{(Nom. date}^{of hearing}^favorably^11/2^8/1⁹²^{2, with no r}^{ecord of}
^11/2^2/1⁹²²⁾^furt^{her action}

^{Cardozo of}^favorably
^{New York}

^{Rutledge of}^Roosevelt^favorably
^Iowa

^{Whittaker of}^favorably
^Missouri

^10/0^1/1⁹⁶⁸^h^Tennessee^07/1^2/1⁹⁶⁸^favorably
^(45-43)^{(C. J.)}^07/1^6/1⁹⁶⁸^(11-6)
^07/1^7/1⁹⁶⁸^10/0^4/1⁹⁶^{8 Withdrawn}
^07/1^8/1⁹⁶⁸
^07/1^9/1⁹⁶⁸
^07/2^0/1⁹⁶⁸
^07/2^2/1⁹⁶⁸
^07/2^3/1⁹⁶⁸
^09/1^3/1⁹⁶⁸
^09/1^6/1⁹⁶⁸

^{Blackmun of}^favorably^(94-0)
^Minnesota^(17-0)

^{of Virginia}^08/0^6/1⁹⁸⁶^favorably^(98-0)
^(18-0)

^{failed, 09/27/1}⁹⁹¹^k^10/0^8/1⁹⁹^{1, to resc}^{hedule vote}^{Thomas of}^Bush^09/1^1/1⁹⁹¹
^(7-7)^{on confirmation from}^Virginia^09/1^2/1⁹⁹¹
^10/0^8/1⁹⁹^{1 to 1}^0/1^5/9^{91, to}^09/1^3/1⁹⁹¹
^{allow for add}^{itional hearings}^09/1^6/1⁹⁹¹
^09/1^7/1⁹⁹¹^09/2^7/1⁹⁹^{1 Reported}^10/1^5/1⁹⁹^{1 Confirmed}
^09/1^9/1⁹⁹¹^without^(52-48)
^09/2^0/1⁹⁹¹^recommen-
^10/1^1/1⁹⁹¹^dation
^10/1^2/1⁹⁹¹^(13-1)

