For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL33225 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ¢ ¢ ¢ Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress ¢ The process of appointing Supreme Court Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature, the sharing of power between the President and Senate, has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. A key role also has come to be played midway in the process by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Table 1 of this report lists and describes actions taken by the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the President on all Supreme Court nominations, from 1789 to the present. The table provides the name of each person nominated to the Court and the name of the President making the nomination. It also tracks the dates of formal actions taken, and time elapsing between these actions, by the Senate or Senate Judiciary Committee on each nomination, starting with the date that the Senate received the nomination from the President. Thirty-nine of the 42 Presidents in the history of the United States have made a total of 158 nominations to the Supreme Court, of which 122 (more than three-quarters) received Senate confirmation. Also, on 12 occasions in the nation's history, Presidents have made temporary recess appointments to the Court, without submitting nominations to the Senate. Of the 36 unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the President, and 14 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. A total of 115 of the 158 nominations were referred to a Senate committee, with 114 of them to the Judiciary Committee (including almost all nominations since 1868). Prior to 1916, the Judiciary Committee considered these nominations behind closed doors. Since 1946, however, almost all nominees have received public confirmation hearings. Most recent hearings have lasted four or more days. In recent decades, from the late 1960s to the present, the Judiciary Committee has tended to take more time before starting hearings and casting final votes on Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. The median time taken for the full Senate to take final action on Supreme Court nominations also has increased in recent decades, dwarfing the median time taken on earlier nominations. For another perspective on Supreme Court nominations, focusing, among other things, on when the Senate first became aware of each President's nominee selections (e.g., via public announcements of the President), see CRS Report RL33118, Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2006, by R. Sam Garrett, Denis Steven Rutkus, and Curtis W. Copeland. For an examination of floor procedures used by the full Senate in considering Supreme Court nominations, see CRS Report RL33247, Supreme Court Nominations: Senate Floor Procedure and Practice, 1789-2006, by Richard S. Beth and Betsy Palmer. This report will be updated upon the next occasion for a Court appointment. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 Description of Report's Contents .............................................................................................. 1 Findings from the Nominations Table....................................................................................... 3 Number of Nominations and Nominees.............................................................................. 3 Presidents Who Made the Nominations.............................................................................. 3 Date That Nominations Were Received in Senate .............................................................. 4 Referral of Nominations to Senate Judiciary Committee ................................................... 4 Nominations That Received Public Confirmation Hearings............................................... 5 Nominations Reported Out of Committee to Full Senate ................................................... 8 Nominations Not Reported Out of Committee ................................................................... 9 Final Action by the Senate or the President ...................................................................... 10 Days from Date of Senate Receipt of Nomination to First Hearing ..................................11 Days from Senate Receipt to Final Committee Vote......................................................... 12 Days from Senate Receipt to Final Senate or Presidential Action .................................... 13 Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court..................................................................... 15 Concluding Observations ........................................................................................................ 15 Table 1. Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-2006.............................. 17 Table 2. Senate Votes on Whether to Confirm Supreme Court Nominations: Number Made by Voice Vote/Unanimous Consent (UC) or by Roll-Call Vote........................................ 41 Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 41 The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The "Appointments Clause" (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court." The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. An important role also has come to be played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Supreme Court appointments without the Senate's consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such "recess appointments," however, were temporary, with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate's next session. The last recess appointments to the Court were made in the 1950s. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice might or might not proceed smoothly. From the first appointments in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 122 out of 158 Court nominations. Of the 36 unsuccessful nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by the President, or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate. This report lists and describes actions taken by the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the President on all Supreme Court nominations, from 1789 to the present. The listing appears in a Supreme Court nominations table, Table 1, later in this report. Preceding the table is summary text, which highlights certain nominations statistics derived from the table. The text also provides historical background information on the Supreme Court appointment process and uses nominations statistics from the table to shed light on ways in which the appointment process has evolved over time. Many of the statistical findings discussed, for example, provide historical perspective on the emergence, and then increased involvement, of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the appointment process. Specifically, the table lists, for each Supreme Court nomination, the following: · name of the person nominated (the nominee); · name of the President who made the nomination; · date the nomination was made by the President and received in the Senate;1 · date(s) of any committee hearings held on the nomination that were open to the public; 1 Usually the date on which the President formally makes a nomination, by signing a nomination message, is the same as the date on which the nomination is received in the Senate. In Table 1, these two dates are the same for any given nomination when only one date is shown in the "Date received in Senate" column. However, for the occasional nomination made by a President on a date prior to the nomination's receipt by the Senate, the earlier presidential nomination date is distinguished, in parentheses, from the date when the nomination was received by the Senate. · type and date of final committee action; and · type and date of final action by the Senate or, in rarer instances, by the President (when the final action taken on a nomination was its withdrawal by the President). Table 1 also shows the speed with which action was taken on each nomination, specifically presenting the number of days that elapsed from the date the nomination was formally received in the Senate until the following: · the first day of public confirmation hearings (if any); · the date of final committee action (if any); and · the date of final Senate action or presidential withdrawal of the nomination. The table also lists all recess appointments to the Supreme Court, as well as the later nomination of each recess appointee. Table 1, it should be emphasized, tracks the dates of formal actions taken by the President, the Senate, and the Senate Judiciary Committee on each Supreme Court nomination. The table, for example, records the dates that nominations were actually made and transmitted by the President to the Senate. The table, however, does not track the dates on which Presidents announced the intention to nominate someone to be a Justice or on which the Senate informally first became aware of each President's nominee selections. A discussion focusing more closely on such informal steps in the Supreme Court appointment process can be found in CRS Report RL33118, Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2006. Actions by the full Senate tracked systematically in Table 1 are those on which the Senate took final action (ordinarily in the form of confirmation, and less often in the form of rejecting, tabling, or postponing action on a nomination). For certain Supreme Court nominations, Table 1 also provides dates of procedural actions taken on the Senate floor, prior to or after final Senate action, in order to put the final action in fuller context. The table, however, does not account for all Senate procedural actions on, or for all dates of Senate floor consideration of, Supreme Court nominations. For more comprehensive information on procedural actions taken by the full Senate on past Supreme Court nominations, see CRS Report RL33247, Supreme Court Nominations: Senate Floor Procedure and Practice, 1789-2006. In listing all persons ever nominated to the Supreme Court, Table 1 includes the names of those who were not confirmed as well as those who were confirmed but did not assume their appointive office.2 A list solely of the 110 individuals who assumed office and served on the Court (with judicial oath dates and service termination dates for each Justice) is available on the Court's website.3 2 Table 1 identifies eight Supreme Court nominees who subsequent to Senate confirmation did not assume the office to which they had been appointed: Seven declined the office, and one died before assuming it. It should be noted, however, that one of the seven who declined the office, William Cushing--confirmed to be Chief Justice in 1796--was at the time serving on the Court as an Associate Justice, and continued to serve in that capacity until 1810. Another of the seven, John Jay--confirmed to be Chief Justice in 1800--had served earlier on the Court, as the Court's first Chief Justice, from 1789 to 1795. 3 The list, available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/members.pdf, presents first the names of 17 persons who have served as Chief Justice, followed by the 98 persons who have served as Associate Justices. The listing of 115 (continued...) Table 1 lists all 158 Supreme Court nominations since 1789. Each of the 158 nominations entailed a President signing a nomination message, which was then transmitted to, and received by, the Senate. A lesser number of separate individuals, 139, were actually nominated to the Court, with some of them nominated more than once.4 Of the 158 total nominations to the Court, 22 were to the position of Chief Justice and the other 136 to a position as Associate Justice. The 22 Chief Justice nominations involved 20 persons nominated once, and one person nominated twice.5 The 136 Associate Justice nominations involved 119 persons nominated once, seven persons nominated twice, and one person nominated three times. Thirty-nine of the 42 Presidents in the history of the United States have made nominations to the Supreme Court.6 These 39 are listed in the second column of Table 1. All but one of the 39 Presidents succeeded in having at least one Supreme Court nomination receive Senate confirmation. The one exception was President Andrew Johnson, whose only Court nomination, of Henry Stanbery in 1866, was thwarted when the Senate enacted legislation eliminating the Associate Justice position to which Stanbery had been nominated.7 (...continued) names in all (17 + 98) includes those of five Chief Justices who earlier had served as Associate Justices, hence reducing to 110 the total number of persons who have served as members of the Court. 4 Specifically, eight persons were nominated twice to the same Court position (seven to be Associate Justice, one to be Chief Justice); one person was nominated three times to be Associate Justice; and nine persons were nominated first to be Associate Justice and later to be Chief Justice. The sum of 19 (the number of Court nominations that were not a person's first nomination to the Court) and 139 (the number of persons nominated to the Court at least once) is 158 (total Supreme Court nominations). 