Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007

^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

Of the 158 nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1789 through 2007, 36
were not confirmed by the Senate. The 36 nominations represent 31 individuals whose names
were sent forward to the Senate by Presidents (some individuals were nominated more than
once). Of the 31 individuals who were not confirmed the first time they were nominated,
however, six were later nominated again and confirmed. The Supreme Court nominations
discussed here were not confirmed for a variety of reasons, including Senate opposition to the
nominating President, nominee’s views, or incumbent Court; senatorial courtesy; perceived
political unreliability of the nominee; perceived lack of ability; interest group opposition; and fear
of altering the balance of the Court. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has played an
important role in the confirmation process, particularly since 1868.
All but the most recent of these nominations have been the subject of extensive legal, historical,
and political science writing, a selected list of which is included in this report.
This report will be updated as warranted by events.

The Confirmation Process...............................................................................................................1
Summary of Unsuccessful Nominations.........................................................................................2
Factors Behind Unsuccessful Nominations.....................................................................................5
Opposition to the President.......................................................................................................6
Opposition to the Nominee’s Views..........................................................................................7
Opposition to the Incumbent Court.........................................................................................10
Senatorial Courtesy..................................................................................................................11
Allegations of Political Unreliability.......................................................................................11
Perceived Lack of Qualification or Ability..............................................................................11
Interest Group Opposition.......................................................................................................12
Fear of Altering the Court.......................................................................................................12
Application of the Factors to the Miers Nomination...............................................................12
The Committee on the Judiciary and Unsuccessful Nominations.................................................14
Additional Information on Nominations.......................................................................................15
Additional Resources....................................................................................................................25
CRS Products..........................................................................................................................25
Other Resources......................................................................................................................25
Table 1. Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007, by Final Disposition..............2
Table 2. Summary of Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007............................3
Table 3. Supreme Court Nominations, by President, 1789-2007..................................................15
Table 4. Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007...............................................18
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................26

he announcement by Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of her intention to retire and
the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in the summer of 2005 created the need
for two new Supreme Court appointments. The process for making these appointments to T

three nominations to the Associate Justice position. The first two of these nominations were
subsequently withdrawn by President George W. Bush, while the third—of Samuel A. Alito, Jr.—
was confirmed by the Senate. The two withdrawn nominations—of John G. Roberts, Jr., and
Harriet E. Miers—are the latest of 36 nominations to Supreme Court posts that have failed to be
confirmed. These two nominations exemplify the range of this class of Supreme Court
nominations. The Roberts nomination to Associate Justice was withdrawn as a formality so that
the President could nominate him to be Chief Justice. Therefore, although the first nomination
was not confirmed, the nominee was confirmed for another position. The Miers nomination, on
the other hand, was withdrawn without the expectation that she would subsequently be nominated
for another position on the Court. Consequently, neither this particular nomination nor the
nominee was confirmed.
Over the course of the nation’s history, approximately one-quarter of the presidential nominations
to the Supreme Court of the United States have failed to place a new Associate or Chief Justice on
the bench. Of the 158 nominations to the Court between 1789 and 2007, 114 individuals were
confirmed and served, 7 individuals were confirmed and declined to serve, 1 confirmed nominee
died before he could take his seat, and 36 nominations were not confirmed. This report discusses
this last group of Supreme Court nominations. These 36 nominations that did not lead to
confirmation represent 31 individuals whose names were sent forward to the Senate by Presidents
(some of those 31 individuals were nominated more than once). The Supreme Court nominations
discussed here were not confirmed for a variety of reasons, including Senate opposition to the
nominating President, the nominee’s views, or the incumbent Court; senatorial courtesy;
perceived political unreliability of the nominee; perceived lack of ability; interest group
opposition; and fear of altering the balance of the Court. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary
has played an important role in the confirmation process, particularly since 1868.
Summary discussions of the Senate confirmation process and the unsuccessful nominations
follow. The reasons some nominations have failed confirmation and the role of the Senate
Judiciary Committee are also discussed. Finally, the report includes a detailed table that identifies
each nomination and provides, for each, the facts that can be documented about the dates of
relevant activity and votes in the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate. A list of additional
relevant literature is also provided.

The Constitution of the United States provides for the appointment of a Justice to the Supreme
Court in Article II, Section 2. This section states that the President “shall nominate, and by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the [S]upreme Court.” The
practices involved in following this constitutional mandate have varied over the years, but they
have always involved the sharing of the appointment power between the President and the ¹
Senate.

¹^For^a^m^o^r^e^de^ta^ile^d^his^t^or^y^of^the^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^{t nom}^ina^tio^ns^pr^oc^e^s^s^,^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³¹⁹⁸^9,^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^t
^A^p^poⁱⁿ^t^m^eⁿ^t^P^r^o^{cess: R}^o^l^e^{s o}^f^t^h^{e P}^r^esi^d^en^t^,^Judⁱ^ci^a^r^{y Co}^mmi^t^t^ee,^aⁿ^d^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^,^by^D^e^nis^Ste^v^eⁿ^R^u^t^k^us^{; C}^R^S^R^e^por^t
^R^L³³²⁴^7,^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^{t N}^o^mⁱⁿ^a^tio^ns^:^Se^nate^F^l^o^o^r^Pr^oc^e^d^ur^e^a^{nd Pr}^ac^tic^e^,¹⁷⁸⁹^-²⁰⁰⁶^,^by^Rⁱ^c^h^ar^{d S.}^B^e^{th a}ⁿ^d
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

Nominations that failed to be confirmed by the Senate have been disposed of in a variety of ways,
including withdrawal by the President, inaction in the committee, inaction in the Senate,
postponement, tabling, rejection on the Senate floor, and filibuster on the Senate floor. Table 1
provides a summary of the unsuccessful nominations by final disposition.

The 36 Supreme Court nominations not confirmed by the Senate represent 31 individuals. Six of
these 31 were later re-nominated and confirmed for positions on the Court. Of the other 25
nominees, four were nominated and failed confirmation more than once. Table 2 provides
summary information concerning unsuccessful nominations.
The first of the six nominees who were not confirmed only to be later re-nominated and
confirmed was William Paterson, nominated by President George Washington. Washington
withdrew the nomination on the day following its submission. He noted that Paterson “was a
member of the Senate when the law creating that office was passed, and that the time for which ²
he was elected [had] not yet expired.” For this reason, President Washington felt that the ³
nomination was in violation of the Constitution. President Washington re-nominated Paterson at
the beginning of the following Congress a few days later, and Paterson was immediately ⁴
confirmed. In this case, the failure of the first nomination was due to what might be considered
formalities, rather than opposition to the nomination itself.
Table 1. Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007, by Final
Disposition
^Disposition^{Number of}^Nominations
^{Rejected by a vote of the}^{full Sen}^ate¹¹
^{Withdrawn by}^{the Pre}^{sident with}^{out Senate action}²
^{Referred to committee, withdrawn by}^{the Pre}^{sident without f}^urt^{her Senate a}^ction²

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^B^e^tsy^P^a^lm^e^r^{; a}^{nd C}^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³²⁸²^1,^T^h^e^Ch^ie^{f J}^u^stic^e^of^the^Unite^d^State^s^{: Re}^sp^onsi^b^ili^tie^{s of}^the^Offic^e^a^nd
^Pr^oc^e^s^s^for^Ap^poi^ntm^e^nt^,^by^D^e^nis^Ste^v^eⁿ^R^u^tk^us^aⁿ^{d L}^o^r^r^a^ine^H^.^T^ong^.
²^U^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^Se^na^te^,^Jou^r^na^l^of^t^h^{e E}^xecu^tⁱ^{ve P}^r^o^ceedⁱⁿ^g^s^o^f^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^o^f^t^h^{e Uni}^t^e^d^S^t^at^{es o}^f^A^m^eri^c^aⁿ^{, v}^o^l.^1,^p.
¹³⁵^.^(Hereaf^t^e^{r ci}^t^e^d^as^E^xecu^tⁱ^v^e^Jo^u^r^na^l^.⁾
³^A^r^tic^le^I^,^Se^c^tion^{6 of}^the^C^ons^tit^utioⁿ^pr^ov^ide^s^t^h^a^t^{, “}^N^o^Se^na^tor^{or Re}^pre^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^e^sha^ll,^duriⁿ^g^th^e^Tⁱ^m^e^f^o^{r w}^h^ic^h
^he^w^a^s^e^l^e^c^te^{d, be}^a^p^p^oⁱⁿ^te^{d t}^o^aⁿ^y^cⁱ^v^{il O}^f^fⁱ^c^e^{... , w}^h^ic^{h s}^h^a^{ll ha}^v^e^be^eⁿ^c^r^e^a^t^e^d^{... d}^u^ri^ng^s^u^c^h^ti^m^e^....”^T^h^e^offⁱ^c^e^to
^w^hⁱ^c^h^W^a^shⁱⁿ^gt^oⁿ^w^a^{s n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱⁿ^{g P}^a^t^e^rsoⁿ^,^A^sso^ci^at^{e Ju}^stⁱ^ce,^was^creat^ed^b^y^t^h^{e Ju}^dⁱ^ci^ary^A^c^t^o^f¹⁷⁸⁹^on^S^e^pt^em^b^e^r
^24,¹⁷⁸⁹^{, d}^u^rⁱ^ng^w^h^ic^{h tim}^e^P^a^te^r^s^{on w}^a^s^a^Se^na^tor^.^P^a^te^r^s^oⁿ^be^g^a^{n s}^e^r^v^ing^{in t}^h^e^Se^na^te^on^Ma^r^c^h^{4, 1}⁷⁸⁹^aⁿ^d
^r^e^sⁱ^gⁿ^e^d^{on N}^o^v^e^m^b^e^r^{13, 1}⁷⁹⁰^,^ha^vⁱ^ng^be^eⁿ^e^l^e^c^t^e^d^G^o^v^e^r^nor^of^N^e^w^J^e^r^s^ey⁽^U^{.S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^,^Bⁱ^og^ra^phⁱ^c^a^l^st^nd
^Di^rect^o^r^{y o}^f^t^h^{e A}^m^eri^c^an^Con^g^r^ess^{, H}^.^D^o^c^.⁶⁰^7,⁸¹^C^ong^.,²^s^e^s^s^.^[^W^a^s^hing^ton^:^G^P^O^,¹⁹⁵⁰^]^,^p.¹⁶⁵⁵⁾^{. H}ⁱ^s^te^r^m^,^th^st
^how^e^v^e^r^{, did n}^o^{t c}^o^nc^lu^de^uⁿ^til^Ma^rc^{h 3,}¹⁷⁹³^(U.S.^Co^ng^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^,^Se^na^te^M^aⁿ^ual^,^S^.^D^o^c.¹⁰^6-¹^,¹⁰⁶^Cong^.,¹
^s^e^s^s^.^[^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁰^]^,^p^.⁸⁵⁹⁾^,^a^{nd s}^o^his^a^p^p^oⁱⁿ^tm^eⁿ^{t to}^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^J^u^s^tic^e^pr^ior^t^o^t^h^a^t^da^t^e^w^{ould ha}^v^e^be^eⁿ
^unc^oⁿ^stitu^tio^na^l.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t W}^a^shiⁿ^g^t^{on re}^-^nom^ina^t^e^d^{, a}ⁿ^{d a}^spe^cⁱ^a^l^se^{ssion of}^the^Se^na^te^of^the^ne^w^Cong^re^ss
^c^onf^irm^e^{d, P}^a^te^{rson on Ma}^rc^h⁴^,¹⁷⁹^{3. P}^a^te^rson’s^Se^na^te^p^o^sitioⁿ^ha^{d c}^o^v^e^re^{d f}^{our y}^e^a^r^{s, ra}^the^r^thaⁿ^six^,^d^u^e^to^the
^s^t^a^g^ge^rⁱ^ng^of^Se^na^te^te^r^m^s^a^t^the^outs^e^t^of^the^Fir^s^{t C}^ong^re^{ss, w}^h^ic^{h w}^a^{s c}^a^lle^{d f}^o^{r in the}^Co^nstit^utio^{n (A}^rtic^le^I,
^Se^c^tion³⁾^aⁿ^{d w}^a^sⁱ^m^plem^eⁿ^te^{d in the}^Se^na^teⁱⁿ^Ma^y¹⁷⁸⁹^.
⁴^E^xecu^tⁱ^{ve Jo}^u^r^na^l^,^vo^l.^1,^p.¹³^9.

^Disposition^{Number of}^Nominations
^{Postponed or tabled by t}^{he Senat}^{e, but not withdraw}ⁿ^{by th}^{e Presi}^dent⁵
^{Postponed or tabled by t}^{he Senat}^{e and withdrawn}^{by t}^{he Presiden}^t³
^{No record of refe}^{rral, motion to consider uns}^ucces^sful²
^{Referred to committee, but}^neve^{r reported or discha}^{rged from co}^mmittee⁴
^{Referred to committee, hearings}^{held, withdrawn by t}^{he President}^{without fu}^rthe^r¹
^{Senate action}
^{Discharged from committee, no}^{record of action by t}^{he f}^{ull Senate}¹
^{Reported from committee, place}^{d on the E}^xec^{utive Calendar, no}^{record of action by}¹
^{the full Senate}
^{Reported from committee, considered by th}^{e Senate, recommitte}^{d, and withdrawn by}¹
^{the President}
^{Reported from committee, motion to consider uns}^ucces^sful¹
^{Reported from committee, withdrawn b}^y^the^President¹
^{Withdrawn by}^{the Pre}^{sident afte}^{r defeat of cloture motion}¹
^{Total Supreme Court n}^omin^{ations not c}^onfirmed³⁶
The last of these six nominations, that of John G. Roberts, Jr. to be an Associate Justice, might be
similarly categorized. On July 29, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Roberts to replace ⁵
retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Subsequently, on September 3, Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist died. On September 6, President Bush withdrew Roberts’ nomination to be
Associate Justice and nominated him to be Chief Justice. The Senate confirmed this nomination ⁶
on September 29, 2005.
All of the other unsuccessful nominations faced opposition in the Senate.
Table 2. Summary of Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007
^{Total Supreme Court nomination}^s¹⁵⁸
^{Total Supreme Court nomination}^{s not confirmed}³⁶
^{Nominees who failed to be confi}^{rmed at least once}³¹
^{Unconfirmed nominee}^{s who}^nev^{er served in t}^he^{position to which they}^were^nominated²⁴
^{Unconfirmed nominee}^{s later re-n}^{ominated and confirmed}⁶
^{Unconfirmed nominee}^{who ser}^ve^{d as a recess a}^{ppointee in}^{a position to which h}^e^was^nominated¹
^{Nominees su}^{bject to two or thre}^{e failed nominations (for a total o}^f^nine^nominations)⁴

⁵^Se^na^teⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tions^da^ta^ba^s^e^of^the^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^a^tive^Iⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^{tion Sy}^s^t^em^{, av}^a^ila^ble^{to c}^ong^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^{l s}^t^a^f^f^a^t
^http:^//www^.c^ong^re^ss.g^o^v^/^nom^is/.
⁶^Ibid^.

