Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "McMillion, Barry J." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects [November 30, 2017]
"When federal agencies and programs lack funding after the expiration of full-year or interim appropriations, the agencies and programs experience a funding gap. If funding does not resume in time to continue government operations, then, under the Antideficiency Act, an agency must cease operations, except in certain situations when law authorizes continued activity. The criteria that flow from the Antideficiency Act for determining which activities are affected are complex. Failure of the President and Congress to reach agreement on full-year or interim funding measures occasionally has caused shutdowns of affected federal government activities. The longest such shutdown lasted 21 full days during FY1996, from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996. More recently, a funding gap commenced on October 1, 2013, the first day of FY2014, after funding for the previous fiscal year expired. Because funding did not resume on October 1, affected agencies began to cease operations and furlough personnel that day. A 16-full-day shutdown ensued, the first to occur in over 17 years."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brass, Clinton T.; Brudnick, Ida A.; Keegan, Natalie . . .
2017-11-30
-
Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects [May 5, 2017]
"When federal agencies and programs lack funding after the expiration of full-year or interim appropriations, the agencies and programs experience a funding gap. If funding does not resume in time to continue government operations, then, under the Antideficiency Act, an agency must cease operations, except in certain situations when law authorizes continued activity. The criteria that flow from the Antideficiency Act for determining which activities are affected are complex. [...] This CRS [Congressional Research Service] report is intended to address questions that arise frequently related to the topic of government shutdowns. However, the report does not closely track developments related to the appropriations process for a given fiscal year."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brass, Clinton T.; Brudnick, Ida A.; Glassman, Matthew . . .
2017-05-05
-
Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects [December 10, 2018]
"When federal agencies and programs lack funding after the expiration of full-year or interim appropriations, the agencies and programs experience a funding gap. If funding does not resume in time to continue government operations, then, under the Antideficiency Act, an agency must cease operations, except in certain situations when law authorizes continued activity. Funding gaps are distinct from shutdowns, and the criteria that flow from the Antideficiency Act for determining which activities are affected by a shutdown are complex. Failure of the President and Congress to reach agreement on full-year or interim funding measures occasionally has caused shutdowns of affected federal government activities. The longest such shutdown lasted 21 full days during FY1996, from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996. More recently, a relatively long funding gap commenced on October 1, 2013, the first day of FY2014, after funding for the previous fiscal year expired. Because funding did not resume on October 1, affected agencies began to cease operations and furlough personnel that day. A 16-full-day shutdown ensued, the first to occur in over 17 years. Subsequently, two comparatively brief shutdowns occurred during FY2018, in January and February 2018, respectively."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brass, Clinton T.; Brudnick, Ida A.; Keegan, Natalie . . .
2018-12-10
-
Judicial Nomination Statistics and Analysis: U.S. District and Circuit Courts, 1977-2018 [March 21, 2019]
From the Document: "In recent decades, the process for appointing judges to the U.S. circuit courts of appeals and the U.S. district courts has been of continuing Senate interest. The President and the Senate share responsibility for making these appointments. Pursuant to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, the President nominates persons to fill federal judgeships, with the appointment of each nominee also requiring Senate confirmation. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is also played midway in the appointment process by the Senate Judiciary Committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2019-03-21
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During the Obama Presidency: Midyear Analysis and Comparison with Recent Presidents [June 30, 2014]
"The nomination and confirmation process for U.S. circuit and district court judges is of ongoing interest to Congress. Recent Senate debates over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in gaining Senate confirmation compared with other recent Presidents, as well as the pace of confirmation of his nominees compared to the nominees of other recent Presidents, and the relative prevalence of vacant judgeships compared to years past. This report addresses these issues by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships from January 20 of President Obama's first year in office to June 30 of his sixth year, and by comparing statistics during this period of the Obama presidency to statistics from comparable periods of time during the presidencies of his two most recent predecessors."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2014-06-30
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During President Obama's First Five Years: Comparative Analysis With Recent Presidents [January 24, 2014]
"The selection and confirmation process for U.S. circuit and district court judges is of continuing interest to Congress. […] Senate debates over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in gaining Senate confirmation compared with other […] Presidents, as well as the relative prevalence of vacant judgeships compared to years past, and the effect of delayed judicial appointments on judicial vacancy levels. This report addresses these issues, and others, by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the first five years of President Obama's time in office and that of his three [previous] two-term predecessors."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2014-01-24
