Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: The Supreme Court confirmation process
Explainer: The Supreme Court confirmation process
Dec 7, 2025 11:28 AM

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing allegations against Supreme Court nomineeJudge Brett Kavanaugh. This is likely to be the final stage in the process the will either approve or disapprove his appointment to the Court. Here is what you should know about the confirmation process.

What does Supreme Court confirmation entail?

According to the U.S. Constitution, federal judges—including Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court—are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

Although the process is not outlined in the Constitution, the determination of whether the judicial nominee is accepted by the Senate iscarried out by the Senate Judiciary Committee. mittee assumes the principal responsibility for investigating the background and qualifications of each Supreme Court nominee.

Since the late 1960s, the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of a Supreme Court nominee almost always has consisted of three distinct stages—(1) a pre-hearing investigative stage, followed by (2) public hearings, and concluding with (3) mittee decision on what mendation to make to the full Senate.

What happens during the a pre-hearing investigative stage?

During the pre-hearing investigative stage, the nominee responds to a detailed Judiciary Committeequestionnaire for the nominee. The FBI also investigates the nominee and provides mittee with confidential reports related to its investigation. During this time, the American Bar Association also evaluates the professional qualifications of the nominee, rating the nominee as “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified.” (Kavanaugh was rated “well qualified.”) Prior to mittee hearings, the nominee may also meet with any or all individual Senators. After the investigation, the Judiciary Committee holds its public hearings.

What happens during the public hearings?

Since 1955, Court nomineestestify in person before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After opening remarks by the chair of the Judiciary Committee, other members follow with opening statements, and a panel of “presenters” introduces the nominee to mittee. The nominee is given the opportunity to make an opening statement and then begins taking questions.

Typically, the chair begins the questioning, followed by the ranking minority Member and then the rest of mittee in descending order of seniority, alternating between majority and minority members, with a uniform time limit for each Senator during each round. When the first round of questioning has pleted, mittee begins a second round, which may be followed by more rounds, at the discretion of mittee chair

What types of questions can be asked during the hearing?

The Senate can generally ask whatever they want, though thequestions are usually aboutthe nominee’s background and qualifications, judicial philosophy, past decisions as a judge, or views on current controversies.

A nominee can’t pelled to answer, and many refuse ment on issues that e up during their tenure on the Court.

How long does the hearing last?

For the most recent Supreme Court nominees, the hearings have lasted for four or five days. The longest hearing in the past 50 years was the failed nomination of Judge Robert Bork, which lasted 11 days.

What happens after the hearing?

After hearing the testimony of the nominee, the Judiciary Committee meets in open session to determine what mendation to report to the full Senate. mittee may (1) report the nomination favorably, (2) report it negatively, or (3) make no mendation at all on the nomination. A report with a negative mendation or no mendation permits a nomination to go forward, while alerting the Senate that a substantial number mittee members have reservations about the nomination.

The full Senate then votes on whether to accept or reject the nominee. Ifthe nominee is rejected, the President selects a new nominee and the process begins anew.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Espinoza v. Montana: A victory for school choice – but for how long?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue admirably defended religious liberty, school choice, and parental rights. However, the court may have also paved the way for teachers unions and hostile politicians to undermine that victory. On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that excluding religious schools from a privately-funded, state-established scholarship program is an “infringement on free exercise” of religion and is “fatally underinclusive” by denying benefits to people of faith. “Discrimination against religious...
Eroding judicial activism (more than) one nation at a time
Judicial activism is a transatlantic problem. Thus, it requires a transatlantic analysis. The Acton Institute has helped link English-speaking citizens concerned with preserving the Constitution in a conversation with the world’s 270 million Francophones. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act included sexual orientation and gender identity, paving the way for new rounds of lawsuits and potentially rendering it impossible for some employers to operate their businesses in accordance with their faith. The justices’...
Acton Line podcast: A primer on religious liberty (rebroadcast)
This week we’re rebroadcasting a conversation about religious liberty with Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, that was first released on the podcast in April of 2015. In the intervening five years since we first aired this episode, much has changed in our conversations on religious liberty – but much is still the same. While the focus is no longer on Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act as it was in 2015, religious...
We are rational animals, not racial animals
The problem with bad ideas is that they never remain merely ideas. Once they attract sufficient – not always majority – support, bad ideas e codified into worse laws, which afflict whole societies. We are witnessing that process now over a misguided notion of how important “race,” ethnicity, and other identifiable factors are to the value of the human person. Consider the answer of science and Western civilization to what makes us uniquely human. The noblest part of a creature...
Acton Line podcast: Are we in a revolutionary moment?
Since late May, many parts of the United States have grappled with unrest. Anger over George Floyd’s death sparked protests, with looting and violent riots breaking out, as well. Protesters have also been defacing and tearing down statues across the country, including statues of Confederate leaders, as well as monuments to George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and even abolitionists. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), also dubbed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), was a six-block area in Seattle where...
Rand Paul on the fatal conceits of COVID-19 central planning
When the first wave of COVID-19 hit the United States, Americans were generally sympathetic to the various lockdowns. Yes, we were likely to endure significant economic pain, but given how little we knew about the virus and how great the risks could be, we were willing to accept the cost. Now, after months of mismanaged responses, contradictory analyses, and flip-flopping guidance from our esteemed sources, trust in our leaders and institutions is wearing thin. Despite all that we have learned,...
Evolving between two worlds
In the latest issue of The New Yorker Larissa MacFarquhar has a deeply researched and beautifully written story, “How Prosperity Transformed the Falklands.” It chronicles the history of the Falkland Islands from the early settlement of the then-uninhabited islands to the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982, as well as the economic transformation after that conflict. It is an economic success story but also a meditation on what makes munity and nation and how rapid economic...
Michael Matheson Miller to Patrick Deneen: Strong towns need strong economies
Among the most influential critics of the free market on the Right is Patrick Deneen, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame. Acton Institute Senior Research Fellow Michael Matheson Miller has published a response in Law & Liberty to Deneen’s recent plea for a national policy to favor munities (“Thinking Big to Act Small” in the American Compass). Miller writes that he shares Deneen’s belief in decentralization, the problems of individualism, the shallow nature of consumerism, and...
Following the crowd: Rene Girard on the denial of Peter
This week, June 29, was the solemn feast of Saints Peter and Paul. The Apostle Peter is remembered for many things: his declaration of Jesus as the Messiah; his boasting of fidelity, followed by his threefold denial of Christ; and his subsequent repentance and heroic martyrdom The late French anthropologist and former Stanford professor Rene Girard has an insightful discussion about the denial of Peter and the problem of scapegoating and contagion. He sees in it an archetype of the...
Acton alumni spotlight: Justin Beene – Developing community and seeking justice
Justin Beene is the director of the Grand Rapids Center for Community Transformation and long-time faculty member of Acton University. He has spoken munity development and poverty several times at Acton events. You can hear his AU talk, “Community and Economic Development,” by clicking the button at the bottom of this interview. I’ve long admired Justin and the work he’s engagedin. Recently, I had the chance to ask Justin several questions about Acton, his work, and the current cultural upheaval...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved