General Discussion

elleng

(140,512 posts)

2. Senate confirmation

Tue Jul 10, 2018, 02:37 AM

Jul 2018

'In 1991, public opinion polls showed that the vast majority of those polled believed Thomas over Hill.[51] After extensive debate, the Committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation either way. Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52 to 48 vote on October 15, 1991,[52] the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. Vice President Quayle presided over the vote in his role as President of the Senate, partly in case his vote was needed to break a potential 50-50 tie for confirmation.[53] The final floor vote was not strictly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats (Dixon (D-IL), Exon (D-NE), DeConcini (D-AZ), Robb (D-VA), Hollings (D-SC), Fowler (D-GA), Nunn (D-GA), Breaux (D-LA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans (Jeffords (R-VT) later (I-VT) and Packwood (R-OR)) voted to reject the nomination; John Glenn was particularly vituperative in his rejection. Ironically Packwood himself would later be engulfed by sexual harassment allegations which ended his Senate career.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can anyone explain how Clarence Thomas got confirmed? [View all] oberliner Jul 2018 OP

We had a lot more red state Democrats back then RandySF Jul 2018 #1

Senate confirmation elleng Jul 2018 #2

And part of that is because Biden and the committee FAILED to call for the testimony pnwmom Jul 2018 #7

That is the real story still_one Jul 2018 #26

More witnesses wouldn't have mattered jberryhill Jul 2018 #76

History has shown that in cases like this corroboration is extremely important. And the two women pnwmom Jul 2018 #82

Everyone who participated in that vote knew there were two additional witnesses jberryhill Jul 2018 #90

I disagree. I think they didn't want the American people to know, because then there would have been pnwmom Jul 2018 #92

Bingo! tonyt53 Jul 2018 #101

Wikipedia is the least insightful way to learn oberliner Jul 2018 #16

"Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica" EX500rider Jul 2018 #87

accuracy and insight are two different things jberryhill Jul 2018 #89

Actually, it is not. xajj4791 Jul 2018 #97

Note that most of the Dems confirming were from the South bigbrother05 Jul 2018 #49

Even more bizarre, he didn't have the usual judicial experience. unblock Jul 2018 #3

Times were different then DFW Jul 2018 #4

yes - agreed NewJeffCT Jul 2018 #29

different times back then. he should probably be impeached along with Gorsuch and the new guy JI7 Jul 2018 #5

Thank you! arthritisR_US Jul 2018 #10

The Bork vote happened during the same time period and he was not confirmed oberliner Jul 2018 #17

Hard to say exactly NewJeffCT Jul 2018 #32

there's another reason to impeach gorsuch tomp Jul 2018 #84

When Anita Hill accused him, he portrayed himself as a black man who was being lynched, pnwmom Jul 2018 #6

Anita Hill, you mean. n/t Dave Starsky Jul 2018 #13

Hah! Yes. n/t pnwmom Jul 2018 #69

Anita Thomas? oberliner Jul 2018 #18

LOL. I fixed that, thanks. n/t pnwmom Jul 2018 #70

Don't forget David Brock's role Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2018 #38

Thanks for the awful reminder. Brock... appalachiablue Jul 2018 #64

Isn't this guy a Dem operative now?? disillusioned73 Jul 2018 #68

He was one of the Republican smearers, who will live in infamy. Unfortunately, pnwmom Jul 2018 #71

Yep. Infamy! He was working with Ann Coulter. Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2018 #93

I vaguely remember back then too Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2018 #86

Yes, it was People bdjhawk Jul 2018 #104

IKR? Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2018 #107

Joe Biden Raine Jul 2018 #8

That was awful... Mike Nelson Jul 2018 #9

he is too old to run anyway AlexSFCA Jul 2018 #12

Because one side was pushing hard to advance their ideological agenda... JHB Jul 2018 #11

Thank you for sharing that oberliner Jul 2018 #20

Bork was the face of the Saturday Night Massacre... JHB Jul 2018 #47

Because white men didn't want to be seen believing a black woman. WhiskeyGrinder Jul 2018 #14

Why not vote against him on ideological grounds? oberliner Jul 2018 #21

It's almost as if misogynoir is a thing. WhiskeyGrinder Jul 2018 #34

Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall oberliner Jul 2018 #40

That was a huge factor in his nomination, IMO bigbrother05 Jul 2018 #46

The "high tech lynching" comment made no sense, spooky3 Jul 2018 #53

He was referring to the Committee members bigbrother05 Jul 2018 #58

I know he was, but think about it... spooky3 Jul 2018 #60

Agree, she was the injured party, the attacks were brutal bigbrother05 Jul 2018 #65

