Supreme Court Nominations (Softcover and ebook)
Presidential Nomination, the Judiciary Committee, Proper Scope of Questioning of Nominees, Senate Consideration, Cloture, and the Use of the Filibuster
Compiled by TheCapitol.Net
Supreme Court Nominations explores the
appointment process--from Presidential announcement,
Judiciary Committee investigation, confirmation hearings,
vote, and report to the Senate, through Senate debate and
vote on the nomination.
The procedure for appointing a
Supreme Court Justice 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 Advise 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 lifetime appointment
to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the
President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not
mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played
midway in the process (after the President selects, but before
the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Since
the end of the Civil War, almost every Supreme Court nomination
received by the Senate has first been referred to and considered
by the Judiciary Committee before being acted on by the Senate
as a whole.
1. "Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the
President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate," Congressional
Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress RL31989, February 19,
2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
- Background - President's Selection of a Nominee -
The Role of Senate Advice - Advice from Other Sources
- Criteria for Selecting a Nominee - Background
Investigations - Speed with Which President Selects
Nominees - Recess Appointments to the Court -
Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee
- Historical Background - Pre-Hearing Stage -
Hearings - Reporting the Nomination - Senate Debate
and Confirmation Vote - Bringing the Nomination to the
Floor - Criteria Used to Evaluate Nominees -
Filibusters and Motions to End Debate - Voice Votes, Roll
Calls, and Vote Margins - Reconsideration of the
Confirmation Vote
- Nominations That Failed to Be Confirmed - Calling
Upon the Judiciary Committee to Further Examine the
Nomination - After Senate Confirmation - Conclusion
- Additional Sources - Table 1. Current Members of the
Supreme Court of the United States - Table 2. Supreme
Court Nominations Not Confirmed by the Senate
2. "Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations:
Committee and Floor Procedure," CRS Report for Congress RL31980,
May 8, 2009
. . . . . . 65
- Introduction - Receipt and Referral - Committee
Procedures - Written Rules - Investigations -
Hearings - Reporting - Floor Procedures - Executive
Calendar - Executive Session - Taking Up A Nomination
- Holds - Consideration and Disposition - Recommital
- Reconsideration - Cloture - Nominations Returned to
the President - Recess Appointments - Related CRS
Reports
3. "Evolution of the Senate's Role in the Nomination and
Confirmation Process: A Brief History," CRS Report for Congress
RL31948, May 13, 2009
. . . . . . 81
- Introduction - Development of Senate Procedures -
Senatorial Courtesy - Blue Slips - "Holds" -
Filibuster
4. "Proper Scope of Questioning of Supreme Court
Nominees: The Current [2005] Debate," CRS Report for Congress
RL33059, September 1, 2005 . . . . . . 97
- Historical Background - Past Comments of John G.