^{of Texas}^10/0^7/2⁰⁰^{5. No hea}^{ring held and}^no
^{committee vote taken.}

^{Days from}^{date received in Senate}
^to:^{Senate committe}^{e actions}^{Final action by Senate or}
^President^Date
^{Nominee President}^{received in}^a^First^Committee^Final
^Senate^Public^public^{final vote}^{action by}
^hearing^{Final vote}^date^b^{Final vote}^Date^{Final action}^c^hearing^date^date^{Senate or}^President
^date(s)
^{Cloture invoked,}^{Samuel A. Alito}^{G. W. Bush}^11/1^0/2⁰⁰⁵^01/0^9/2⁰⁰⁶^01/2^4/2⁰⁰^{6 Reported}^{60 75}⁸²
^01/3^0/2⁰⁰⁶^Jr.^01/1^0/2⁰⁰⁶^favorably
^(72-25)^01/1^1/2⁰⁰⁶^(10-8)
^01/1^2/2⁰⁰⁶^01/3^1/2⁰⁰^{6 Confirmed}
^01/1^3/2⁰⁰⁶^{(58 - 4}²⁾
^{Median number o}^f^days^fro^m^{date received in Senate}^{, 17}⁸^9-20⁰⁶^{14 11}¹⁰
^{Median number o}^f^days^fro^m^{date received in Senate}^{, 17}⁸^9-19⁶⁶^{10 9}⁷
^{Median number o}^f^days^fro^m^{date received in Senate}^{, 19}⁶^7-20⁰⁶^{21 50}⁶⁹
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33225}^Sources:^{U.S. Congress, Senate,}^{Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States}^{of America}^(hereafte^r,^{Senate Executive Journal}⁾^,^{various editi}^{ons from the}
^g/w¹^st^Congress^thro^{ugh t}^{he 1}⁰⁷^th^C^{ongress; Senate Committee on t}^{he Judiciary,}^{Legislative and Executive Calendar}^{, various editi}^{ons from the 7}⁷^th^Cong^{ress t}^hroug^{h the}¹⁰³^rd
^s^.or^{Congress; various}^newspa^{per ac}^c^{ounts acces}^{sed on-line throug}^{h P}^{roQuest Historical News}^paper^{s (}^{the p}^{rimary sour}^{ce for re}^{corded v}^{ote tallies in committee prior to}^the
^le^ak¹⁹⁸^{0s); CRS Report RL3}¹¹^71,^{Supreme Court Nominations}^{Not Conf}^{irmed, 1789-2007}^{, by Henr}^{y B. H}^{ogue; and “Nominations” databas}^{e in the L}^{egislative Information System,}
^{available at http://www.congress.gov/nomis/.}
^://wiki^Ackno^wledgment:^Exte^{nsive p}^{reliminary researc}^{h for t}^{his table}^{was perfor}^{med by}^{Mitchel A. Soll}^enberge^{r, former CRS Analyst in}^{American Nationa}^{l Gover}^nme^nt.
^h^ttp
^a.^{Usually the date on w}^{hich the}^Pr^{esident formally makes a nominat}^{ion, by signing a nomination mess}^{age, is the same as t}^{he date o}^{n w}^{hich the}^{nomination is received,}
^{and these two dates a}^{re the}^sam^{e for any give}^{n nomination w}^hen^{only one date is shown in t}^{he “D}^{ate received in Senate” colum}^n.^{However, for the occasional}
^{nomination made by a Pre}^sident^{on a date prior to the}^{nomination’s receipt}^{by t}^{he Senate, the}^{earlier presidential nomination d}^{ate (“Nom. date”) is distinguished, in}
^parent^{heses, f}^{rom the date w}^hen^{the nomination was}^{received by}^{the Senate.}
^b.^{For nominations prior to 18}⁷³^th^{at were ref}^{erred to committee, t}^{he “Final vote date” is the date r}^{ecorded in the}^{Senate Executive Jo}^urnal^{on which the committee’s}
^{chairman or ot}^{her mem}^ber^repo^{rted the}^{nomination to the Senat}^{e. For nominations from 18}⁷³^{to 200}^{5, the “Final vote date” is the}^{date on which t}^{he J}^udiciary
^{Committee voted to report a no}^{mination or, in one instance (on}^{Feb. 14}¹⁸^{81, involving the}^{first S}^{tanley Matthe}^{ws nomination),}^{voted to postpone taking taking}
^action.
^c.^{“Final action,” for purposes of t}^{his table, covers the}^{following mutually exclusive outcomes: confir}^{mation by the}^{Senate (“Conf}^irme^{d”), withdrawal of a nomination by}
^{the President (“Withdrawn”) a}ⁿ^d^{Senate rejection by a}^{vote disap}^{proving a nomination (“Rejected”). In other insta}^{nces, whe}ⁿ^non^e^{of the p}^{receding th}^{ree outcomes}
^{occurred, the last}^{procedural acti}^{on taken}^{by the}^{Senate on a}^nom^{ination is indicated. On certain n}^{ominations, as indicated in}^{the table, the last procedu}^{ral outcome}
^{entailed tabling a nomination (“Tabled”), postponing consideration (“Postponed”), or rejecting a motion to proceed to considera}^{tion (“Motion to proceed rejected”).}
^{Final Senate actions taken b}^y^{roll-call votes are shown in}^pare^nthes^{es. Final Senate actions without r}^oll^{-call votes shown in p}^are^nthes^{es were rea}^ched^{by voice vote or}
^unanimous^conse^{nt. For roll-cal}^l^{votes shown a}^{bove, the n}^u^m^ber^{of Yea votes always comes befor}^{e the n}^u^m^{ber of}^{Nay votes. Thus}^,^{under “Confirmed” or “Rejecte}^d,”
^{the first}^num^{ber in}^{the vote tally}^{is the n}^umbe^{r of Senators w}^{ho v}^{oted in favor of confirmation, an}^{d the second t}^{he n}^umb^{er voti}^{ng against}^{confirmation.}