-
U.S. Circuit Court Judges: Profile of Professional Experiences Prior to Appointment [May 9, 2014]
"This report provides an analysis of the professional qualifications and experiences of U.S. circuit court judges who are currently serving on the federal bench. Interest in the professional qualifications of those nominated to the federal judiciary has been demonstrated by Congress and others. Congressional interest in the professional experiences of those nominated by a President to the federal courts reflects, in part, the evaluative role of Congress in examining the qualifications of those who are nominated to life-tenure positions. Other organizations, such as the American Bar Association (ABA), also have an ongoing interest in the professional qualifications of those appointed to the federal judiciary. Additionally, scholars have demonstrated an interest in this topic by examining whether a relationship exists between the professional or career experiences of judges and judicial decision making. The analysis in this report focuses on the professional experiences of 163 active U.S. circuit court judges who were serving as of February 1, 2014. Active judges are those who have not taken senior status, retired, or resigned. Consequently, the statistics provided do not necessarily reflect all circuit court judges who are 'sitting' on the bench (which include judges who have assumed senior status)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2014-05-09
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: Senate Rejections and Committee Votes Other Than to Report Favorably, 1939-2013 [May 29, 2014]
"Once a nomination to a U.S. circuit court of appeals or district court judgeship is submitted to the Senate by the President, the Senate almost invariably refers it to the Senate Judiciary Committee. If the Judiciary Committee schedules a vote on a nominee, it usually will vote on a motion to report the nomination favorably. However, the committee could also vote on a motion to report without recommendation, to report unfavorably, or to table the nomination. If the committee votes to report--whether favorably, without recommendation, or unfavorably--the nomination moves to the full Senate. By contrast, the nomination remains in committee if the committee votes against reporting, if there is no committee vote on the nomination, or if the committee votes to table the nomination. Once a nomination is reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee, the nomination is listed on the Senate's Executive Calendar, with Senate consideration of the nomination scheduled by the majority leader. On rare occasions, the Senate, when voting on confirmation, has rejected a circuit or district court nomination. In such cases, the nomination is then returned to the President with a resolution of disapproval. […] This report lists the votes cast by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate on each of the 19 nominations and identifies senatorial courtesy, ideological disagreement, and concern over nominees' qualifications as among the circumstances that led to committee consideration of actions other than a favorable report (or other than approval by the full Senate)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2014-05-29
-
Recent Recommendations by the Judicial Conference for New U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships: Overview and Analysis [September 3, 2019]
From the Introduction: "Article III, Section I of the Constitution provides that the 'judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.' Consequently, Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary. For example, the size of the federal judiciary is determined, in part, by the number of U.S. circuit and district court judgeships authorized by Congress. Congress has, at numerous times over the years, authorized an increase in the number of such judgeships in order to meet the workload-based needs of the federal court system. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the national policymaking body of the federal courts, makes biennial recommendations to Congress to assist it in identifying any U.S. circuit and district courts that may be in need of additional judgeships. The most recent recommendations for new U.S. circuit and district court judgeships were released by the Judicial Conference in March 2019."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2019-09-03
-
U.S. District and Circuit Court Vacancies: Overview and Comparative Analysis [December 3, 2015]
In the context of this document 'Congressional Research Service' is abbreviated 'CRS'. "This Insight provides data related to U.S. circuit and district court vacancies that existed as of December 1 of President Obama's seventh year in office. It also provides historical data related to circuit and district court vacancies that existed on December 1 of each of President Obama's seven years in office, as well as a comparative analysis of vacancies on December 1 during each year of the presidencies of his two immediate predecessors, Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton. Vacancies typically arise when a judge voluntarily retires or resigns, but can also occur as a result of a judge dying while in office, being impeached and removed from office, or when new judgeships are authorized by Congress. Vacancies Existing on December 1 of President Obama's Seventh Year in Office U.S. District Courts As of December 1, 2015, there were 53 U.S. district court vacancies across 38 (or 42%) of the nation's 91 judicial districts (not including territorial courts). […] Of the 53 vacancies, 9 vacancies have a nominee pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 13 vacancies have a nominee pending on the Senate 'Executive Calendar', and 31 of the vacancies have not yet had a nominee submitted to the Senate. For background information and analysis on the roles of the President and of home state Senators in the selection of U.S. district court nominees, see CRS Report RL34405, 'Role of Home State Senators in the Selection of Lower Federal Court Judges'."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2015-12-03
