document_title: Calcutta Cup

question_text: when did scotland last win calcutta cup at murrayfield

text: Calcutta Cup

text: The Calcutta Club[edit]

text: On Christmas Day 1872, a game of rugby, between 20 players representing England on one side and 20 representing Scotland on the other, was played in Calcutta.

text: The match was such a success that it was repeated a week later. These lovers of rugby wanted to form a club in the area and the aforementioned matches were the agents which led to the formation of the Calcutta Football Club in January 1873.

text: The Calcutta Club joined the Rugby Football Union in 1874. Despite the Indian climate not being entirely suitable for playing rugby, the club prospered during that first year. However, when the free bar had to be discontinued, the membership took an appreciable drop. Other sports, such as tennis and polo, which were considered to be more suited to the local climate, were making inroads into the numbers of gentlemen available. The members decided to disband but keen to perpetuate the name of the club, they withdrew the club's funds from the bank, which were in Silver Rupees, had them melted down and made into a cup which they presented to the RFU in 1878, with the provision that it should be competed for annually.

text: The cup[edit]

text: The cup is of Indian workmanship, approximately 18 inches (45 cm) high, the body is finely engraved with three king cobras forming the handles. The domed lid is surmounted by an elephant which is, it is said, copied from the Viceroy's own stock. The inscription on the Cup's wooden base reads: THE CALCUTTA CUP.

text: The base has attached to it additional plates which record the date of each match played with the name of the winning country and the names of the two captains. There is an anomaly in the recording of the winning country on the base of the Cup. It was first played for in 1879, but the plinth shows records extending back to the first international in 1871.

text: The original trophy is in a very fragile state following many years of poor treatment and is not in a strong enough condition to attend functions or go on tours. When won by England the original Calcutta Cup is put on public display in the Museum of Rugby in Twickenham, where it slowly turns around in a purpose built showcase. Both nations have full size replicas of the Cup. Whilst the original was handmade by Indian craftsmen, the replicas were made using modern technology.

text: In 1988 the cup was damaged by the antics of some drunken players, including England number eight Dean Richards and Scotland flanker John Jeffrey who played football with the Calcutta Cup along Princes Street in Edinburgh. Jeffrey received a six-month ban from the SRU, whilst Richards was given a one-match sentence from England.[1]

text: The competition[edit]

text: Despite the initial request of the Calcutta Club that the trophy be used as rugby's answer to football's FA Cup, the RFU refused to turn the Calcutta Cup into a knock-out competition for English club sides. They believed that "competitiveness" ran against the amateur ethos and instead decided that a game should be played each year between England and Scotland and whoever wins should keep it for that year. The first Calcutta Cup match was played at Raeburn Place, Edinburgh, on 10 March 1879 and ended in a draw; Scotland scored a drop goal and England a goal. The following year on 28 February 1880 England became the first winners of the Calcutta Cup when they defeated Scotland by 2 goals & 3 tries to 1 goal in Manchester. Matches have continued on an annual basis ever since except for two interruptions due to the World Wars between 1915–1919 and 1940–1946.

text: As of 2018, 125 Calcutta Cup matches have taken place. Currently, this game is the annual match between the two nations in the Six Nations Championship. The ground alternates between Murrayfield Stadium in Edinburgh (on even years) and Twickenham Stadium in London (on odd years).

text: In 2004, the two countries' rugby governing bodies, the Rugby Football Union (England) and the Scottish Rugby Union, were considering a plan to add a second Calcutta Cup fixture each year, outside the Six Nations. The second fixture would be hosted by the away nation in the Six Nations fixture of the same year. Under that plan, one nation would have to win both matches to take the Cup off its current holder. Due to a largely unfavourable reaction, the proposal soon disappeared from view.

text: Results[edit]

text: Since 1879, the Calcutta Cup has been played 125 times.