5 The nation's first Chief Justice, John Jay, was nominated to that position twice. Jay was first nominated, and confirmed, in September 1789. He resigned as Chief Justice in 1795 to serve as governor of New York. In December 1800, Jay was nominated and confirmed a second time as Chief Justice, but declined the appointment. For analysis of the process by which a Chief Justice is appointed, accompanied by a list of all Chief Justice nominations from 1789 to the present (including the nomination, confirmation, judicial oath, and end-of-service dates of Chief Justice nominees, as well as their ages at time of appointment and upon termination of service), see 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. 6 The three Presidents not to have made any Supreme Court nominations were William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and Jimmy Carter, with no Court vacancies having occurred while they were in office. See "Table 3. Supreme Court Nominations, by President, 1789 to October 2005," in CRS Report RL31171, Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007, by Henry B. Hogue, which lists the number of vacancies on the Court that existed during each presidency, from George Washington to George W. Bush. While it is unremarkable that no vacancies occurred during the short-lived presidencies of Harrison (Mar. 4 to Apr. 4, 1841) and Taylor (Mar. 5, 1849 to July 9, 1850), Jimmy Carter's presidency (Jan. 20, 1977 to Jan. 20, 1981) is remarkable as the only one lasting a full term during which no Supreme Court vacancies occurred. 7 See Myron Jacobstein and Roy M. Mersky, The Rejected (Milpitas, CA: Toucan Valley Publications, 1993), pp. 69- 74. (Hereafter cited as Jacobstein and Mersky, The Rejected.) As Table 1 shows, the number of nominations made to the Supreme Court has varied greatly from President to President. For any given President, the number of nominations will be affected by various factors, including the length of time the President was in office, the number of vacancies occurring on the Court during that presidency, and whether more than one nomination was required to fill a Court vacancy due to a previous nomination's failure to be confirmed. Examination of the nominations to the Court for each President reveals that half of the 42 Presidents made four or more nominations, and half made three or fewer. Half of the 42 Presidents saw three or more of their Court nominations confirmed, and half saw two or fewer confirmed. The President with the most Supreme Court nominations and confirmations was George Washington with 14 nominations, 12 of which were confirmed. The two Presidents with the second-largest number of Court nominations were John Tyler and Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nine each. Only one of Tyler's nine nominations, however, received Senate confirmation, while all nine of FDR's were confirmed. The President with the largest number of Supreme Court confirmations in one term (apart from the first eight of George Washington's nominations--all in his first term, and all confirmed) was William Howard Taft, who, during his four years in office, made six Court nominations, all of which were confirmed. Six Presidents made only one Supreme Court nomination each, with the nominations of five of these Presidents receiving confirmation.8 And, as noted above, three of the nation's 42 Presidents were unable to make a single nomination to the Court, because no vacancies occurred on the Court during their presidencies. The Supreme Court appointment process officially begins when the President signs a message to the Senate nominating someone for appointment to the Court. Usually on the date of the signing, the message is delivered to the Senate and recorded in the Senate Executive Journal as having been received that day.9 However, in 30 instances (all but two prior to the 20th century), Supreme Court messages were recorded in the Senate Executive Journal as received in the Senate on a day after they were signed by the President--usually the next day. In Table 1, in the "Date received in Senate" column, a second date is provided in parentheses (as the "Nom. date"), whenever a President made a nomination on a day prior to its receipt by the Senate. ¢ Although referral of Supreme Court nominations to the Senate Judiciary Committee is now standard practice, such referrals were not always the case. Table 1 shows that 115 of 158 8 The five Presidents whose single Supreme Court nominations received Senate confirmation were Franklin Pierce, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Calvin Coolidge, and Gerald R. Ford. As mentioned above, the one President whose single Court nomination did not receive confirmation was Andrew Johnson. 9 A President may announce the selection of a nominee well before transmitting a nomination message to the Senate. For instance, President George W. Bush announced his selection of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to be a Supreme Court nominee on Oct. 31, 2005, but formally signed and transmitted the nomination of Alito to the Senate on Nov. 10, 2005. For a complete list, from 1900 to 2006, of the dates on which Presidents announced their Supreme Court nominees (as distinguished from when they signed and transmitted nomination documents to the Senate), see CRS Report RL33118, Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2006, by R. Sam Garrett, Denis Steven Rutkus, and Curtis W. Copeland. Supreme Court nominations have been referred to a Senate committee, 114 of them to the Judiciary Committee. The first standing legislative committees of the Senate, including the Judiciary Committee, were created in 1816. Only once previously was a Supreme Court nomination referred to committee, when, in 1811, the Senate referred the nomination of Alexander Wolcott to a select committee of three Members. For roughly half a century afer the Judiciary Committee's creation, nominations, rather than being automatically referred to the committee, were referred by motion only. From 1816 to 1868, more than two-thirds of the nominations (26 out of 38 nominations), were referred to the committee. During this period, the confirmation success rate was roughly the same for nominations referred, 15 of 26, as it was for those not referred, seven out of 12. In 1868, Senate rules were changed to provide that all nominations be referred to appropriate standing committees, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.10 Subsequently, from 1868 to the present day, 87 of 94 Supreme Court nominations have been referred to the Judiciary Committee. The seven not referred to committee were persons who, at the time of their nomination, were a former President, a Senator, a former Senator, an Attorney General and former U.S. Representative, or a former Secretary of War,11 and all were easily confirmed. The last Supreme Court nomination not referred to the Judiciary Committee was that of Senator James F. Byrnes in 1941. The Senate by unanimous consent considered and confirmed the Byrnes nomination, without referral to committee, on the day it received the nomination from the President. Table 1, in the "Public hearing date(s)" column, lists dates on which the full Judiciary Committee, or a Judiciary subcommittee, held public confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominations. Included in this listing are public sessions of the committee at which either Supreme Court nominees testified on their own behalf and/or outside witnesses testified for or against the nominees. Before 1916, the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court nominations behind closed doors. Thus, until that year, there are no entries in the "Public hearing date(s)" column. Rather, committee sessions on Court nominations typically were limited to committee members discussing and voting on a nominee in executive session, without hearing testimony from outside 10 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, History of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 1816-1981. Sen. Doc. No. 97-18, 97th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. iv; also, U.S. Senate, History of the Committee on Rules and Administration--United States Senate, prepared by Floyd M. Riddick, Parliamentarian Emeritus of the Senate, 96th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. No. 96-27 (Washington: GPO, 1980). Riddick provides, on pp. 21-28, the full text of the general revision of the Senate rules, adopted in 1868, including, on p. 26, the following rule: "When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States to the Senate, they shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, be referred to appropriate committees .... " 11 The nominations from 1868 to the present not referred to the Judiciary Committee were those of: Edwin M. Stanton in 1869 (at time of nomination, former Secretary of War); Edward D. White in 1894 (Senator); Joseph M. McKenna in 1897 (Attorney General, and former U.S. Representative); Edward D. White again, in 1910, this time to be Chief Justice (Associate Justice at time of nomination, and former Senator); William Howard Taft in 1921 (former President); George Sutherland in 1922 (former Senator); and James F. Byrnes in 1941 (Senator). witnesses.12 In 1916, for the first time, the committee held open confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nomination--that of Louis D. Brandeis to be an Associate Justice--at which outside witnesses (but not the nominee) testified. More days of public hearings (19) were held on the Brandeis nomination than on any Supreme Court nomination since. The Brandeis hearings, however, did not set immediately into place a new policy of open confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominations, since each of the next six nominations (during the years 1916 to 1923) was either considered directly by the Senate, without referral to the Judiciary Committee, or was acted on by the committee without the holding of confirmation hearings. From 1925 to 1946, public confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominations became the more common, if not invariable, practice of the Judiciary Committee. In 1925, Harlan F. Stone became the first Supreme Court nominee to appear in person and testify at his confirmation hearings.13 During the next two decades, the Stone nomination was one of 11 Court nominations that received public confirmation hearings before either the full Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee,14 while five other nominations did not receive public hearings. One of the five nominees not receiving a public confirmation hearing was Senator James F. Byrnes, whose nomination in 1941, as noted earlier, was considered directly by the Senate without referral to the Judiciary Committee.15 Not indicated in the "Public hearing date(s)"column is the precise length (in minutes or hours) of each public hearing session. The hearing sessions for a few Supreme Court nominations during 12 At least once in the 19th century, however, in 1873, the Judiciary Committee did hear witnesses testify concerning a Supreme Court nomination--that of George H. Williams to be Chief Justice--but these two days of hearings, on Dec. 16 and 17, 1873, were held in closed session. The closed-door sessions were held to examine documents and hear testimony from witnesses relevant to a controversy that arose over the Williams nomination only after the committee had reported the nomination to the Senate. The controversy prompted the Senate to recommit the nomination to the Judiciary Committee and to authorize the committee "to send for persons and papers." U.S. Congress, Senate, Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America, vol. 19 (Washington: GPO, 1901), p. 189. After holding the two closed-door sessions on Dec. 16 and 17, the committee did not re-report the nomination to the Senate. Amid press reports of significant opposition to the nomination both in the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole, the nomination, at Williams's request, was withdrawn by President Ulysses S. Grant on Jan. 8, 1874. See Jacobstein and Mersky, The Rejected, pp. 82-87. 13 For a discussion of the advent of Supreme Court nominee appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, starting with Harlan F. Stone in 1925 (and carrying through the nominations of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in 1968), see, James A. Thorpe, "The Appearance of Supreme Court Nominees Before the Senate Judiciary Committee," Journal of Public Law, vol. 18, 1969, pp. 371-402. 