Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
The Clarence Thomas Nomination, 20 Years Later
The men who shepherded Thomas through confirmation reflect on the Anita Hill hearings 20 years later.

By Brian Bolduc


Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send Follow•   followers
Text  

Pres. George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court on July 1, 1991. Four days later, the National Organization for Women (NOW) declared war.

“We’re going to bork him,” vowed member Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”

Advertisement

To “bork,” according to William Safire’s Political Dictionary, is “to viciously attack a presidential nominee, blackening his name in an all-out effort to defeat his confirmation by the Senate.” The verb stems from the name of Pres. Ronald Reagan’s ill-fated nominee Robert Bork, whose confirmation the Senate rejected, 42–58, in 1987.

By 1991, Republican presidents had appointed the last nine members of the Court (though not every nominee had proven to be conservative). Roe v. Wade had been on the books for 18 years, but its supporters were worried. Here was a black Republican — to fill the seat that Thurgood Marshall had held for 24 years, no less. And the Democrat-controlled Senate was poised to confirm him.

“We will not sit quietly by while the Democratic Senate acquiesces to this court-packing strategy,” promised Patricia Ireland, vice president of NOW.

They were anything but quiet. NOW waged a national campaign to defeat Thomas. The National Education Association joined the cause, passing a resolution expressing “grave concern” over Thomas’s position on “reproductive freedom.”

By any means, Thomas was qualified. He was a graduate of Yale Law School who had spent eight years as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and one year as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. But perhaps his most beneficial experience was a stint as an aide to Sen. Jack Danforth (Mo.), a moderate Republican whom the Bush administration asked to shepherd his nomination through the Senate. Before the Judiciary Committee held hearings, Danforth accompanied Thomas on over 60 visits with senators.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Joe Biden (D., Del.), assisted the feminists’ assault on Thomas. The Senate had confirmed the 43-year-old judge for other positions, so there was no need for a thorough investigation. Yet Biden delayed the hearings until late September.

“It was an intentional delay,” remembers former senator Hank Brown, (R., Colo.). “It was designed to accommodate the people who went after him.”

In the first round of questioning, the Democrats tried to pin down Thomas’s judicial philosophy — that is, they tried to get him to talk about Roe v. Wade. They were skeptical when he told them he had never discussed the infamous case. But in his memoir, Thomas explains, “In law school I’d been a self-styled ‘lazy libertarian’ who saw abortion as a purely personal matter. . . . Roe was handed down after I studied constitutional law.”

Mostly splitting along party lines, the committee defeated a motion to recommend his confirmation, but Thomas survived. (Only one Democrat, Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, voted in Thomas’s favor.) On Sept. 27, 1991, the committee voted to send his nomination to the floor without a recommendation. The Senate scheduled a vote on Thomas’s nomination for October 8, and Danforth believed Thomas would get about 67 votes.

Then he got a phone call from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah).

It was the night of October 5, and Danforth was watching a movie at home with his wife. When he picked up the phone, Hatch was on the line. He told Danforth that National Public Radio was running a story the next morning about a former assistant to Thomas named Anita Hill, who had alleged he had sexually harassed her.

“Oh, Orrin,” Danforth replied. “No one’s going to believe that.”

Hatch was less sanguine. “This is going to be tough,” he said.

Initially, Hill didn’t want to testify before Congress. The FBI had promised her anonymity, and the bureau had briefed the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee on her allegations.

“Biden had already signed off on the FBI report as not cause for any delay in the proceedings,” says Boyden Gray, then counsel to the president. Hill’s allegations didn’t add up: The FBI determined that “what she was complaining about had occurred — based on her own timeline — two or three months before she had ever met Thomas.” Nonetheless, “once it was leaked to the public, it started the whole thing all over again.”

1   2   Next >
Text  

You Might Also Like...

Trinko: Will Fear Decide Texas Senate Race?

Symposium: Polling Life

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST



COMMENTS   27

EXPAND  

David H
   10/21/11 08:12

I forgot about Biden's role in this. Why wasn't this an issue in 2008?

Kennedy was a dishonest man in many ways; they way he conducted himself during these hearings was shameful and I was glad Thomas put him in his place.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/24/11 13:45

And don't forget what Orrin Hatch did: became a real lawyer and pounded Anita Hill's testimony into the ground, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that she lied. I often have wished that Sen Hatch would take a 6-year vaction from the senate and reconnect to the middle class before trying to return, but during those appalling hearings, I was proud of him. Sen Hatch: turn your agression loose on the wacky economic nonsense!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
FJ Harris
   10/21/11 08:13

Justice Thomas has become a great man. As a conservative I am proud beyond measure to be counted in his company.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/21/11 08:20

“At least two of the top members on the Judiciary Committee told me they believed Thomas, but that they were going to vote against him. I was very disappointed,” Hatch says. In addition to those two, he avers, “Senator Kennedy knew Thomas was innocent. I believe he knew it.”