text:
Year
Date
Winner
Result
Stadium
Place

1879
10 March
draw
3–3
Raeburn Place
Edinburgh

1880
28 February
 England
9–3
Whalley Range
Manchester

1881
19 March
draw
4–4
Raeburn Place
Edinburgh

1882
4 March
 Scotland
0–2
Whalley Range
Manchester

1883
3 March
 England
1–2
Raeburn Place
Edinburgh

1884
1 March
 England
3–1
Rectory Field
Blackheath

1885
Not played

1886
13 March
draw
0–0
Raeburn Place
Edinburgh

1887
5 March
draw
1–1
Whalley Range
Manchester

1888
Not played

1889
Not played

1890
1 March
 England
0–6
Raeburn Place
Edinburgh

1891
7 March
 Scotland
3–9
Athletic Ground
Richmond

1892
5 March
 England
0–5
Raeburn Place
Edinburgh

1893
4 March
 Scotland
0–8
Headingley
Leeds

1894
17 March
 Scotland
6–0
Raeburn Place
Edinburgh

1895
9 March
 Scotland
3–6
Athletic Ground
Richmond

1896
14 March
 Scotland
11–0
Hampden Park
Glasgow

1897
13 March
 England
12–3
Fallowfield
Manchester

1898
12 March
draw
3–3
Powderhall
Edinburgh

1899
11 March
 Scotland
0–5
Rectory Field
Blackheath

1900
10 March
draw
0–0
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1901
9 March
 Scotland
3–18
Rectory Field
Blackheath

1902
15 March
 England
3–6
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1903
21 March
 Scotland
6–10
Athletic Ground
Richmond

1904
19 March
 Scotland
6–3
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1905
18 March
 Scotland
0–8
Athletic Ground
Richmond

1906
17 March
 England
3–9
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1907
16 March
 Scotland
3–8
Rectory Field
Blackheath

1908
21 March
 Scotland
16–10
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1909
20 March
 Scotland
8–18
Athletic Ground
Richmond

1910
19 March
 England
5–14
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1911
18 March
 England
13–8
Twickenham
London

1912
16 March
 Scotland
8–3
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1913
15 March
 England
3–0
Twickenham
London

1914
21 March
 England
15–16
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1915
Not held due to World War I

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920
20 March
 England
13–4
Twickenham
London

1921
19 March
 England
0–18
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1922
18 March
 England
11–5
Twickenham
London

1923
17 March
 England
6–8
Inverleith
Edinburgh

1924
15 March
 England
19–0
Twickenham
London

1925
21 March
 Scotland
14–11
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1926
20 March
 Scotland
9–17
Twickenham
London

1927
19 March
 Scotland
21–13
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1928
17 March
 England
6–0
Twickenham
London

1929
16 March
 Scotland
12–6
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1930
15 March
draw
0–0
Twickenham
London

1931
21 March
 Scotland
28–19
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1932
19 March
 England
16–3
Twickenham
London

1933
18 March
 Scotland
3–0
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1934
17 March
 England
6–3
Twickenham
London

1935
16 March
 Scotland
10–7
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1936
21 March
 England
9–8
Twickenham
London

1937
20 March
 England
3–6
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1938
19 March
 Scotland
16–21
Twickenham
London

1939
18 March
 England
6–9
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1940
Not held due to World War II

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947
15 March
 England
24–5
Twickenham
London

1948
20 March
 Scotland
6–3
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1949
19 March
 England
19–3
Twickenham
London

1950
18 March
 Scotland
13–11
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1951
17 March
 England
5–3
Twickenham
London

1952
15 March
 England
3–19
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1953
21 March
 England
26–8
Twickenham
London

1954
20 March
 England
3–13
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1955
19 March
 England
9–6
Twickenham
London

1956
17 March
 England
6–11
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1957
16 March
 England
16–3
Twickenham
London

1958
15 March
draw
3–3
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1959
21 March
draw
3–3
Twickenham
London

1960
19 March
 England
12–21
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1961
18 March
 England
6–0
Twickenham
London