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During President Obama's First Six Years (2009-2014): Comparative Analysis with Recent Presidents [March 9, 2015
From the report summary: "The selection and confirmation process for U.S. circuit and district court judges is of continuing interest to Congress. Recent Senate debates over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in gaining Senate confirmation compared with other recent Presidents, as well as the time from nomination to confirmation for nominees, and the relative prevalence of vacant judgeships compared to years past. This report addresses these issues, and others, by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the first six years of President Obama's time in office and that of his three most recent two-term predecessors, Presidents Reagan, Clinton and G.W. Bush."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2015-03-09
-
Final Senate Action on U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During a President's Eighth Year in Office [January 27, 2016]
From the Summary: "This report, in light of continued Senate interest in the judicial confirmation process during a President's final year in office, provides statistics related to Senate action on U.S. circuit and district court nominations during the eighth year of the George W. Bush, Clinton, and Reagan presidencies. The eighth year of a presidency is significant, in part, because it is the final opportunity for a President to appoint individuals as U.S. circuit and district court judges. Such judges have what effectively has come to mean life tenure, holding office 'during good Behaviour.' For the purposes of this report, final Senate action occurs either when the Senate confirms a nomination during a President's eighth year or when a nomination is returned to the President during his eighth year (and not resubmitted and ultimately approved by the Senate)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2016-01-27
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote [October 19, 2015]
"The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court is provided for in the U.S. Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' in the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' While the process of appointing Justices has undergone some changes over two centuries, its most essential feature--the sharing of power between the President and the Senate--has remained unchanged: To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, one must first be formally selected ('nominated') by the President and then approved ('confirmed') by the Senate. For the President, the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice can be a notable measure by which history will judge his Presidency. For the Senate, a decision to confirm is a solemn matter as well, for it is the Senate alone, through its 'Advice and Consent' function, without any formal involvement of the House of Representatives, which acts as a safeguard on the President's judgment."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2015-10-19
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee [October 19, 2015]
"To receive 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. Specifically, the Judiciary Committee, rather than the Senate as a whole, invariably assumes the principal responsibility for investigating the background and qualifications of each Supreme Court nominee, and typically the committee conducts a close, intensive investigation of each nominee. Since the late 1960s, the Judiciary Committee's consideration of a Supreme Court nominee almost always has consisted of three distinct stages--(1) a pre-hearing investigative stage, followed by (2) public hearings, and concluding with (3) a committee decision on what recommendation to make to the full Senate."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2015-10-19
-
Nominations to the Supreme Court During Presidential Election Years (1900-Present) [March 3, 2016]
"This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Insight provides data and analysis related to nominations made to the Supreme Court during presidential election years from 1900 to the present. As of this writing, there have been eight such nominations since 1900--six to fill actual vacancies that existed at the time a President submitted a nomination to the Senate and two for anticipated future vacancies on the Court (i.e., vacancies that did not exist at the time a President submitted a nomination to the Senate). An anticipated vacancy, for example, arises when a sitting Justice announces his or her intention to retire upon Senate approval of a new Justice. This Insight is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process. For longer analyses on the Supreme Court selection and confirmation process, see CRS Report R44235 (addressing the selection of nominees by a President), CRS Report R44236 (addressing the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee in processing nominations), and CRS Report R44234 (addressing Senate debate and final action on nominations). As of this writing, some Senators have called on the Senate to wait to fill the vacancy created by Antonin Scalia's death until after a new President is inaugurated, while other Senators have called on the Senate to confirm a nominee during President Obama's final year in office. As discussed in previous CRS analysis of prior nominations to the Supreme Court, multiple political and policy considerations will influence the length of time for Justice Scalia's successor to be confirmed by the Senate. Note that this Insight does not take a position as to when the Senate should confirm a nominee to the Scalia vacancy."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2016-03-03
-
Nominations to the Supreme Court During Presidential Election Years (1900-Present) [March 16, 2016]
"This CRS Insight provides data and analysis related to nominations made to the Supreme Court during presidential