^{Unconfirmed nomination to elev}^{ate sitting Associate Justice to Ch}^{ief Justice}¹
^{Unconfirmed nomination of form}^{er Associate Justice to Chief}^Justi^ce¹
^Source:^{Total Supreme Cour}^{t n}^{ominations calculated using data f}^{rom Elder Witt,}^{Guide to the U.S. Supreme}^nd
^Court^{, 2}^ed.^{(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1}⁹⁹^{0), pp.}⁹^95-9^{98; a}^{nd Lee}^{Epstein, Je}^ffre^y^{A. Segal,}
^{Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas G.}^Walker,^{The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Devel}^opments
^{(Washington: Congressional Qua}^{rterly, 19}^{94), p}^{p. 28}^4-2^{90. Ot}^her^{totals summarize information fro}^m^{Table 4}
^{of this report.}
The other four nominees who were later re-nominated and confirmed were Roger B. Taney,
nominated twice by President Andrew Jackson; Stanley Matthews, nominated first by President
Rutherford B. Hayes and later by President James A. Garfield; Pierce Butler, nominated twice by
President Warren G. Harding; and John Marshall Harlan II, nominated twice by President Dwight
D. Eisenhower. Taney’s first nomination, to Associate Justice, was postponed indefinitely by the
Senate. During the next Congress, he was nominated and confirmed as Chief Justice, and he went
on to author the Dred Scott decision. Matthews’s first nomination was never reported out of
committee, but in the following Congress, under a new President, he was re-nominated and ⁷
confirmed by a one-vote margin. Butler was first nominated to the high court during the third ^th
session of the 67 Congress. Confirmation was blocked during that session, but Butler was re-
nominated and confirmed during the fourth session. Harlan was initially nominated to be an ^rd
Associate Justice late in the 83 Congress, and this nomination remained in committee at the time
of adjournment. His second nomination, at the beginning of the following Congress, was
confirmed a few months later.
Four individuals were the subjects of more than one unsuccessful nomination. The first three,
John C. Spencer, Reuben H. Walworth, and Edward King, were nominees of President John Tyler.
President Tyler had the opportunity to fill two vacancies on the high court. He made nine
nominations of five men in the space of the last 15 months of his presidency. Eight of these
nominations were not confirmed, giving President Tyler the highest tally of unconfirmed Supreme
Court nominations. President Tyler nominated Spencer for the first vacancy. After the Senate
rejected Spencer, Walworth was put forward for the position, and the Senate tabled this ⁸
nomination. On June 17, 1844, the last day of the congressional session, President Tyler
withdrew the tabled Walworth nomination and re-nominated Spencer. Unable to gain unanimous
consent for the Spencer nomination to be acted upon, Tyler then withdrew Spencer’s name on the ⁹
same day and re-nominated Walworth. By this time, the nomination (June 5, 1844) of King for
the second vacancy had also been tabled. Tyler went on to re-nominate Walworth and King at the
beginning of the following congressional session. After these two nominations were once again
tabled, they were both withdrawn. The nomination of John M. Read, which followed, was
reported out of committee but never acted upon by the full Senate. Samuel Nelson was President
Tyler’s fifth nominee, and he was confirmed.
The fourth individual subject to multiple unconfirmed nominations was William B. Hornblower,
who was nominated in successive sessions of Congress by President Grover Cleveland. His first
nomination was never reported out of committee; the second nomination was reported out and
rejected.

⁷^E^xecu^tⁱ^{ve Jo}^u^r^na^l^,^v^o^l^.²³^,^pp^{. 1}⁴^{, 7}⁵^-^76.
⁸²⁸^th^Con^g^ress,¹^st^sess.
⁹^“^W^a^s^hing^{ton: A}^d^jour^nm^eⁿ^{t of}^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^”^Daily^Nati^on^{al I}ⁿ^te^lli^ge^nc^e^r⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton)^{, J}^u^ne¹⁸^,¹⁸⁴⁴^{, p.}^3.

One of the unsuccessful nominees had previously been Associate Justice, had left the Court, and
this time was being nominated for Chief Justice. Another was a sitting Associate Justice
nominated for elevation to the Chief Justice position. The first of these was also the first
nomination in which the Senate voted not to confirm. John Rutledge had previously served as one
of the first Associate Justices from 1789 to 1791. In addition, he served as Chief Justice in 1795
under a recess appointment by President Washington. When the President nominated him later
that year to succeed John Jay as permanent Chief Justice, however, the Senate asserted its
constitutional power and voted against confirmation. The second such nominee, Justice Abe
Fortas, was a sitting Associate Justice at the time of his nomination by President Lyndon B.
Johnson to be Chief Justice in 1968. The nomination was favorably reported out of committee but ¹⁰
filibustered on the floor of the Senate until the President withdrew the nomination.
One unsuccessful nomination coincided with a legislative initiative to decrease the size of the
Court. On April 16, 1866, President Andrew Johnson nominated Henry Stanbery to replace John
Catron, who had died the previous May. By the time Stanbery was nominated, however, the
House of Representatives had passed a bill decreasing the number of justices in the Supreme ¹¹
Court. The act, as signed into law on July 23, 1866, called for a decrease in the number of ¹²
Associate Justices from nine to six through the process of attrition. At the time the bill was
initiated and also at the time its final version was signed, only one vacancy, that to which
Stanbery was nominated, existed on the Court. Eight Associate Justice positions remained on the
bench until the death of James M. Wayne in July 1867. Seven Associate Justice positions ¹³
remained until a law was passed in April 1869 to increase the number back to eight.
Several scholars have suggested that, by reducing the number of Associate Justice positions,¹⁴ the
Republican Congress was trying to thwart the ability of Democratic President Johnson to shape
the Supreme Court, although the record of House and Senate debate is silent as to each chamber’s ¹⁵
intention in this regard. The law increasing the Associate Justice positions to eight was passed
within two months of the beginning of the Administration of President Ulysses S. Grant.

There have often been multiple reasons behind the failure of the Senate to confirm a nomination.
The official Senate records, particularly those prior to the twentieth century, have usually been
silent on the issues involved. Scholars have used other records in an effort to shed more light on
the factors underlying unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations. This scholarship consists of

¹⁰^For^m^o^r^e^on^the^Se^na^te^’^s^c^onsⁱ^d^e^r^a^tion^of^the^For^t^a^s^nom^ina^tio^{n, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³¹⁹⁴^8,^Ev^olu^tⁱ^{on of}^t^h^e
^Se^nate^’^s^R^o^leⁱⁿ^t^h^e^N^o^mⁱⁿ^a^ti^on^and^C^o^nfir^m^a^ti^on^Pr^oc^e^s^s^:^{A Br}ⁱ^e^{f H}ⁱ^s^t^or^y^{, by}^Be^ts^y^P^a^lm^e^r^.
¹¹^H.^R^.³³^{4 (}³⁹^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s⁾^{, pa}^s^s^e^{d Ma}^r^c^{h 8,}¹⁸⁶⁶^.
¹²^Aⁿ^Act^t^o^fⁱ^{x t}^h^{e Nu}^m^b^{er o}^f^Ju^d^g^{es o}^f^t^h^{e S}^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^t^o^f^t^h^e^Unⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^es,^an^d^t^o^c^h^an^{ge cert}^aⁱⁿ^Judⁱ^ci^al
^Circ^uits,^S^t^at^ute^s^at^Lar^g^e¹⁴^{, c}^h^a^p^{. 2}¹⁰^,^s^e^c^.^1,^p.²⁰^{9 (}¹⁸⁶⁶⁾^.
¹³^Aⁿ^Act^t^o^am^en^d^t^h^{e Ju}^di^ci^al^S^y^s^t^em^o^f^t^h^{e Un}ⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^es,^St^atu^t^e^s^{at L}^a^r^g^e¹⁵^{, c}^h^a^p^.²²^{, s}^e^c^.^1,^p.⁴⁴⁽¹⁸⁶^9).
¹⁴^S^{ee Jo}^sep^h^P^.^Harris,^T^h^e^A^d^vⁱ^c^e^an^{d C}^o^ns^eⁿ^t^{of t}^h^e^Se^nate⁽^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{: G}^r^e^eⁿ^w^ood^P^r^e^s^s^,¹⁹⁶⁸⁾^,^p^.³⁰^{4; H}^e^nr^y^J^.
^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^ts^{, 3}^rd^e^d^{. (}^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{: O}^x^f^o^r^d^Uⁿ^iv^e^r^sⁱ^t^y^P^r^e^s^s^,¹⁹⁹²⁾^,^pp.¹^24-¹²^5;^a^{nd J}^.^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^{: S}^ket^ch^{es o}^f^t^h^e²⁶^M^eⁿ^No^mi^na^t^e^{d f}^o^{r t}^h^{e Su}^p^r^{eme Cou}^r^t^bu^t^N^o^t
^C^onfir^m^e^{d by}^the^Seⁿ^a^te^(Mil^pita^{s, CA}^{: T}^ouc^aⁿ^V^a^lle^y^P^u^b^lic^a^tioⁿ^s^{, 19}⁹³⁾^{, p}^p^.^67-⁷⁴^.
¹⁵^S^{ee “S}^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^t^o^f^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^es,^”^T^h^{e Co}^ng^ressioⁿ^a^l^Gl^ob^e^{, v}^o^l.^72,^Ma^r^c^h^8,¹⁸^66,^p.¹²⁵⁹^{; “}^S^u^p^r^e^m^e
^C^our^{t J}^udg^e^s^,”^The^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^{l G}^l^obe^,^v^o^l.^74,^J^u^ly^10,¹⁸⁶⁶^{, p}^.³⁶^97;^“^U^nite^d^Sta^t^e^s^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^t,”^The
^C^ongr^e^s^sⁱ^o^nal^G^l^o^b^e^,^v^o^l.⁷⁵^{, J}^u^l^y^{18, 18}^66,^p.³⁹⁰⁹^.

analysis and interpretation of these records, and it provides a general understanding of the reasons
that more than one in five nominations has failed to be confirmed by the Senate.
One widely cited scholar in the area of the Supreme Court appointments process and history,
Henry J. Abraham, has developed categories of unsuccessful nominations:
^A^m^ong^t^h^e^m^o^{re prom}ⁱⁿ^eⁿ^t^reas^on^s^h^a^v^e^been:^{(1) op}^posⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^t^h^{e n}^o^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱⁿ^g^presⁱ^d^en^t^,
^no^t^ne^c^e^ssa^rⁱ^l^y^t^h^e^no^mi^ne^e^;⁽²⁾^t^h^e^no^mi^ne^e^’^{s i}ⁿ^vo^l^v^e^m^eⁿ^t^wⁱ^t^h^oⁿ^e^o^r^m^o^r^e^c^o^nt^eⁿ^tⁱ^o^u^s
^is^s^u^es^o^f^p^u^{blic polic}^y^{or, s}ⁱ^mply^,^oppos^ition^to^t^h^eⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^e^e^’^s^perceiv^e^{d j}^u^ris^p^ru^den^t^{ial or}
^s^o^{ciopolitical ph}^ilos^ophy^{(i.e., politics}⁾^{; (3)}^opp^os^itioⁿ^{to th}^{e record}^of^th^{e i}ⁿ^cu^m^b^en^t^C^o^u^r^t^,
^w^hⁱ^c^h^,^ri^gh^t^l^y^or^w^r^ong^l^y^{, t}^h^{e n}^o^mⁱⁿ^{ee presum}^abl^y^su^pport^e^d;^{(4) s}^eⁿ^a^t^o^ri^al^cou^r^t^e^sy
⁽^c^lo^sel^y^liⁿ^k^ed^to^th^{e co}ⁿ^s^u^ltatⁱ^v^eⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^a^tiⁿ^g^p^r^o^cess)^{; (}⁵⁾^{a n}^o^mⁱⁿ^e^e^’^{s p}^e^r^cei^v^e^d^p^o^litical
^uⁿ^r^elⁱ^a^bi^lⁱ^t^y^on^t^h^{e part}^o^f^t^h^e^part^yⁱⁿ^po^w^e^r;^{(6) t}^h^{e eviden}^t^lack^{of qu}^ali^f^icat^ion^{or li}^m^ited
^ab^ilit^y^o^f^th^eⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^{ee; (}⁷⁾^coⁿ^cer^ted^,^su^staiⁿ^e^d^o^p^p^o^s^itioⁿ^b^yⁱⁿ^ter^e^{st o}^r^p^r^essu^r^e^g^r^o^u^p^s^{; an}^d¹⁶
^{(8) f}^{ear th}^{at th}^{e n}^o^mⁱⁿ^ee^w^o^u^l^{d dram}^aticall^y^{alter t}^h^{e C}^o^u^r^t^’^s^j^u^ris^p^ru^den^{tial li}ⁿ^e^u^p^.
The sections below discuss the nominations with respect to these categories based on the
preponderance of scholarly evidence. Many of the nominations fall into multiple categories. Two
nominations that were not confirmed by the Senate—the first nomination of William Paterson and
the nomination of John G. Roberts to be Associate Justice—do not appear to fall into any of the
following categories. As discussed above, in both cases the nomination was withdrawn as a
formality and the nominee was then renominated and confirmed.
Opposition to the nominating President played a role in at least 16 of the 34 nominations that
were not confirmed. Many of the 16 were put forward by Presidents in the last year of their
presidency—seven occurred after a successor President had been elected, but before the transfer
of power to the new administration. Each of these “lame duck” nominations transpired under
nineteenth-century Presidents when the post-election period lasted from early November until
early March. Four one-term Presidents made these nominations. President John Quincy Adams ¹⁷
nominated John J. Crittenden in December 1828, after losing the election to Andrew Jackson.
President Tyler’s third nomination of Walworth, second nomination of King, and only nomination ¹⁸
of Read all came after Tyler had lost to James Polk. President Millard Fillmore nominated ¹⁹
George E. Badger and William C. Micou after Franklin Pierce had been elected to replace him.
Finally, President James Buchanan forwarded the name of Jeremiah S. Black to the Senate less ²⁰
than a month before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration. Other nominations where opposition to
the President was a major factor include the remaining unsuccessful Tyler nominations,

¹⁶^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, p.}³⁹^.
¹⁷^Ch^{arles W}^a^rren^,^The^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^{t i}ⁿ^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^{, re}^vⁱ^se^{d e}^d^itio^{n, v}^o^l^.^{1 (Bost}^on:^L^ittle^{, Brow}^{n, a}ⁿ^d
^Com^p^aⁿ^y^,¹⁹²^6),^pp^{. 7}^01-⁷⁰^{4; W}^illia^m^{F. Sw}^indle^r^{, “}^T^he^Politic^s^of^‘A^dvⁱ^c^e^a^{nd Conse}ⁿ^t,’”^Am^e^rⁱ^c^aⁿ^Ba^r
^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^{tion J}^o^ur^na^l^,^v^.⁵⁶^,¹⁹⁷⁰^,^{p. 5}³⁷^.
¹⁸^W^a^rren^,^The^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^tⁱⁿ^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^{, v}^o^l.^2,^pp^{. 1}^15-¹²^{0; Sw}^indle^r^,^“^T^he^Politic^s^o^f^‘^A^dv^ic^e^a^nd
^C^ons^eⁿ^t,’^”^pp^{. 5}^37-⁵³^{8. N}^o^ta^bly^,^Ty^le^r^a^l^s^o^{put f}^o^r^t^h^his^oⁿ^e^s^u^c^c^e^s^s^f^{ul nom}^ina^tion^out^of^nine^,^of^S^a^m^u^e^l^N^e^ls^{on, a}
^m^{onth be}^f^o^r^e^the^tr^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^of^pow^er^.
¹⁹^W^a^rren^,^The^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^tⁱⁿ^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^{, v}^o^l.^2,^pp^{. 2}^42-²⁴^{5; Sw}^indle^r^,^“^T^he^Politic^s^o^f^‘^A^dv^ic^e^a^nd
^C^ons^eⁿ^t,’^”^pp^.⁵^38-⁵³^9.
²⁰^W^a^rren^,^The^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^tⁱⁿ^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^,^v^o^{l. 2, pp}^.³^63-³⁶^5.

