The numbers [some of them]<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n- Individuals nominated to U.S. Supreme Court since 1789: 151<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Nominees not confirmed by Senate: 36<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Nominees rejected, but re-nominated later and confirmed: 6<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Nominees confirmed, but declining to serve: 7<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Nominees submitted more than once, but not confirmed: 6<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/p>\n
The first to fail<\/strong><\/h3>\nAmerica\u2019s first unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination occurred in 1789. George Washington nominated William Paterson, but withdrew the nomination one day later, when he realized that he was violating the almost-still-wet U.S. Constitution by appointing a sitting US Senator. The law creating the Supreme Court barred anyone from serving who was in office when the law was enacted. Washington\u2019s workaround was to wait until a few days later, when Paterson\u2019s elected term ended, and a new Congress went into session. Paterson was then immediately confirmed.<\/p>\n
Most rejections for a President<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe U.S. President with the highest tally of rejected Supreme Court nominees was John Tyler. He had the opportunity to fill two Supreme Court vacancies. In the final 15 months of his presidency, he made 9 nominations, in a convoluted merry-go-round of nominations, withdrawals and re-nominations of the same five men. Only Samuel Nelson, his fifth nominee, was confirmed.<\/p>\n
Most notorious Justice who was almost not confirme<\/strong>d<\/strong>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.occasionalplanet.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/taneyRB-150x150.jpg?resize=126%2C126\" "\\"taneyRB\\"")
<\/a><\/h3>\nRoger B. Taney was nominated twice by President Andrew Jackson. Taney\u2019s first nomination, to Associate Justice, was postponed indefinitely by the Senate. During the next Congress, he was nominated and confirmed as Chief Justice, and he went on to author the Dred Scott <\/em>decision, which upheld the legality of slavery.<\/p>\n A victim of downsizing<\/strong><\/h3>\nOn April 16, 1866, President Andrew Johnson nominated Henry Stanbery to replace a justice who had \u00a0died the previous May. By the time Stanbery was nominated, however, the House of Representatives had passed a bill decreasing the number of associate justices in the Supreme Court from eight to six. The bill effectively eliminated the vacancy that Stanbery would have filled. Historians speculate that the downsizing was a calculated move by a Republican Congress to prevent Democrat Johnson from shaping the court. Interestingly, within two months of the inauguration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, Congress passed a law reinstating the eight-man Associate Justice bench.<\/p>\n
Lame-duck nominees<\/strong><\/h3>\nIf you want to be a Supreme Court justice, avoid being nominated by a president who is about to leave office. Two of President Lyndon Johnson\u2019s nominees\u2014Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry\u2014learned this lesson the hard way. Both were nominated during Johnson\u2019s final seven months in office [after he announced that he would not seek re-election]. Seeing Johnson as a lame-duck president, nineteen Senators issued a statement indicating that, on this basis, they would oppose any nomination by President Johnson.<\/p>\n
The biggest loser<\/strong><\/h3>\nAlexander Woolcott, nominated in 1811 by President James Madison, ran into a buzz saw of opposition because, as a U.S. customs collector, he had strongly enforced a controversial embargo. Senators also questioned his overall qualifications for the Court. The Senate rejected him by a vote of 9-24, the widest margin in Supreme Court history.<\/p>\n
Ginsburg the inhaler<\/strong>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.occasionalplanet.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/ginsberg-200x300.jpg?resize=98%2C149\" "\\"WL009557\\"")
<\/a><\/h3>\nAlthough seemingly well-qualified for the Supreme Court, Douglas Ginsburg\u2014nominated by President Reagan in 1987\u2014never really made it to the starting line. After he was nominated, a report aired on National Public Radio (NPR) revealing that Ginsburg had used marijuana “on a few occasions” during his student days in the 1960s. Senators didn\u2019t like that, but they were especially shocked to hear that he continued to smoke pot after graduation and while he served as a Harvard professor in the 1970s. Ginsburg got the message and withdrew his own nomination.<\/p>\n
The reje<\/strong>cted nominee whose name became a political verb<\/strong><\/h3>\nSupreme Court nominees who are rejected on the basis of their views\u2014or at least their views as perceived by members of the Senate–are said to have been \u201cborked.\u201d<\/a> The neologism derives from Robert Bork, nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and rejected by the Senate after some of the toughest and most substantive confirmation hearings in recent memory. Bork\u2019s defenders say that his conservative views were unfairly portrayed.\u00a0 Conservative commentators tend to define \u201cborking<\/a>\u201d as the unfair vilification and defamation of a nominee to block his or her appointment. Liberal commentators take a different view, describing what happened in his confirmation hearings as a rigorous probing of Bork\u2019s legal positions.<\/p>\nBut whichever is your preferred definition, subsequent nominees clearly learned a lesson from the original \u201cborking:\u201d to avoid public positions that would enable anyone to \u201cbork\u201d them. To see that lesson in action, watch excerpts of the Senate confirmation hearings of current Supreme Court justices Roberts<\/a> and Alito<\/a>.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Individuals nominated to U.S. Supreme Court since 1789: 151<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Nominees not confirmed by Senate: 36<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Nominees rejected, but re-nominated later and confirmed: 6<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Nominees confirmed, but declining to serve: 7<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Nominees submitted more than once, but not confirmed: 6<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/p>\n
The first to fail<\/strong><\/h3>\n
America\u2019s first unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination occurred in 1789. George Washington nominated William Paterson, but withdrew the nomination one day later, when he realized that he was violating the almost-still-wet U.S. Constitution by appointing a sitting US Senator. The law creating the Supreme Court barred anyone from serving who was in office when the law was enacted. Washington\u2019s workaround was to wait until a few days later, when Paterson\u2019s elected term ended, and a new Congress went into session. Paterson was then immediately confirmed.<\/p>\n
Most rejections for a President<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The U.S. President with the highest tally of rejected Supreme Court nominees was John Tyler. He had the opportunity to fill two Supreme Court vacancies. In the final 15 months of his presidency, he made 9 nominations, in a convoluted merry-go-round of nominations, withdrawals and re-nominations of the same five men. Only Samuel Nelson, his fifth nominee, was confirmed.<\/p>\n
Most notorious Justice who was almost not confirme<\/strong>d<\/strong>
<\/a><\/h3>\nRoger B. Taney was nominated twice by President Andrew Jackson. Taney\u2019s first nomination, to Associate Justice, was postponed indefinitely by the Senate. During the next Congress, he was nominated and confirmed as Chief Justice, and he went on to author the Dred Scott <\/em>decision, which upheld the legality of slavery.<\/p>\n
A victim of downsizing<\/strong><\/h3>\n
On April 16, 1866, President Andrew Johnson nominated Henry Stanbery to replace a justice who had \u00a0died the previous May. By the time Stanbery was nominated, however, the House of Representatives had passed a bill decreasing the number of associate justices in the Supreme Court from eight to six. The bill effectively eliminated the vacancy that Stanbery would have filled. Historians speculate that the downsizing was a calculated move by a Republican Congress to prevent Democrat Johnson from shaping the court. Interestingly, within two months of the inauguration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, Congress passed a law reinstating the eight-man Associate Justice bench.<\/p>\n
Lame-duck nominees<\/strong><\/h3>\n
If you want to be a Supreme Court justice, avoid being nominated by a president who is about to leave office. Two of President Lyndon Johnson\u2019s nominees\u2014Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry\u2014learned this lesson the hard way. Both were nominated during Johnson\u2019s final seven months in office [after he announced that he would not seek re-election]. Seeing Johnson as a lame-duck president, nineteen Senators issued a statement indicating that, on this basis, they would oppose any nomination by President Johnson.<\/p>\n
The biggest loser<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Alexander Woolcott, nominated in 1811 by President James Madison, ran into a buzz saw of opposition because, as a U.S. customs collector, he had strongly enforced a controversial embargo. Senators also questioned his overall qualifications for the Court. The Senate rejected him by a vote of 9-24, the widest margin in Supreme Court history.<\/p>\n
Ginsburg the inhaler<\/strong>
<\/a><\/h3>\nAlthough seemingly well-qualified for the Supreme Court, Douglas Ginsburg\u2014nominated by President Reagan in 1987\u2014never really made it to the starting line. After he was nominated, a report aired on National Public Radio (NPR) revealing that Ginsburg had used marijuana “on a few occasions” during his student days in the 1960s. Senators didn\u2019t like that, but they were especially shocked to hear that he continued to smoke pot after graduation and while he served as a Harvard professor in the 1970s. Ginsburg got the message and withdrew his own nomination.<\/p>\n
The reje<\/strong>cted nominee whose name became a political verb<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Supreme Court nominees who are rejected on the basis of their views\u2014or at least their views as perceived by members of the Senate–are said to have been \u201cborked.\u201d<\/a> The neologism derives from Robert Bork, nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and rejected by the Senate after some of the toughest and most substantive confirmation hearings in recent memory. Bork\u2019s defenders say that his conservative views were unfairly portrayed.\u00a0 Conservative commentators tend to define \u201cborking<\/a>\u201d as the unfair vilification and defamation of a nominee to block his or her appointment. Liberal commentators take a different view, describing what happened in his confirmation hearings as a rigorous probing of Bork\u2019s legal positions.<\/p>\n
But whichever is your preferred definition, subsequent nominees clearly learned a lesson from the original \u201cborking:\u201d to avoid public positions that would enable anyone to \u201cbork\u201d them. To see that lesson in action, watch excerpts of the Senate confirmation hearings of current Supreme Court justices Roberts<\/a> and Alito<\/a>.<\/p>\n
- Nominees not confirmed by Senate: 36<\/strong><\/li>\n