Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can anyone explain how Clarence Thomas got confirmed? [View all]JHB
(37,157 posts)11. Because one side was pushing hard to advance their ideological agenda...
...and the other side thought in terms of norms and civility, and didn't want another fight.
From a Feb. 2014 thread on the subject:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10024571481#post47
The reason Thomas was put on the SC was...
...NOT because he was the most qualified jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black conservative jurist. He wasn't.
He was the most qualified black conservative with reliable but obfuscatable views on abortion & other subjects, and was young enough that he'd stay on the court for decades.
The Democratic senators were initially ready to give him a pass, since 1) they didn't look forward to another SC nomination battle, and 2) initially the black community was receptive to Thomas -- not enthusiastic, but not inclined to oppose -- and a fight against him wouldn't be well received.
At the time I thought Thomas should have been voted down just because of his lackluster record and his ignoring conflicts of interest (Thomas failed to recuse himself in a case involving the Ralston Purina company, where his political mentor Sen. John Danforth owned millions in stock and had brothers on the board of directors. Thomas' decision in favor of Purina directly benefited his pals).
Black opinion didn't shift until later in the process, after Thurgood Marshall made his "a black snake is still a snake" comment. The senators were finally forced to take a harder line when the harassment charges leaked out, and giving Thomas a pass would piss off another Democratic constituency: women fighting workplace harassment.
But all that happened too late: by that point conservatives were ginned up in support and the rest of the establishment didn't want another high-profile fight, so the Thomas hearings were kept to a he-said-she-said with Anita Hill (Angela Wright was shunted off to the side), giving the senators their excuse to just put it behind them.
So here we are, a quarter-century later, and he's still a lackluster jurist who ignores conflicts of interest, and is a reliable conservative operative in the courts.
...NOT because he was the most qualified jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black conservative jurist. He wasn't.
He was the most qualified black conservative with reliable but obfuscatable views on abortion & other subjects, and was young enough that he'd stay on the court for decades.
The Democratic senators were initially ready to give him a pass, since 1) they didn't look forward to another SC nomination battle, and 2) initially the black community was receptive to Thomas -- not enthusiastic, but not inclined to oppose -- and a fight against him wouldn't be well received.
At the time I thought Thomas should have been voted down just because of his lackluster record and his ignoring conflicts of interest (Thomas failed to recuse himself in a case involving the Ralston Purina company, where his political mentor Sen. John Danforth owned millions in stock and had brothers on the board of directors. Thomas' decision in favor of Purina directly benefited his pals).
Black opinion didn't shift until later in the process, after Thurgood Marshall made his "a black snake is still a snake" comment. The senators were finally forced to take a harder line when the harassment charges leaked out, and giving Thomas a pass would piss off another Democratic constituency: women fighting workplace harassment.
But all that happened too late: by that point conservatives were ginned up in support and the rest of the establishment didn't want another high-profile fight, so the Thomas hearings were kept to a he-said-she-said with Anita Hill (Angela Wright was shunted off to the side), giving the senators their excuse to just put it behind them.
So here we are, a quarter-century later, and he's still a lackluster jurist who ignores conflicts of interest, and is a reliable conservative operative in the courts.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
107 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And part of that is because Biden and the committee FAILED to call for the testimony
pnwmom
Jul 2018
#7
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
different times back then. he should probably be impeached along with Gorsuch and the new guy
JI7
Jul 2018
#5
When Anita Hill accused him, he portrayed himself as a black man who was being lynched,
pnwmom
Jul 2018
#6
This was a huge problem back then. Worse than now. We had go-along Democrats
Baitball Blogger
Jul 2018
#24
"Polls showed that twice as many Americans supported as opposed Judge Thomas" is one reason. More
Hoyt
Jul 2018
#36
Because he was black and the Democrats did not want a white man to replace the great Thurgood
kimbutgar
Jul 2018
#51
No one? Every woman I know believed her. But there wasn't a single woman on the panel. nt
pnwmom
Jul 2018
#75
We didn't fight as hard as we could have. I think Uncle Joe has some responsibility for that.
gibraltar72
Jul 2018
#80