DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate Denis Steven Rutkus Specialist on the Federal Judiciary February 19, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL31989 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Supreme Court Appointment Process Summary The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President’s years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive lifetime appointments. Such job security in the government has been conferred solely on judges and, by constitutional design, helps insure the Court’s independence from the President and Congress. The procedure for appointing a Justice is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The “Appointments Clause” (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.” The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature—the sharing of power between the President and Senate—has remained unchanged: To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On rare occasions, Presidents also have made 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, made in the 1950s, were controversial because they bypassed the Senate and its “advice and consent” role. The appointment of a Justice might or might not proceed smoothly. From the first appointments in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 123 out of 159 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. (Six individuals, however, whose initial Supreme Court nominations were not confirmed, were later re-nominated and confirmed.) Over more than two centuries, a recurring theme in the Supreme Court appointment process has been the assumed need for excellence in a nominee. However, politics also has played an important role in Supreme Court appointments. The political nature of the appointment process becomes especially apparent when a President submits a nominee with controversial views, there are sharp partisan or ideological differences between the President and the Senate, or the outcome of important constitutional issues before the Court is seen to be at stake. For a listing of all nominations to the Court and their outcomes, see CRS Report RL33225, Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 - 2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President, by Denis Steven Rutkus and Maureen Bearden. Congressional Research Service Supreme Court Appointment Process Contents Background ................................................................................................................................1 President’s Selection of a Nominee .............................................................................................6 The Role of Senate Advice....................................................................................................6 Advice from Other Sources ...................................................................................................8 Criteria for Selecting a Nominee ...........................................................................................8 Background Investigations .................................................................................................. 11 Speed with Which President Selects Nominees....................................................................13 Recess Appointments to the Court.......................................................................................16 Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee .....................................................................17 Historical Background ........................................................................................................17 Senators Nominated to the Court...................................................................................18 Movement Toward Open Hearings ................................................................................20 Nominee Appearances at Confirmation Hearings...........................................................21 Lengthening of Committee Involvement in Appointment Proecess ................................21 Pre-Hearing Stage ...............................................................................................................22 Hearings .............................................................................................................................29 Reporting the Nomination...................................................................................................32 Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote .......................................................................................35 Bringing the Nomination to the Floor..................................................................................35 Criteria Used to Evaluate Nominees....................................................................................38 Filibusters and Motions to End Debate................................................................................43 Voice Votes, Roll Calls, and Vote Margins ...........................................................................46 Reconsideration of the Confirmation Vote ...........................................................................48 Nominations That Failed to Be Confirmed ..........................................................................48 Calling Upon the Judiciary Committee to Further Examine the Nomination ........................52 After Senate Confirmation ..................................................................................................54 Conclusion................................................................................................................................55 Additional Sources....................................................................................................................57 Tables Table 1. Current Members of the Supreme Court of the United States..........................................3 Table 2. Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed by the Senate ..........................................50 Contacts Author Contact Information ......................................................................................................60 Congressional Research Service Supreme Court Appointment Process Background The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment to the nine-member Court is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power that the Court exercises, separate from, and independent of, the executive and legislative branches. While “on average, a new Justice joins the Court almost every two years,”1 the time at which any given appointment will be made to the Court is unpredictable. Appointments may be infrequent (with a vacancy on the Court occurring only once or twice, or even never at all, during a particular President’s years in office)2 or occur in close proximity to each other (with a particular President afforded several opportunities to name persons to the Court).3 Early in his presidency, Barack Obama was afforded an opportunity to make his first appointment to the Court, On May 1, 2009, Associate Justice David H. Souter notified President Obama of his intention to retire and subsequently, on June 29, 2009, stepped down from the Court. In response, President Obama on June 1 nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a U.S. court of appeals judge, to replace Justice Souter. It was the 159th time a President of the United States has nominated someone to be a Supreme Court Justice. On July 28, following four days of confirmation hearings, the Senate Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 13-6, favorably reported the Sotomayor nomination to the Senate. Following three days of floor debate, the Senate, on August 6, confirmed Judge Sotomayor to the Court by a vote of 68-31. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court hold office “during good Behaviour,”4 in effect receiving lifetime appointments. Once confirmed, Justices may hold office for as long as they live or until they voluntarily step down. Such job security in the federal government is conferred solely on judges and, by constitutional design, is intended to insure the independence of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, from the President and Congress.5 A President 1 U.S. Supreme Court, The Supreme
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Constitution: a Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 300 290 SO 019 380 AUTHOR Mann, Shelia, Ed. TITLE This Constitution: A Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18. INSTITUTION American Historical Association, Washington, D.C.; American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.; Project '87, Washington, DC. SPONS AGENCY National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 87 NOTE 321p.; For related document, see ED 282 814. Some photographs may not reproduce clearly. AVAILABLE FROMProject '87, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 nos. 13-17 $4.00 each, no. 18 $6.00). PUB TYPE Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Historical Materials (060) -- Guides - Classroom Use - Guides (For Teachers) (052) JOURNAL CIT This Constitution; n14-17 Spr Sum Win Fall 1987 n18 Spr-Sum 1988 EDRS PRICE MFO1 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Class Activities; *Constitutional History; *Constitutional Law; History Instruction; Instructioral Materials; Lesson Plans; Primary Sources; Resource Materials; Secondary Education; Social Studies; United States Government (Course); *United States History IDENTIFIERS *Bicentennial; *United States Constitution ABSTRACT Each issue in this bicentennial series features articles on selected U.S. Constitution topics, along with a section on primary documents and lesson plans or class activities. Issue 14 features: (1) "The Political Economy of tne Constitution" (K. Dolbeare; L. Medcalf); (2) "ANew Historical Whooper': Creating the Art of the Constitutional Sesquicentennial" (K. Marling); (3) "The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: To Keep the People Duly Armed" (R. Shalhope); and (4)"The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: A Well-Regulated Militia" (L. Cress). Selected articles from issue 15 include: (1) "The Origins of the Constitution" (G.
    [Show full text]
  • Reminiscences of the United States Supreme Court