^d.^{On Dec. 1}⁶^and^{17, 1}⁸⁷^{3, the}^Jud^{iciary Committee held closed-}^do^{or sessions to examine docu}^men^{ts and hea}^{r testimony f}^{rom witne}^ss^{es relevant to a}^controversy^th^at
^{arose over the Williams nomination only after t}^{he committee had}^{reported the}^{nomination to the S}^{enate. The controve}^{rsy p}^rompte^d^{the Senate to recommit t}^he
^{nomination to the Judiciary Com}^{mittee and to authorize the}^{committee “to send for pe}^{rsons a}^nd^papers.”^{Senate Executive Journal}^{, vol. 19, p. 211. Afte}^{r holding the}
^{two closed-d}^{oor sessions , the committee did not re-report the}ⁿ^{omination to the Senate. Amid pr}^{ess reports}^{of significant op}^po^{sition to the nomination in}^{both t}^h^e
^{Judiciary Committee and the Se}ⁿ^{ate as a whole, the nomination, a}^t^Will^{iams’s request, was withdra}^{wn by}^{President Ulysses S. Gra}^nt^{on Jan. 8,}¹⁸^{74. The Dec. 1}⁶^a^nd
^{17 se}^{ssions can}^{be r}^{egarded as a}ⁿ^{early, per}^haps^{the ea}^{rliest, example of a Judiciary Committee closed-do}^{or hearing. However, t}^he^{above table, which}^{focuses in}^pa^rt
^{on the times t}^{hat elapsed}^betwee^{n dates nominations we}^{re receiv}^{ed in the Senate a}^{nd dates of}^publ^ic^{confirmation hearing}^{s, does not count t}^{he time that}^{elapsed fro}^m
^{the date the}^{Williams nomination}^{s was received in t}^{he Senate}^{until the Dec. 1}⁶^and^{17, 1}⁸⁷^{3, sessions, beca}^{use th}^{ey were}^closed^{to the p}^ublic.
^e.^{The 60-}^{4 roll call vote to confirm Taft, conducted by t}^{he Senate}ⁱⁿ^closed-do^{or executive session,}^{was not recorded in t}^he^{Senate Executive Journal}^{. Newspaper}
^{accounts, howeve}^{r, reported t}^hat^{a roll call vote on the nominatio}^{n was demanded in t}^{he e}^xec^{utive session, and that t}^{he vote wa}^s⁶^{0-4 to confirm, with a}ⁿ^agreem^en^t
^{reached afte}^rwards^{not to make}^{the roll call public. See Robert J. Bender, “Ex-President Taft}^New^{Chief Justice of U}^{nited State}^s,”^{Atlanta Constitution}^{, July 1, 192}^{1, p.}^1;
^{Charles S. Groves, “Taft Is Confi}^{rmed, as Chief Ju}^stice,”^{Boston Da}^{ily Globe}^{, July 1, 19}^21,^{p. 1; and “P}^{roceedings of Congress a}^{nd Committees in Brief,”}^{Washington Po}^st^,
^{July 1, 1}⁹²^{1, p. 6.}
^f.^{The Jan. 1}^{2, 1}⁹²^{5, hearing, held i}ⁿ^{closed session, heard the}^{testimony of former Se}^{n. Willard Saul}^sbur^{y of Delaware. “}^{Nomination of Stone Is Held Up O}^nce^More,”
^{New York Times,}^{Jan. 1}^{3, 1}⁹²^{5, p.}^{4. At the Ja}^{n. 2}^{8, 19}^{25, h}^earing,^{which was}^{held in open}^{session, the nominee wa}^{s q}^{uestioned by t}^h^e^Judiciar^{y Committee for four}
^{hours. This was t}^{he first co}^nfirma^{tion hearing for a S}^upre^{me Court}^{nomination at which t}^he^nomine^{e appea}^{red in pe}^{rson to testif}^{y. See Albert W. Fox, “Stone Tells}
^{Senate Committee He Ass}^umes^{Full Responsibility for Pressing N}^{ew Wheeler Case,”}^{Washington P}^ost^{, Jan. 2}^{9, 1}⁹²^{5, p. 1.}
^g.^{The Judiciary Committee held tw}^{o days of confirmation hearings}^{on the}^Harlan^{nomination, on Feb. 24 a}^{nd 2}^{5, 19}^{55. The}^{Feb. 2}⁴^s^es^{sion, held in}^closed^{session, hea}^rd
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33225}^{the testimony of}^{nine witness}^{es (}^{seven in}^{favor of confirmation, an}^{d two opposed). Luther A. H}^usto^{n, “Harlan Hea}^{ring Held by}^Se^nat^ors,”^{New York Times,}^Fe^{b. 25,}¹⁹⁵^{5, p. 8. The}^{committee also b}^{egan the Fe}^{b. 2}⁵^hea^{ring in close}^{d session, to hear the te}^stimony^{of additi}^{onal witnesses. Howe}^{ver, for Judge Harlan, w}^{ho was the}^last
^g/w^{scheduled witness, the}^{committee “voted to open the}^{hearing to}^newspa^per^reporter^{s for}^{his testimony.” Luthe}^{r A. Hu}^{ston, “Harla}^{n Disavows ‘One World’ Aims in}
^s^.or^{Senate In}^quiry,”^{New York}^Times,^{Feb. 26, 1}⁹⁵^{5, p. 1.}
^le^ak
^h.^{The 45}^{votes in favor of t}^{he moti}^{on to close debate fell far short o}^f^{the s}^upe^{r-majority required}^und^{er Senate r}^ules—the^{n two-t}^hirds^{of Senators pre}^{sent a}^{nd voting.}
^://wiki^{The cloture motion, if approved,}^{would have closed a lengthy deba}^{te (which had co}^nsumed^{more th}^{an 2}⁵^hou^{rs over a}^{four-day p}^eri^{od) on a motion to proceed to}^{consider the Fortas}^nomination.
^h^ttp
^i.^{The 52}^{votes in favor of t}^{he moti}^{on to close debate fell short of t}^{he su}^{per-majority req}^{uired u}^nder^{Senate rules—t}^{hen t}^wo-third^{s of Senators p}^resent^{and voting.}
^{Although the}^{cloture motion failed, the Senate later that day}^{(Dec. 10, 1}⁹⁷^{1) agreed, without a}^proc^{edural vote, to close debat}^{e and then voted to confirm}^Rehn^quist
^68-2^6.
^j.^{The 68}^{votes in favor of t}^{he moti}^{on to close debate, by invoking cl}^{oture, exceeded the}^{majority req}^{uired under}^{Senate r}^ules—the^{n, and cur}^{rently, thr}^{ee-fifths of t}^he
^{Senate’s full member}^ship.
^k.^{Motions to gain approval in Senat}^{e committees req}^{uire a majority}^{vote in favor and t}^hus^{fail if there}^{is a tie vote.}