Fillmore’s nomination of Edward A. Bradford, and Andrew Johnson’s nomination of Henry ²¹
Stanbery.
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s two unsuccessful nominations (Fortas and Thornberry) occurred
during the last seven months of his presidency, when, having announced he was not seeking re-
election, he was considered by some to be a lame duck even before the election of his successor.
Nineteen Senators issued a statement indicating that, on this basis, they would oppose any ²²
nomination by President Johnson. The committee report accompanying the nomination of Abe
Fortas to Chief Justice, however, suggests that the opposition to Justice Fortas was based, to a
considerable extent, on concern about money received by Fortas for delivering university lectures
while an Associate Justice, Fortas’s close relationship and advisory role with President Johnson ²³
while an Associate Justice, and his judicial philosophy.
President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Stanley Matthews in late January 1881, about six
weeks before the transfer of power to the Garfield administration. In this case, however, the
opposition seems to have centered on the nominee and his views, as discussed below, rather than
on the nominating President.
President Washington’s nomination of John Rutledge to Chief Justice, in 1795, was the first
unsuccessful nomination to fail based on the nominee’s political views. Shortly after his
nomination, Rutledge made a strong speech denouncing the controversial and newly ratified Jay
Treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The Senate, which was dominated by
Federalists and had ratified the treaty, rejected the Rutledge nomination. Of the 14 who voted for
rejection, 13 were Federalists, putting them in the position of rejecting a nomination by a ²⁴
President from their own party.
Alexander Wolcott’s nomination 15 years later was the next to be rejected by the Senate.
Wolcott’s strong enforcement of the controversial embargo and non-intercourse acts while a U.S.
collector of customs cost him support in the press and the Senate. His qualifications for the ²⁵
position were also questioned.
Andrew Jackson’s first nomination of Roger B. Taney in 1835 was the third nomination for which
the lack of success is often attributed to the nominee’s views. In this case, there was also
opposition to the nominating President’s policies. Prior to the nomination, President Jackson had
given a recess appointment to Taney to be Secretary of the Treasury. In that capacity, Taney had,

²¹^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, pp}^{. 3}⁹^-4^1,¹²^4-1²⁵^.^A^s^pre^v^iou^s^l^y^disc^usse^{d, Co}^ng^re^{ss initia}^te^{d l}^e^gⁱ^sla^{tion to}
^r^e^duc^e^the^num^be^r^of^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^Jus^tic^e^s^a^r^oun^{d t}^h^e^tim^e^of^Sta^nbe^r^y^’^s^nom^ina^tion.
²²^J^a^c^obs^te^{in a}ⁿ^{d Me}^r^s^k^y^,^T^h^{e R}^e^j^ect^ed^{, p}^p^.1^31-¹³^2.
²³^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on t}^h^e^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^N^o^mⁱ^nati^{on of Abe}^For^t^as^,^repo^rt^t^o^acco^m^p^an^y^t^h^{e no}^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^o^f^A^b^{e F}^o^rt^as,⁹⁰^th^Cong^.,²^nd^s^e^s^s^{., Ex}^e^c^.^R^e^{pt. 8}⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,¹⁹⁶⁸⁾^.
²⁴^S^{ee W}^a^rren^,^The^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^t^{in U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^d^State^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^,^vo^l^.¹^,^pp^.¹²^9-¹³⁹^;^Har^rⁱ^s,^T^h^{e A}^d^vi^{ce a}ⁿ^d^Con^s^en^t^o^f^t^h^e
^Se^nate^,^p^p⁴²^-⁴^{3; R}^u^th^B^a^de^r^Gⁱ^ns^bur^g^,^“^C^onf^ir^mⁱ^ng^Supr^e^m^e^C^our^{t J}^u^s^tic^e^s^{: T}^houg^hts^on^the^Se^c^{ond O}^pⁱⁿⁱ^oⁿ
^R^e^nde^r^e^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^,”^Unⁱ^versⁱ^t^y^o^f^Il^lⁱⁿ^oⁱ^{s L}^a^{w R}^evi^ew^{, W}ⁱ^nte^r¹⁹^88,^p.¹^01-¹¹^{7, a}^t¹⁰^6;^Sw^indl^e^r^{, “}^T^he^P^o^litic^s
^of^‘^A^dvⁱ^c^e^a^{nd C}^ons^eⁿ^t,’^”^p^p^.⁵³^4-⁵^35.
²⁵^W^a^rren^,^The^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^tⁱⁿ^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^{, v}^o^l.^1,^pp^{. 4}^10-⁴¹^{3; Sw}^indle^r^,^“^T^he^Politic^s^o^f^‘^A^dv^ic^e^a^nd
^C^ons^eⁿ^t,’^”^pp^.5^35-⁵³^6;^A^b^r^a^ha^m^,^Ju^stⁱ^{ces a}ⁿ^d^P^r^esi^d^en^t^s^,^p^p^.^41,⁸⁸^.

under Jackson’s direction, removed the government’s deposits from the United States Bank.
Jackson’s Whig opponents in the Senate were incensed by this move, and this led first to the
rejection of Taney as permanent Secretary of the Treasury and then to the failure of his first ²⁶
nomination to the Court.
President James Polk’s nomination of George W. Woodward in 1845 was rejected when six
Democrats, led by a Senator from the nominee’s home state of Pennsylvania, joined with the ²⁷
Whigs to oppose it. Woodward’s nativist views are cited for the failure of his nomination.
Ebenezer R. Hoar served as President Ulysses S. Grant’s Attorney General prior to his nomination
to be Associate Justice in 1869. In that capacity, Hoar had alienated Senators by recommending to
Grant nominees for Circuit Judge without regard for the Senators’ preferences. In addition, the
majority of the Senate disliked “his active labors on behalf of a merit civil service system for the ²⁸
federal government ... and his opposition to Andrew Johnson’s impeachment.” Despite praise
for Hoar’s nomination in the press, the Senate rejected it.
Stanley Matthews was nominated first by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1881, in the last
weeks of Hayes’ presidency. The Senate opposed the nomination because of Matthews’ close ties
to railroad and financial interests, and the Judiciary Committee postponed the nomination.
Although Matthews was subsequently re-nominated by President James Garfield and confirmed,
concerns about him persisted, and the Senate vote, at 24-23, was the closest for any successful ²⁹
nominee.
Pierce Butler’s first nomination, by President Warren G. Harding in 1922, was reported favorably
by the Judiciary Committee but blocked from consideration on the Senate floor in part because of
alleged pro-corporation bias and his previous advocacy for railroad interests in cases that were to ³⁰
be coming before the Court. During the succeeding session, Butler was re-nominated and ³¹
confirmed, with 61 Senators in favor and eight opposed.
John J. Parker, nominated by President Herbert Hoover in 1930, was opposed by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and organized labor based on his ³²
previous statements and writings. The NAACP testified in opposition to Parker’s racial views at
his confirmation hearing. Their testimony was based on a statement Parker had made in the
course of an unsuccessful campaign for governor of North Carolina in 1920, in which he opposed

²⁶^Harris,^T^h^{e A}^d^vi^{ce a}ⁿ^d^Con^s^en^t^o^f^t^h^{e S}^e^na^t^e^,^pp.⁵⁹^-⁶^{4; W}^a^r^r^e^n,^The^S^upr^e^m^e^C^o^ur^{t in}^Uⁿ^ite^d^St^at^e^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^{, v}^o^l.
^{1, p}^p^.⁷⁹^8-⁸⁰²^.
²⁷^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, pp}^{. 4}¹^,¹⁰^{9; W}^a^r^r^e^n,^T^h^e^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^{t i}ⁿ^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^ate^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^,^v^o^{l. 2, pp.}¹^46-
¹⁴⁷^{; H}^a^r^rⁱ^s^,^T^h^{e A}^d^vi^{ce an}^{d Con}^s^en^t^o^f^t^h^e^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^,^p.⁶⁹^.
²⁸^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, p.}¹²^7.^Se^e^a^l^s^o^W^a^r^r^e^n,^The^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^t^{in U}ⁿ^ite^d^St^ate^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^,^v^o^{l. 2, pp.}
⁵⁰¹^-⁵^04,⁵⁰^{7; H}^a^r^rⁱ^s^,^T^h^{e A}^d^vi^{ce a}ⁿ^d^Con^s^en^t^o^f^t^h^{e S}^e^na^t^e^{, pp.}⁷⁴^-^75.
²⁹^W^a^rren^,^The^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^tⁱⁿ^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^,^v^o^{l. 2, pp}^.6²²^-⁶^23;^A^b^r^a^ha^m^,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^and^Pr^e^s^ideⁿ^ts^{, 1}^35-
¹³⁷^.
³⁰^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, pp}^{. 1}^90-¹⁹^{2; “}^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^Se^nds^B^a^c^k^B^u^tle^r^N^o^mⁱ^na^tion,”^{New Y}^o^{rk Times}^,
^D^e^c^e^m^b^e^r^{5, 19}^22,^p.^{1; a}^{nd “}^S^hi^ps^te^a^d^A^tta^c^k^s^B^u^tle^r^{on 4}^P^oⁱⁿ^ts^,^”^{New Yo}^{rk Times}^{, D}^e^c^e^m^b^e^r^{9, 1}⁹²²^{, p}^.⁵^.
³¹^E^xecu^tⁱ^{ve Jo}^u^r^na^l^{, v}^o^l^.⁶¹^,^pa^r^t^1,^pp.⁷⁶^,¹⁰^4-¹^05.
³²^For^a^de^s^c^rⁱ^ptioⁿ^of^the^P^a^r^k^e^rⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^{tion a}ⁿ^{d a}^dⁱ^f^f^e^r^ing^pe^r^s^pe^c^tiv^e^on^his^r^e^c^o^r^d^,^s^e^e^H^a^r^rⁱ^s^,^T^h^e^A^d^vi^{ce a}ⁿ^d
^C^ons^eⁿ^t^{of t}^h^e^Se^nate^,^pp^{. 1}^27-¹³^{2. A}^b^r^a^ha^m^,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^ts^{, (}^p^p.^42-⁴³⁾^a^l^s^o^dis^c^us^s^e^s^the^nom^ina^tio^{n a}ⁿ^d
^c^onte^s^ts^the^c^l^aⁱ^m^s^of^f^e^r^e^{d b}^y^op^pone^nts^.

the participation of African-Americans in politics.³³ In addition, Parker’s record on labor issues,
as chief judge of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, was criticized by labor at the hearing.
The American Federation of Labor (AFL), representing several labor groups, objected in
particular to an opinion, authored by Parker, that affirmed a lower court opinion in support of
“yellow dog” contracts, in which employees agreed not to join a union as a condition of ³⁴
employment.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower first nominated John Marshall Harlan II to be an Associate
Justice in late 1954, but that nomination was never reported from committee. Among the
objections to his nomination was the perception by some Senators that Harlan was “‘ultra-liberal,’ ³⁵
hostile to the South, [and] dedicated to reforming the Constitution by ‘judicial fiat.’”
Eisenhower re-nominated Harlan at the beginning of the next Congress, in early 1955, and he was
then confirmed.
As noted previously, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s nomination of Justice Abe Fortas in 1968 for
elevation to Chief Justice failed for several reasons, including his judicial philosophy. Although
the Committee on the Judiciary reported the nomination favorably, several committee members
strongly dissented in the committee’s printed report. One Senator wrote that Fortas’s “judicial
philosophy disqualifies him for this high office.” Another criticized Fortas as part of the majority
on the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren (the Warren Court) making an “extremist
effort ... to set itself up as a super-legislature.” A third Senator also found Fortas lacking on the
“broader question of the nominee’s judicial philosophy which includes his willingness to subject
himself to the restraint inherent in the judicial process.” Yet another Senator objected to
“positions taken by Justice Fortas since he went on the Supreme Court as Associate Justice
[which had] reflected a view to the Constitution insufficiently rooted to the Constitution as it is ³⁶
written.” Opposition to Fortas was also based on money received for delivering university
lectures while an Associate Justice and his close relationship and advisory role with President
Johnson while an Associate Justice.
President Richard M. Nixon’s nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr. in 1969 also failed partly
on the basis of his perceived views. Like the Fortas nomination, the Haynsworth nomination was
reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary. In this case, the dissenting views in the
committee’s written report focused on perceived ethical lapses on the part of Judge Haynsworth.
In addition, a joint statement by five Senators referred to “doubts about his record on the
appellate bench,” and one Senator opposed the nomination on the basis of the judge’s record on ³⁷
civil rights issues. Furthermore, Haynsworth drew criticism from labor and minority groups on
the basis of his record. One historian has suggested that because of the recent rejection of Fortas