1962
17 March
draw
3–3
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1963
16 March
 England
10–8
Twickenham
London

1964
21 March
 Scotland
15–6
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1965
20 March
draw
3–3
Twickenham
London

1966
19 March
 Scotland
6–3
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1967
18 March
 England
27–14
Twickenham
London

1968
16 March
 England
6–8
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1969
15 March
 England
8–3
Twickenham
London

1970
21 March
 Scotland
14–5
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1971
20 March
 Scotland
15–16
Twickenham
London

1972
18 March
 Scotland
23–9
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1973
17 March
 England
20–13
Twickenham
London

1974
2 February
 Scotland
16–14
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1975
15 March
 England
7–6
Twickenham
London

1976
21 February
 Scotland
22–12
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1977
15 January
 England
26–6
Twickenham
London

1978
4 March
 England
0–15
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1979
3 February
draw
7–7
Twickenham
London

1980
15 March
 England
18–30
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1981
21 February
 England
23–17
Twickenham
London

1982
16 January
draw
9–9
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1983
5 March
 Scotland
12–22
Twickenham
London

1984
4 February
 Scotland
18–6
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1985
16 March
 England
10–7
Twickenham
London

1986
15 February
 Scotland
33–6
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1987
4 April
 England
21–12
Twickenham
London

1988
5 March
 England
6–9
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1989
4 February
Draw
12–12
Twickenham
London

1990
17 March
 Scotland
13–7
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1991
16 February
 England
21–12
Twickenham
London

1992
18 January
 England
7–25
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1993
6 March
 England
26–12
Twickenham
London

1994
5 February
 England
14–15
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1995
18 March
 England
24–12
Twickenham
London

1996
2 March
 England
9–18
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1997
1 February
 England
41–13
Twickenham
London

1998
22 March
 England
20–34
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

1999
20 February
 England
24–21
Twickenham
London

2000
2 April
 Scotland
19–13
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2001
3 March
 England
43–3
Twickenham
London

2002
2 February
 England
3–29
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2003
22 March
 England
40–9
Twickenham
London

2004
21 February
 England
13–35
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2005
19 March
 England
43–22
Twickenham
London

2006
25 February
 Scotland
18–12
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2007
3 February
 England
42–20
Twickenham
London

2008
8 March
 Scotland
15–9
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2009
21 March
 England
26–12
Twickenham
London

2010
13 March
draw
15–15
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2011
13 March
 England
22–17
Twickenham
London

2012
4 February
 England
6–13
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2013
2 February
 England
38–18
Twickenham
London

2014
8 February
 England
0–20
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2015
14 March
 England
25–13
Twickenham
London

2016
6 February
 England
9–15[2]
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2017
11 March
 England
61–21[3]
Twickenham
London

2018
24 February
 Scotland
25–13[4]
Murrayfield
Edinburgh

2019
16 March

Twickenham
London

text: Records[edit]

text:
Team
Wins

 England
70

 Scotland
40

text: The cup has been tied 15 times.

text: The current record number of points scored by a player in a Calcutta Cup game was set by Jonny Wilkinson in 2007 when he scored 27 points (1 try, 2 conversions, 5 penalties, 1 drop goal). The previous record of 24 points was held by Rob Andrew.


document_title: Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States

question_text: why does the president appoint supreme court justices

root

text: Nomination[edit]

text: Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices and, with Senate confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed. This was for the division of power between the President and Senate by the founders, who wrote:

tag: p

text: Upon the election of a new President, incoming White House staff prepare profiles of possible candidates for the Supreme Court, considering not only judges but also politicians and other individuals whom they consider appropriate for the role. Besides considering national figures whose views are well-known, they consider others who are less recognized. They go through published rulings, articles, speeches, and other background material to get an idea of candidates' values and views on constitutional issues. Age, health, race, gender, and likelihood of confirmation are also factored into considerations. Once a Supreme Court vacancy opens, the President discusses the candidates with advisors. Senators also call the President with suggestions. After a first choice is decided, the candidate is contacted and called on by the President to serve on the highest court. Staffers send a vetting form for the candidate to fill out. They visit the candidate to go over tax records and payments to domestic help. Candidates whom the President has never met are interviewed by White House officials before being sent to the White House to be interviewed in person by the President. After making a final decision, the President calls the candidate, who is told to prepare a statement for an appearance in front of the national press for the President's formal announcement.