14 A scholar examining the procedures followed by the committee in its consideration of 15 Supreme Court nominations referred to it between 1923 and 1946 found that, with two exceptions--the nominations of Charles Evans Hughes in 1930 and Harold H. Burton to be Associate Justices in 1945--all of the nominations were first "processed by a subcommittee prior to consideration by the full committee membership." David Gregg Farrelly, "Operational Aspects of the Senate Judiciary Committee," (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University: 1949), pp. 184-185. (Hereafter cited as Farrelly, "Operational Aspects.") 15 The four other nominations not receiving public confirmation hearings even though referred to the Judiciary Committee were of former New York governor and former Supreme Court Associate Justice Charles Evans Hughes in 1930, former federal prosecutor Owen J. Roberts in 1930, Senator Hugo L. Black in 1937, and Senator Harold H. Burton in 1945. Farrelly, in "Operational Aspects," also lists the Supreme Court nomination of former Michigan governor Frank Murphy in 1940 as one not receiving a confirmation hearing. Farrelly notes, at pp. 191-192, that the Senate Judiciary subcommittee which first processed the nomination "voted against public hearings." That vote notwithstanding, the nominee voluntarily appeared before the subcommittee on Jan. 11, 1940, in a public session at which four Senators "all questioned Mr. Murphy about his views of the Constitution and the duties of a Supreme Court Justice." "Senate Body Backs Murphy for Court," New York Times, Jan. 12, 1940, p. 1. Based on this and other similar newspaper accounts of the subcommittee session, Jan. 11, 1940 is listed below, in Table 1 as a public hearing date for the Murphy nomination. the 1925 to 1946 period lasted for hours, extending over several days;16 others, however, were brief and perfunctory in nature, held only long enough to accommodate the small number of witnesses who wished to testify against a nominee.17 From Tom C. Clark's appointment in 1949 through the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. in 2005-2006, all but three of 34 Supreme Court nominations have received public confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee.18 The first of the three exceptions involved the 1954 nomination of John M. Harlan II, made less than a month before the final adjournment of a Congress. At the beginning of the next Congress, however, Harlan was re-nominated, and hearings were held on that nomination.19 The second and third exceptions involved the Associate Justice nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Harriet E. Miers in 2005, both of which were withdrawn by the President before the scheduled start of confirmation hearings. ¢ The number of days given to public confirmation hearings has varied greatly from one Supreme Court nomination to another, particularly in recent decades. Following the 19 days of hearings held on the Brandeis nomination in 1916, Court nominations through the Associate Justice nomination of Abe Fortas in 1965 typically received either one or two days of hearings. However, from 1967 through January 2006, 15 of the 21 Court nominations which advanced through the hearings stage received four or more days of open confirmation hearings. Four of the 15 nominations received 11 or more days of hearings,20 while another received eight days of hearings.21 By contrast, only three of the 21 nominations received two or fewer days of hearings.22 16 See, in Table 1, the multiple hearing days for the nominations of Felix Frankfurter in 1939 and Robert H. Jackson in 1941. 17 For example, a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the 1932 nomination of Benjamin N. Cardozo lasted only five minutes, during which one witness testified in opposition. Likewise, when the Judiciary Committee extended open invitations for witnesses to testify in opposition at the confirmation hearings for Stanley F. Reed in 1938, William O. Douglas in 1939, Harlan F. Stone (for Chief Justice) in 1941, Wiley B. Rutledge in 1943, and Fred M.Vinson (for Chief Justice) in 1946, no witnesses appeared to protest against Douglas or Stone, and "only one or two persons filed protests in each case against Reed, Vinson and Rutledge." Farrelly, "Operational Aspects," pp. 194-195. 18 The last Supreme Court nomination on which a Senate Judiciary subcommittee held hearings was the 1954 nomination of Earl Warren to be Chief Justice. The subcommittee held public hearings on the nomination on Feb. 2 and 19, 1954, after which the full committee, on Feb. 24, 1954, voted to report the nomination favorably. All subsequent hearings on Supreme Court nominations were held by the full Judiciary Committee. 19 The Judiciary Committee held two days of confirmation hearings on the second Harlan nomination, on Feb. 24 and 25, 1955. The Feb. 24 session, held in closed session, heard the testimony of nine witnesses (seven in favor of confirmation, and two opposed). Luther A. Huston, "Harlan Hearing Held by Senators," New York Times, Feb. 25, 1955, p. 8. The committee also began the Feb. 25 hearing in closed session, to hear the testimony of additional witnesses. However, for Judge Harlan, who was the last scheduled witness, the committee "voted to open the hearing to newspaper reporters for his testimony." Luther A. Huston, "Harlan Disavows `One World' Aims in Senate Inquiry," New York Times, Feb. 26, 1955, p. 1. 20 These were the nominations of Robert H. Bork in 1987 (12 hearing days), Clarence Thomas in 1991 (11 days), and Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in 1968 (11 days for their joint hearings). 21 In 1969, eight days of confirmation hearings were held on the nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth. 22 One day of hearings each was held on the nominations of Warren E. Burger (to be Chief Justice) in 1969 and Harry A. Blackmun in 1970, while two days of hearings were held on the nomination of Antonin Scalia in 1986. Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary Committee have almost always been reported to the Senate. If a majority of its members oppose confirmation, the Judiciary Committee technically may decide not to report a Supreme Court nomination. (This tactic would prevent the full Senate from considering the nominee, unless the Senate were able to undertake successfully the discharge of the committee.) Table 1, however, shows that the committee has almost never employed the strategy of not reporting. Of the 114 Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary Committee, 106 were reported to the Senate.23 The committee has reported these nominations in the following four ways. For most of the first five decades in which the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court nominations (1828 to 1863), its usual practice was simply to report these nominations to the Senate, without any official indication of the committee members' opinions regarding them. Twenty-three nominations were reported to the Senate in this way, and 15 of them were confirmed. In 1870, the Judiciary Committee initiated the practice of reporting to the Senate an explicit recommendation in favor of confirmation whenever a majority of members supported a Supreme Court nominee. Over the course of almost a century and a half, the committee has favorably reported 72 Supreme Court nominations, with 66 receiving Senate confirmation.24 On four occasions--three times in the late 19th century and once in the late 20th century--the Judiciary Committee has voted to report a Supreme Court nomination while explicitly stating it was not making a recommendation to the Senate. On each occasion, the committee reported a nomination without urging the Senate either to confirm or to reject.25 The Senate confirmed three of the nominations that were reported in this way, while rejecting the fourth.26 23 As noted earlier, only once prior to the establishment of the Judiciary Committee in 1816 was a Supreme Court nomination referred to committee, and that nomination was reported to the Senate as well. See in Table 1 the nomination in 1811 of Alexander Wolcott, which was considered by a select committee and then reported to the Senate, where it was rejected by a 9-24 vote. 24 The six favorably reported nominations which failed to receive Senate confirmation involved these nominees: George H. Williams, for Chief Justice, in 1873 (nomination withdrawn); Caleb Cushing, in 1874 (nomination withdrawn); Pierce Butler in 1922 (no action taken by Senate); Abe Fortas, for Chief Justice, in 1968 (nomination withdrawn); Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. in 1969 (rejected by Senate); and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970 (rejected by Senate). Butler, it should be noted, was re-nominated and confirmed. 25 A report that states it is not accompanied by a recommendation can be a way to alert the Senate that a substantial number of committee members have some reservations about the nominee which, however, do not rise, at that point, to the level of opposition; it might also be a way to bridge or downplay differences between committee members who favor confirmation and other members who oppose it. The latter, for example, was said to be the purpose for the Judiciary Committee in 1888 reporting the Chief Justice nomination of Melville W. Fuller without recommendation; the action was described in a news account as a "compromise between the Democratic minority who desired a report to the Senate in favor of confirmation, and the Republican majority, who desired to defeat the nomination .... " "Mr. (continued...) On seven occasions--five times in the 19th century and twice in the 20th century--the Judiciary Committee voted to report a Supreme Court nomination with a recommendation to the Senate that it reject the nomination. Only two of the seven nominations received Senate confirmation (and each only by a close roll call vote);27 the Senate rejected four of the others28 and postponed taking action on the fifth.29 Of the 114 Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary Committee since its establishment, eight were not reported by the committee to the Senate. The final outcome for all eight nominees, however, was determined not by the failure of their nominations to be reported out of committee, but by action, or lack of action, taken outside the committee--by the Senate, Congress as a whole, or the President. While five of the nominees were never confirmed to the Court,30 the other three ultimately were, after being re-nominated.31 (...continued) Fuller's Nomination," Washington Post, July 3, 1888, p. 1. 26 The three nominees confirmed by the Senate after the Judiciary Committee explicitly reported their nominations without recommendation were: Melville W. Fuller, for Chief Justice, in 1888; George Shiras Jr. in 1892; and Clarence Thomas in 1991. A fourth nomination reported without recommendation, Wheeler H. Peckham, in 1894, was rejected by the Senate. 27 See in Table 1 the second nomination of Stanley Matthews in 1881 (confirmed 24-23) and the nomination of Lucius Q. C. Lamar in 1888 (confirmed 32-28). 28 The nominations reported unfavorably and then rejected by the Senate involved these nominees: Ebenezer R. Hoar in 1869 (rejected 24-33); William B. Hornblower in 1894 (rejected 24-30); John J. Parker in 1930 (rejected 39-41); and Robert H. Bork in 1987 (rejected 42-58). 29 The Senate in 1829 postponed taking action on the nomination of John Crittenden after receiving an adverse report on the nomination from the Judiciary Committee. 30 In 1853, the nomination of William C. Micou was referred to the Judiciary Committee and on the same day ordered discharged by the Senate, where no action was taken. In 1866, the nomination of Henry Stanbery was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but shortly afterwards, while the nomination was pending in the Senate, the Associate Justice position to which Stanbery had been nominated was eliminated by statute. In 1893, the nomination of William B. Hornblower was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but not reported; later that year, in a new session of Congress, Hornblower was re-nominated, reported unfavorably by the Judiciary Committee (in early 1894), and rejected by the Senate, 24-30. In 1968, the Judiciary Committee declined to report the nomination of Homer Thornberry to succeed Associate Justice Abe Fortas until the final outcome of the nomination of Fortas to be Chief Justice was determined. The Thornberry and Fortas nominations were both withdrawn by the President after a motion to close debate on the Fortas nomination failed to pass in the Senate. (The failure of Fortas's Chief Justice nomination eliminated the prospective Associate Justice vacancy that Thornberry had been nominated to fill.) In 2005, the nomination of Harriet E. Miers was withdrawn by the President before the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the nomination. 