    YALE LAW JO URNAL. REMINISCENCES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. On motion of Reverdy Johnson, at one time Attorney-General and afterward Senator in Congress from Maryland, I was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in 1865. Salmon P. Chase was then Chief Justice, and the associates were James M. Wayne, Robert C. Grier, Noah H. Swayne, David Davis, Samuel Nelson, Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller and Stephen J. Field. All of these, ex- cepting Justice Field,* are now dead. I was in Washington at the inauguration of Franklin Pierce in 1853 and attended some of the sessions of the Supreme Court at that time. That court then con- sisted of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice; John McLean, James M. Wayne, John Catron, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier, Benjamin R. Curtis and John A. Campbell, associates, none of whom are now living. I never saw Taney, Catron or Daniel afterward, and have no very distinct impressions as to Catron or Daniel, but Chief Justice Taney was a noticeable man and his ap- pearance is still daguerreotyped upon my memory. He was a tall, angular and exceedingly slim man. Apparently there was little or no flesh upon his bones and his face was deeply furrowed by the ravages of time. His eyes surmounted by shaggy eyebrows were deeply set under a remarkably low forehead. There was a rough and rugged distinctness about all his features. He was appointed Chief Justice in 1836 and died in office when he was 88 years old. He was 8o years of age when he delivered the opinion of the court in the celebrated Dred Scott case.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of
    Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University of Texas at Austin 727 E. 26th St., Austin, Texas 78705-3224 512/471-7263 SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES, 1823-1955, Bulk 1860-1939 Inventory Date printed: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES Inventory Extent: 1.25 linear ft. (3 boxes). Frank, John P., 1917-2002- John P. Frank, a noted attorney and constitutional scholar, was born in 1917. He received his LL.B. at the University of Wisconsin, and his J.S.D. from Yale University. He was law clerk to Justice Hugo L. Black at the October, 1942 term, among other prominent positions. He taught law from 1946 to 1954 at Indiana and Yale Universities. He has authored 12 books on the Supreme Court, the Constitution and constitutional law. A senior partner with the Phoenix firm of Lewis and Roca, which he joined in 1954, Frank was lead counsel on the ground-breaking Miranda v. Arizona case, and served as counsel to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. While serving on the Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank led a group that worked on drafting revisions to Rule 11 attorney sanctions. Frank also served from 1960 to 1970 on the Advisory Committee of Civil Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Scope and Content: The collection consists of research into U.S. Supreme Court nominations of the 19th and 20th centuries, and includes 8 inches of printed materials and 7 microfilm reels (35mm), 1823-1939 (bulk 1860-1939), collected by Frank, for a research project concerning Supreme Court nominations.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Lawyers: the Road to Reform Kenneth W
    Fordham Law Review Volume 63 | Issue 4 Article 3 1995 Law and Lawyers: The Road To Reform Kenneth W. Starr Recommended Citation Kenneth W. Starr, Law and Lawyers: The Road To Reform, 63 Fordham L. Rev. 959 (1995). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol63/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAW AND LAWYERS: THE ROAD TO REFORM KENNETH W. STARR* M Y reflections this evening, which focus on our nation's justice system, reflect broader social concerns, going to the basic struc- ture of American institutions and the precipitous decline in trust re- posed in those institutions. Let me not mince words. As a people, Americans have become highly distrustful and disrespectful of institutions, ranging from the basic social unit of the traditional nuclear family to churches and syna- gogues, schools and universities, and in this election season, of govern- ment itself. Courts-the justice system-are no exception to this powerful trend. In my view, the trend is broad-based and deep enough to be profoundly disturbing. What explains this trend of distrust and disrespect? Part of the an- swer, I believe, lies in America's inherent, culturally rooted suspicion of power. We are, at bottom, an anti-power society. We are a revolu- tionary society.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007-2008 Annual Review
    School for Advanced Research on the Human Experience A GALAXY OF THOUGHT Annual Review 2007–2008 SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH ON THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO ANNUAL REVIEW 2008 In Memory of Richard Canon 1940–2008 The School for Advanced Research gratefully acknowledges the very generous support of the Paloheimo Foundation for publication of this report. The Foundation’s grant honors the late Leonora Paloheimo and her mother, Leonora Curtin, who served on the Board of Managers of the School from 1933 to 1972. CONTENTS President’s Message: A Galaxy of Thought 4 Poet-in-Residence: Malena Mörling 34 A Constellation of Programs 6 The Poetics of the Human Experience 34 REFLECTION IMAGINATION Resident Scholar: Silvia Tomášková 8 Short Seminar: Women’s Empowerment for Health 36 SAR Press: The Chaco Experience 9 SAR Press: New Landscapes of Inequality 37 Visiting Research Associate: Monica L. Smith 10 SAR Press: The Gender of Globalization 38 Visiting Research Associate: James E. Snead 10 Advanced Seminar: Archaeology and Public Policy 39 SAR Press: The Hohokam Millennium 11 SAR Press: Opening Archaeology 40 Resident Scholar: Tiya Miles 12 Short Seminar: Archaeology and Sustainability 41 SAR Press: Small Worlds 13 Visiting Research Associate: Tutu Alicante: 41 The Pecos Conference 14 Michael S. Currier Environmental Service Short Seminar: Modernity and the Voice 14 Award Ceremony 42 SAR Press: Kenneth Chapman’s Santa Fe 15 Santa Fe Science Writers’ Workshop 42 SAR Press: Santa Fe: A History 16 SITE Santa Fe Biennial at SAR 43 SAR Prize Session in Dublin 17 Short Seminar: Indians and Energy 44 New Mexico Heritage Preservation Alliance Conference 17 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ATTENTION Public Lectures: Humans in a Changing Landscape 46 J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey United States Senate Washington, D