Table 2. Senate Votes on Whether to Confirm Supreme Court Nominations:
Number Made by Voice Vote/Unanimous Consent (UC) or by Roll-Call Vote
^Years^{By voice vote or UC}^{(all to con}^firm)^{By roll-call vote (votes to}^{reject in parentheses)}^Totals
¹⁷⁸^9-1⁸²^{9 24}⁴⁽²⁾²⁸
¹⁸³^0-1⁸⁸^{9 15}²¹⁽³⁾³⁶
¹⁸⁹^0-1⁹⁶^{5 34}¹⁶⁽³⁾⁵⁰
¹⁹⁶^6-2⁰⁰^{6 0}¹⁹⁽³⁾¹⁹
^Totals⁷³^{60 (1}¹⁾¹³³⁽¹¹⁾
^Sources:^{U.S. Congress, Senate,}^{Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States}^{of America,}^st^th
^{various editions from the}¹^Con^{gress th}^{rough t}^he¹⁰⁷^Congre^ss^{; also, “Nominati}^{ons” database in}^the
^{Legislative Information System, available at http://www.congress.gov/nomis/.}
^D^eⁿⁱ^{s St}^e^v^eⁿ^Rut^k^us ^Mau^r^een^B^earden
^Specialis^{t on}^t^h^{e Federal J}^u^diciar^y^In^f^o^r^m^a^tion^R^e^s^earch^Specialⁱ^s^t
^s^r^u^t^k^u^s@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-⁷¹⁶²^m^b^eardeⁿ^@^crs^.^l^o^c.^g^o^v^,^7-⁸⁹⁵⁵