31 In February 1881, just before the final adjournment of the 46th Congress, the Judiciary Committee voted to postpone taking action on the Supreme Court nomination of Stanley Matthews; shortly afterwards, however, in a special session of the 47th Congress, Matthews was re-nominated, and, although his second nomination was reported unfavorably by the Judiciary Committee, it was confirmed by the Senate, 24-23. In Nov. 1954, late in the 83rd Congress, the nomination of John M. Harlan II was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where no action was taken; in 1955, Harlan was re-nominated, considered and reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, and confirmed by the Senate. In Sept. 2005, before the scheduled start of confirmation hearings, the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to be Associate Justice was withdrawn and, on the same day of the withdrawal, Roberts was re-nominated for Chief Justice; the second Roberts nomination was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and confirmed by the Senate. ¢ From the first Supreme Court appointments in 1789 to the present day, Presidents have made 158 nominations to the Court. Table 1 shows, in the "Final action by Senate or President" column, that the Senate confirmed 122 of these nominations, or roughly three-fourths.32 Of the 36 nominations that were not confirmed, 11 were rejected by the Senate (all in roll-call votes),33 11 were withdrawn by the President,34 and 14 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress without a Senate vote cast on whether to confirm.35 While the invariable practice of the Senate in recent decades has been to vote on Supreme Court nominations by roll call, this historically was usually not the case. Table 2, at the end of this report, shows that of the 133 Senate votes on whether to confirm (resulting in 122 confirmations and 11 rejections), 60 decisions were reached by roll-call votes, and the other 73 by voice vote or unanimous consent. Initially, for some 40 years, the Senate rarely used roll-call votes to decide Supreme Court nominations. Starting in the 1830s, however, and continuing through the 1880s, the Senate used roll-call votes on Supreme Court nominations somewhat more often than unrecorded votes. The trend reversed between 1890 and 1965, when fewer than one-third of Senate decisions on confirming Court nominations were by roll-call vote. Since 1967, though, every Senate vote on whether to confirm a Supreme Court nomination has been by roll call. Table 2 shows these trends within the four historical periods just noted, by breaking down the number of Senate decisions on confirmation within each period according to whether made by voice vote or unanimous consent 32 The exact confirmation percentage is 77.2%, reached by dividing 122 confirmations by 158 nominations. 33 The earliest Senate rejection of a Supreme Court nomination occurred in 1795, when President George Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice failed on a 10-14 vote. The latest instance was the Senate's rejection of Robert H. Bork in 1987, by a 42-58 vote. Between Rutledge and Bork, the following nominations were also rejected: Alexander Wolcott in 1811, John C. Spencer in 1844, George W. Woodward in 1846, Ebenezer R. Hoar in 1870, William B. Hornblower in 1894, Wheeler H. Peckham in 1894, John J. Parker in 1930, Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. in 1969, and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970. 34 The following Supreme Court nominations were withdrawn, in the years indicated, with the Presidents who withdrew them shown in parentheses: The first nomination of William Paterson, in 1793 (George Washington); the first nomination of Reuben H. Walworth, in 1844 (John Tyler); the second nomination of John C. Spencer, in 1844 (John Tyler); the third nomination of Reuben H. Walworth, in 1845 (John Tyler); the second nomination of Edward King, in 1845 (John Tyler); George H. Williams and Caleb Cushing, both in 1874 (Ulysses S. Grant); Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry, both in 1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson); John G. Roberts Jr. and Harrier E. Miers, both in 2005 (George W. Bush). Less than a week after his first nomination was withdrawn, Paterson was re-nominated by President Washington and confirmed by the Senate on the same day. On the same day that President Bush withdrew the Roberts nomination to be Associate Justice, he re-nominated Roberts to be Chief Justice, and the latter nomination was confirmed. 35 The 14 nominations that lapsed at the end of a session of Congress, without a Senate confirmation or rejection vote or a withdrawal by the President having occurred, can be broken into the following groups according to Senate actions, or lack of Senate actions, taken: On three nominations (John Crittenden in 1829, the first nomination of Roger Taney in 1835, and George E. Badger in 1853), the Senate voted to postpone taking action; the Senate tabled two nominations (the first nomination of Edward King in 1844 and Edward A. Bradford in 1852); on one nomination, the Senate rejected a motion to proceed (Jeremiah S. Black in 1861, by a 25-26 vote); and on eight nominations, there was no record of any vote taken (the second nomination of Reuben H. Walworth in 1844, John M. Read in 1845, William C. Micou in 1853, Henry Stanbery in 1866, the first nomination of Stanley Matthews in 1881, the first nomination of William B. Hornblower in 1893, the first nomination of Pierce Butler in 1922, and the first nomination of John M. Harlan II in 1954). However, four of the 14 persons whose nominations lapsed in one session of Congress were re- nominated in the next congressional session and confirmed (Taney in 1835, Matthews in 1881, Butler in 1922, and Harlan in 1955). (UC) on the one hand, or by roll-call vote, on the other. As already mentioned, all 11 Senate rejections of Supreme Court nominations were accomplished by roll-call votes. Historically, recorded vote margins on Supreme Court nominations have varied considerably. Some roll-call votes, either confirming or rejecting a nomination, have been close.36 Most votes, however, have been overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation.37 ¢ For Supreme Court nominations, the amount of time elapsing between Senate receipt and start of confirmation hearings has varied greatly. Table 1 shows that, for all 43 Court nominations receiving public confirmation hearings (starting with the Brandeis nomination in 1916), the shortest time that elapsed between Senate receipt and start of hearings was four days, for the nominations of both Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 and William O. Douglas in 1939; the second shortest time interval of this sort was five days, for the nominations of both Stanley F. Reed in 1938 and Felix Frankfurter in 1939. The longest time elapsing between Senate receipt and first day of confirmation hearings was 82 days, for the nomination of Potter Stewart in 1959; the next- longest time interval of this sort was 70 days, for nominee Robert H. Bork in 1987. In recent decades, from the late 1960s to the present, the Judiciary Committee has tended to take more time in starting hearings on Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. Table 1 reveals that prior to 1967, a median of 10 days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the first day of confirmation hearings. From the Supreme Court nomination of Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to be Associate Justice in 2005-2006,38 a median of 21 days elapsed between Senate receipt and first day of confirmation hearings.39 36 The closest roll calls ever cast on Supreme Court nominations were the 24-23 vote in 1881 confirming Stanley Matthews, the 25-26 vote in 1861 rejecting a motion to proceed to consider the nomination of Jeremiah S. Black, and the 26-25 Senate vote in 1853 to postpone consideration of the nomination of George E. Badger. Since the 1960s, the closest roll calls on Supreme Court nominations were the 52-48 vote in 1991 confirming Clarence Thomas, the 45-51 vote in 1970 rejecting G. Harrold Carswell, the 45-55 vote in 1969 rejecting Clement Haynsworth Jr., the 58-42 vote in 2006 confirming Samuel A. Alito Jr., the 42-58 vote in 1987 rejecting Robert H. Bork, and the 65-33 vote confirming William H. Rehnquist to be Chief Justice in 1986. Also noteworthy was the 45-43 vote in 1968 rejecting a motion to close debate on the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice; however, the roll call was not as close as the numbers by themselves suggested, since passage of the motion required a two-thirds vote of the Members present and voting. 37 The most lopsided of these votes were the unanimous roll calls confirming Morrison R. Waite to be Chief Justice in 1874 (63-0), Harry A. Blackmun in 1970 (94-0), John Paul Stevens in 1975 (98-0), Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 (99- 0), Antonin Scalia in 1986 (98-0), and Anthony M. Kennedy in 1988 (97-0); and the near-unanimous votes confirming Noah H. Swayne in 1862 (38-1),Warren E. Burger in 1969 to be Chief Justice (74-3), Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1971 (89- 1), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 (96-3). 38 In calculating the median elapsed time for the contemporary period, the Marshall nomination in 1967 was selected as the starting point for the following reason. The Marshall nomination, it could be argued, marked the start of an era in which the confirmation hearings of most, if not all, Supreme Court nominees were highly charged events, covered closely by the news media, with nominees interrogated rigorously and extensively (and for more than a day) about their judicial philosophy as well as their views on constitutional issues and the proper role of the Supreme Court in the U.S. government. For the Marshall nomination, the elapsed time between Senate receipt and start of confirmation hearings was 30 days. 39 See bottom rows of Table 1 for median number of days that elapsed from the date Supreme Court nominations were received in the Senate to first hearing dates, for three different time spans. Starting in the 1990s, the inclination of the Judiciary Committee has been to allow at least four weeks to pass between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the start of confirmation hearings. This block of time is intended to be used by the committee members and staff for thorough study and review of background information about nominees and issues relevant to their nominations, in preparation for the hearings. In the case of five of the six most recent Court nominations to receive confirmation hearings (starting with the David H. Souter nomination in 1990), the shortest elapsed time between Senate receipt and first day of hearings was 28 days.40 While the elapsed time for the sixth nomination, of John G. Roberts Jr. to be Chief Justice in 2005, was only six days, another, longer time interval is more meaningful. Table 1 shows that Roberts's earlier nomination to be Associate Justice--later withdrawn, in order to have Roberts be re-nominated for Chief Justice--was received by the Senate 45 days prior to the start of hearings on his Chief Justice nomination. ¢ The time elapsing between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations from the President and final committee votes has also varied greatly. Table 1 shows that, for the 108 Court nominations that received final committee votes,41 the nomination receiving the most prompt committee vote was of Caleb Cushing in 1874, which was reported by the Judiciary Committee on the same day that the Senate received it from the President.42 The committee votes on 14 other nominations to the court occurred three days or less after the dates of Senate receipt.43 At the other extreme was the 1916 nomination of Louis D. Brandeis, on which the Judiciary Committee voted 117 days after Senate receipt and referral to the committee. Five other nominations as well, one in the 19th century and four in the 20th, received committee votes more than 80 days after Senate receipt from the President.44 In recent decades, the Judiciary Committee has taken much more time in casting a final vote on Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. Table 1 shows that prior to 1967, a median of nine days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the committee's final vote on reporting them to the full Senate.45 From the Supreme Court nomination of 40 For the five nominations, the elapsed time between Senate receipt of nomination and the first day of confirmation hearings was 50 days for David Souter in 1990, 64 days for Clarence Thomas in 1991, 28 days for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, 56 days for Stephen G. Breyer in 1994, and 60 days for Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2005-2006. 41 As already mentioned, the first such nomination, of Alexander Wolcott in 1811, was reported by a select committee; all subsequently reported nominations were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 42 Ironically, five days after the committee's favorable, and extremely prompt, recommendation of Cushing, President Ulysses S. Grant withdrew the nomination. 