    I The University of Chicago Chicago 37, Illinois August 2, 1955 The Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey United States Senate Washington, D. C. Dear Senator Humphrey: You asked me what function I thought the Subcommittee on Dis­ armament of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might fulfill in the short period of time and with the limited means available between now and the first of January, and you suggested that I put my thoughts on paper. The main issue as far as substance is concerned, it seems to me, can be phrased as follows: 11 What kind and what degree of disarmament is desirable within the framework of what political settlement?" It seems to me that one would only add to the already existing confusion if disarma­ ment were discussed without stating clearly what is being assumed concern­ ing the political settlement within which it would have to operate. I assume that few Senators will be available between the im­ pending adjournment of Congress and the first of January, and thusthe ques­ tion is what could be accomplished by a competent staff. I believe such a staff could hold conferences of the fol_lowing sort: Men like Walter Lippman, George Kennan, and perhaps five to ten others who in the past have written on one aspect of the problem or another, would be asked to prepare their thoughts on the "whole problem" and to tell to a critical audience, assembled by the staff, what they would regard as a desirable settlement. They must imagine that somehow they are endowed with such magical power of persuasion that they could convince the
    [Show full text]
  • Of Judicial Independence Tara L
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 71 | Issue 2 Article 3 2018 The Origins (and Fragility) of Judicial Independence Tara L. Grove Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Tara L. Grove, The Origins (and Fragility) of Judicial Independence, 71 Vanderbilt Law Review 465 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol71/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Origins (and Fragility) of Judicial Independence Tara Leigh Grove* The federal judiciary today takes certain things for granted. Political actors will not attempt to remove Article II judges outside the impeachment process; they will not obstruct federal court orders; and they will not tinker with the Supreme Court's size in order to pack it with like-minded Justices. And yet a closer look reveals that these "self- evident truths" of judicial independence are neither self-evident nor necessary implications of our constitutional text, structure, and history. This Article demonstrates that many government officials once viewed these court-curbing measures as not only constitutionally permissible but also desirable (and politically viable) methods of "checking" the judiciary. The Article tells the story of how political actors came to treat each measure as "out of bounds" and thus built what the Article calls "conventions of judicial independence." But implicit in this story is a cautionary tale about the fragility of judicial independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Wolcott-CT-2
    Copyright by CLP Research Partial Genealogy of the Wolcotts, Part II Henry Wolcott I Main Political Affiliation: (of Connecticut) (1578-1655) 1763-83 Whig Revolutionary (Emigrated from Gaulden Manor, Tolland, Somerset, 1789-1823 Federalist England to Massachusetts, 1630) (moved to Connecticut, 1636); (CT general court, 1639); (CT gov council, 1643-55) 1824-33 National Republican = Elizabeth Saunders 1834-53 Whig (1589-1655) 1854- Republican 1600 Henry Wolcott II George Wolcott I Anna Wolcott Simon Wolcott 5 Others (1610-80) (1612-62) (1620-1701) (1624-87) (CT house of del, 1660) (Windsor constable) = Matthew Griswold = Martha Pitkin (CT house of mag, 1662) See Treat of CT = Elizabeth Treat (1618-98) (1639-1719) (1627-1705) Genealogy See Griswold of CT See Pitkin of CT SEE WOLCOTT OF CT Genealogy Genealogy GENEALOGY Part II Part I PART I 4 Children 1650 Henry Wolcott I William Wolcott I Gen. Roger Wolcott 7 Others (1670-1747) (1676-1749) (1679-1767) (CT gen ct, 1709); (Windsor CT justice, 1711); (CT gov council, 1714) SEE WOLCOTT = Abiah Hawley (1690-1716) (CT judge, 1721-31); (CT supreme court, 1732-49; chief justice, 1741-49) OF CT (Governor of Connecticut, 1750-54) GENEALOGY See Hawley of CT = Sarah Drake PART III Genealogy (1679-1747) 1700 4 Others William Wolcott II Dr. Alexander Wolcott Gen. Erastus Wolcott Ursula Wolcott 12 Others Gen. Oliver Wolcott I (1711-99) (1711-95 (1722-93) (1724-88) (1726-97) = Abigail Abbot Lydia Atwater = = Mary Richards (CT gen ct, 1760-70s; speaker) = Matthew Griswold (Litchfield co. CT sheriff, 1751)