election years from 1900 to the present. As of this writing, there have been eight such nominations since 1900-six to
fill actual vacancies that existed at the time a President submitted a nomination to the Senate and two for anticipated
future vacancies on the Court (i.e., vacancies that did not exist at the time a President submitted a nomination to the
Senate). An anticipated vacancy, for example, arises when a sitting Justice announces his or her intention to retire upon
Senate approval of a new Justice."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2016-03-16
-
Nominations to the Supreme Court During Years of Divided and Unified Party Government [March 16, 2016]
"This CRS Insight provides data and analysis related to nominations made to the Supreme Court during years of unified
and divided party government. Specifically, for the purposes of this Insight, 'unified party government' is defined as
when the party of the President is the same as the majority party in the Senate. Conversely, 'divided party government'
is defined as when the party of the President is different than the majority party in the Senate. Given that the House of
Representatives does not have a formal constitutional role in the selection and confirmation process for Supreme Court
Justices, it is not included in the analysis below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2016-03-16
-
Supreme Court Vacancies That Arose During One Presidency and Were Filled During a Different Presidency [April 5, 2016]
"This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Insight provides data and analysis related to Supreme Court vacancies since 1797 that arose during one presidency and were filled during a different presidency. As of this writing, Senate debate on the current vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016, has focused, in part, on whether to confirm a successor to Justice Scalia prior to a new President taking office on January 20, 2017. Note that this Insight does not take a position as to when the Senate might approve a new Justice for the Court. This Insight is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2016-04-05
-
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings for Supreme Court Nominations: Historical Overview and Data [April 13, 2016]
"After a President submits a Supreme Court nomination to the Senate, the Judiciary Committee assumes the principal responsibility for investigating the background and qualifications of each Supreme Court nominee. Since the late 1960s, the Judiciary Committee's consideration of a Supreme Court nomination typically has consisted of three distinct stages--(1) a pre-hearing investigative stage, followed by (2) public hearings, and concluding with (3) a committee decision as to whether to recommend approval of the nomination by the full Senate. This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Insight provides an historical overview of the second stage of this process--public hearings on nominations submitted to the Senate. As of this writing, Senate debate about Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court has focused, in part, on whether to hold committee hearings for the nomination. Note that this Insight does not take a position related to this ongoing debate."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2016-04-13
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee [April 1, 2016]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President's years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive what can amount to lifetime appointments which, by constitutional design, helps ensure the Court's independence from the President and Congress. The procedure for appointing a 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 Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged: To receive appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Political considerations typically play an important role in Supreme Court appointments. It is often assumed, for example, that Presidents will be inclined to select a nominee whose political or ideological views appear compatible with their own. The political nature of the appointment process becomes especially apparent when a President submits a nominee with controversial views, there are sharp partisan or ideological differences between the President and the Senate, or the outcome of important constitutional issues before the Court is seen to be at stake."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2016-04-01
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee [October 19, 2015]
"The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court is provided for in the U.S. Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' in the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' While the process of appointing Justices has undergone some changes over two centuries, its most essential feature--the sharing of power between the President and the Senate--has remained unchanged: To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, one must first be formally selected ('nominated') by the President and then approved ('confirmed') by the Senate. For the President, the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice can be a notable measure by which history will judge his Presidency. For the Senate, a decision to confirm is a solemn matter as well, for it is the Senate alone, through its 'Advice and Consent' function, without any formal involvement of the House of Representatives, which acts as a safeguard on the President's judgment. "
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2015-10-19
-
President Obama's First-Term U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: An Analysis and Comparison with Presidents Since Reagan [May 2, 2013]