43 Five nominations were voted on by the Judiciary Committee one day after their receipt by the Senate: Robert C. Grier in 1846; John A. Campbell in 1853; Morrison R. Waite, to be Chief Justice, in 1874; Horace Gray in 1881; and Harold H. Burton in 1945. Six nominations were voted on by the committee two days after Senate receipt: James M. Wayne in 1835; Samuel Nelson in 1845; Noah H. Swayne in 1862; David Davis in 1862; Stephen J. Field in 1963; and Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902. Three nominations were voted on by the committee three days after Senate receipt: Horace H. Lurton in 1909; Willis Van Devanter in 1910; and Joseph R. Lamar in 1910. 44 The first of Reuben H. Walworth's three nominations to the Court in 1844 was voted on by the Judiciary Committee 93 days after Senate receipt and committee referral. During the 20th century, the Judiciary Committee, in addition to its 1916 vote on the Brandeis nomination, voted on the following nominations more than 80 days after Senate receipt: Potter Stewart in 1959 (93 days); Robert H. Bork in 1987 (91 days), Abe Fortas, to be Chief Justice, in 1968 (83 days); and Clarence Thomas in 1991 (81 days). 45 All of the 15 aforementioned nominations on which the Judiciary Committee voted three days or less after Senate receipt were made prior to 1946, and 14 of the 15 were made prior to 1911. Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2005 (voted on by the committee in 2006), a median of 50 days elapsed between Senate receipt and final committee vote.46 Somewhat earlier, during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower (1953 to 1961), two of five Supreme Court nominations were pending, prior to Judiciary Committee vote, in excess of the 1967-to-2006 median of 50 days for that time interval (while two other nominations were pending 44 and 49 days respectively before receiving committee action);47 however, the corresponding time intervals for the next three Court nominations (two by President John F. Kennedy and one by President Lyndon B. Johnson) were all well below the 50-day median.48 ¢ The Supreme Court confirmation process now typically extends over a much longer period of time than it once did. Table 1 shows that from the appointment of the first Justices in 1789, continuing into the early 20th century, most Senate confirmations of Supreme Court nominees occurred within a week of the nominations being made by the President. In recent decades, by contrast, it has become the norm for the Court appointment process--from Senate receipt of nominations from the President to Senate confirmation or other final action (such as Senate rejection, or withdrawal by the President)--to take more than two months. The last column of Table 1 shows the number of days that elapsed from the dates Supreme Court nominations were received in the Senate until the dates of final Senate or presidential action. The number of elapsed days is shown for 150 of the 158 nominations listed in the table, with no elapsed time shown for the pending Alito nomination or for eight nominations on which there was no record of any kind of official or effective final action by the Senate or by the President.49 At the bottom of the table, the median number of elapsed days from initial Senate receipt until final 46 See bottom rows of Table 1 for median number of days that elapsed from the date Supreme Court nominations were received in the Senate to final Senate vote dates, for three different time spans. 47 The four Eisenhower nominations for which 44 or more days elapsed from the date received in the Senate to the date voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee were those of: Earl Warren to be Chief Justice in 1954, 44 days; John M. Harlan II in 1955, 59 days; William J. Brennan Jr. in 1957, 49 days; and Potter Stewart in 1959, 93 days. Three of the nominees--Warren, Brennan, and Stewart--were already on the Court as recess appointees, a circumstance that served perhaps to make action on their nominations seem less urgent to the committee than if their seats on the Court had been vacant. Harlan, however, was not a recess appointee at the time of his nomination. See "The Harlan Nomination," New York Times, Feb. 25, 1955, p. 20, discussing, according to the editorial, the "inexcusable delay" on the part of the committee in acting on the nomination and the objections to the nomination voiced by a few of the committee's members. (Ultimately, the committee voted 10-4 to report the nomination favorably.) Receiving much more expeditious committee action was President Eisenhower's fifth and final Supreme Court nomination, of Charles E. Whittaker, which was approved by the Judiciary Committee 16 days after Senate receipt. 48 The days that elapsed from the date received in the Senate to the date voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee were eight days and 25 days for the 1962 nominations of Byron R. White and Arthur J. Goldberg and 13 days for the 1965 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Associate Justice. 49 Besides nominations that received official final Senate action in the form of confirmation or rejection (122 and 11 respectively), or that were withdrawn by the President (11), six others are treated in the table as also receiving final action, albeit not of a definitive official sort--with three having been postponed by the Senate, two tabled, and one (the nomination of Jeremiah S. Black in 1861) not considered after a motion to proceed was defeated by a 25-26 vote. While the six nominations remained pending in the Senate after the noted actions, the effect of the actions, it can be argued, was decisive in eliminating any prospect of confirmation, and thus constituted a final Senate action for time measurement purposes. Accordingly, for these six nominations, the number of days elapsed is measured from date of Senate receipt to the dates of effective final action just noted. action by the Senate or the President is shown for three historical periods--1789-2006, 1789- 1966, and 1967-2006. In recent decades, the median elapsed time for Supreme Court nominations to receive final action has increased dramatically, dwarfing the median time taken on earlier nominations. Table 1 shows that from 1967 (starting with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall) through January 30, 2006 (the date on which the Senate confirmed the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr., a median of 69 days elapsed from when a Supreme Court nomination was received in the Senate until the date it received final action, compared with a median of seven days for the same interval for the prior years of 1789 to 1966.50 Most of the Supreme Court nominations receiving final action within a relatively brief period of time--for example, within three days of initial receipt in the Senate-- occurred before the 20th century,51 while most of the nominations receiving final action after a relatively long period of time--for example, 75 days or more after receipt in the Senate-- occurred in the 20th century (and nearly all of these since 1967).52 The presence of Senate committee involvement has clearly tended to increase the overall length of the Supreme Court confirmation process. Of the 26 Court nominations made prior to the establishment of the Judiciary Committee in 1816, only one, of Alexander Wolcott in 1811, received final action more than seven days after initial Senate receipt (being rejected by the Senate nine days after receipt). It also was the only Court nomination prior to 1816 which was referred to, and considered by, a select committee. Subsequently, until the Civil War, six nominations received final action more than 50 days after initial Senate receipt. All six were first considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee. During the same period, other Court nominations were considered and acted on by the Senate more quickly--some with, and some without, first being referred to committee. Subsequent historical developments involving the Senate Judiciary Committee further served to increase the median length of the Supreme Court confirmation process. One such development was the Senate's adoption of a rule in 1868 that nominations be referred to appropriate standing committees, resulting in the referral of nearly all Supreme Court nominations thereafter to the Judiciary Committee. Another was the increasing practice of the Judiciary Committee in the 20th century of holding public confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominations (ultimately to become standard practice). A third, more recent, historical trend has involved the pace and thoroughness of the Judiciary Committee in preparing for and conducting confirmation hearings. Since the late 1960s, close and thorough examination of the background, qualifications, and views of Supreme Court nominees has become the norm for the Judiciary Committee, an 50 At first glance, the most recently confirmed nomination, of John G. Roberts Jr. for Chief Justice, appears to be a deviation from the 1967 to 2005 median interval from date received to final action of 69 days, as the nomination was confirmed only 23 days after its initial receipt in the Senate. However, it can be argued that a more meaningful context is to see the Roberts Chief Justice nomination (received in the Senate on Sept. 6, 2005) in relation to the earlier July 29, 2005, nomination of Judge Roberts to be Associate Justice. After the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on Sept. 3, 2005, the Roberts Associate Justice nomination was withdrawn, and he was re-nominated to be Chief Justice. Hearings on the Roberts Associate Justice nomination, set to begin on Sept. 6, were cancelled, and rescheduled hearings, on the Chief Justice nomination, began on Sept. 12. The overall time that elapsed from the Associate Justice nomination of Judge Roberts on July 29 until Senate confirmation of his Chief Justice nomination on Sept. 29 was 62 days. 51 Table 1 shows that 43 nominations received final Senate or presidential action three days or less after date of receipt in the Senate. Thirty-six of the 43 were pre-20th century nominations. 52 Table 1 shows that 16 nominations received final Senate or presidential action more than 75 days after date of receipt in the Senate. Twelve of the 16 were 20th century nominations, with 10 made since 1967. approach that typically extends the confirmation process by at least several weeks, as a result of preparation for and holding of confirmation hearings. On 12 occasions in the nation's history, Presidents have made temporary recess appointments to the Supreme Court without submitting nominations to the Senate. Table 1 identifies all of these 12 appointments, showing how each was related to a later nomination of the appointee for the same position. The table shows that nine of the 12 recess appointments were made before the end of the Civil War,53 with the last three made almost a century later, in the 1950s, during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower.54 Each of the 12 recess appointments occurred when a President exercised his power under the Constitution to make recess appointments when the Senate was not in session.55 Historically, when recesses between sessions of the Senate were much longer than they are today, recess appointments served the purpose of averting long vacancies on the Court when the Senate was unavailable to confirm a President's appointees. The terms of these recess appointments, however, were limited by the constitutional requirement that they expire at the end of the next session of Congress (unlike the lifetime appointments Court appointees receive when nominated and then confirmed by the Senate).56 Despite the temporary nature of these appointments, every person appointed during a recess of the Senate except for one--John Rutledge, to be Chief Justice, in 1795--ultimately received a lifetime appointment to the Court after being nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As Table 1 shows, all 12 of the recess appointees were subsequently nominated to the same position, and 11 (all except for Rutledge) were confirmed. The preceding discussion suggests that Senate treatment of Supreme Court nominations has gone through various phases during the more than 200 years of the Republic. Initially, such nominations were handled without Senate committee involvement. Later, from 1816 to 1868, most nominations to the Supreme Court were referred to the Judiciary Committee, but only by motion. Since 1868, as the result of a change in its rules, the Senate has referred nearly all Court nominations to the Judiciary Committee. During the rest of the 19th century and early 20th century, the committee considered nominations without public hearings. Subsequently, public hearings 53 See in Table 1 the recess appointments of Thomas Johnson in 1791, John Rutledge (to be Chief Justice) in 1795, Bushrod Washington in 1798, H. Brockholst Livingston in 1806, Smith Thompson in 1823, John McKinley in 1837, Levi Woodbury in 1845, Benjamin R. Curtis in 1851, and David Davis in 1862. 