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. President's Committee for Hungarian Refugee Relief
    DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER LIBRARY ABILENE, KANSAS U.S. PRESIDENT’S COMMITTEE FOR HUNGARIAN REFUGEE RELIEF: Records, 1957 A67-4 Compiled by Roland W. Doty, Jr. William G. Lewis Robert J. Smith 16 cubic feet 1956-1957 September 1967 INTRODUCTION The President’s Committee for Hungarian Refugee Relief was established by the President on December 12, 1956. The need for such a committee came about as a result of the United States’ desire to take care of its fair share of the Hungarians who fled their country beginning in October 1956. The Committee operated until May, 1957. During this time, it helped re-settle in the United States approximately 30,000 refugees. The Committee’s small staff was funded from the Special Projects Group appropriation. In its creation, the Committee was assigned the following duties and objectives: a. To assist in every way possible the various religious and other voluntary agencies engaged in work for Hungarian Refugees. b. To coordinate the efforts of these agencies, with special emphasis on those activities related to resettlement of the refugees. The Committee also served as a focal point to which offers of homes and jobs could be forwarded. c. To coordinate the efforts of the voluntary agencies with the work of the interested governmental departments. d. It was not the responsibility of the Committee to raise money. The records of the President’s Committee consists of incoming and outgoing correspondence, press releases, speeches, printed materials, memoranda, telegrams, programs, itineraries, statistical materials, air and sea boarding manifests, and progress reports. The subject areas of these documents deal primarily with requests from the public to assist the refugees and the Committee by volunteering homes, employment, adoption of orphans, and even marriage.
    [Show full text]
  • DISQUALIFICATION of JUDGES: in SUPPORT of the BAYH BILL Jomi P
    DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES: IN SUPPORT OF THE BAYH BILL Jomi P. FRANK*t The defeat of Judge Clement Haynsworth, Jr., for the Supreme Court demonstrates that the federal law of disqualification of judges needs to be rewritten. As Justice Blackmun said of a shift in his own personal disqualification practice, "The times have changed."1 John Marshall heard Marbury v. Madison although the substance of the case involved problems arising from his own failure to deliver papers when he was Secre- tary of State in the Madison administration. Justices Byron White and Thurgood Marshall, former Deputy Attorney General and Solicitor General, never hear cases involving matters with which they dealt in the Department of Justice. The difference is not in the character of the Justices, but in the governing law and the changed attitudes of recent times. In Marshall's day, the law of disqualifica- tion was governed by two maxims from the sages. Coke, in the most famous rubric of the law of disqualification, had said, "aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa," or no man shall be a judge in his own case Blackstone had reduced this to a straight matter of pocketbook interest by excluding the possibility of disqualifica- tion for bias or prejudice or relationship, "for the law will not suppose the possi- bility of bias or favor in a judge."' * (Mr. Frank, author of numerous books on the United States Supreme Court, is presently in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona Ed.) t I have been assisted in this article by Mr. John McLamb, a student at Yale Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Extensions of Remarks
    18344 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS June 21, 1978 provisions of this section shall not apply to a respect to reh.abilitation activities financed lieu thereof "; and", and after Une 13 insert substantially rehab111tated project assisted by a mortgage insured under this Act and the following: · under such section 8 if such rehab111tation carried out, directly or by contract, by any ( 5) by adding the following new sentence is carried out, directly or by contract, by a neighborhood-based nonprofit organization.". at the end of the first paragraph thereof: "Of neighborhood-based nonprofit organization". the additional authority to enter into con­ (c) Section 212(a) of the National Hous­ tracts for annual contributions provided on ing Act is amended by adding the following H.R. 12433 October 1, 1978, and approved in appropria­ new sentence· at the end thereof: "Notwith­ By Mr. GEPHARDT: tions Acts, the Secretary shall make available standing any other provision of law, the pro­ -Page 20, in line 10 strike out "and", and in not less than $50,000,000 for modernization visions of this section shall not apply with line 13 strike out the period and insert in of low-income housing projects.". EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS GEORGE . W. BREWSTER RETIRES includes almost 10 years of experience found time for community affairs. He is FROM PUBLIC LIFE as systems analyst, senior economics ad­ a past president of the Torrance Junior viser, and special assistant to the direc­ Chamber of Commerce; a former chair­ tor of transportation developments for man of the Torrance YMCA Board of HON. GLENN M.
    [Show full text]