"The process by which lower federal court judges are nominated by the President and considered by the Senate is of continuing interest to Congress. Recent Senate debates in Congress over judicial nominations have focused on issues such as the relative degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in gaining Senate confirmation (compared with other recent Presidents) as well as the number and percentage of vacant judgeships in the federal judiciary and the effect of delayed judicial appointments on judicial vacancy levels. This report addresses these issues, and others, by providing a statistical analysis of nominations to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the first terms of President Obama and his four most recent predecessors."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2013-05-02
-
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings for a Supreme Court Nominee: Overview [July 12, 2018]
"On July 9, 2018, President Trump announced his selection of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the impending vacancy that will be created on the U.S. Supreme Court by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy on July 31, 2018. Supreme Court nominations since 1949 have routinely received public confirmation hearings before either the Senate Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee. In 1955, hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of John M. Harlan marked the beginning of a practice, continuing to the present, of Court nominees testifying in-person before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Since 1955, however, there have been 2 nominees (out of a total of 31) who did not receive hearings after being nominated to the Court. In one instance, the nomination of Harriet Miers was withdrawn by President George W. Bush after committee hearings had been scheduled, and in another instance, the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland by President Obama was not given hearings following decisions by Majority Leader McConnell and Senator Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not to have the Senate act on the nomination"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-07-12
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee [June 27, 2018]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President's years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive what can amount to lifetime appointments which, by constitutional design, helps ensure the Court's independence from the President and Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-06-27
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote [September 7, 2018]
"The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged. To receive an appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. This report provides information and analyses related to the debate and consideration of Supreme Court nominations by the full Senate once nominations are reported by the Judiciary Committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-09-07
-
Senate Confirmation Votes on U.S. Supreme Court Nominations: Overview [September 13, 2018]
"After the Senate Judiciary Committee reports a Supreme Court nomination, it is placed on the Senate Executive Calendar (to be considered in executive session). Senate consideration of a Supreme Court nomination includes floor debate on the nomination, as well as a final vote by the Senate on whether to approve it. When floor debate on a nomination ends, the presiding officer puts the question of confirmation to a vote. A roll call vote to confirm requires a simple majority of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present. Since 1967, beginning with the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, every Senate vote on whether to confirm a Supreme Court nomination has been by roll call (prior to 1967, most confirmation votes were by voice vote)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-09-13
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee [August 14, 2018]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. To receive 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. Specifically, the Judiciary Committee, rather than the Senate as a whole, assumes the principal responsibility for investigating the background and qualifications of each Supreme Court nominee, and typically the committee conducts a close, intensive investigation of each nominee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-08-14
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During President Trump's First Year in Office: Comparative Analysis with Recent Presidents [May 2, 2018]
"'This report, in light of continued Senate interest in the judicial confirmation process during a President's first year in office, provides statistics related to the nomination and confirmation of U.S. circuit and district court nominees during the first year of the Trump presidency (as well as during the first year of each of his three immediate predecessors--Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton).' [..] The information is described in detail in Figures 1-6 and Tables 1-6."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-05-02
-
President's Selection of a Nominee for a Supreme Court Vacancy: Overview [June 27, 2018]
"On June 27, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, after serving on the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice since 1988, announced his intention to retire from the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy indicated that his retirement would be effective July 31, 2018. This Insight provides an overview of several issues related to the selection of a nominee by a President for a vacancy on the Court. For additional information and analyses on these and other issues, see CRS Report R44235, Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-06-27
-
Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2017: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President [July 6, 2018]
"The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. An important role also has come to be played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Supreme Court appointments without the Senate's consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such 'recess appointments,' however, were temporary, with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate's next session. The last recess appointments to the Court were made in the 1950s."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.; Rutkus, Denis Steven
2018-07-06