text: Most Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views.[1] In many cases, however, a Justice's decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Dwight D. Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. Eisenhower later called the appointment "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made".[2] Another Justice whose decisions ran contrary to what was believed to be his ideology was David Souter, who was nominated to the high court in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush. Many pundits and politicians at the time expected Souter to be a conservative; however, after becoming a Justice, his opinions generally fell on the liberal side of the political spectrum.

text: Because the Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate.

text: Confirmation[edit]

text: In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from special-interest groups, many of which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee, depending on whether the nominee's track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. By convention, nominees avoid revealing too much about their views on potential cases that may come before the Court. At the close of confirmation hearings, the Committee votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report.

text: The Committee's practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent, beginning with Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925. Some western senators were concerned with his links to Wall Street and expressed their opposition when Stone was nominated. Stone proposed what was then the novelty of appearing before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions; his testimony helped secure a confirmation vote with very little opposition. The second nominee to appear before the Committee was Felix Frankfurter, who only addressed (at the Committee's request) what he considered to be slanderous allegations against him.[3] The modern practice of the Committee questioning nominees on their judicial views began with the nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in 1955; the nomination came shortly after the Court handed down the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, and several Southern senators attempted to block Harlan's confirmation, hence the decision to testify.[4][5]

text: Once the Committee reports out the nomination, the whole Senate considers it. A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Prior to 2017, a successful filibuster threat could add the requirement of a supermajority of 60 needed in favor of cloture, which would allow debate to end and force a final vote on confirmation. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork.

text: Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. Prior to 2017 a nominee could be filibustered once debate on the nomination had begun in the full Senate. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs the debate, preventing a final vote on the nominee. President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice in 1968 was the first successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. It included both Republican and Democratic senators concerned with Fortas's ethics. President Donald Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the seat vacated by Antonin Scalia was the second. Unlike the Fortas filibuster, however, only Democratic Senators voted against cloture on the Gorsuch nomination, citing his perceived conservative judicial philosophy, and the Republican majority's prior refusal to take up Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy.[6][7][8] This led the Republican majority to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.[9]

text: Not every Supreme Court nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. A president may withdraw a nomination before an actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject the nominee; this occurred most recently with the nomination of Harriet Miers in 2006 before Committee hearings had begun, citing concerns about Senate requests during her confirmation process for access to internal Executive Branch documents resulting from her position as White House Counsel. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan withdrew the nomination of Douglas H. Ginsburg because of news reports containing marijuana use allegations.

text: The Senate may also fail to act on the nomination, which expires at the end of the session. For example, President Dwight Eisenhower's first nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in November 1954 was not acted on by the Senate; Eisenhower re-nominated Harlan in January 1955, and Harlan was confirmed two months later. Most recently, the Senate failed to act on President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in March 2016 to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia; the nomination expired in January 2017, and the vacancy was later filled by President Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch.[10]

text: Before 1981 the approval process of Justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).[11][12] Some believe this is because Congress sees Justices as playing a more political role than in the past.[13] The perceived politicization of the process has drawn criticism. For example, columnist George F. Will termed the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination "unjust" and, more generally, that the nomination process does "not delve deeply into the nominee's jurisprudential thinking."[14] Supreme Court nominations have caused media speculation about whether the judge leans to the left, middle, or right.[15] One indication of the politicized selection process is how much time each nominee spends being questioned under the glare of media coverage; before 1925, nominees were never questioned;[16] after 1955, every nominee has been required to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and answer questions; and the hours spent being grilled have lengthened from single digits (before 1980) to double digits today.[17] Another example of the politicization of the process was the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination, which remained before the Senate far longer than any other nominee.