³³^U^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on t}^h^e^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^,^Subc^om^m^itte^e^,^Coⁿ^fⁱ^r^ma^tⁱ^o^{n o}^f^Ho^n.^J.^P^a^{rker t}^o^b^e^an^A^sso^ci^at^e
^Ju^stⁱ^{ce o}^f^t^h^{e Su}^p^r^{eme Co}^u^r^t^o^f^t^h^{e Un}ⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^a^t^es^{, he}^a^r^ing^s^,⁷¹^st^C^ong^.,²^nd^s^e^s^s^{., A}^p^r^{il 5, 1}⁹³⁰⁽^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O^,
¹⁹³⁰⁾^,^p^p^{. 7}⁴^-^79.
³⁴^Ibid^.,^pp.²³^-6^0.
³⁵^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, p.}²⁶^3.
³⁶^A^{ll quote}^s^f^r^om^U^.^{S. Cong}^re^s^s^,^S^e^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on the}^J^u^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^N^o^mⁱⁿ^a^ti^on^of^Abe^F^o^r^t^as^,^rep^o^r^t^t^o^acco^m^p^an^y
^theⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion^of^A^b^e^For^t^a^s^{, 90}^th^Cong^{., 2}^nd^s^e^s^s^{., Ex}^e^c^.^R^e^{pt. 8 (}^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O^,¹⁹⁶⁸⁾^{, p}^p^.^15-^44.^Se^e^a^l^s^o
^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^ts^{, 43}^-⁴^5.
³⁷^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on t}^h^e^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^N^o^mⁱ^nati^on^of^C^l^e^m^eⁿ^{t F. H}^a^yⁿ^s^w^or^th^{, J}^r^.^,^report^t^o^acco^m^p^an^y
^theⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion^of^C^l^em^eⁿ^{t F. H}^a^yⁿ^sw^or^{th, J}^r^{., 9}¹^st^Co^ng^{., 1}^st^s^e^s^s^.^,^Ex^e^c^.^R^e^{pt. 9}¹^-¹^{2 (}^W^a^s^hing^ton^:^G^P^O^,¹⁹⁶⁹⁾^{, p}^p^.
^{24, 48}^.

on the basis of ethical questions, the ethical questions concerning Haynsworth played the largest ³⁸
role in his rejection.
President Nixon’s nomination of G. Harrold Carswell in 1970 was also opposed partly on the
basis of his perceived views. The Committee on the Judiciary reported the nomination favorably
with several dissenting views. One statement, issued jointly by four Senators, opposed the
nomination in part because his “decisions and his courtroom demeanor [had] been openly hostile ³⁹
to the black, the poor, and the unpopular.” A more persistent theme in the dissent, however, was ⁴⁰
a perceived lack of competence and qualification for the position.
Robert H. Bork, nominated by President Reagan in 1987, is the most recent Supreme Court
nominee not to be confirmed by the Senate, as well as the most recent to be rejected on the basis
of his views. Much has been written about this nomination, and it remains controversial. The
Committee on the Judiciary reported the nomination unfavorably after 12 days of hearings.
Although the written report raised some concerns about the nominee’s evaluation by the
American Bar Association and academic and legal communities and his role in the firing of
Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox during the Nixon administration, the bulk of the report detailed ⁴¹
concerns about and opposition to his publicly stated positions and judicial philosophy.
The rejection by the Senate of a Supreme Court nominee on the basis of opposition to the
incumbent Court is closely related to opposition on the basis of the nominee’s views. In this case,
the views and record of the incumbent Court majority are opposed, whereas the nominee is
presumed to support the Court’s views. In the case of Abe Fortas’s nomination for Chief Justice,
for example, the opposition of many Senators to the Warren Court has been cited as an influential
factor. Fortas had been an Associate Justice for almost three years at the time of his nomination,
and some opposition hinged on his positions while on the Court, as discussed above. In addition,
however, his elevation was opposed because of his affiliation with the Warren Court and its wider
reputation. This opposition to the Warren Court in the context of the Fortas nomination is ⁴²
reflected in the individual views of a Senator in the committee report. In addition, during the
confirmation hearings, another Senator pointedly brought up a Warren Court opinion with which ⁴³
he disagreed, Mallory v. United States, although, as he acknowledged, the case had preceded ⁴⁴
Fortas’s appointment as Associate Justice by eight years.

³⁸^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, pp}^{. 1}⁴^-1^5.
³⁹^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on t}^h^e^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^N^o^mⁱ^nati^{on of G}^e^or^ge^H^a^r^r^o^ld^C^a^r^s^w^e^l^l^,^repo^rt^t^o^acco^m^p^an^y
^theⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion^of^G^e^or^ge^H^a^r^r^o^{ld C}^a^r^s^w^e^{ll, 91}^st^Cong^.,²^nd^s^e^s^s^{., Ex}^e^c^.^R^e^{pt. 91-}¹⁴⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,¹⁹⁷⁰⁾^{, p}^.¹³^.
⁴⁰^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, pp}^{. 1}⁵^-1^8.
⁴¹^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on t}^h^e^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^N^o^mⁱ^nati^on^of^Robe^r^t^H^.^Bor^k^t^o^be^an^As^s^o^cⁱ^at^e^J^u^s^tic^e^{of t}^h^e
^Uⁿ^ite^{d State}^s^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^t^{, 10}⁰^th^Cong^.,¹^st^s^e^s^s^.,^Ex^e^c^.^Re^{pt. 1}⁰⁰^{-7 (W}^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O^,¹⁹⁸⁷^).
⁴²^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on t}^h^e^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^N^o^mⁱ^nati^{on of Abe}^For^t^as^,^repo^rt^t^o^acco^m^p^an^y^t^h^{e no}^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^o^f^A^b^{e F}^o^rt^as,⁹⁰^th^Cong^.,²^nd^s^e^s^s^{., Ex}^e^c^.^R^e^{pt. 8}⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,¹⁹⁶⁸⁾^,^pp.²⁰^-³^0.
⁴³³⁵^{4 U}^.^S^.⁴⁴⁹⁽¹⁹⁵⁷⁾^{. F}^o^r^t^h^e^Seⁿ^a^tor^’^s^r^e^m^a^r^k^s^,^s^e^e^U^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^Se^na^te^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on the}^J^u^dⁱ^cⁱ^a^r^y^,^N^o^mⁱ^nat^ions
^{of A}^b^e^For^t^as^a^{nd H}^o^m^e^r^Th^orⁿ^b^e^r^r^y^{, he}^a^r^ing^s^{, 90}^th^Cong^.,¹^st^s^e^s^s^{., J}^u^ly^11,¹²^{, 1}⁶^,¹⁷^{, 1}⁸^,¹⁹^{, 2}⁰^,^22,²³^{, 1}⁹⁶⁸
⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O^,¹⁹⁶⁸⁾^{, p}^.¹⁹¹^.
⁴⁴^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, p.}⁴⁴^.

At least seven Supreme Court nominations have failed to be confirmed partly on the basis of
deference to the objections of the nominees’ home-state Senators. New York’s Senators objected ⁴⁵
to the nominations of Reuben H. Walworth by President Tyler. President Polk’s nomination of
George W. Woodward of Pennsylvania was rejected, in part, due to the objection of one of the ⁴⁶
Senators from that state. The last failed Supreme Court nominations that were attributed, in part,
to senatorial courtesy came before the Senate in 1893-1894, when opposition by New York’s
Senators was instrumental in the failure of the nominations of William Hornblower and Wheeler ⁴⁷
H. Peckham, both also of New York. No unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination since that ⁴⁸
time has been attributed to senatorial courtesy.
One unsuccessful nominee was opposed in the Senate in part because of the perception that he ⁴⁹
was a “political chameleon.” One of President Grant’s nominees for Chief Justice, Caleb
Cushing, “had been, in turn, a regular Whig, a Tyler Whig, a Democrat, a[n Andrew] Johnson ⁵⁰
Constitutional Conservative, and finally a Republican.” The failure of his nomination has also
been attributed to his advanced age (74) and a letter of introduction of a friend Cushing wrote to ⁵¹
Confederate President Jefferson Davis in 1861.
As noted previously, President Madison’s nomination of Alexander Wolcott⁵² and President ⁵³
Nixon’s nomination of G. Harrold Carswell were opposed in part because of their perceived lack
of qualification and ability. President Grant’s nomination of George H. Williams faced similar ⁵⁴⁵⁵
opposition. Williams also suffered from allegations of ethical misconduct.

⁴⁵^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, p.}^27-²⁸^.
⁴⁶^Sw^indle^r^{, “}^T^he^P^o^li^tic^s^of^‘^A^dvⁱ^c^e^a^{nd C}^o^ns^eⁿ^t,’^”^p^.⁵³⁸^;^A^b^r^a^ha^m^,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^ts^{, p}^.⁴¹^.
⁴⁷^Sw^indle^r^{, “}^T^he^P^o^li^tic^s^of^‘^A^dvⁱ^c^e^a^{nd C}^o^ns^eⁿ^t,’^”^p^.⁵⁴¹^;^A^b^r^a^ha^m^,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^ts^{, pp}^.²⁷^-²⁸^.
⁴⁸^F^o^{r a}^dⁱ^scu^ssion^o^f^sen^a^to^{rial c}^o^u^r^tesy^,^se^{e Harris,}^T^h^{e A}^d^vi^{ce and}^Con^s^en^t^o^f^t^h^{e S}^e^na^t^e^{, pp.}²^15-²³⁷^.
⁴⁹^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, p.}^45.^Se^e^a^l^s^o^H^a^r^rⁱ^s^,^T^h^e^Advⁱ^c^e^{and C}^ons^eⁿ^{t of}^the^Seⁿ^a^te^,^p.⁷⁶^;^S^wⁱⁿ^d^l^er^,
^“^T^he^P^o^li^tic^s^of^‘^A^dv^ic^e^a^{nd C}^oⁿ^s^eⁿ^t,’^”^pp^{. 5}^40-⁵⁴^1.
⁵⁰^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, p.}⁴⁵^.
⁵¹^Harris,^T^h^{e A}^d^vi^{ce a}ⁿ^d^Con^s^en^t^o^f^t^h^{e S}^e^na^t^e^,^p^.⁷⁶^;^{see al}^so^Jacob^s^t^eⁱⁿ^and^M^e^rsky^,^T^h^{e R}^e^j^ect^ed^{, pp.}⁸⁷^-⁹^{3 f}^o^r^a
^de^s^c^rⁱ^ptio^{n of}^th^isⁿ^o^mⁱ^na^tion.
⁵²^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, p.}^41;^J^a^c^obs^teⁱⁿ^a^nd^Me^r^s^ky^,^T^h^{e R}^e^j^ect^ed^{, p}^p^.^14-^17;^Sw^indle^r^,^“^T^he^P^o^li^tic^s^of
^‘^A^dv^ice^a^{nd C}^o^ns^eⁿ^t,’^”^p^.⁵³⁵^.
⁵³^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, 16-}¹⁷^{. Se}^e^a^l^s^o^U^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^Se^na^te^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on the}^J^u^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^N^o^mⁱ^natio^{n of}
^Geo^r^g^e^Ha^rro^{ld Ca}^rswell^,^repo^rt^t^o^acco^m^p^an^y^t^h^{e n}^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^G^e^o^r^g^e^Harro^l^d^Carsw^e^l^l^,⁹¹^st^C^o^ng^{., 2}^nd^sess.^,^Exec.
^R^e^{pt. 9}¹^-¹^{4 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O^,¹⁹⁷⁰⁾^,^p^p^{. 1}³^-^17,³²^-³^3,^36-^38.
⁵⁴^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, pp}^{. 4}⁵^-5^{6; H}^a^rris^,^The^A^d^vⁱ^c^e^a^{nd C}^ons^eⁿ^t^of^the^Se^na^te^{, p}^p^.^75-^76.
⁵⁵^J^a^c^obs^te^{in a}ⁿ^{d Me}^r^s^k^y^,^T^h^{e R}^e^j^ect^ed^{, p}^p^.^82-^87.

Interest groups were involved in confirmation fights as far back as 1881, when the Grange ⁵⁶
mounted a campaign in opposition to the Matthews nomination. Interest groups testified in
opposition to (and, in some cases, support of) many of the Supreme Court nominations that were
not confirmed in the twentieth century—Parker, Fortas, Thornberry, Haynsworth, Carswell, and
Bork. The number of organized interest groups testifying at the confirmation hearings grew from ⁵⁷
two for the Parker nomination to more than twenty for the Bork nomination. Interest groups
have been active in unsuccessful Supreme Court confirmation processes in a number of other
ways, as well, including conducting research on nominees’ positions, lobbying Senators,
providing information to the media, conducting television ad campaigns, sending mailings, and ⁵⁸
organizing constituent letters and calls. Observers of the Supreme Court confirmation process
have suggested that interest group opposition has not only grown, but has also been effective in
preventing confirmations. The impact of interest group opposition relative to other factors is a ⁵⁹
matter of continuing study.
In addition to the above-mentioned reasons for not confirming a nomination, the Senate may fear
altering the jurisprudential philosophy of the Court. In this case, opposition would be not only to
the perceived views of the nominee, but also to the impact the nominee could have on the Court’s
ideological balance. The best-documented case where this factor appears to have been influential
was President Reagan’s nomination of Robert H. Bork. Bork was nominated to replace Associate
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who had been the swing voter on an often evenly divided bench. If
confirmed, Bork was expected to tip the Court to the conservative side, and some of the ⁶⁰
opposition to his nomination came from those who opposed this change.
Scholars have only begun to assess the unsuccessful nomination of Harriet E. Miers to be
Associate Justice. Analysis of the factors contributing to the nomination’s failure are therefore
preliminary. Both Miers and President Bush cited the Senate requests for White House documents ⁶¹
as the chief reason for the withdrawal of her nomination. Journalistic accounts of the Miers

