Abstract
This paper examines the political and legal dynamics surrounding the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices, with a focus on the contentious confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas. It argues that, while the existing nomination process is fundamentally sound, it failed in Thomas's case due to a lack of emphasis on his professional qualifications, integrity, and judicial philosophy. The essay identifies deep-rooted political and social divisions, particularly regarding race and gender, as the primary factors undermining a productive confirmation process. Through an analysis of historical precedents, it highlights moments when the nomination process functioned effectively and critiques the performances of key players—President George H.W. Bush, Justice Thomas, and various senators—during the Thomas hearings. The conclusion reflects on the shifting perceptions of race and justice in the United States over the past two decades and emphasizes the need for a more principled approach to Supreme Court nominations. It advocates for reforms that prioritize a nominee's qualifications over political considerations while recognizing the enduring legacy of justices like Thurgood Marshall, who championed racial justice. Ultimately, the essay calls for a return to a more grounded and less partisan vision of the judiciary, one that genuinely seeks to address the complexities of racial inequality and civil rights.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1992
Publication Information
60 George Washington Law Review 969-996 (1992)
Repository Citation
Gerhardt, Michael J., "Divided Justice: A Commentary on the Nomination and Confirmation of Justice Thomas" (1992). Faculty Publications. 979.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/979