text: Following is a table of the approximate number of hours that media sources estimate were spent on the questioning of Supreme Court nominees:

text:
Supreme Court Nominees:
Hours Spent Being Questioned

Year
Nominee
Hours

1925
Harlan Fiske Stone
7000500000000000000♠5

1938
Felix Frankfurter
*

1955
John Marshall Harlan II
*

1957
William J. Brennan, Jr.
7000300000000000000♠3

1967
Thurgood Marshall
7000700000000000000♠7

1971
William H. Rehnquist
7000700000000000000♠7

1975
John Paul Stevens
7000600000000000000♠6

1981
Sandra Day O'Connor
7001120000000000000♠12

1987
Robert Bork (not confirmed)
7001300000000000000♠30

1987
Anthony Kennedy
7001110000000000000♠11

1990
David H. Souter
7001200000000000000♠20

1991
Clarence Thomas
7001250000000000000♠25

1993
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
7001200000000000000♠20

1994
Stephen G. Breyer
7001200000000000000♠20

2005
John G. Roberts, Jr.
7001200000000000000♠20

2016
Merrick Garland (not confirmed)
5000000000000000000♠0

2017
Neil Gorsuch
7001200000000000000♠20

tag: table

text: Sources: The New York Times (2005, 2009), MSNBC (2005).[3][4][17]

text: Once the Senate confirms the nomination by an affirmative vote, the Secretary of the Senate attests to a resolution of confirmation and transmits it to the White House.[18] The President then prepares and signs a commission, and causes the Seal of the United States Department of Justice to be affixed to the document before the new Justice can take office.[19] The date of commission determines a Justice's seniority.[20] A ceremony is held in which the Justice must take the Constitutional Oath, which is used for every federal and state officeholder below the President, and the Judicial Oath used for federal judges before entering into the execution of their office.

text: Recess appointments[edit]

text: Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that:

text: Thus, when the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment to any office requiring Senate approval, including filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (always less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the nominee must be formally nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Of the ten Justices who have received recess appointments - two Chief Justices and eight Associate Justices - only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a regular appointment. No president since Dwight Eisenhower (who made three such appointments) has made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial even when applied to lower federal courts. During the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership of the Senate specifically blocked Republican President George W. Bush from making any recess appointments with the use of pro forma sessions.

text: In 1960 the Senate passed a resolution stating that it was the sense of the Senate that recess appointments to the Supreme Court should not be made except under unusual circumstances.[21] Being a resolution, it has no legally binding effect, but was intended as an expression of the position of the Senate and as a guide to executive actions. The resolution passed by a vote of 48 to 37, mainly along party lines.[21] [22]

text: Following is a list of recess appointments that have been made to the Supreme Court:

text:
Justice
Appointed by
Date of
Appointment
Date of
Nomination
Date of
Senate action
Senate
action

Johnson, ThomasThomas Johnson
Washington
000000001791-08-05-0000August 5, 1791
000000001791-10-31-0000October 31, 1791
000000001791-11-07-0000November 7, 1791
Confirmed

Rutledge, JohnJohn Rutledge
(as Chief Justice)
Washington
000000001795-07-01-0000July 1, 1795
000000001795-12-10-0000December 10, 1795
000000001795-12-15-0000December 15, 1795
Rejected

Thompson, SmithSmith Thompson
Monroe
000000001823-09-01-0000September 1, 1823
000000001823-12-05-0000December 5, 1823
000000001823-12-09-0000December 9, 1823
Confirmed

Woodbury, LeviLevi Woodbury
Polk
000000001845-09-20-0000September 20, 1845
000000001845-12-23-0000December 23, 1845
000000001846-01-03-0000January 3, 1846
Confirmed

