Abstract

This article critically examines the nomination and confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court, situating the episode within the broader history of judicial appointments. Michael J. Gerhardt argues that the constitutional framework governing Supreme Court nominations remains fundamentally sound, but that the process failed in this instance due to the politicization of race, ideology, and personal conduct rather than attention to professional competence and judicial philosophy. The essay traces historical examples of successful and failed nominations, identifies the factors that have promoted merit-based appointments, and contrasts them with the partisan and racially charged context of the Thomas hearings. Gerhardt evaluates the roles played by President George H. W. Bush, the Senate, and Thomas himself, concluding that the hearings represented one of the most divisive confirmation battles in American history. The article further proposes modest reforms designed to encourage presidents and senators to prioritize professional qualifications, public records, and judicial temperament over short-term political gains. Ultimately, it underscores the consequences of subordinating constitutional ideals to political expediency in shaping the Supreme Court.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1992

Publication Information

60 George Washington Law Review 969-996 (1992)

Download

Share

COinS