⁵⁶^J^o^hⁿ^A^.^Ma^lte^s^e^,^The^Se^llⁱⁿ^{g o}^f^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^{t N}^o^mⁱ^ne^e^s^(Ba^ltim^ore^:^T^h^e^J^ohns^H^o^pk^ins^Uⁿ^iv^e^r^s^ity^P^r^e^s^s^,¹⁹⁹⁵⁾^,
^ch^ap^t^e^{r 3}^.
⁵⁷^Ma^lte^se^,^The^Se^llin^{g o}^f^S^upre^m^e^{Court N}^o^mine^e^s^,^ch^ap^t^e^r⁶^.
⁵⁸^C^h^rⁱ^s^tⁱⁿ^e^D^e^G^r^eg^or^{io a}^{nd J}^a^c^k^E^.^R^o^s^s^o^tt^{i, “}^C^a^m^pa^ig^ning^f^o^r^the^C^our^t:^Iⁿ^te^r^e^s^t^G^r^oup^P^a^r^tic^ipa^tⁱ^o^{n in}^the^B^o^r^k^a^nd
^T^hom^as^C^onf^ir^m^a^tion^P^r^oc^e^s^s^e^s^,^”ⁱⁿ^Iⁿ^te^r^e^s^t^G^r^oup^Poli^tic^s^{, 4}^th^e^d^{., A}^lla^{n J}^.^Cig^l^e^r^aⁿ^{d Bur}^d^e^{tt A}^.^L^oom^is^{, e}^d^s^.
⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: C}^Q^P^r^e^s^s^,¹⁹⁹⁵⁾^,^p.²¹^{5; a}ⁿ^{d G}^r^e^g^or^y^A^.^C^a^ldeⁱ^r^a^{, M}^a^rⁱ^e^H^o^jna^c^k^{i, a}^{nd J}^o^hⁿ^R^.^W^r^ig^h^t^{, “}^T^he^L^obby^ing
^A^c^ti^v^itie^{s of}^Orga^niz^e^d^Inte^re^{sts i}ⁿ^Fe^de^ra^{l Ju}^dicⁱ^a^l^Nomⁱ^na^tio^ns”⁽^p^a^p^e^r^pre^s^eⁿ^te^d^a^t^the¹⁹⁹⁶^A^nnu^a^l^Me^e^ting^of^the
^Midw^e^s^{t Politic}^a^l^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^ssocⁱ^a^tion).
⁵⁹^S^ee,^f^o^{r exa}^m^p^l^e,^Je^ff^re^y^A^.^S^e^g^a^l^,^Ch^arl^e^{s M}^.^Cam^e^roⁿ^,^aⁿ^{d A}^l^be^{rt D. Cov}^e^{r, “}^A^Spa^tia^{l Mo}^de^{l of}^{Roll Ca}^ll^Voti^ng^:
^Se^na^tor^s^{, C}^ons^tit^ue^nts^,^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^ts^{, a}^{nd I}ⁿ^te^r^e^s^t^G^r^oupsⁱⁿ^S^upr^e^m^e^C^our^{t C}^onf^ir^m^a^tions^,”^Am^e^r^ic^{an J}^ourⁿ^a^l^o^f
^Politic^{al Sc}^ie^nc^e^{, v}^o^l.^36,^Fe^b.¹⁹^92,^p.⁹⁶^{; a}ⁿ^{d G}^r^e^g^or^y^A^.^C^a^ldeⁱ^r^a^a^{nd J}^o^{hn R}^.^W^r^ig^{ht, “}^L^obby^ing^f^o^r^J^u^s^tic^e^:
^Organⁱ^zed^In^t^e^rest^s,^S^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^t^No^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^and^t^h^{e Un}ⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^{es S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^,^”^Ame^r^ic^{an J}^o^urn^a^l^{of P}^o^litic^al
^Sc^ie^nc^e^{, v}^o^l.^42,^A^p^r^{il 1}⁹⁹⁸^,^p.⁴^99.
⁶⁰^Ab^r^a^h^a^m,^J^u^s^tic^e^s^{and Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t^s^{, 35}^6-³^59;^J^a^c^obs^teⁱⁿ^a^nd^Me^r^s^k^y^,^T^h^{e R}^e^j^ect^ed^{, 16}^0-¹^70.
⁶¹^P^r^es.^G^e^o^r^ge^W^.^Bu^sh^,^“^P^r^esi^d^en^t^’^{s S}^t^at^em^en^t^oⁿ^Harri^et^Mi^{ers’ S}^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^t^No^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Wⁱ^t^h^d^r^aw^al^,^”^a^v^ai^l^a^b^l^e
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

nomination, however, have suggested that a combination of factors led to the withdrawal.⁶² Many
of the factors identified by Abraham seem to apply in the Miers case. Opposition to the nominee’s
perceived views, for one, appears to have played a role. For example, a position Miers took in a

1993 speech reportedly contributed to opposition to her nomination by at least one conservative ⁶³

interest group, and it raised concerns for some conservative Senators. In addition, some
conservative observers expressed concerns that Miers, a self-identified conservative, would be
ideologically unreliable. Addressing concerns about Miers’s views and ideological reliability was
made more difficult for her supporters by the relatively sparse available record of her views on
controversial constitutional issues. As a close legal advisor to President Bush, much of her most
relevant writing in these areas would likely be found in White House documents, and these ⁶⁴
documents were not made publicly available because of their confidential nature.
Three other factors identified by Abraham—perceived lack of qualifications, interest group
opposition, and fear of altering the Court—also seemed to contribute to the nomination’s failure.
Some observers raised questions about Miers’s qualifications for the position, and these concerns
appear to have intensified as she met individually with Senators. Furthermore, her response to the
questionnaire of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary was seen as inadequate by the chair and ⁶⁵
ranking member of that committee. Miers also faced interest group opposition, but this case was
unusual because the opposition came predominantly from conservative groups that had ⁶⁶
previously been allied with the President who submitted the nomination. Finally, in a variation
on Abraham’s “fear of altering the Court” factor, it seemed that some conservatives feared that
Miers, if confirmed, would not alter the Court, as they had long hoped a Republican President ⁶⁷
would do.
In addition to the factors identified by Abraham, another factor that may have played a part in the
failure of this nomination was the close proximity of the nominee to the President. Miers’s

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^a^t^http^://w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^ne^w^s^/^r^e^l^e^a^s^es^/200^5/^10/²⁰⁰⁵¹⁰²^7-2^.^htm^{l; H}^a^rrie^t^{E. Mie}^r^s^,^“^T^he^L^e^tte^{r of}^W^ithdra^w^a^l^,”
^Wa^shⁱⁿ^gt^on^Po^st^{, O}^c^to^be^r²⁸^,²⁰^05,^{p. A}⁷^.
⁶²^For^pre^s^s^a^c^c^ountsⁱⁿ^t^h^e^im^m^e^dia^t^e^a^f^t^e^r^m^a^t^{h of}^Mie^r^s^’^s^w^ithdra^w^a^l^{, s}^e^e^,^f^o^{r e}^x^am^ple^,^Elis^a^b^e^t^{h Bum}^ille^{r a}^{nd Ca}^rl
^Hu^l^s^e,^“Co^u^r^tⁱⁿ^T^r^an^si^tⁱ^oⁿ^:^T^h^{e Overvi}^e^w^,^”^{New Yo}^{rk Times}^{, O}^c^tobe^r²⁸^,²⁰⁰⁵^{, p}^.^A¹^{; J}^o^hⁿ^H^a^r^w^{ood, J}^o^hⁿ^D^.
^Mc^Kinn^{on, Je}^aⁿ^ne^Cum^m^ing^s^a^{nd Je}^{ss Bra}^v^{in, “}^H^{ot Se}^a^{t: I}ⁿ^Se^e^k^ing^Ne^w^{Court Nom}ⁱ^ne^e^,^{Bush Ha}^{s L}^ittle^Ma^rg^{in of}
^Error—A^s^Mie^r^{s W}^ithdra^w^{s, P}^l^e^a^s^ing^Rig^h^{t W}^{ill Spa}^r^k^Big^Fig^h^t;^Conseⁿ^s^u^s^Pⁱ^c^k^Ha^{s Risk}^s—CI^{A L}^e^a^k^P^r^o^b^e^A^dds
^{to W}^o^e^s^,”^Wa^l^l^St^reet^Jo^u^r^na^l^{, O}^c^tobe^r²⁸^,²⁰⁰⁵^{, p}^.^A¹^{; a}ⁿ^d^P^e^te^r^B^a^k^e^r^a^{nd A}^m^y^G^o^lds^t^eⁱ^{n, “}^N^om^ina^tio^{n W}^a^s
^P^l^agu^e^{d By}^Mⁱ^sst^ep^{s F}^r^o^m^t^h^{e S}^t^art^,^”^Wa^sh^ing^t^on^P^o^st^{, O}^c^to^be^r²⁸^{, 2}⁰⁰⁵^,^{p. A}¹^.^For^a^la^te^r^,^m^o^r^e^de^ta^ile^{d a}^c^c^ount,
^s^e^e^J^a^{n C}^r^aw^f^o^r^d^G^r^e^e^nbur^g^,^Su^p^r^e^m^e^Conflic^{t: T}^h^e^Insi^de^St^ory^of^the^S^t^rug^g^le^f^o^{r Co}^ntrol^of^the^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s
^Supr^e^m^e^C^o^ur^t⁽^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{: P}^e^ng^uin^Pr^e^s^s^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^pp.²^48-²⁸^4.
⁶³^Jo^Becker,^“In^S^p^eech^{es F}^r^o^m^t^h^{e 1}⁹⁹⁰^s^,^Cl^u^e^{s A}^{bout Mie}^r^s^Vⁱ^e^w^s^,^”^Wa^shⁱⁿ^gt^on^Po^st^{, O}^c^to^be^r²⁶^,²⁰⁰^5,^{p. A}¹^;
^C^h^a^r^le^s^H^u^r^t^aⁿ^{d R}^a^lp^{h Z.}^H^a^llo^w^,^“W^o^m^eⁿ^’^s^G^r^{oup C}^a^lls^f^o^r^Mi^e^r^s^W^ithdr^a^w^a^l^,”^Wa^shⁱⁿ^gt^on^Tⁱ^mes^{, O}^c^tobe^{r 2}⁷^,
²⁰⁰^5,^p.^{1; D}^a^vⁱ^{d D}^.^Kⁱ^r^k^pa^tr^ic^k^,^“^N^om^ine^e^I^s^P^r^e^s^s^e^{d on H}^e^r^A^b^o^r^tion^Vⁱ^e^w^s^,^”^{New Yo}^{rk Times}^{, O}^c^tobe^r²⁷^,²⁰⁰⁵^{, p}^.
^A^18.
⁶⁴^Ch^arlⁱ^e^S^a^vage,^“Bu^s^h^S^a^y^s^H^e^W^oⁿ^’^t^Aⁱ^{r M}^e^m^o^s^f^r^o^m^Mⁱ^ers,^”^B^o^st^on^Gl^ob^e^{, O}^c^to^be^r²⁵^,²⁰^05,^{p. A}¹^.
⁶⁵^Elisa^b^e^t^{h B}^u^m^ille^{r a}^{nd Ca}^{rl Hu}^lse^,^“^B^{ush’s Co}^urt^C^hoic^e^E^{nds Bi}^{d A}^f^t^e^{r A}^tta^c^k^b^y^Conse^r^v^a^tiv^e^s^,”^{New Yo}^rk
^Tim^e^s^{, O}^c^tobe^r²⁸^,²⁰⁰⁵^{, p}^.^A¹^;^R^obi^{n T}^one^r^,^D^a^vⁱ^{d D}^.^Kⁱ^r^k^pa^tr^ic^k^,^a^{nd A}^nne^{E. K}^o^rⁿ^blu^t^{, “}^W^e^e^k^{s Er}^os^io^{n i}ⁿ
^Sup^por^t^f^o^r^the^N^o^mⁱ^na^tio^n,”^Ne^{w Yo}^{rk Times}^,”^O^c^tobe^r²⁸^{, 2}⁰⁰⁵^,^{p. A}^16.
⁶⁶^C^h^a^r^le^s^H^u^r^t^aⁿ^{d R}^a^lp^{h Z}^.^H^a^llo^w^,^“W^o^m^eⁿ^’^s^G^r^{oup C}^a^lls^f^o^r^Mi^e^r^s^W^ithdr^a^w^a^l^,”^Wa^shⁱⁿ^gt^on^Tⁱ^mes^{, O}^c^tobe^{r 2}⁷^,
²⁰⁰^{5, p. 1.}
⁶⁷^Da^vⁱ^{d D. Kirk}^pa^tric^k^,^“^K^aⁿ^sa^{s Se}^na^{tor, L}^ook^ing^a^t^Pre^s^ideⁿ^tia^{l B}ⁱ^{d, Ma}^k^e^{s Fa}^{ith t}^h^e^Be^dr^oc^k^of^Ca^m^p^aⁱ^gⁿ^,”^New
^Yor^k^Tim^e^s^{, O}^c^to^be^r¹⁴^,²⁰^05,^p.^A^{18; J}^ona^thaⁿ^W^e^ism^a^{n, “}^T^he^Rⁱ^f^t^’^s^R^e^pe^r^c^us^sⁱ^ons^C^oul^{d L}^a^s^t^R^e^s^t^of^T^e^r^m^,”
^Wa^shⁱⁿ^gt^on^Po^st^{, O}^c^to^be^r²⁸^,²⁰^05,^{p. A}⁸^.

position in the Bush Administration, as Counsel to the President, raised questions for some about
whether she would be able to rule fairly on presidential power issues that might come before the ⁶⁸
Court. In addition, many documents related to her work for the President, which might have
shed light on her views and qualifications, were not made available by the White House, despite
bipartisan requests.

Since 1816, the Senate has had a standing Committee on the Judiciary. Prior to that development,
one of the three unsuccessful nominations was referred to a select committee. Between 1816 and
1868, 11 of the 16 unsuccessful nominations were referred to the Judiciary Committee. Since

1868, almost all Supreme Court nominations, including all that were ultimately not confirmed, ⁶⁹

have been automatically referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Of the unsuccessful nominations that have been referred to the Judiciary Committee, seven were
never reported or discharged. The first four, Henry Stanbery, Stanley Matthews, William
Hornblower, and John Marshall Harlan II, are discussed above. The fifth was Homer Thornberry,
nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson to replace Justice Abe Fortas as Associate Justice
when he was nominated for elevation to Chief Justice. When Fortas’s nomination was withdrawn
by the President, the open position for Thornberry was effectively eliminated, and his nomination
was also withdrawn. At that time, the Thornberry nomination had not been reported by the
Judiciary Committee. The sixth of these nominations was that of John G. Roberts to be Associate
Justice. Before the Judiciary Committee acted on this nomination, Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist died, creating a vacancy. Roberts’ nomination to be Associate Justice was withdrawn,
shortly before the hearings were to begin, so that he could be nominated to be Chief Justice. The
last of this group of seven nominations is that of Harriet E. Miers. Although the Judiciary
Committee had scheduled hearings on her nomination to be Associate Justice, her nomination was
withdrawn in the face of opposition before any formal committee action.
Although their first nominations were never reported, second nominations of Matthews,
Hornblower, and Harlan in subsequent sessions of Congress were reported to the full Senate, and
Roberts’ nomination to be Chief Justice during the same session of Congress was also reported to
the full Senate. Only in the cases of Stanbery, Thornberry, and Miers did nominations that had
been referred to committee fail to be reported out of committee on any occasion. The first two of
these nominations were to fill Associate Justice vacancies that ceased to exist while the ⁷⁰
nominations were pending, and the last, as just mentioned, was withdrawn prior to any formal
committee action.

⁶⁸^A^m^y^G^o^lds^t^eⁱ^{n a}ⁿ^{d Cha}^r^le^s^Ba^bi^ng^ton,^“^M^ie^rs^’s^A^u^tonom^y^W^{ill Be}^a^t^Is^s^u^e^,^”^Wa^sh^ing^t^on^P^o^st^{, O}^c^tobe^r²⁷^,²⁰⁰⁵^,
^{p. A}¹^.
⁶⁹^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on t}^h^e^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^Hi^st^o^r^{y o}^f^t^h^e^Co^mmi^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^t^h^{e Jud}ⁱ^ci^a^r^y,^Uⁿⁱ^t^ed^S^t^a^t^{es S}^e^na^t^e^,
¹⁸¹^6-¹⁹⁸¹^,^Se^na^te^D^o^c^u^m^e^{nt 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}^.
⁷⁰^A^s^p^r^evi^o^u^s^l^y^dⁱ^scu^ssed^,^on^A^p^ri^l¹⁶^,¹⁸⁶⁶^,^P^r^esi^d^en^t^Aⁿ^d^r^ew^Jo^hn^so^{n no}^mⁱⁿ^a^t^e^d^Hen^r^y^S^t^an^b^e^r^y^t^o^rep^l^{ace Jo}^hn
^C^a^tr^{on, w}^ho^ha^d^die^d^the^pr^e^v^iou^s^Ma^y^.^B^y^the^ti^m^e^Sta^nbe^r^y^w^a^s^nom^ina^t^e^d^{, h}^o^w^e^v^e^r^,^the^H^ous^e^o^f^R^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^es
^h^a^d^p^a^ssed^a^b^ill^d^ecreasin^g^th^{e n}^u^m^b^{er o}^f^ju^{stices in}^th^{e S}^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^t.^A^s^dⁱ^scu^ssed^ju^{st ab}^o^v^{e, th}^{e v}^acan^c^y^to
^w^hⁱ^c^h^T^h^o^rⁿ^b^e^rry^w^a^{s n}^o^mⁱⁿ^at^ed^ceased^t^o^exi^s^t^w^h^en^F^o^rt^{as f}^aⁱ^l^e^d^t^o^b^e^con^fⁱ^r^med^{as Ch}ⁱ^e^f^Ju^stⁱ^c^e^.