Roberts, Jr., on Proper Scope of Questioning - His Advice
in 1981 to Nominee Sandra Day O'Connor - Questions He
Declined to Answer as Court of Appeals Nominee in 2003 -
Pre-Hearing Debate Over Proper Scope of Questioning for
Roberts as Supreme Court Nominee - Chairman Sets Stage
for Committee Questioning - Calls for Roberts to Answer
Questions about Current Issues - Criticism of Calls for
Roberts to Answer Questions about Current Issues -
Conclusion
5. "Constitutionality of a Senate Filibuster of a
Judicial Nomination," CRS Report for Congress RL32102, June 14,
2005 . . . . . . 113
- Introduction - Majority Rule - Rulemaking Authority
- Entrenchment - The Senate, the President, and Judicial
Appointments - The Text - The Framers' Intent - The
Arguments of Supporters and Critics of Filibusters of
Judicial Nominations - Recess Appointments - Appeal to
the Courts - Standing - Political Question -
Conclusion
6."Cloture Attempts on Nominations," CRS Report for
Congress RL32878, March 30, 2009 . . . . . . . 127
- Cloture, Filibusters, and How They Differ - Frequency
of Cloture Attempts on Nominations - Historical
Development of Cloture Attempts on Nominations -
Positions in Relation to Which Cloture Was Sought - Table
1. Cloture Attempts and Action on Nominations - Table 2.
Frequency and Success of Cloture Attempts on Nominations, by
Time Period, 1949-2008 - Table 3. Cloture Action on
Judicial and Executive Nominations, by Time Period,
1967-2008 - Table 4. Nominations Subjected to Cloture
Attempts, 1968-2008
7."Changing Senate Rules or Procedures: The
'Constitutional' or 'Nuclear' Option," CRS Report for Congress
RL32684, November 1, 2005 . . . . . . 139
- Introduction - Nominations and the Filibuster -
Possible Courses of Action - Dilatory Debate - Opening
Day Scenario One - Majority Rules Change - Opening Day
Scenario Two - Majority Cloture - The Constitution and
Cloture - Considerations - Potential Implications for
the Senate - Alternative Proposal
8."'Entrenchment' of Senate Procedure and the
'Nuclear Option' for Change: Possible Proceedings and Their
Implications," CRS Report for Congress RL32843, March 28, 2005
. . . . . . . 153
- Introduction - Filibusters and Limits on Consideration
- "Nuclear" and "Constitutional" Options - Synopsis -
The "Entrenchment" of Senate Procedure - Lack of Overall
Consideration Limits - Effects of the Continuing Body
Doctrine - The Continuity of the Senate - Practical
Implications of Continuity - Contrast with the House of
Representatives - Entrenchment in Practice Only -
Requisites of a "Nuclear Option" - Overcoming
Entrenchment - Consideration Limits Under Existing
Procedures - Motion to Table - Point of Order -
Nested Point of Order - Precedential Force of
Parliamentary Rulings - Rulings of the Chair -
Decisions by the Senate - The "Constitutional Option"
- Rulemaking Power as Basis - "Advice and Consent" Power
as Basis - Consideration Limits on Submitted Questions
- Possible Proceedings in a Contemporary "Nuclear Option"
- Point of Order Sustained by Chair - Adverse Ruling in
Accordance With Precedent - Point of Order Submitted -
Point of Order by Opponents - Nested Points of Order -
Implications of Using Extraordinary Action to Overcome
Entrenchment - Peremptory Departure from Established
Procedure - Extraordinary Action and the Standing of
Precedent - Attempts to Amend the Cloture Rule, 1953-1975
- Asserting the Non-Continuity of Rules - Majority
Cloture on Rules Changes - Presumptively Non-Debatable
Motion to Proceed - Corresponding Considerations in the
House - Procedural Stability and Procedural Control -
Prospective Effects on Senate Practice - Procedural
Change Under Established Constraints - For Further
Reading
9."Consideration and Debate on the Senate Floor:
Filibusters," "Cloture in Senate Floor Proceedings," "Steps to
Invoke Cloture," and "Senate Procedures under Cloture," Sections
8.210-8.232, from the
Congressional Deskbook,
by Michael Koempel and Judy Schneider . . . . . . 189
10. "Congress and the Executive: Appointments" and
"Confirmation Procedure," Sections 10.81-10.81 from the
Congressional Deskbook,
by Michael Koempel and Judy Schneider . . . . . . 193
11. "Nominations to Federal Courts" and "Gathering
Information on a Judicial Nominee," Sections 10.121-10.122 from
the
Congressional Deskbook,
by Michael Koempel and Judy Schneider
. . . . . 197
Capitol Learning
Audio Courses
are a convenient way to learn about the legislative process,
federal budgeting, media relations, business etiquette, and
much more. Each course is between 1/2 hour and 2 hours
long, and includes the course materials.
TheCapitol.Net is a non-partisan firm, and the opinions of its
faculty, authors, clients and of the owners and operators of its
vendors are their own and do not represent those of TheCapitol.Net.