54 See in Table 1 the recess appointments of Earl Warren (to be Chief Justice) in 1953, William J. Brennan Jr. in 1956, and Potter Stewart in 1958. 55 Specifically, Article II, Section 2, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the President "to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." 56 For background on the history of recess appointments to the Supreme Court, and the policy and constitutional issues associated with those appointments, see CRS Report RL31112, Recess Appointments of Federal Judges, by Louis Fisher; and Henry B. Hogue, "The Law: Recess Appointments to Article III Courts," Political Science Quarterly, vol. 34, September 2004, p. 656. gradually became the more common, if not invariable, committee practice, although many of the earlier hearings were perfunctory and held simply to accommodate a small number of witnesses wishing to testify against the nominees. Gradually, however, in the latter half of the 20th century, public hearings on Supreme Court nominations lasting four or more days, with nominees present to answer extensive questioning from committee members, would become the usual practice. Also, the overall length of time taken by the Supreme Court confirmation process has, in general, increased significantly over the course of more than 200 years. From the appointment of the first Justices in 1789, continuing well into the 20th century, most Supreme Court nominations received final action (usually, but not always, in the form of Senate confirmation) within a week of being submitted by the President to the Senate. In recent decades, by contrast, it has become the norm for the confirmation process to take from two to three months. Other trends and historical phases may be discerned from Tables 1 and 2. Still other trends, of course, may be revealed by future nominations that Presidents make and by the actions taken on them by the Senate and its Judiciary Committee. .larrefer eettimmoc rehto )1971/13/01 fo drocer oN .6181/01/21 ni eettimmoC etaD .moN( 6 -- -- demrifnoC 1971/70/11 yraiciduJ fo noitaerc detaderp noitanimoN 1971/10/11 dnalyraM fo nosnhoJ 1971/50/80 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR notgnihsaW samohT )0971/80/20 etaD .moN( aniloraC htroN 1 -- -- demrifnoC 0971/01/20 0971/90/20 notgnihsaW fo llederI semaJ ainigriV 2 -- -- demrifnoC 9871/62/90 9871/42/90 notgnihsaW fo .rJ rialB nhoJ ainavlysnneP fo 2 -- -- demrifnoC 9871/62/90 9871/42/90 notgnihsaW nosliW semaJ )denilced .larrefer eettimmoc rehto dnalyraM eenimoN( fo drocer oN .6181/01/21 ni eettimmoC fo nosirraH 2 -- -- demrifnoC 9871/62/90 yraiciduJ fo noitaerc detaderp noitanimoN 9871/42/90 notgnihsaW treboR sttesuhcassaM fo gnihsuC 2 -- -- demrifnoC 9871/62/90 9871/42/90 notgnihsaW mailliW aniloraC htuoS fo 2 -- -- demrifnoC 9871/62/90 9871/42/90 notgnihsaW egdeltuR nhoJ ).J .C retfaereh ,ecitsuJ feihC( kroY weN 2 -- -- demrifnoC 9871/62/90 9871/42/90 notgnihsaW fo yaJ nhoJ )s(etad tnediserP etad betad etad c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF gniraeh ro etaneS etov lanif gniraeh etov laniF cilbuP yb noitca eettimmoC cilbup aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD 6002-9871 ,setatS detinU eht fo truoC emerpuS eht ot snoitanimoN . 1 elbaT )denilced ).J .C( eenimoN( kroY weN 1 -- -- demrifnoC 0081/91/21 0081/81/21 smadA .J fo yaJ nhoJ aniloraC htroN fo 6 -- -- demrifnoC 9971/01/21 .larrefer eettimmoc rehto 9971/40/21 smadA .J erooM derflA fo drocer oN .6181/01/21 ni eettimmoC 1 -- -- demrifnoC 8971/02/21 yraiciduJ fo noitaerc detaderp noitanimoN 8971/91/21 ainigriV fo notgnihsaW 8971/92/90 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR smadA .J dorhsuB ).J .C( tucitcennoC )1-12( fo htrowsllE 1 -- -- demrifnoC 6971/40/30 6971/30/30 notgnihsaW revilO dnalyraM fo 1 -- -- demrifnoC 6971/72/10 .larrefer eettimmoc rehto 6971/62/10 notgnihsaW esahC leumaS fo drocer oN .6181/01/21 ni eettimmoC yraiciduJ fo noitaerc detaderp noitanimoN ).J .C( )denilced sttesuhcassaM eenimoN( fo gnihsuC 1 -- -- demrifnoC 6971/72/10 6971/62/10 notgnihsaW mailliW )41-01( ).J .C( 5 -- -- detcejeR 5971/51/21 5971/01/21 aniloraC htuoS fo 5971/10/70 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR notgnihsaW egdeltuR nhoJ yesreJ weN fo nosretaP 0 -- -- demrifnoC 3971/40/30 3971/40/30 notgnihsaW mailliW yesreJ weN fo nosretaP 1 -- -- nwardhtiW 3971/82/20 3971/72/20 notgnihsaW mailliW )s(etad tnediserP etad betad etad c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF gniraeh ro etaneS etov lanif gniraeh etov laniF cilbuP yb noitca eettimmoC cilbup aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD )3281/5/21 etad .moN( .eettimmoC 1 -- -- demrifnoC 3281/90/21 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 3281/80/21 kroY weN fo nospmohT 3281/10/90 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR eornoM htimS dnalyraM fo 3 -- -- demrifnoC 1181/81/11 1181/51/11 nosidaM llavuD leirbaG .larrefer eettimmoc rehto sttesuhcassaM 3 -- -- demrifnoC 1181/81/11 fo drocer oN .6181/01/21 ni eettimmoC 1181/51/11 nosidaM fo yrotS hpesoJ yraiciduJ fo noitaerc detaderp noitanimoN )denilced sttesuhcassaM eenimoN( fo smadA 1 -- -- demrifnoC 1181/22/20 1181/12/20 nosidaM ycniuQ nhoJ 1181/31/20 tucitcennoC )42-9( ,eettimmoC gniraeh fo fo ttocloW 9 9 -- detcejeR 1181/31/20 detropeR tceleS drocer oN 1181/40/20 nosidaM rednaxelA )denilced eenimoN( sttesuhcassaM 1 -- -- demrifnoC 1181/30/10 .larrefer eettimmoc rehto 1181/20/10 nosidaM fo nlocniL iveL fo drocer oN .6181/01/21 ni eettimmoC ykcutneK fo 2 -- -- demrifnoC 7081/20/30 yraiciduJ fo noitaerc detaderp noitanimoN 7081/82/20 nosreffeJ ddoT samohT 2 -- -- demrifnoC 6081/71/21 6081/51/21 kroY weN fo notsgniviL 6081/01/11 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR nosreffeJ tslohkcorB .H aniloraC htuoS fo nosnhoJ 2 -- -- demrifnoC 4081/42/30 4081/22/30 nosreffeJ mailliW ).J .C( ainigriV fo 7 -- -- demrifnoC 1081/72/10 1081/02/10 smadA .J llahsraM nhoJ )s(etad tnediserP etad betad etad c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF gniraeh ro etaneS etov lanif gniraeh etov laniF cilbuP yb noitca eettimmoC cilbup aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD )11-03( demrifnoC 6381/51/30 ainigriV )02-52( gniraeh fo fo ruobraB 87 8 -- 6381/51/30 ,deecorp ot noitoM detropeR 6381/50/10 drocer oN 5381/82/21 noskcaJ .P pilihP )51-92( demrifnoC 6381/51/30 ).J .C( )91-52( gniraeh fo dnalyraM fo 87 8 -- 6381/41/30 ,deecorp ot noitoM detropeR 6381/50/10 drocer oN 5381/82/21 noskcaJ yenaT .B regoR )12-42( .eettimmoC dnalyraM fo 74 -- -- denoptsoP 5381/30/30 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 5381/51/10 noskcaJ yenaT .B regoR )5381/60/10 etad .moN( aigroeG gniraeh fo fo enyaW 2 2 -- demrifnoC 5381/90/10 detropeR 5381/90/10 drocer oN 5381/70/10 noskcaJ .M semaJ )2-14( .eettimmoC ainavlysnneP fo 0 -- -- demrifnoC 0381/50/10 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 0381/50/10 noskcaJ niwdlaB yrneH .eettimmoC oihO 1 -- -- demrifnoC 9281/70/30 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 9281/60/30 noskcaJ fo naeLcM nhoJ tca ot ton noitad )8281/71/21 -nemmocer etad .moN( ykcutneK )71-32( htiw gniraeh fo fo nednettirC 65 93 -- denoptsoP 9281/21/20 detropeR 9281/62/10 drocer oN 8281/81/21 smadA .Q .J nhoJ )6281/11/40 )52-7( etad .moN( )5-72( 6281/90/50 ,etaneS yb detcejer ykcutneK fo 72 -- -- demrifnoC 6281/90/50 eettimmoC yraiciduJ ot refer ot noitoM 6281/21/40 smadA .Q .J elbmirT treboR )s(etad tnediserP etad betad etad c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF gniraeh ro etaneS etov lanif gniraeh etov laniF cilbuP yb noitca eettimmoC cilbup aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD kroY weN .eettimmoC fo recnepS 0 -- -- nwardhtiW 4481/71/60 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 4481/71/60 relyT .C nhoJ )81-92( gniraeh fo ainavlysnneP 01 9 -- delbaT 4481/51/60 detropeR 4481/41/60 drocer oN 4481/50/60 relyT fo gniK drawdE nwardhtiW 4481/71/60 kroY weN )02-72( gniraeh fo fo htrowlaW 69 39 -- 4481/51/60 ,delbaT detropeR 4481/41/60 drocer oN 4481/31/30 relyT .H nebueR 4481/80/10 etad .moN( kroY weN )62-12( gniraeh fo fo recnepS 22 12 -- detcejeR 4481/13/10 detropeR 4481/03/10 drocer oN 4481/90/10 relyT .C nhoJ )1481/52/20 etad .moN( )5-22( .eettimmoC ainigriV fo 3 -- -- demrifnoC 1481/20/30 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 1481/72/20 neruB naV leinaD .V reteP )7381/81/90 etad .moN( gniraeh fo 6 6 -- demrifnoC 7381/52/90 detropeR 7381/52/90 drocer oN 7381/91/90 amabalA fo 7381/22/40 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR neruB naV yelniKcM nhoJ )51-82( gniraeh fo eessenneT 5 5 -- demrifnoC 7381/80/30 detropeR 7381/80/30 drocer oN 7381/30/30 noskcaJ fo nortaC nhoJ )denilced eenimoN( )81-32( gniraeh fo amabalA fo 5 5 -- demrifnoC 7381/80/30 detropeR 7381/80/30 drocer oN 7381/30/30 noskcaJ htimS mailliW )s(etad tnediserP etad betad etad c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF gniraeh ro etaneS etov lanif gniraeh etov laniF cilbuP yb noitca eettimmoC cilbup aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD ainavlysnneP gniraeh fo fo reirG 1 1 -- demrifnoC 6481/40/80 detropeR 6481/40/80 drocer oN 6481/30/80 kloP .C treboR gniraeh fo 11 11 -- demrifnoC 6481/30/10 detropeR 6481/30/10 drocer oN 5481/32/21 erihspmaH weN fo 5481/02/90 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR kloP yrubdooW iveL )92-02( detcejeR 6481/22/10 )82-12( ainavlysnneP 6481/22/10 ,detcejer gniraeh fo fo drawdooW 03 82 -- enoptsop ot noitoM detropeR 6481/02/10 drocer oN 5481/32/21 kloP .W egroeG gniraeh fo ainavlysnneP -- 6 -- noitca fo drocer oN detropeR 5481/41/20 drocer oN 5481/80/20 relyT fo daeR .M nhoJ )5481/40/20 etad .moN( gniraeh fo kroY weN fo 8 2 -- demrifnoC 5481/41/20 detropeR 5481/80/20 drocer oN 5481/60/20 relyT nosleN leumaS nwardhtiW 5481/80/20 )4481/40/21 etad .moN( 5481/12/10 gniraeh fo ainavlysnneP 06 24 -- ,delbaT detropeR 5481/12/10 drocer oN 4481/01/21 relyT fo gniK drawdE nwardhtiW 5481/60/20 )4481/40/21 etad .moN( kroY weN 5481/12/10 gniraeh fo fo htrowlaW 85 24 -- ,delbaT detropeR 5481/12/10 drocer oN 4481/01/21 relyT .H nebueR .noitca rehtruf fo drocer on htiw ,yad emas no kroY weN denruojda etaneS .4481/71/60 .eettimmoC fo htrowlaW -- -- -- ,ot detcejbo deecorp ot noitoM yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 4481/71/60 relyT .H nebueR )s(etad tnediserP etad betad etad c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF gniraeh ro etaneS etov lanif gniraeh etov laniF cilbuP yb noitca eettimmoC cilbup aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD .eettimmoC awoI fo 0 -- -- demrifnoC 2681/61/70 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 2681/61/70 nlocniL relliM .F leumaS )2681/12/10 etaD .moN( )1-83( gniraeh fo oihO fo enyawS 2 2 -- demrifnoC 2681/42/10 detropeR 2681/42/10 drocer oN 2681/22/10 nlocniL .H haoN )62-52( )1681/50/20 detcejer etaD .moN( ainavlysnneP deecorp .eettimmoC fo kcalB 51 -- -- ot noitoM 1681/12/20 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 1681/60/20 nanahcuB .S haimereJ )32-62( gniraeh fo eniaM fo 43 82 -- demrifnoC 8581/21/10 detropeR 8581/60/10 drocer oN 7581/90/21 nanahcuB droffilC nahtaN amabalA gniraeh fo fo llebpmaC 1 1 -- demrifnoC 3581/22/30 detropeR 3581/22/30 drocer oN 3581/12/30 ecreiP .A nhoJ )3581/41/20 .egrahcsid retfa noitaredisnoc etaneS fo drocer on ;yad etaD .moN( anaisiuoL emas no noitanimon fo degrahcsid eettimmoc deredro gniraeh fo fo uociM -- -- -- etaneS .3581/42/20 no eettimmoC yraiciduJ ot derrefeR drocer oN 3581/42/20 eromlliF .C mailliW )3581/30/10 etaD .moN( aniloraC htroN )52-62( .eettimmoC fo regdaB 23 -- -- denoptsoP 3581/11/20 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 3581/01/10 eromlliF .E egroeG )2581/61/80 etaD .moN( anaisiuoL gniraeh fo fo drofdarB 01 9 -- delbaT 2581/13/80 detropeR 2581/03/80 drocer oN 2581/12/80 eromlliF .A drawdE )1581/11/21 etad .moN( gniraeh fo 11 11 -- demrifnoC 1581/32/21 detropeR 1581/32/21 drocer oN 1581/21/21 sttesuhcassaM fo sitruC 1581/22/90 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR eromlliF .R nimajneB )s(etad tnediserP etad betad etad c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF gniraeh ro etaneS etov lanif gniraeh etov laniF cilbuP yb noitca eettimmoC cilbup aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD )0781/70/20 etad .moN( ylbarovaf gniraeh fo ainavlysnneP fo 01 6 -- demrifnoC 0781/81/20 detropeR 0781/41/20 drocer oN 0781/80/20 tnarG gnortS mailliW )eciffo gnimussa erofeb deid eenimoN( ainavlysnneP )11-64( eettimmoC fo notnatS 0 -- -- demrifnoC 9681/02/21 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 9681/02/21 tnarG .M niwdE )9681/41/21 etad .moN( sttesuhcassaM )33-42( ylesrevda gniraeh fo fo raoH 05 7 -- detcejeR 0781/30/20 detropeR 9681/22/21 drocer oN 9681/51/21 tnarG .R rezenebE .larrefer retfa noitca etaneS fo drocer on dna ,etov eettimmoc fo drocer gniraeh fo oihO fo -- -- -- oN .6681/61/40 no eettimmoC yraiciduJ ot derrefeR drocer oN 6681/61/40 nosnhoJ .A yrebnatS yrneH ).J .C( .eettimmoC oihO fo esahC 0 -- -- demrifnoC 4681/60/21 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 4681/60/21 nlocniL .P nomlaS 3681/60/30 etad .moN( gniraeh fo ainrofilaC fo 3 2 -- demrifnoC 3681/01/30 detropeR 3681/90/30 drocer oN 3681/70/30 nlocniL dleiF .J nehpetS )2681/10/21 etad .moN( gniraeh fo 5 2 -- demrifnoC 2681/80/21 detropeR 2681/50/21 drocer oN 2681/30/21 sionillI 2681/71/01 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR nlocniL fo sivaD divaD )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD ykcutneK ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo nalraH 34 04 -- demrifnoC 7781/92/11 detropeR 7781/62/11 drocer oN 7781/71/01 seyaH llahsraM nhoJ ).J .C( )0-36( ylbarovaf gniraeh fo oihO fo etiaW 2 1 -- demrifnoC 4781/12/10 detropeR 4781/02/10 drocer oN 4781/91/10 tnarG .R nosirroM ).J .C( sttesuhcassaM ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo 5 0 -- nwardhtiW 4781/41/10 detropeR 4781/90/10 drocer oN 4781/90/10 tnarG gnihsuC belaC 3781/71/21 3781/61/21 dsgniraeh nwardhtiW 4781/80/10 -- -- desolC )3781/10/21 etad .moN( ).J .C( nogerO 3781/51/21 ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo smailliW 73 9 -- ,dettimmoceR detropeR 3781/11/21 drocer oN 3781/20/21 tnarG .H egroeG )2781/30/21 etad .moN( ylbarovaf gniraeh fo kroY weN fo 5 5 -- demrifnoC 2781/11/21 detropeR 2781/11/21 drocer oN 2781/60/21 tnarG tnuH draW )9-64( demrifnoC 0781/12/30 )82-32( 0781/20/30 ,detcejer enoptsop ot noitoM )62-13( )0781/70/20 etad .moN( yesreJ 0781/20/30 ylbarovaf gniraeh fo weN fo yeldarB 14 6 -- ,denoptsoP detropeR 0781/41/20 drocer oN 0781/80/20 tnarG .P hpesoJ )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD noitad )8881/03/40 -nemmocer etad .moN( ).J .C( )02-14( tuohtiw gniraeh fo sionillI fo relluF 97 16 -- demrifnoC 8881/02/70 detropeR 8881/20/70 drocer oN 8881/20/50 dnalevelC .W ellivleM )7881/60/21 )4-5( etad .moN( ippississiM )82-23( ylesrevda gniraeh fo fo ramaL 53 92 -- demrifnoC 8881/61/10 detropeR 8881/01/10 drocer oN 7881/21/21 dnalevelC .C .Q suicuL kroY weN ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo drofhctalB 9 9 -- demrifnoC 2881/22/30 detropeR 2881/22/30 drocer oN 2881/31/30 ruhtrA leumaS )denilced eenimoN( kroY weN )21-93( ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo gnilknoC 6 6 -- demrifnoC 2881/20/30 detropeR 2881/20/30 drocer oN 2881/42/20 ruhtrA eocsoR )5-15( ylbarovaf gniraeh fo sttesuhcassaM 1 1 -- demrifnoC 1881/02/21 detropeR 1881/02/21 drocer oN 1881/91/21 ruhtrA fo yarG ecaroH )1881/41/30 )1-6( etad .moN( oihO )32-42( ylesrevda gniraeh fo fo swehttaM 55 35 -- demrifnoC 1881/21/50 detropeR 1881/90/50 drocer oN 1881/81/30 dleifraG yelnatS denoptsoP 1881/41/20 oihO gniraeh fo fo swehttaM -- 91 -- noitca fo drocer oN 1881/70/20 , deredisnoC drocer oN 1881/62/10 seyaH yelnatS )3-63( 0881/22/21 ,redisnocer ot noitom delbaT aigroeG )8-93( ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo sdooW 6 5 -- demrifnoC 0881/12/21 detropeR 0881/02/21 drocer oN 0881/51/21 seyaH .B mailliW )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD ylesrevda detropeR 4981/80/10 kroY weN )03-42( 3981/81 gniraeh fo fo rewolbnroH 04 33 -- detcejeR 4981/51/10 & 41 ,11/21 ,deredisnoC drocer oN 3981/60/21 dnalevelC .B mailliW kroY weN 3981/03 & 52/01 dna gniraeh fo fo rewolbnroH -- -- -- noitca fo drocer oN 3981/52/90 ,deredisnoC drocer oN 3981/91/90 dnalevelC .B mailliW eessenneT ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo noskcaJ 61 11 -- demrifnoC 3981/81/20 detropeR 3981/31/20 drocer oN 3981/20/20 nosirraH .E llewoH noitad -nemmocer ainavlysnneP tuohtiw gniraeh fo fo .rJ 7 6 -- demrifnoC 2981/62/70 detropeR 2981/52/70 drocer oN 2981/91/70 nosirraH sarihS egroeG nagihciM ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo nworB 6 6 -- demrifnoC 0981/92/21 detropeR 0981/92/21 drocer oN 0981/32/21 nosirraH .B yrneH )11-35( demrifnoC 9881/81/21 )54-52( 9881/81/21 ,detcejer enoptsop ot noitoM )45-51( 9881/81/21 ,detcejer ylbarovaf gniraeh fo sasnaK fo 41 21 -- enoptsop ot noitoM detropeR 9881/61/21 drocer oN 9881/40/21 nosirraH rewerB .J divaD )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD eessenneT ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo notruL 7 3 -- demrifnoC 9091/02/21 detropeR 9091/61/21 drocer oN 9091/31/21 tfaT .H ecaroH sttesuhcassaM ylbarovaf gniraeh fo tlevesooR fo ydooM 9 7 -- demrifnoC 6091/21/21 detropeR 6091/01/21 drocer oN 6091/30/21 .T .H mailliW ylbarovaf gniraeh fo tlevesooR oihO fo 4 4 -- demrifnoC 3091/32/20 detropeR 3091/32/20 drocer oN 3091/91/20 .T yaD .R mailliW sttesuhcassaM ylbarovaf gniraeh fo tlevesooR fo semloH 2 2 -- demrifnoC 2091/40/21 detropeR 2091/40/21 drocer oN 2091/20/21 .T lledneW revilO ainrofilaC ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo anneKcM 63 82 -- demrifnoC 8981/12/10 detropeR 8981/31/10 drocer oN 7981/61/21 yelniKcM hpesoJ kroY weN ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo mahkceP 6 6 -- demrifnoC 5981/90/21 detropeR 5981/90/21 drocer oN 5981/30/21 dnalevelC .W sufuR anaisiuoL eettimmoC fo etihW 0 -- -- demrifnoC 4981/91/20 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 4981/91/20 dnalevelC .D drawdE noitad -nemmocer tuohtiw detropeR 4981/21/20 )5-5( 4981/21/20 ,dedivid kroY weN )14-23( etov eettimmoc ,ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo mahkceP 52 12 -- detcejeR 4981/61/20 gnitroper fo noitseuq nO drocer oN 4981/22/10 dnalevelC .H releehW )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD eessenneT )6-44( ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo sdlonyeRcM 01 5 -- demrifnoC 4191/92/80 detropeR 4191/42/80 drocer oN 4191/91/80 nosliW .C semaJ )62-05( ylbarovaf gniraeh fo yesreJ weN fo 32 41 -- demrifnoC 2191/31/30 detropeR 2191/40/30 drocer oN 2191/91/20 tfaT yentiP nolhaM aigroeG ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo ramaL 3 3 -- demrifnoC 0191/51/21 detropeR 0191/51/21 drocer oN 0191/21/21 tfaT .R hpesoJ gnimoyW ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo retnaveD 3 3 -- demrifnoC 0191/51/21 detropeR 0191/51/21 drocer oN 0191/21/21 tfaT naV silliW ).J .C( anaisiuoL .eettimmoC fo etihW 0 -- -- demrifnoC 0191/21/21 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 0191/21/21 tfaT .D drawdE kroY ylbarovaf gniraeh fo weN fo sehguH 7 7 -- demrifnoC 0191/20/50 detropeR 0191/20/50 drocer oN 0191/52/40 tfaT snavE selrahC )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD )2291/22/11 noitca rehtruf etad .moN( fo drocer on htiw ,2291/82/11 ylbarovaf gniraeh fo atosenniM -- 5 -- ,radnelaC evitucexE no decalP detropeR 2291/82/11 drocer oN 2291/32/11 gnidraH fo reltuB ecreiP hatU .eettimmoC fo dnalrehtuS 0 -- -- demrifnoC 2291/50/90 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 2291/50/90 gnidraH egroeG ).J .C( tucitcennoC e)4-06( .eettimmoC fo tfaT drawoH 0 -- -- demrifnoC 1291/03/60 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 1291/03/60 gnidraH mailliW ylbarovaf gniraeh fo oihO fo 01 01 -- demrifnoC 6191/42/70 detropeR 6191/42/70 drocer oN 6191/41/70 nosliW ekralC .H nhoJ 6191/51/30 6191/41/30 6191/80/30 6191/70/30 6191/60/30 6191/40/30 6191/30/30 6191/20/30 6191/10/30 6191/92/20 6191/62/20 6191/52/20 6191/42/20 6191/81/20 6191/71/20 6191/61/20 )8-01( 6191/51/20 sttesuhcassaM )22-74( ylbarovaf 6191/01/20 fo siednarB 521 711 21 demrifnoC 6191/10/60 detropeR 6191/42/50 6191/90/20 6191/82/10 nosliW .D siuoL )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD kroY weN ylbarovaf fo ozodraC 9 8 4 demrifnoC 2391/42/20 detropeR 2391/32/20 2391/91/20 2391/51/20 revooH .N nimajneB ainavlysnneP ylbarovaf dleh fo streboR 11 01 -- demrifnoC 0391/02/50 detropeR 0391/91/50 gniraeh oN 0391/90/50 revooH .J newO )6-01( aniloraC )14-93( ylesrevda htroN fo 74 13 51 detcejeR 0391/70/50 detropeR 0391/12/40 0391/50/40 0391/12/30 revooH rekraP .J nhoJ )62-25( demrifnoC 0391/31/20 ).J .C( )2-01( kroY )94-13( 0391/31/20 ylbarovaf dleh weN fo sehguH 01 7 -- ,detcejer timmocer ot noitoM detropeR 0391/01/20 gniraeh oN 0391/30/20 revooH snavE selrahC f )l'tmocer 5291/62/10 )6-17( ylbarovaf retfa( 32 demrifnoC 5291/50/20 detropeR 5291/20/20 5291/82/10 f 5291/21/10 5291/62/10 5291/12/10 gniraeh kroY weN fo 13 82 -- dettimmoceR ylbarovaf detropeR desolC 5291/50/10 egdilooC enotS .F nalraH eessenneT ylbarovaf gniraeh fo fo drofnaS 5 5 -- demrifnoC 3291/92/10 detropeR 3291/92/10 drocer oN 3291/42/10 gnidraH .T drawdE )8-16( demrifnoC 2291/12/21 2291/31/21 )36-7( 2291/90/21 2291/12/21 ylbarovaf sgniraeh atosenniM 61 31 -- ,detaefed timmocer ot noitoM detropeR 2291/81/21 desolC 2291/50/21 gnidraH fo reltuB ecreiP )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD awoI ylbarovaf tlevesooR fo egdeltuR 82 12 11 demrifnoC 3491/80/20 detropeR 3491/10/20 3491/22/10 3491/11/10 .F .B yeliW 1491/03/60 1491/72/60 kroY ylbarovaf 149132/60 tlevesooR weN fo noskcaJ 52 81 9 demrifnoC 1491/70/70 detropeR 1491/03/60 1491/12/60 1491/21/60 .F .H treboR aniloraC .eettimmoC tlevesooR htuoS fo 0 -- -- demrifnoC 1491/21/60 yraiciduJ ot derrefer ton saw noitanimoN 1491/21/60 .F senryB .F semaJ ).J .C( ylbarovaf tlevesooR kroY weN fo 51 11 9 demrifnoC 1491/72/60 detropeR 1491/32/60 1491/12/60 1491/21/60 .F enotS .F nalraH ylbarovaf tlevesooR nagihciM fo 21 11 8 demrifnoC 0491/61/10 detropeR 0491/51/10 0491/11/10 0491/40/10 .F yhpruM knarF tucitcennoC )4-26( ylbarovaf tlevesooR fo salguoD 51 7 4 demrifnoC 9391/40/40 detropeR 9391/72/30 9391/42/30 9391/02/30 .F .O mailliW 9391/21/10 sttesuhcassaM ylbarovaf 9391/11/10 tlevesooR fo retrufknarF 21 11 5 demrifnoC 9391/71/10 detropeR 9391/61/10 9391/01/10 9391/50/10 .F xileF ylbarovaf tlevesooR ykcutneK fo 01 9 5 demrifnoC 8391/52/10 detropeR 8391/42/10 8391/02/10 8391/51/10 .F deeR .F yelnatS )61-36( demrifnoC 7391/71/80 )66-51( )4-31( 7391/71/80 ylbarovaf dleh tlevesooR amabalA fo 5 4 -- ,detcejer timmocer ot noitoM detropeR 7391/61/80 gniraeh oN 7391/21/80 .F kcalB .L oguH )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD iruossiM ylbarovaf fo rekattihW 71 61 61 demrifnoC 7591/91/30 detropeR 7591/81/30 7591/81/30 7591/20/30 rewohnesiE .E selrahC ylbarovaf 7591/72/20 46 94 34 demrifnoC 7591/91/30 detropeR 7591/40/30 7591/62/20 7591/41/10 yesreJ weN fo .rJ nannerB 6591/51/01 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR rewohnesiE .J mailliW )4-01( )11-17( ylbarovaf kroY weN fo II 56 95 54 demrifnoC 5591/61/30 detropeR 5591/01/30 g5591/52/20 5591/01/10 rewohnesiE nalraH .M nhoJ .noitca etaneS ro etov eettimmoc dleh kroY weN fo II -- -- -- fo drocer oN .4591/90/11 no eettimmoC yraiciduJ ot derrefeR gniraeh oN 4591/90/11 rewohnesiE nalraH .M nhoJ )3-21( ylbarovaf 4591/91/20 94 44 22 demrifnoC 4591/10/30 detropeR 4591/42/20 4591/20/20 4591/11/10 ).J .C( ainrofilaC 3591/20/01 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR rewohnesiE fo nerraW lraE )61-84( demrifnoC 9491/40/01 )54-12( )2-9( anaidnI 9491/40/01 ,detcejer timmocer ylbarovaf fo notniM 91 81 21 ot noitoM detropeR 9491/30/01 9491/72/90 9491/51/90 namurT namrehS )2-9( 9491/11/80 )8-37( ylbarovaf 9491/01/80 saxeT fo 61 01 7 demrifnoC 9491/81/80 detropeR 9491/21/80 9491/90/80 9491/20/80 namurT kralC .C moT ).J .C( ylbarovaf ykcutneK fo 41 31 8 demrifnoC 6491/02/60 detropeR 6491/91/60 6491/41/60 6491/60/60 namurT nosniV .M derF ylbarovaf dleh oihO fo notruB 1 1 -- demrifnoC 5491/91/90 detropeR 5491/91/90 gniraeh oN 5491/81/90 namurT .H dloraH )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD 8691/61/90 8691/31/90 8691/32/70 8691/22/70 8691/02/70 8691/91/70 nwardhtiW 8691/40/01 8691/81/70 8691/71/70 h)34-54( )6-11( 8691/61/70 ).J .C( 8691/10/01 ylbarovaf 8691/21/70 eessenneT 001 38 51 ,detcejer noitom erutolC detropeR 8691/71/90 8691/11/70 8691/62/60 nosnhoJ .L fo satroF ebA 7691/42/70 7691/91/70 )5-11( 7691/81/70 kroY weN )11-96( ylbarovaf 7691/41/70 fo llahsraM 87 15 03 demrifnoC 7691/03/80 detropeR 7691/30/80 7691/31/70 7691/31/60 nosnhoJ .L doogruhT ylbarovaf eessenneT 41 31 8 demrifnoC 5691/11/80 detropeR 5691/01/80 5691/50/80 5691/82/70 nosnhoJ .L fo satroF ebA sionillI ylbarovaf 2691/31/90 fo grebdloG 52 52 11 demrifnoC 2691/52/90 detropeR 2691/52/90 2691/11/90 2691/13/80 ydenneK .J ruhtrA ylbarovaf odaroloC fo 8 8 8 demrifnoC 2691/11/40 detropeR 2691/11/40 2691/11/40 2691/30/40 ydenneK etihW .R noryB )3-21( )71-07( ylbarovaf 9591/41/40 801 39 28 demrifnoC 9591/50/50 detropeR 9591/02/40 9591/90/40 9591/71/10 oihO fo 8591/41/01 ,tnemtnioppA sseceR rewohnesiE trawetS rettoP )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD )0-71( atosenniM )0-49( ylbarovaf fo numkcalB 72 12 41 demrifnoC 0791/21/50 detropeR 0791/60/50 0791/92/40 0791/51/40 noxiN .A yrraH 0791/30/20 0791/20/20 adirolF )4-31( 0791/92/10 fo llewsraC )15-54( ylbarovaf 0791/82/10 dlorraH 97 82 8 detcejeR 0791/80/40 detropeR 0791/61/20 0791/72/10 0791/91/10 noxiN egroeG 9691/62/90 9691/52/90 9691/42/90 9691/32/90 9691/91/90 aniloraC )7-01( 9691/81/90 htuoS fo )55-54( ylbarovaf 9691/71/90 .rJ htrowsnyaH 29 94 62 detcejeR 9691/12/11 detropeR 9691/90/01 9691/61/90 9691/12/80 noxiN .F tnemelC ).J .C( ainigriV )3-47( ylbarovaf fo