This report provides two additional tables of information concerning Supreme Court nominations.
Table 3 shows, by President, the number of vacancies, number of nominations, and disposition of
nominations. Table 4 provides detailed information on the course and fate of each of the 36 ⁷¹
unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations. A variety of sources were used to develop this table,
as identified in the table notes. Although most of these sources are widely available, some,
particularly older committee records, are located at the National Archives and Records
Administration. Among the official sources, the Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the
Senate of the United States of America and committee records, where available, provided the most
information. Where the Journal showed no evidence of a debate or vote on the floor of the
Senate, the indices of other official sources were also checked for evidence of any other Senate
activity related to the nomination. These sources included the Congressional Globe,
Congressional Record, Annals of Congress, and Senate Journal. Where the table indicates that
there was no debate or further Senate action, there is no known official record that provides
additional information. A list of related literature follows Table 4.
Table 3. Supreme Court Nominations, by President, 1789-2007
^{Actual o}^r^Confirmed
^President^Prospective^Vacan^cies^Nominations^Confirmed^Not^{and Declined}
^(party)^During^{and Served}^Confirmed^{or Died Prior}
^Presidency^a^{to Service}
^Washington^{10 14}¹⁰²²
^(Federalist)
^{J. Adams (Fed.)}³⁴³⁰¹
^Jefferson^{3 3}³⁰⁰
^(Democratic-
^Republican)
^{Madison (Dem.-}^{2 5}²¹²
^Rep.)
^{Monroe (Dem.-}^{1 1}¹⁰⁰
^Rep.)
^{J. Q. Adams}^{2 2}¹¹⁰
^(Dem.-Rep.)
^Jackson^{7 8}⁶¹¹
^(Democratic)
^{Van Buren}^(Dem.)²²²⁰⁰
^{W. H. Harrison}^{0 0}⁰⁰⁰
^(Whig)
^{Tyler (Whig)}²⁹¹⁸⁰
^{Polk (Dem}^.)²³²¹⁰

⁷¹^F^o^{r i}ⁿ^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^al^l^S^u^p^r^em^{e Co}^u^r^tⁿ^o^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^s⁽ⁱ^.^e^.^,^t^h^o^s^{e t}^h^at^w^e^{re u}ⁿ^s^u^ccessf^u^l^an^d^t^h^o^s^{e t}^h^at^w^e^{re su}^ccess^f^u^l^),
^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³²²^5,^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^{t N}^o^mⁱ^na^tio^ns^,¹⁷^{89 -}²⁰^06:^Ac^ti^ons^by^t^h^e^Seⁿ^a^te^{, t}^h^e^J^u^dⁱ^cⁱ^ar^y^C^o^m^m^itte^e^,
^aⁿ^d^t^h^e^P^r^esi^d^en^t^,^by^D^e^nis^Ste^v^{en R}^u^tk^us^a^nd^Ma^ur^e^eⁿ^B^e^a^r^deⁿ^.

^{Actual o}^r^Confirmed
^President^Prospective^Vacan^cies^Nominations^Confirmed^Not^{and Declined}
^(party)^During^{and Served}^Confirmed^{or Died Prior}
^Presidency^a^{to Service}
^{Taylor (Whig)}⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^Fil^{lmore (Whig)}²⁴¹³⁰
^{Pierce (Dem.)}¹¹¹⁰⁰
^Buchana^{n (Dem.)}²²¹¹⁰
^Lincoln^{5 5}⁵⁰⁰
^(Republican)
^{A. Johnson (Dem.)}²^b¹⁰¹⁰
^{Grant (Rep.)}⁴⁸⁴³¹
^Hayes^{(Rep.) 3 3}²¹⁰
^{Garfield (Rep.)}¹¹¹⁰⁰
^Arthu^{r (Rep.)}²³²⁰¹
^{Cleveland (1)}^{2 2}²⁰⁰
^(Dem.)
^{B. Harrison (Rep.)}⁴⁴⁴⁰⁰
^{Cleveland (2)}^{2 5}²³⁰
^(Dem.)
^{McKinley (Rep.)}¹¹¹⁰⁰
^{T. Ro}^{osevelt (Rep.)}³³³⁰⁰
^{Taft (Rep.)}⁶⁶⁶⁰⁰
^{Wilson (Dem.}⁾³³³⁰⁰
^{Harding (Rep.)}⁴⁵⁴¹⁰
^Cool^{idge (Rep.)}¹¹¹⁰⁰
^{Hoover (Rep.)}³⁴³¹⁰
^{F. D. R}^oosevelt^{9 9}⁹⁰⁰
^(Dem.)
^{Truman (Dem.)}⁴⁴⁴⁰⁰
^{Eisenhower (Rep.)}⁵⁶⁵¹⁰
^{Kennedy (Dem.)}²²²⁰⁰
^{L. B. Johnson}⁴^c⁴²²⁰
^(Dem.)
^{Nixon (Rep.)}⁴⁶⁴²⁰
^{Ford (Rep.)}¹¹¹⁰⁰
^{Carter (Dem.)}⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^{Reagan (Rep.)}⁴⁵⁴¹⁰
^{G. H. W. Bush}^{2 2}²⁰⁰
^(Rep.)
^{Clinton (Dem.)}²²²⁰⁰

^{Actual o}^r^Confirmed
^President^Prospective^Vacan^cies^Nominations^Confirmed^Not^{and Declined}
^(party)^During^{and Served}^Confirmed^{or Died Prior}
^Presidency^a^{to Service}
^{G. W. Bush (Rep.)}^{2 4}²²⁰
²⁰⁰^1-2⁰⁰⁷
^Totals¹²⁴¹⁵⁸¹¹⁴³⁶⁸
^a.^Includes^{unfilled vacancies remain}^{ing from pr}^{evious administration; some vacancies ar}^{e count}^{ed for}^more
^{than one}^{administration. The ter}^{m “prospe}^{ctive vacanc}^{y” refe}^{rs t}^o^{those cases in w}^{hich a J}^ustice^h^as
^annou^{nced his or}^{her inte}^{ntion t}^o^{leave office, but remains in}^the^{position pending the a}^ppointmeⁿ^t^{of a}
^replacement.
^b.^{Both positions were abolished, one u}^{ntil the G}^{rant administration, the other}^per^mane^ntly.
^c.^{One of t}^{hese vaca}^{ncies was t}^{he e}^{xpected Associate J}^{ustice vaca}^nc^{y created whe}^{n Joh}^nson^nominat^{ed Abe}
^{Fortas for elevation to Chief Justi}^{ce. When t}^{he Fortas nomination}^{was not suc}^cessf^{ul, this expe}^{cted vacancy}
^{ceased to exist.}

Table 4. Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007
^Date^Confirm^ation
^{Nominee President}^Nomination^{Received in}^Hearing^b^{Committee Votes}^{, Reports, and}^{Recommendations}^{Date(s) of Senate}^Debate^{Final Disposition}^(Vote)
^Senate^a^Date(s)
^Will^iam^Washington^{Feb. 27, 1}⁷⁹³^{Nomination predates sta}^{nding J}^u^{diciary Committee; no record}^{No record of debate}^{Withdrawn, message}
^Paterson^c^{of other committee refe}^rral^{received Feb. 28,}¹⁷⁹³
^{John Rutledge}^Washington^{Dec. 10, 17}⁹⁵^{Nomination predates sta}^{nding J}^u^{diciary Committee; no record}^{Dec. 11, 15,}¹⁷⁹⁵^{Rejected (10-14),}
^{(for Chief}^d^{of other committee refe}^rral^{Dec. 15, 17}⁹⁵
^Justice)
^Alexander^e^Madison^{Feb. 4, 18}¹¹^{Nomination predates sta}^{nding J}^u^{diciary Committee; referred}^{Feb. 5, 6, 7, 1}^{3, 18}¹¹^{Rejected (9-24),}
^Wolcott^{to select committee on Feb. 7, 1}^{811. The}^{committee re}^ported^{Feb. 13, 1}⁸¹¹
^{on Feb. 13,}¹⁸^11;^{no record of c}^{ommittee hearings, vote or}
^{recommendation}
^{John J.}^{J. Q. Adams}^{Dec. 18, 18}²⁸^{No record of}^{Reported on Jan. 2}^{6, 1}⁸²⁹^{with t}^he^{Jan. 29,}^{30, 1}⁸²^{9; Feb. 2,}^Postponed^g^(23-17),
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31171}^Crittenden^f^(referred)^hearings^{recommendation that t}^{he Senate}^not^{act on the}^{nomination during t}^h^a^t^{3, 4, 5, 9, 1}^{2, 1}⁸²⁹^{Feb. 12, 1}⁸²⁹
^g/w^session
^s^.or
^le^ak^{Roger B. Taney}^h^Jackson^{Jan. 15,}¹⁸³⁵^{No record of refe}^{rral to the J}^{udiciary Committee}^{Jan. 20,}¹⁸^{35; Fe}^{b. 2,}^{Postponed indefinitely}
¹⁸³^{5; Ma}^{r. 3, 1}⁸³⁵^{(24-21), Ma}^{r. 3, 1}⁸³⁵
^://wiki^{John C. Spenc}^erⁱ^Tyler^j^{Jan. 9, 1}⁸⁴⁴^{No record of}^{Reported on Jan. 3}^{0, 1}⁸⁴^{4; no}^{Jan. 31,}¹⁸⁴⁴^{Rejected (21-26),}
^h^ttp^(referred)^hearings^{record of committee vote or}^{Jan. 31,}¹⁸⁴⁴
^{recommendation}
^{Reuben H.}^{Tyler Mar.}^13,¹⁸⁴⁴^{No record of}^{Reported on Ju}^{ne 1}^{4, 1}⁸⁴^{4; no}^{June 15, 18}⁴⁴^Tabled^(27-20),
^Walworth^k^(referred)^hearings^{record of committee vote or}^{June 15, 18}^44;^withdraw^n,
^{recommendation}^{message received J}^une^17,
¹⁸⁴⁴
^{Edward King}^l^Tyler^June^5,¹⁸⁴⁴^{No record of}^{Reported on Ju}^{ne 1}^{4, 1}⁸⁴^{4; no}^{June 15, 18}⁴⁴^Tabled^(29-18),
^(referred)^hearings^{record of committee vote or}^{June 15, 18}⁴⁴
^{recommendation}
^{John C. Spenc}^er^m^Tyler^{June 17, 18}⁴⁴^{No record of refe}^{rral to the J}^{udiciary Committee}^{No record of debate on}^{Withdrawn, message}
^{(withdrawn on}^{the nomination}^{received Ju}^{ne 1}^{7, 18}⁴⁴

^{the same day)}

^Date^Confirm^ation
^{Nominee President}^Nomination^{Received in}^Hearing^b^{Committee Votes}^{, Reports, and}^{Recommendations}^{Date(s) of Senate}^Debate^{Final Disposition}^(Vote)
^Senate^a^Date(s)
^{Reuben H.}ⁿ^Tyler^June^17,¹⁸⁴⁴^{No record of refe}^{rral to the J}^{udiciary Committee}^{Motion to consider the}^{No record of fu}^rthe^r
^Walworth^{nomination was}^action
^{objected to,}
^{June 17, 18}⁴⁴
^{Reuben H.}^Tyler^{Dec. 10, 18}⁴⁴^{No record of}^{Reported on Jan. 2}^{1, 1}⁸⁴^{5; no}^{No record of debate}^{Tabled, Jan. 21, 18}⁴⁵
^Walworth^o^(referred)^hearings^{record of committee vote or}^{(no record of vote);}
^{recommendation}^{withdrawn, message}
^{received Feb. 6, 1}⁸⁴⁵
^{Edward King}^p^Tyler^{Dec. 10, 18}⁴⁴^{No record of}^{Reported on Jan. 2}^{1, 1}⁸⁴^{5; no}^{No record of debate on}^{Tabled, Jan. 21, 18}⁴⁵
^(referred)^hearings^{record of committee vote or}^{the nomination}^{(no record of vote);}
^{recommendation}^{withdrawn, message}
^{received Feb. 8, 1}⁸⁴⁵
^{John M. Read}^q^Tyler^{Feb. 8, 18}⁴⁵^{No record of}^{Reported on Feb. 1}^{4, 18}^45;^no^Unsucce^{ssful motion to}^{No furt}^her^{record of}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31171}^(referred)^hearings^{record of committee vote or}^{consider nomination,}^action
^g/w^{recommendation}^{Feb. 26, 1}⁸⁴⁵
^s^.or^{George W.}^Polk^{Dec. 23, 18}⁴⁵^{No record of}^{Reported on Jan. 2}^{0, 1}⁸⁴^{6; no}^{Jan. 21,}^{22, 1}⁸⁴^6;^{Nomination rejected (20-}
^le^ak^Woodward^r^(referred)^hearings^{record of committee vote or}^{motion to postpone}^{29), Jan. 2}^{2, 1}⁸⁴⁶
^{recommendation}^{rejected (21-2}^{8), Jan. 2}^2,
^://wiki¹⁸⁴⁶
^h^ttp^{Edward A.}^Fil^lmore^{Aug. 21, 1}⁸⁵²^{No record of}^{Reported on Aug. 3}^{0, 18}^52;^no^{Aug. 31, 1}⁸⁵²^{Tabled Aug. 31, 1}⁸⁵²
^Bradford^s^(referred)^hearings^{record of committee vote or}^{(no record of vote)}
^{recommendation}
^{George E.}^Fil^lmore^{Jan. 10,}¹⁸⁵³^{No record of refe}^{rral to the J}^{udiciary Committee}^{Jan. 14,}^{20, 2}^{4, 1}⁸⁵^3;^{Postponed (26-2}^5),
^Badger^t^{Feb. 7, 11,}¹⁸⁵³^{Feb. 11, 1}⁸⁵³
^Will^{iam C.}^u^Fil^lmore^{Feb. 24, 1}⁸⁵³^{No record of}^{No record of committee vote;}^{No record of debate}^{No record of action after}
^Micou^{(referred a}^nd^hearings^{ordered discharged on Feb. 2}^{4, 1}^853,^discharge
^{discharged on the}^{the same day as}^refe^rred
^{same day)}
^{Jeremiah S.}^v^Buchanaⁿ^{Feb. 6, 18}⁶¹^{No record of refe}^{rral to the J}^{udiciary Committee}^{Motions to consider the}^{No record of fu}^rthe^r
^Black^nomination^action