Curtis, Benjamin RobbinsBenjamin Robbins Curtis
Fillmore
000000001851-09-22-0000September 22, 1851
000000001851-12-11-0000December 11, 1851
000000001851-12-20-0000December 20, 1851
Confirmed

Davis, DavidDavid Davis
Lincoln
000000001862-10-17-0000October 17, 1862
000000001862-12-01-0000December 1, 1862
000000001862-12-08-0000December 8, 1862
Confirmed

Holmes, Jr., Oliver WendellOliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
T. Roosevelt
000000001902-08-11-0000August 11, 1902
000000001902-12-02-0000December 2, 1902
000000001902-12-04-0000December 4, 1902
Confirmed

Warren, EarlEarl Warren
(as Chief Justice)
Eisenhower
000000001953-10-02-0000October 2, 1953
000000001954-03-01-0000March 1, 1954
000000001954-03-01-0000March 1, 1954
Confirmed

Brennan, Jr., William J.William J. Brennan, Jr.
Eisenhower
000000001956-10-15-0000October 15, 1956
000000001957-01-14-0000January 14, 1957
000000001957-03-19-0000March 19, 1957
Confirmed

Stewart, PotterPotter Stewart
Eisenhower
000000001958-10-14-0000October 14, 1958
000000001959-01-17-0000January 17, 1959
000000001959-12-05-0000December 5, 1959
Confirmed

text: Tenure and vacancies[edit]

text: The ability of a president to appoint new justices depends on the occurrence of a vacancy on the Court. The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is well understood to mean Justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they can voluntarily resign or retire. A Justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction. However, only one Justice has been impeached by the House (Samuel Chase, in 1805) and he was acquitted in the Senate. Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, once in 1953 and again in 1970), but they have not reached a vote in the House. No mechanism presently exists for removing a Justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, both unable to resign and unable to resume service.[23]

text: Because Justices have indefinite tenure, it is impossible to know when a vacancy will next occur. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. and William H. Rehnquist were nominated to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II, who retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations such as the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's nomination in 1994 and the departures of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (by death and retirement, respectively) in 2005 and 2006.

text: It is also theoretically possible for Congress to create additional vacancies by expanding the Court itself. The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, but in Article III it authorizes the Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices. As the country grew geographically, Congress increased the number of justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits. In 1807, the court was expanded to seven members, allowing Thomas Jefferson to appoint Thomas Todd as a new Justice. The expansion to nine members in 1837 allowed Andrew Jackson to appoint John Catron, and Martin Van Buren to appoint John McKinley; and the addition of a tenth seat in 1863 allowed Abraham Lincoln to name Stephen Johnson Field to the Court. However, at the request of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act (1866) which provided that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court should have eventually reached seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. However, this law did not play out to completion, for in the Judiciary Act of 1869,[24] also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of justices was again set at nine, where it has since remained. The new seat created in 1869 was filled the following year by Ulysses S. Grant's appointment of Joseph P. Bradley - the last justice to be appointed to a newly created seat on the Court.

text: President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937, seeking to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement; under Roosevelt's proposal, such appointments would continue until the Court reached a maximum size of 15 justices. Ostensibly, the proposal was made to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but the President's actual purpose was to pack the Court with justices who would support New Deal policies and legislation.[25] This plan, usually called the "Court-packing Plan", failed in Congress and proved a political disaster for Roosevelt.[26] The balance of the Court shifted with the retirement of Willis Van Devanter and the confirmation of Hugo Black in August 1937. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven Supreme Court justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[27]

text: Despite the variability, nearly all Presidents so far have been able to appoint at least one Justice. The four exceptions are William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. Harrison died a month after taking office, though his successor (John Tyler) made an appointment during that presidential term. Taylor likewise died early in his presidential term, although his successor (Millard Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. Johnson was denied the opportunity to appoint a Justice by a contraction in the size of the Supreme Court, which Congress may dictate. Jimmy Carter is the only President who completed at least one full term in office without making a nomination to the Court during his presidency.