Clarence Thomas' nomination to become an Associate Justice passed the Senate on a 52-48 vote on October 15, 1991, the most ever votes to oppose a successful Supreme Court nomination. It is clear that he lied to the Senate during his confirmation hearing. Again, from Kinsley's op-ed yesterday:But Clarence Thomas is different, because his famous 1991 confirmation was
different. His strategy was to do or say anything that would allow him to crawl
past the finish line. When the prize is a virtually invulnerable lifetime
appointment, that's a good strategy. But it can, and should, come back to haunt
you when you put in for a promotion.Thomas' performances at the hearings, as well as the things we know now that
we didn't know then, and even the things we knew then but were bullied or rushed
into ignoring, are not just fair game — they are disqualifying. If he wasn't
unworthy of the Supreme Court when his confirmation hearings began, he certainly
was by the time they were over. The fact that he got confirmed as an associate
justice anyway is no reason to give him a free pass to chief justice. Fool me
once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
It is beyond legitimate dispute that he tried to leave the impression that
he'd never even thought or talked about Roe. This was implausible on its face —
Roe is the most controversial Supreme Court ruling of the last century, and it
came down while Thomas was in law school — but no one could prove Thomas a liar
during the hearings. Since then, however, several people have popped up with
memories of having discussed Roe with Thomas. His views were as you would
suspect, and he has reasserted them with a vengeance from the moment he joined
the court.
Thomas' supporters say he didn't commit perjury because he testified only
that he had never "debated" Roe, not that he had never "discussed" it. They also
like to point out that he said he had no view on Roe "this day," which doesn't
make him a liar if he expressed a view some other day.
This is pathetic. But it's also irrelevant. The standard for becoming chief
justice ought to be a bit higher than the standard for staying out of jail.
Thomas indisputably did his best to deceive senators trying to perform their
constitutional duty of advice and consent. If that isn't something the Senate
should consider when passing judgment on his fitness for an even higher job,
then "advice and consent" has no meaning. And we have endured too many sermons
from Clarence Thomas, strict constructionist, to believe that the words of the
Constitution have no meaning.
Note the Thomas nomination by George H.W. Bush occurred when the Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate. I'm saddened to say that both the Senators in my state of California (Cranston(D) and Seymour(R)) voted for Thomas. It is worthy to note that it was the Hill-Thomas Hearings that led to an unprecedented number of women running for the Senate in 1992 ("The Year of the Woman") and led to both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer being elected U.S. Senators from California just over a year later.
On this day that we celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday with a reflection on the state of civil rights in this country let us not forget that there are those who would use the language of that movement to dismantle and destroy the hard-fought gains. Clarence Thomas is in that group and his nomination to be Chief Justice must be opposed by all progressive and reform Democrats and those who truly believe in continuing the battle for equality and justice that Martin Luther King, Jr fought for while he was alive.