^uns^uccess^ful,
^{Feb. 6, 12,}^{21, 1}⁸⁶¹

^Date^Confirm^ation
^{Nominee President}^Nomination^{Received in}^Hearing^b^{Committee Votes}^{, Reports, and}^{Recommendations}^{Date(s) of Senate}^Debate^{Final Disposition}^(Vote)
^Senate^a^Date(s)
^{Henry Sta}^nbe^ry^w^{A. Johnson}^{Apr. 16,}¹⁸⁶⁶^{No record of}^{No record of committee action}^x^{No record of debate}^{No record of action after}^y
^(referred)^hearings^referral
^Ebe^{nezer R.}^z^Grant^{Dec. 15, 18}⁶⁹^{No record of}^{Reported adversely on Dec. 22,}^{Dec. 22, 18}^69,^{Rejected (24-33),}
^Hoar^(referred)^hearings¹⁸⁶^{9; no}^{record of committee vote}^{Feb. 3, 18}⁷⁰^{Feb. 3, 18}⁷⁰
^{George H.}^Grant^{Dec. 2, 187}³^{Hearings held}^Dec.^{Reported favorably on Dec. 1}^1,^{Debated Dec. 11, 1}^5,^{Withdrawn, message}
^Will^{iams (for}^aa^{(referred Dec. 4,}^{16, 1}^{7, 18}⁷³^after¹⁸⁷^{3; no}^{record of committee vote}¹⁸⁷^{3; nomination}^{received Jan. 8, 1}⁸⁷⁴
^{Chief Justice)}¹⁸⁷³⁾^recommittal^Hearings^{held after recommittal;}^{recommitted to the}
^{nomination withdrawn}^{by the}^{Judiciary Committee,}
^{President; committee retur}^ned^bb^{Dec. 15, 18}⁷³
^{nomination to the Senate}
^{Caleb Cushing}^Grant^{Jan. 9, 1}⁸⁷⁴^{No record of}^{Reported favorably on Ja}^{n. 9, 1}⁸⁷⁴^dd^{No record of debate}^{Withdrawn, message}
^{(for Chief}^(referred)^hearings^{received Jan. 1}^{4, 18}⁷⁴
^Justice)^cc
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31171}^Stanley^Hayes^{Jan. 26,}¹⁸⁸¹^{No record of}^{Addressed on Feb. 7, 1}⁸⁸^1;^{No record of debate}^{No record of action after}
^g/w^Matthews^ee^(referred)^hearings^{addressed and postpon}^{ed Feb. 1}⁴^,^committee
^s^.or¹⁸⁸¹^ff^postponeme^nt^gg
^le^ak
^Will^{iam B.}^hh^Cleveland^{Sept. 19, 1}⁸⁹³^{No record of}^{Addressed on Sept. 25,}¹⁸^93;^{No record of debate}^{No record of fu}^rthe^r
^://wiki^Hornblower^(referred)^hearings^October^{25, 3}^{0, 18}⁹³^action
^h^ttp^Will^{iam B.}^Cleveland^{Dec. 6, 189}³^{No record of}^{Addressed on Dec. 11, 1}^{4, 1}^{8, 18}^93;ⁱⁱ^{Jan. 15,}¹⁸⁹⁴^{Rejected (24-30),}
^Hornblower^(referred)^hearings^{Reported adversely, Jan. 8, 1}⁸⁹⁴^{Jan. 15,}¹⁸⁹⁴
^{Wheeler H.}^{Cleveland Jan.}^22,¹⁸⁹⁴^{No record of}^{Addressed Jan. 2}^{9, 18}^{94; Fe}^{b. 5,}^6,^{Feb. 15, 1}^{6, 1}⁸⁹⁴^{Rejected (32-41),}
^Peckham^jj^(referred)^hearings^{12, 1}⁸⁹^{4; committee re}^portedly^kk^{Feb. 16, 1}⁸⁹⁴
^{equally divided;}^{reported without}
^{recommendation, Feb. 12,}¹⁸⁹⁴
^{Pierce Butler}^ll^Harding^{Nov. 23, 1}⁹²²^{No record of}^{Reported Nov. 28, 1}⁹²²^{No record of debate}^{Placed on the Ex}^ecutive
^(referred)^hearings^{Calendar on Nov. 28,}
¹⁹²^{2; No r}^{ecord of}^mm
^furt^{her action}
^{John J. Parker}ⁿⁿ^Hoover^Mar.^21,¹⁹³⁰^{April 5, 19}³⁰^oo^{Reported adversely, Apr. 2}^{1, 19}³⁰^pp^{Apr. 28,}^{29, 3}^{0, 1}⁹³^0;^{Rejected (39-41), May}^7,
^(referred)^{May 1, 2,}^{5, 6, 7, 1}⁹³⁰¹⁹³⁰
^{John Ma}^rshall^qq^Eisenhower^{Nov. 9, 19}⁵⁴^{No record of}^{No record of committee vote or}^{No record of debate}^{No record of fu}^rthe^r^rr
^{Harlan II}^(referred)^hearings^report^action

^Date^Confirm^ation
^{Nominee President}^Nomination^{Received in}^Hearing^b^{Committee Votes}^{, Reports, and}^{Recommendations}^{Date(s) of Senate}^Debate^{Final Disposition}^(Vote)
^Senate^a^Date(s)
^{Abe Fortas (for}^ss^L.^Johnson^{June 26, 19}⁶⁸^{July 1}^{1, 12,}^{16, 1}^{7, 18,}^{Committee voted to approve on}^uu^{Sept. 24, 2}^{5, 26,}^{27, 3}^0,^{Cloture motion defeated}
^{Chief Justice)}^(referred)^{19, 2}^{0, 22,}^{23, 1}⁹⁶^8;^tt^{Sept. 17, 1}⁹⁶⁸^{; re}^{ported favora}^bly¹⁹⁶^{8; Oct.}^{1, 19}⁶⁸^{(45-43), Oct.}^{1, 19}^68;
^{Sept. 13, 1}^{6, 19}⁶⁸^{on Sept. 20, 1}⁹⁶⁸^{Withdrawn, message}
^{received Oct. 4, 1}⁹⁶⁸
^Homer^L.^Johnson^{June 26, 19}⁶⁸^{July 1}^{1, 12,}^{16, 1}^{7, 18,}^{No record of committee vote or}^{No record of debate}^{Withdrawn, message}
^Thornber^ry^vv^(referred)^{19, 2}^{0, 22,}^{23, 1}⁹⁶^8;^ww^report^{received Oct. 4, 1}⁹⁶⁸^xx
^{Sept. 13, 1}^{6, 19}⁶⁸
^{Clement F.}^yy^Nixon^{Aug. 21, 1}⁹⁶⁹^{Sept. 16, 1}^{7, 18,}^19,^zz^{Committee voted 10-7 in fa}^{vor of}^aaa^{Nov. 13, 1}^{4, 17,}^{18, 1}^9,^{Rejected (45-55), Nov.}
^Haynswort^{h, Jr.}^(referred)^{23, 2}^{4, 25,}^{26, 1}⁹⁶⁹^{confirmation on Oct. 9, 1}⁹⁶⁹^;^{20, 2}^{1, 19}⁶⁹^{21, 1}⁹⁶⁹
^{reported favora}^{bly on Nov. 1}^{2, 1}⁹⁶⁹
^{G. Harrold}^bbb^{Nixon Jan.}^19,¹⁹⁷⁰^{Jan. 27,}^{28, 2}^{9, 1}⁹⁷^0;^ccc^{Committee voted 13-4 in fa}^{vor of}^{Mar. 13,}^{16, 1}^{7, 1}^{8, 19,}^{Rejected (45-51), Apr.}^8,
^Carswell^(referred)^{Feb. 2, 3, 1}⁹⁷⁰^{recommending for co}^nfirmation^on^{20, 2}^{3, 24,}^{25, 2}^{6, 3}^1,¹⁹⁷⁰
^{Feb. 16, 1}⁹⁷⁰^ddd^{; reported on Feb.}¹⁹⁷^{0; Ap}^{r. 3, 6, 7,}^8,
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31171}^{27, 1}⁹⁷⁰¹⁹⁷⁰
^g/w^{Robert H.}^Reagan^{July 7, 1}⁹⁸⁷^{Sept. 15, 1}^{6, 17,}^18,^{5-9 against on}^{Oct. 6, 1}⁹⁸^{7; re}^ported^{Oct. 21, 2}^{2, 2}³¹⁹⁸⁷^{Rejected (42-58), Oct. 2}^3,
^s^.or^Bork^eee^(referred)^{19, 2}^{1, 22,}^{23, 2}^{5, 2}^8,^{on Oct. 13,}¹⁹⁸⁷^ggg¹⁹⁸⁷
^le^ak^{29, 3}^{0, 19}⁸⁷^ff^f
^://wiki^{John G. Robert}^s,^Jr.^hhh^{G.W. Bush}^{July 2}^{9, 20}⁰⁵^(referred)^{No hearings}^{No committee action}^{No Senate debate}^{Withdrawn, message}^{received Sept. 6, 20}⁰⁵
^h^ttp
^{Harriet E.}^hhh^{G.W. Bush}^{Oct. 7, 20}⁰⁵^{No hearings}^{No committee action}^{No Senate debate}^{Withdrawn, message}
^Miers^(referred)^{received Oct. 28,}²⁰⁰⁵
^a.^{The date of the President’s}^{nomination and the}^{date the}^{nomination is received in the Se}^{nate are o}^{ften, b}^{ut not always, the}^sam^{e. As}^{used in t}^{his column, “refe}^rred”
^{indicates that the}^{nomination was}^referr^{ed to the Senate Committ}^{ee on the}^{Judiciary on tha}^{t date.}
^b.^{The committee’s deliberations were held in closed session u}^{ntil the early twentieth}^cent^{ury. CRS Report RL3}¹⁹^89,^{Supreme Court Ap}^{pointment Proce}^ss:^Role^{s of the}
^{President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate}^{, by Denis Steven Rutk}^us.
^c.^{Nomination information from U.S. Congress, Senate,}^{Journal of the}^{Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of Am}^erica^{, vol. 1, pp. 134-}¹³^{5. (Hereafter}^cited
^{as nominee,}^{Executive Journal}^{.) Pat}^{erson was later}^{nominated again}^{and confirmed.}
^d.^Rutledge,^{Executive Journa}^l,^{vol. 1,}^{pp. 1}^94-1^{96. Rutledge se}^{rved as}^{Associate Justice from Fe}^brua^ry^{15, 1}⁷⁹^{0, throug}^{h Ma}^rch^{5, 1}⁷⁹^{1. Although Rutledge was}^never
^{confirmed as Chief}^{Justice, he}^ser^{ved in the}^{position from August}^{12, 1}⁷⁹^{5, throug}^{h Decem}^ber^15,¹⁷⁹^{5, u}^{nder a r}^{ecess a}^ppointmeⁿ^t^{by President Was}^hington.
^(“Members^{of the S}^upre^{me Cour}^{t of the United States,” at htt}^{p://www.supreme}^court^{us.gov/about/about.html.)}
^e.^Wolcott^,^{Executive Journal,}^vo^{l. 2,}^{pp. 1}^65-6^7.
^f.^Crittenden,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^.^{3, pp. 6}^22-⁶²^{3, 63}^6-6^{39, 6}^43-⁶⁴⁴^.

^g.^{Although the}^{Senate did not take}^{up a}^{motion to “postpone indefi}^{nitely,” as it did}^{on other similar occasions, it passed a reso}^{lution which had t}^{he ef}^{fect of}^postponin^g.
^{(See Crittenden,}^{Executive Journal}^,^{vol. 3, p. 644.)}
^h.^Taney,^{Executive Journal}^{, vo}^{l. 4, pp. 459, 4}^63,⁴⁶^{5, 48}^{4. Taney was l}^{ater nominated for C}^{hief Ju}^{stice and confirmed.}
^i.^{Spencer wa}^{s the}^su^{bject of two n}^{ominations not confirmed. Infor}^{mation concerning}^{the firs}^{t nomi}^{nation can}^{be fou}^{nd at}^{Executive J}^ournal,^vol^{. 6, pp. 20}^7-2^{08, 2}^27,²^29.
^j.^{In 1}⁸⁴⁴^a^{nd 18}^{45, President}^John^{Tyler forwarded nine}^{nominations involving only five men.}^Eight^{of the nine}^were^{not confirmed}^.^{Of those}^{nominees who we}^{re no}^t
^{confirmed, Walworth was nomin}^{ated three times, Spe}^{ncer a}^{nd King were}^{nominated twice, and Read was nominated once. Samuel}^Nelso^{n was nominated onc}^{e and}
^confirmed.
^k.^{Walworth was the s}^{ubject of t}^h^r^{ee nominations not confirm}^{ed. In}^{formation concerni}^{ng the}^{first no}^{mination can be}^{found at}^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^{. 6, pp. 24}^3-24^{4, 3}^32,
^344-³⁴^{5, 35}^3.
^l.^{King was the s}^{ubject of two}^{nominations not confirmed. I}^nformati^{on concer}^{ning the}^{first nomination can}^{be fo}^{und at}^{Executive Journal,}^{vol. 6, pp. 30}^{6, 33}^{2, 3}^45.
^m.^Spencer,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol. 6,}^{pp. 3}^53-3^54.
^n.^Walworth,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^.^{6, p. 35}^4.
^o.^Walworth,^{Executive Journal,}^vo^l.^{6, pp. 3}^55,³⁵^{7, 38}^{7, 3}^91.
^p.^King,^{Executive Journal,}^vo^{l. 6, pp. 355,}³⁵^{7, 38}^{7, 3}^92.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31171}^q.^Read,^{Executive Journ}^al^{, vo}^{l. 6, pp. 392,}³⁹^6.
^g/w^r.^Woodward,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^.^{7, pp.}^{10, 3}^6-3^8.
^s^.or^s.^Bradford,^{Executive Journal,}^vo^{l. 8,}^{pp. 4}^40-⁴⁴^{1, 44}^{8, 4}^52.
^le^ak
^t.^Badger,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^{. 9, pp. 10, 1}^8-2^{0, 26-}^{28, 3}^{4. President}^{Millard Fi}^{llmore indicated that he regarded the}^postpone^{ment of}^{the Badger nomina}^{tion as}
^://wiki^{“equivalent to a rejection” in}^his^{message nominating William C.}^{Micou (p. 34).}
^h^ttp^u.^Micou,^{Executive Journal}^{, vo}^{l. 9, pp. 34-36.}
^v.^Black,^{Executive Journ}^al^{, vo}^{l. 11, pp. 26}^0-26^{1, 2}^{71, 2}^78.
^w.^Stanbery,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol. 15, part 1, p}^{p. 7}^20-7^21.
^x.^{Senate Judiciary Committee minu}^{tes are available for the}^{session d}^{uring w}^{hich this}^{nomination was}^{pending. Specific information}^rega^{rding this nomination or an}^{y othe}^r
^{nomination, however, was not re}^{corded. See U.}^{S. Congress, Senate Committee on the J}^{udiciary, “Senate J}^{udiciary Committee, 39}^th^-4⁰^th^{Congress, 1}^st^{sess.: Minute}^s,”
^{RG 46.1}^{5, U.S. National Archives.}
^y.^{There is no record of action on}^t^{his nomination. The Associate Jus}^{tice position to which Stanber}^{y w}^{as nominated was eliminated}^{by s}^{tatute after}^{his nomination. He}
^{was nominated and con}^{firmed for U.S. Attorney General in}^July¹^866.
^z.^Hoar,^{Executive Journal,}^vol^{. 17, p}^{p. 31}^{4, 31}^{6, 3}^28-3^30.
^aa.^Will^iams,^{Executive Jour}^nal,^vol^{. 19, pp. 11}^{9, 1}^{66, 1}^83,¹⁸^8-18^{9, 2}^10.
^bb.^{The date of this action is not s}^p^e^{cified in committee records. See U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the}^{Judiciary, “Papers re}^No^{minations (P-W),” drawer Sen:}
^43B-A5^{12, RG}^46.1^{5, U.S. Natio}^{nal Archives.}
^cc.^Cushing,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^{. 19, pp. 2}^12-²¹^{3, 21}^8.