And got to damage millions of Americans over the years spooky3 Jul 2018 #67

Back then ideological grounds was not considered a reason to reject a nominee Yupster Jul 2018 #48

While Republicans of today might do that treestar Jul 2018 #99

52-48. Orsino Jul 2018 #15

Looking it up on Wikipedia is not particularly useful oberliner Jul 2018 #22

If you're asking why eleven Dems would vote yes... Orsino Jul 2018 #25

I don't believe that for a second. Kingofalldems Jul 2018 #28

Less useful than asking for objective information on DU? LanternWaste Jul 2018 #59

Exactly. Can't fool everyone. Kingofalldems Jul 2018 #81

You're not going to like the answer. Baitball Blogger Jul 2018 #19

Biden voted against his confirmation oberliner Jul 2018 #23

This was a huge problem back then. Worse than now. We had go-along Democrats Baitball Blogger Jul 2018 #24

Interestingly (and disturbingly) Murkowski was a YES vote as well oberliner Jul 2018 #27

That was Lisa's father, Frank. TexasTowelie Jul 2018 #35

Yep oberliner Jul 2018 #39

If it's important to be fair... Orsino Jul 2018 #30

So, we were a party with no vision. Baitball Blogger Jul 2018 #31

Or the Senate was still a "deliberative body"... Orsino Jul 2018 #33

But he STOPPED the two women from corroborating Anita's story. pnwmom Jul 2018 #73

"Polls showed that twice as many Americans supported as opposed Judge Thomas" is one reason. More Hoyt Jul 2018 #36

In 1987, the Democrats were able to block Bork from being confirmed oberliner Jul 2018 #42

Bork wasn't the first black man who would ever have been appointed. pnwmom Jul 2018 #74

This was right after Bork and EOE was big WhiteTara Jul 2018 #37

Because Anita Hill wasn't white... Blue_Tires Jul 2018 #41

I think the anita hill thing acted as a diversion Mosby Jul 2018 #43

Interesting insights oberliner Jul 2018 #45

Some of the stuff done with Bork was unseemly exboyfil Jul 2018 #52

Even after we found out his porn nickname is "Long Dong Silver" Greybnk48 Jul 2018 #44

Because the Republicans played it beautifully. MicaelS Jul 2018 #50

The race issue was a canard. imo saidsimplesimon Jul 2018 #54

Agree nt spooky3 Jul 2018 #56

Of course they believed a man over a woman. MicaelS Jul 2018 #66

Because he was black and the Democrats did not want a white man to replace the great Thurgood kimbutgar Jul 2018 #51

Coupled with the panel's refusal to take sex discrimination spooky3 Jul 2018 #55

It was a simpler time. Ahhh! n/t dogknob Jul 2018 #57

I watched a lot of the hearings on Thomas and Hill. leftyladyfrommo Jul 2018 #61

Beats the shit out of me. greatauntoftriplets Jul 2018 #62

Ask Joe Biden. vsrazdem Jul 2018 #63

For starters, no one believed Anita Hill. But he shouldn't have been confirmed. Vinca Jul 2018 #72

No one? Every woman I know believed her. But there wasn't a single woman on the panel. nt pnwmom Jul 2018 #75

That's what I meant. If you weren't on the panel it didn't matter much, did it? Vinca Jul 2018 #77

Sexual harassment wasn't taken nearly as seriously as now DeminPennswoods Jul 2018 #78

Are you kidding? We have a sexual harasser as President. spooky3 Jul 2018 #98

Irrelevent, he'd be foreced to withdraw DeminPennswoods Jul 2018 #100

No. Nt spooky3 Jul 2018 #102

He wouldn't have except for no_hypocrisy Jul 2018 #79

We didn't fight as hard as we could have. I think Uncle Joe has some responsibility for that. gibraltar72 Jul 2018 #80

Bush I heaven05 Jul 2018 #83

I'm sure you were around then. Tell us your recollection. nt Guy Whitey Corngood Jul 2018 #85

Long Dong Silver. sarcasmo Jul 2018 #88

Being a misogynist was perfectly acceptable in those days lunatica Jul 2018 #91

He was confirmed, in part, because of Southern Democrats. Tatiana Jul 2018 #94

It went pretty much like this EffieBlack Jul 2018 #105

Well you knew it was over when he dropped the "high tech lynching" phrase. Tatiana Jul 2018 #106

Misogyny is what got him confirmed. SummerSnow Jul 2018 #95

You guys are rediculous! xajj4791 Jul 2018 #96

Weak kneed democrats demosincebirth Jul 2018 #103