regruB 71 11 11 demrifnoC 9691/90/60 detropeR 9691/30/60 9691/30/60 9691/32/50 noxiN .E nerraW 8691/61/90 8691/31/90 8691/32/70 8691/22/70 8691/02/70 8691/91/70 8691/81/70 8691/71/70 .nekat etov eettimmoc oN 8691/61/70 saxeT .8691/62/60 ,eettimmoC 8691/21/70 fo yrrebnrohT 001 -- 51 nwardhtiW 8691/40/01 yraiciduJ ot derrefeR 8691/11/70 8691/62/60 nosnhoJ .L remoH )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD )0-81( )0-89( ylbarovaf 6891/60/80 ainigriV fo 58 15 24 demrifnoC 6891/71/90 detropeR 6891/41/80 6891/50/80 6891/42/60 nagaeR ailacS ninotnA )33-56( demrifnoC 6891/71/90 6891/10/80 )5-31( 6891/13/70 ).J .C( anozirA j )13-86( ylbarovaf 6891/03/70 fo tsiuqnheR 98 55 93 6891/71/90 ,dekovni erutolC detropeR 6891/41/80 6891/92/70 6891/02/60 nagaeR .H mailliW )1-71( 1891/11/90 anozirA )0-99( ylbarovaf 1891/01/90 fo ronnoC'O 33 72 12 demrifnoC 1891/12/90 detropeR 1891/51/90 1891/90/90 1891/91/80 nagaeR yaD ardnaS )5791/82/11 )0-31( 5791/01/21 etaD .moN( sionillI )0-89( ylbarovaf 5791/90/21 fo snevetS 61 01 7 demrifnoC 5791/71/21 detropeR 5791/11/21 5791/80/21 5791/10/21 droF luaP nhoJ )62-86( demrifnoC 1791/01/21 )07-22( 1791/01/21 ,detcejer 2791/81/10 litnu enoptsop ot noitoM 1791/01/11 1791/90/11 i )24-25( )4-21( 1791/80/11 anozirA 1791/01/21 ylbarovaf 1791/40/11 fo tsiuqnheR 94 23 21 ,detcejer noitom erutolC detropeR 1791/32/11 1791/30/11 1791/22/01 noxiN .H mailliW 1791/01/11 1791/90/11 )0-61( 1791/80/11 )1-98( ylbarovaf 1791/40/11 ainigriV fo .rJ 54 23 21 demrifnoC 1791/60/21 detropeR 1791/32/11 1791/30/11 1791/22/01 noxiN llewoP .F siweL )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD )1-31( noitad 1991/21/01 -nemmocer 1991/11/01 )84-25( tuohtiw 1991/02/90 demrifnoC 1991/51/01 detropeR 1991/72/90 1991/91/90 1991/71/90 sgniraeh lanoitidda rof wolla 1991/61/90 ot ,199/51/01 ot 1991/80/01 1991/31/90 morf noitamrifnoc no k)7-7( 1991/21/90 ainigriV etov eludehcser ot ,1991/80/01 1991/72/90 ,deliaf 1991/11/90 hsuB fo samohT 99 18 46 ,dehcaer tnemeerga CU ylbarovaf troper ot noitoM 1991/01/90 1991/80/70 .W .H .G ecneralC 0991/91/90 0991/81/90 )1-31( 0991/71/90 erihspmaH )9-09( ylbarovaf 0991/41/90 hsuB weN fo 96 46 05 demrifnoC 0991/20/01 detropeR 0991/72/90 0991/31/90 0991/52/70 .W .H .G retuoS .H divaD )0-41( 7891/61/21 ainrofilaC )0-79( ylbarovaf 7891/51/21 fo ydenneK 56 85 41 demrifnoC 8891/30/20 detropeR 8891/72/10 7891/41/21 7891/03/11 nagaeR .M ynohtnA .edam neeb dah noitanimon laiciffo na erofeb ,7891/70/11 no noitaredisnoc morf eman sih werdhtiw ,revewoh ,grubsniG .ecitsuJ etaicossA eb ot aibmuloC fo tcirtsiD eht fo grubsniG .H salguoD etanimon ot noitnetni sih decnuonna nagaeR dlanoR tnediserP ,kroB .H treboR fo noitanimon eht fo noitcejer s'etaneS eht gniwollof ,7891/92/01 nO 7891/03/90 7891/92/90 7891/82/90 7891/52/90 7891/32/90 )5-9( 7891/22/90 ylbarovafnu 7891/12/90 detropeR 7891/60/01 7891/91/90 7891/81/90 )9-5( 7891/71/90 aibmuloC )85-24( 7891/60/01 ,detcejer 7891/61/90 fo tcirtsiD fo 801 19 07 detcejeR 7891/32/01 ylbarovaf troper ot noitoM 7891/51/90 7891/70/70 nagaeR kroB .H treboR )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD .nekat etov eettimmoc on dna dleh gniraeh oN .5002/70/01 saxeT fo 12 -- -- nwardhtiW 5002/82/01 ,eettimmoC yraiciduJ ot derrefeR 5002/70/01 hsuB .W .G sreiM .E teirraH 5002/51/90 )5-31( 5002/41/90 ).J .C( )22-87( ylbarovaf 5002/31/90 dnalyraM fo .rJ 32 61 6 demrifnoC 5002/92/90 detropeR 5002/22/90 5002/21/90 5002/60/90 hsuB .W .G streboR .G nhoJ .nekat etov eettimmoc on dna dleh gniraeh oN .5002/92/70 dnalyraM fo .rJ 93 -- -- nwardhtiW 5002/60/90 ,eettimmoC yraiciduJ ot derrefeR 5002/92/70 hsuB .W .G streboR .G nhoJ 4991/51/70 )0-81( 4991/41/70 sttesuhcassaM )9-78( ylbarovaf 4991/31/70 fo reyerB 37 36 65 demrifnoC 4991/92/70 detropeR 4991/91/70 4991/21/70 4991/71/50 notnilC .G nehpetS 3991/32/70 )0-81( 3991/22/70 kroY weN )3-69( ylbarovaf 3991/12/70 fo grubsniG 24 73 82 demrifnoC 3991/30/80 detropeR 3991/92/70 3991/02/70 3991/22/60 notnilC redaB htuR 1991/31/01 )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD .noitamrifnoc tsniaga gnitov rebmun eht dnoces eht dna ,noitamrifnoc fo rovaf ni detov ohw srotaneS fo rebmun eht si yllat etov eht ni rebmun tsrif eht ",detcejeR" ro "demrifnoC" rednu ,suhT .setov yaN fo rebmun eht erofeb semoc syawla setov aeY fo rebmun eht ,evoba nwohs setov llac-llor roF .tnesnoc suominanu ro etov eciov yb dehcaer erew sesehtnerap ni nwohs setov llac-llor tuohtiw snoitca etaneS laniF .sesehtnerap ni nwohs era setov llac-llor yb nekat snoitca etaneS laniF .)"detcejer deecorp ot noitoM"( noitaredisnoc ot deecorp ot noitom a gnitcejer ro ,)"denoptsoP"( noitaredisnoc gninoptsop ,)"delbaT"( noitanimon a gnilbat deliatne emoctuo larudecorp tsal eht ,elbat eht ni detacidni sa ,snoitanimon niatrec nO .detacidni si noitanimon a no etaneS eht yb nekat noitca larudecorp tsal eht ,derrucco semoctuo eerht gnidecerp eht fo enon nehw ,secnatsni rehto nI .)"detcejeR"( noitanimon a gnivorppasid etov a yb noitcejer etaneS dna )"nwardhtiW"( tnediserP eht yb noitanimon a fo lawardhtiw ,)"demrifnoC"( etaneS eht yb noitamrifnoc :semoctuo evisulcxe yllautum gniwollof eht srevoc ,elbat siht fo sesoprup rof ",noitca laniF" .c .noitca gnikat gnikat enoptsop ot detov ,)noitanimon swehttaM yelnatS tsrif eht gnivlovni ,1881 41 .beF no( ecnatsni eno ni ,ro noitanimon a troper ot detov eettimmoC yraiciduJ eht hcihw no etad eht si "etad etov laniF" eht ,5002 ot 3781 morf snoitanimon roF .etaneS eht ot noitanimon eht detroper rebmem rehto ro namriahc s'eettimmoc eht hcihw no lanruoJ evitucexE etaneS eht ni dedrocer etad eht si "etad etov laniF" eht ,eettimmoc ot derrefer erew taht 3781 ot roirp snoitanimon roF .b .etaneS eht yb deviecer saw noitanimon eht nehw etad eht morf ,sesehtnerap ni ,dehsiugnitsid si )"etad .moN"( etad noitanimon laitnediserp reilrae eht ,etaneS eht yb tpiecer s'noitanimon eht ot roirp etad a no tnediserP a yb edam noitanimon lanoisacco eht rof ,revewoH .nmuloc "etaneS ni deviecer etaD" eht ni nwohs si etad eno ylno nehw noitanimon nevig yna rof emas eht era setad owt eseht dna ,deviecer si noitanimon eht hcihw no etad eht sa emas eht si ,egassem noitanimon a gningis yb ,noitanimon a sekam yllamrof tnediserP eht hcihw no etad eht yllausU .a .tnemnrevoG lanoitaN naciremA ni tsylanA SRC remrof ,regrebnelloS .A lehctiM yb demrofrep saw elbat siht rof hcraeser yranimilerp evisnetxE :tnemgdelwonkcA ./simon/vog.ssergnoc.www//:ptth ta elbaliava ,metsyS noitamrofnI evitalsigeL eht ni esabatad "snoitanimoN" dna ;eugoH .B yrneH yb ,7002-9871 ,demrifnoC toN snoitanimoN truoC emerpuS ,17113LR tropeR SRC ;)s0891 eht ot roirp eettimmoc ni seillat etov dedrocer rof ecruos yramirp eht( srepapsweN lacirotsiH tseuQorP hguorht enil-no dessecca stnuocca repapswen suoirav ;ssergnoC dr301 eht hguorht ssergnoC ht77 eht morf snoitide suoirav ,radnelaC evitucexE dna evitalsigeL ,yraiciduJ eht no eettimmoC etaneS ;ssergnoC ht701 eht hguorht ssergnoC ts1 eht morf snoitide suoirav ,)lanruoJ evitucexE etaneS ,retfaereh( aciremA fo setatS detinU eht fo etaneS eht fo sgnideecorP evitucexE eht fo lanruoJ ,etaneS ,ssergnoC .S.U :secruoS 96 05 12 6002-7691 ,etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syad fo rebmun naideM 7 9 01 6691-9871 ,etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syad fo rebmun naideM 01 11 41 6002-9871 ,etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syad fo rebmun naideM )24 - 85( demrifnoC 6002/13/10 6002/31/10 6002/21/10 )52-27( )8-01( 6002/11/10 6002/03/10 ylbarovaf 6002/01/10 .rJ 28 57 06 ,dekovni erutolC detropeR 6002/42/10 6002/90/10 5002/01/11 hsuB .W .G otilA .A leumaS )s(etad tnediserP etad betad ro etaneS etad gniraeh c noitca laniF etaD etov laniF etov laniF gniraeh yb noitca etov lanif cilbup cilbuP eettimmoC aetaneS laniF tsriF ni deviecer tnediserP eenimoN tnediserP etaD :ot ro etaneS yb noitca laniF snoitca eettimmoc etaneS etaneS ni deviecer etad morf syaD .etov eit a si ereht fi liaf suht dna rovaf ni etov ytirojam a eriuqer seettimmoc etaneS ni lavorppa niag ot snoitoM .k .pihsrebmem lluf s'etaneS eht fo shtfif-eerht ,yltnerruc dna ,neht--selur etaneS rednu deriuqer ytirojam eht dedeecxe ,erutolc gnikovni yb ,etabed esolc ot noitom eht fo rovaf ni setov 86 ehT .j .62-86 tsiuqnheR mrifnoc ot detov neht dna etabed esolc ot ,etov larudecorp a tuohtiw ,deerga )1791 ,01 .ceD( yad taht retal etaneS eht ,deliaf noitom erutolc eht hguohtlA .gnitov dna tneserp srotaneS fo sdriht-owt neht--selur etaneS rednu deriuqer ytirojam-repus eht fo trohs llef etabed esolc ot noitom eht fo rovaf ni setov 25 ehT .i .noitanimon satroF eht redisnoc ot deecorp ot noitom a no )doirep yad-ruof a revo sruoh 52 naht erom demusnoc dah hcihw( etabed yhtgnel a desolc evah dluow ,devorppa fi ,noitom erutolc ehT .gnitov dna tneserp srotaneS fo sdriht-owt neht--selur etaneS rednu deriuqer ytirojam-repus eht fo trohs raf llef etabed esolc ot noitom eht fo rovaf ni setov 54 ehT .h .1 .p ,5591 ,62 .beF ,semiT kroY weN ",yriuqnI etaneS ni smiA 'dlroW enO` swovasiD nalraH" ,notsuH .A rehtuL ".ynomitset sih rof sretroper repapswen ot gniraeh eht nepo ot detov" eettimmoc eht ,ssentiw deludehcs tsal eht saw ohw ,nalraH egduJ rof ,revewoH .sessentiw lanoitidda fo ynomitset eht raeh ot ,noisses desolc ni gniraeh 52 .beF eht nageb osla eettimmoc ehT .8 .p ,5591 ,52 .beF ,semiT kroY weN ",srotaneS yb dleH gniraeH nalraH" ,notsuH .A rehtuL .)desoppo owt dna ,noitamrifnoc fo rovaf ni neves( sessentiw enin fo ynomitset eht draeh ,noisses desolc ni dleh ,noisses 42 .beF ehT .5591 ,52 dna 42 .beF no ,noitanimon nalraH eht no sgniraeh noitamrifnoc fo syad owt dleh eettimmoC yraiciduJ ehT .g .1 .p ,5291 ,92 .naJ ,tsoP notgnihsaW ",esaC releehW weN gnisserP rof ytilibisnopseR lluF semussA eH eettimmoC etaneS slleT enotS" ,xoF .W treblA eeS .yfitset ot nosrep ni deraeppa eenimon eht hcihw ta noitanimon truoC emerpuS a rof gniraeh noitamrifnoc tsrif eht saw sihT .sruoh ruof rof eettimmoC yraiciduJ eht yb denoitseuq saw eenimon eht ,noisses nepo ni dleh saw hcihw ,gniraeh ,5291 ,82 .naJ eht tA .4 .p ,5291 ,31 .naJ ,semiT kroY weN ",eroM ecnO pU dleH sI enotS fo noitanimoN" .erawaleD fo yrubsluaS dralliW .neS remrof fo ynomitset eht draeh ,noisses desolc ni dleh ,gniraeh ,5291 ,21 .naJ ehT .f .6 .p ,1291 ,1 yluJ ,tsoP notgnihsaW ",feirB ni seettimmoC dna ssergnoC fo sgnideecorP" dna ;1 .p ,1291 ,1 yluJ ,ebolG yliaD notsoB ",ecitsuJ feihC sa ,demrifnoC sI tfaT" ,sevorG .S selrahC ;1 .p ,1291 ,1 yluJ ,noitutitsnoC atnaltA ",setatS detinU fo ecitsuJ feihC weN tfaT tnediserP-xE" ,redneB .J treboR eeS .cilbup llac llor eht ekam ot ton sdrawretfa dehcaer tnemeerga na htiw ,mrifnoc ot 4-06 saw etov eht taht dna ,noisses evitucexe eht ni dednamed saw noitanimon eht no etov llac llor a taht detroper ,revewoh ,stnuocca repapsweN .lanruoJ evitucexE etaneS eht ni dedrocer ton saw ,noisses evitucexe rood-desolc ni etaneS eht yb detcudnoc ,tfaT mrifnoc ot etov llac llor 4-06 ehT .e .cilbup eht ot desolc erew yeht esuaceb ,snoisses ,3781 ,71 dna 61 .ceD eht litnu etaneS eht ni deviecer saw snoitanimon smailliW eht etad eht morf despale taht emit eht tnuoc ton seod ,sgniraeh noitamrifnoc cilbup fo setad dna etaneS eht ni deviecer erew snoitanimon setad neewteb despale taht semit eht no trap ni sesucof hcihw ,elbat evoba eht ,revewoH .gniraeh rood-desolc eettimmoC yraiciduJ a fo elpmaxe ,tseilrae eht spahrep ,ylrae na sa dedrager eb nac snoisses 71 dna 61 .ceD ehT .4781 ,8 .naJ no tnarG .S sessylU tnediserP yb nwardhtiw saw ,tseuqer s'smailliW ta ,noitanimon eht ,elohw a sa etaneS eht dna eettimmoC yraiciduJ eht htob ni noitanimon eht ot noitisoppo tnacifingis fo stroper sserp dimA .etaneS eht ot noitanimon eht troper-er ton did eettimmoc eht , snoisses rood-desolc owt eht gnidloh retfA .112 .p ,91 .lov ,lanruoJ evitucexE etaneS ".srepap dna snosrep rof dnes ot" eettimmoc eht ezirohtua ot dna eettimmoC yraiciduJ eht ot noitanimon eht timmocer ot etaneS eht detpmorp ysrevortnoc ehT .etaneS eht ot noitanimon eht detroper dah eettimmoc eht retfa ylno noitanimon smailliW eht revo esora taht ysrevortnoc a ot tnaveler sessentiw morf ynomitset raeh dna stnemucod enimaxe ot snoisses rood-desolc dleh eettimmoC yraiciduJ eht ,3781 ,71 dna 61 .ceD nO .d mbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-8955 srutkus@crs.loc.gov, 7-7162 Information Research Specialist Specialist on the Federal Judiciary Maureen Bearden Denis Steven Rutkus ./simon/vog.ssergnoc.www//:ptth ta elbaliava ,metsyS noitamrofnI evitalsigeL eht ni esabatad "snoitanimoN" ,osla ;ssergnoC ht701 eht hguorht ssergnoC ts1 eht morf snoitide suoirav ,aciremA fo setatS detinU eht fo etaneS eht fo sgnideecorP evitucexE eht fo lanruoJ ,etaneS ,ssergnoC .S.U :secruoS )11( 331 )11( 06 37 slatoT 91 )3( 91 0 6002-6691 05 )3( 61 43 5691-0981 63 )3( 12 51 9881-0381 82 )2( 4 42 9281-9871 slatoT )sesehtnerap ni tcejer )mrifnoc ot lla( sraeY ot setov( etov llac-llor yB CU ro etov eciov yB etoV llaC-lloR yb ro )CU( tnesnoC suominanU/etoV ecioV yb edaM rebmuN :snoitanimoN truoC emerpuS mrifnoC ot rehtehW no setoV eta neS .2 elbaT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL33225