^dd.^{The official vote of the committee is not reported. According to one p}^{ress accou}^{nt, the}^{committee was una}^{nimous (“The C}^{hief Jus}^tic^eship,”^{New Y}^{ork Tribune}^{, January}
^{10, 1}⁸⁷^{4, p. 1), while another}^re^p^{orted a waiving of the formal ref}^e^{rral of the}^{nomination (“The Chief Justices}^hip,”^{New Y}^{ork Times}^{, Ja}^nuary¹^{0, 18}^74,^{p. 1).}
^ee.^Matthews,^{Executive Journal,}^{vol. 22, p. 46}^9.
^ff.^{According to committee minutes}^{, “}^{The nomination of Stanly [sic] Matthews wa}^{s taken}^u^p^{and on}^m^{otion the furt}^{her co}^{nsideration of same was}^postponed^{until ne}^xt
^{Monday [Febr}^uary^21,¹⁸^{81].” Th}^{e committee minutes}^{contain no}^furt^{her re}^{port of action on t}^heⁿ^{omination during the r}^{emaining d}^{ays of the}⁴⁶^th^{Congress. (U.S.}^th^th^st
^{Congress, Senate Committee on}^{the Judiciary,}^{Senate Judiciary Committee 46}^-48^{Congress, 1}^Sessi^oⁿ^:^Minutes,^{pp. 5}^3-54.)
^gg.^{Matthews wa}^{s later nominated}^b^y^{President James A.}^{Garfield and}^confirmed.
^hh.^{Hornblower was t}^{he s}^{ubject of t}^{wo nominations not confirmed.}^{The first was at t}^{he e}^{nd of the}^{first session of the}⁵³^rd^{Congress, a}^{nd the se}^{cond was at t}^{he begin}ⁿⁱ^ng
^{of the second se}^{ssion of the sa}^m^e^Congress.^{Executive Journal,}^vol.^{29, pa}^{rt 2,}^{pp. 1}^{38, 1}^42,²⁴^{3, 25}^{1, 33}^{9, 35}^2-3^53.
^ii.^{The official vote of the committee was not recorded.}^{The New Y}^{ork Times}^re^{ported the vote as}^7-4^{against (“Unfavorable to M}^{r. Hor}^nblower,”^{New York Time}^s^{, Janua}^r^y
^{9, 18}^{94, p.}^{1), and the}^{New York T}^ribune^{reported 5-3 against (“To Reject Mr. Hornblower,”}^{New Y}^o^{rk Tri}^bune^{, January 9, 1}⁸⁹^{4, p. 2).}
^jj.^Peckham,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^{. 29, part}^{2, pp.}³⁵^{6, 40}^{8, 4}^21-4^23.
^kk.^{The official vote of the committee was not recorded.}^{The New Y}^{ork Times}^re^{ported the vote as}^5-5^{(“Peckham’s Friends Hopef}^ul,”^N^{ew York Times}^,^Febr^{uary 13, 18}^94,
^{p. 1).}
^ll.^Butler,^{Executive Journal}^{, v}^{ol. 60, pp. 29, 6}^3.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31171}^mm.^{Butler was later re-nominated}^by^{President Harding a}^{nd confirme}^d.
^g/w^nn.^Parker,^{Executive Journal}^{, vo}^{l. 69, part 1,}^{pp. 5}^25,⁶⁴^{3, 65}^{5, 6}^{73, 6}⁸^{2, 69}^{1, 69}^5-6^{96, 6}^99,⁷⁰^{5, 71}^{0, 7}^18-7^22.
^s^.or
^le^ak^oo.^{See U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the J}^udiciary,^Confirmati^{on of Hon. John J. Parker to Be an Associate Ju}^{stice of the Supreme Cou}^{rt of the United States,}^{hearings, 7}¹^st^nd
^{Cong., 2}^{sess. (Washington: GPO, 193}^0).
^://wiki^pp.^{The official committee vote was not reported in t}^he^{Executive Jour}^nal^.^{The New York Times}^reported^{a 10-}^{6 vote against t}^{he nominati}^{on on April 2}^{1, 19}^{30 (“Committe}^e,
^h^ttp^{10 to 6, Rejects Parke}^r,”^{New Yor}^{k Times}^{, April 22,}¹⁹^{30, p}^{p. 1, 2}^{3). Another sour}^{ce p}^{rovides a different vote cou}^{nt, 9-8, with t}^{he sa}^{me outcome (Josep}^{h P. Harris,}
^{Advice and Consent of the Senate; a Study of the Confirmation of Appointments}^{[New York: G}^{reenwood Press, 19}^{68], p.}¹²^9).
^qq.^Harlan,^{Executive Journal}^{, vo}^{l. 96, p. 83}^4.
^rr.^{Harlan was later}^{re-nominated by}^{President Eisen}^{hower and}^confir^med.
^ss.^Fortas,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^{. 110,}^{pp. 3}^{32, 5}^16,⁵²^{1, 52}^{7, 5}^{29, 5}^54-^556,⁵⁶^9-57^{0, 5}^92.
^tt.^{U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the}^Judiciary,^Nomination^{of Abe Fortas}^{, report to accompan}^y^{the nomination of Abe}^{Fortas, 90}^th^{Cong., 2}^nd^{sess., Exec. Rept. 8}^th^nd
^{(Washington: GPO, 19}^{68). See also U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the}^Judiciary,^No^minations^{of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornber}^ry^{, hearings, 90}^{Cong., 2}^sess.
^{(Washington: GPO, 19}^68).
^uu.^{The official committee vote was not reported in t}^he^{Executive Jour}^nal^.^{The New York Times}^reported^{an 1}^{1-6 vote in}^{favor of th}^{e nom}^{ination on Septembe}^{r 1}^{7, 19}⁶⁸
^{(“Fortas Approved by}^{Senate Pan}^{el; Fil}^{ibuster Looms,”}^{New York Times}^{, Septem}^ber^18,¹⁹^{68, p}^{p. 1,}^13).
^vv.^Thornber^ry,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^.¹¹^{0, pp.}³³^{2, 59}^2.
^ww.^{The Thorn}^berry^hearing^{s were}^c^{onducted in conju}^{nction with the}^{Fortas hearings. See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the J}^udi^ciary,^Nominations^{of Abe Fortas}
^{and Homer Thornber}^ry^{, hearings, 90}^th^{Cong., 2}^nd^{sess. (Washington:}^{GPO, 19}^68).

^xx.^{With the nomination of A}^{be Fortas to be Chief J}^{ustice withdraw}^n,^{there was}^{no longer an}^{Associate Justice vaca}^ncy.
^yy.^Haynswort^h,^{Executive Journal}^{, vo}^l^.^{111, p}^{p. 5}^90,7^68-7^70,⁷⁷^2-77^3,^776.
^zz.^{See U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the J}^udiciary,^Nominatio^{n of Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr.}^{, hearings, 91}^st^{Cong., 1}^st^{sess. (Washington: GPO, 1}⁹⁶^9).
^aaa.^{Vote tally from U.S}^{. Congress, Se}^{nate Committee on the}^Judiciary,^{Nomination of Clem}^{ent F. Haynsworth, Jr.}^{, report to accompany t}^h^e^{nomination of Clement F.}
^Haynswort^{h, Jr., 91}^st^{Cong., 1}^st^se^{ss., Exec. Rept. 91-}^{12 (Was}^{hington: GPO, 19}^{69); date of vote f}^rom^{U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the}^Judiciary,^{Legislative and}^st^st^nd
^{Executive Calenda}^r^{, 91}^{Cong., 1}^{and 2}^{sess. (Washington: GPO,}¹⁹⁷^{0), p. 4}^34.
^bbb.^Carswell,^{Executive Journ}^al^{, vo}^{l. 112, pp. 1,}^{79, 1}^17,¹²^{1, 12}^{5, 12}^7-1^{30, 1}^39-1^41,¹⁴^4-14^8.
^ccc.^{See U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the J}^udiciary,^{George Harrold Ca}^rswell^{, hearings, 91}^st^Con^{g., 2}^nd^{sess. (Washington: GPO, 1970).}
^ddd.^{Vote tally from U.S}^{. Congress, Se}^{nate Committee on the}^Judiciary,^{Nomination of Ge}^{orge Harrold Ca}^r^swell^{, report to accompa}^{ny t}^{he n}^{omination of George Harrold}
^{Carswell, 91}^st^{Cong., 2}^nd^{sess., Ex}^{ec. Rept. 91-1}^{4 (Washington: GP}^{O, 197}^{0); date of vote from U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on}^{the Judiciary,}^{Legislative and}^st^st^nd
^{Executive Calenda}^r^{, 91}^{Cong., 1}^{and 2}^{sess. (Washington: GPO,}¹⁹⁷^{0), p. 4}^42.
^eee.^Bork,^{Executive Journal}^{, vol}^{. 129, p}^{p. 49}^{3, 66}^{5, 6}^69-7^71.
^fff.^{See U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the J}^udiciary,^Nominatio^{n of}^{Robert H. Bork to Be Asso}^ciate^{Justice of the Supreme Court of the}^{United States}^{, hearings, 5}^parts,
¹⁰⁰^th^{Cong., 1}^st^ses^{s. (Washington: GPO, 19}^87).
^ggg.^{U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the}^Judiciary,^{Legislative and Executive Calenda}^r^{, S}^{.Prt. 100-15}^{3, 10}⁰^th^{Cong., 1}^st^a^{nd 2}^nd^{sess. (W}^{ashington: GPO, 1}⁹⁸^{9). See also}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31171}^{U.S. C}^{ongress, Senate Committee on the}^Judiciary,^Nomination^{of Robert H. Bork to be an Associate J}^{ustice of the United States Supreme}^Court^{, report to accompany t}^he
^g/w^{nomination of Robert H. Bork, 1}⁰⁰^th^{Cong., 1}^st^{sess., Exe}^{c. Rept. 100-}^{7 (Washington:}^{GPO, 19}^87).
^s^.or^hhh.^{Information conce}^{rning t}^he^{nominations of John}^{G. Roberts, Jr., an}^{d Harriet E. Miers}^{was obtained f}^{rom the Senate}^{nominations d}^ata^{base of the}^{Legislative Information}
^le^ak^{System, available to congressional}^{staff at}^{http://www.congress.gov/nomis/.}

^://wiki
^h^ttp

CRS Report RL31989, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary
Committee, and Senate, by Denis Steven Rutkus.
CRS Multimedia MM70010, Supreme Court Appointment Process. Online Video and Audio.
Video and Audio Tapes, by Denis Steven Rutkus.
CRS Report RL32821, The Chief Justice of the United States: Responsibilities of the Office and
Process for Appointment, by Denis Steven Rutkus and Lorraine H. Tong.
CRS Report RL33247, Supreme Court Nominations: Senate Floor Procedure and Practice, 1789-

2006, by Richard S. Beth and Betsy Palmer.

CRS Report RL33225, Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 - 2006: Actions by the Senate, the
Judiciary Committee, and the President, by Denis Steven Rutkus and Maureen Bearden.
Abraham, Henry J. Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court ^th
Appointments from Washington to Clinton, 4 ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,

1999).

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. “Confirming Supreme Court Justices: Thoughts on the Second Opinion
Rendered by the Senate.” University of Illinois Law Review, vol. 1988, pp. 101-117.
Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the
United States Supreme Court (New York: Penguin Press, 2007).
Harris, Joseph P. The Advice and Consent of the Senate: A Study of the Confirmation of
Appointments by the United States Senate (New York: Greenwood Press, 1968).
Jacobstein, J. Myron, and Roy M. Mersky. The Rejected: Sketches of the 26 Men Nominated for
the Supreme Court but Not Confirmed by the Senate (Milpitas, CA: Toucan Valley
Publications, 1993). (Note: The authors do not include the Paterson nomination.)
Maltese, John Anthony. The Selling of Supreme Court Nominees (Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1995).
Massaro, John. Supremely Political: The Role of Ideology and Presidential Management in
Unsuccessful Supreme Court Nominations (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,

1990).

Massey, Calvin R. “Getting There: A Brief History of the Politics of Supreme Court
Appointments.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, vol. 19, fall 1991, pp. 1-21.

Sulfridge, Wayne. “Ideology as a Factor in Senate Consideration of Supreme Court
Nominations.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 42, no. 2, May 1980, pp. 560-567.
Thorpe, James A. “The Appearance of Supreme Court Nominees Before the Senate Judiciary
Committee.” In The First Branch of American Government: The United States Congress and
Its Relations to the Executive and Judiciary, 1789-1989, vol. 2, Joel Sibley, ed. (Brooklyn,
NY: Carlson, 1991), pp. 515-546.
Tulis, Jeffrey K. “The Appointment Power: Constitutional Abdication: The Senate, the President,
and Appointments to the Supreme Court.” Case Western Reserve Law Review, vol. 47,
summer 1997, pp. 1331-1357.
^Hen^r^y^B^.^Ho^g^u^e
^An^al^y^s^{t i}ⁿ^Am^erican^Natⁱ^on^al^Gov^e^rnm^e^nt
^h^h^o^g^u^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^o^v^{, 7-}⁰⁶⁴²