Of course they ALL knew he was innocent, as Hill's story was ridiculous, but it served their political purpose. Honesty and integrity are not qualities which Democrats value.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/21/11 08:23

remarkable that it has been 20 yrs (dang that means I'm older??) Anyway Clarence Thomas is a giant in my view, evidenced by how Libs continue to tear him down by questioning his intelligence..his quote about high-tech lynching was classic! Can't stray far from the reservation if you're black! Look out Herman, they're readying their fire for you!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/21/11 08:32

Every black American should have been outraged at Thomas' treatment by the Democrats. That should have been the necessary eye-opener to break the Dems' hold on the black community, but no, the usual race hustlers stood idly by and even condoned their actions. I just thank God that Thomas survived and is the wisest justice in the SCOTUS.

But Herman Cain is receiving the same treatment today from the same pack of liars, and the race hustlers are once again leading the chorus.

What will it take to shake the black community from its -- dare I say it? -- brainwashing?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/21/11 08:51

The guy's a horndog, and back before Clinton, that was a firing offense.

Anita Hill passed a lie detector test. Thomas was unwilling to take one. Angela Wright was ready to corroborate Hill's testimony, but wasn't called.

Being a horndog isn't a firing offense anymore. Thomas was up for confirmation at the wrong time. These days, chasing skirts ain't no big deal. Ask Newt Gingrich.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
David H
   10/21/11 09:25

Or Ted Kennedy, or Gary Hart, or Anthony Weiner. Get real.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/23/11 11:14
   10/21/11 10:48

My captcha was chevrolet volt? Oy. Now we are advertising socialism on NR?

I watched and listened carefully to the Thomas hearings. I am a conservative but I wanted to be fair. I was ready to believe Anita Hill until at one point one of the liberal senators asked her in a voice full of sympathy, "Who are you angry with now that this is over?"
When Anita Hill, all Jesus like, answered, "I am not angry at anyone, sir. ", she lost me. I knew she was lying. She claimed she was dragged to those hearings kicking and screaming and she was upset that someone leaked it all to the papers and she never wanted this publicity. Well, if someone did that to me, I'd be angry as hell. When she said she was not angry at anyone, I knew she was lying though her teeth the whole way.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/21/11 10:56

What a bizarre take. Have you ever been gracious when you could have behaved otherwise?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
larrytex56
   10/21/11 11:00

Passing a lie detector test proves Anita Hill was telling the truth? Ha! All it proves is that she was as skilled a liar and ideologue as the other leftist feminist types who are willing to do anything they can to destroy a man like Thomas.

Nothing she said had any germ of truth. Nothing.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Newark
   10/24/11 12:20

I am under the impression that lie detector results are not allowed in such a hearing nor in Court. Am I not right?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/21/11 11:44

How much more logical and coherent could your comment be. After all, in Biden-like fashion, you insult your target by calling him a horndog. Who could possible quibble with your reasoning there. And as for not calling Angela Wright, well, that is the fault of those nasty Republicans that wanted to be over it all ready. Because after all, Biden was in involved at the time. He must have been a Republican all those years ago and changed party affilitations later. Logical and coherent - I'm convinced.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/21/11 09:46

Amazing! Clarence Thomas goes on while that twit Anita Hill has disappeared in to the abyss.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/21/11 10:03

How sad you only chose to write about one side of the story.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 RobL
   10/21/11 10:10

I had this displeasure of taking a long drive this past Sunday and as I was flipping though radio stations I heard Anita Hill speaking. Turned out to be an NPR broadcast with Anita being interviewed by an extremely sympathetic host at college campus seminar commemorating the career and achievements of Hill and trumpeting her as a hero for the ‘ordeal’ she went through and her success in life despite it.

(realize I know she received death threats and had feces mailed to her and in no way approve of despicable behavior and I’m happy she has found academic law a rewarding career but she represents the disingenuous, lying, scheming, cheating Left willing to do anything to get its way which is every bit as dangerous and disgusting as what she went through)

To think 20 years ago I was an adoring NPR fan and donor too!). I believed Anita Hill and despised Thomas and all conservatives as they were as the liberals declared: true evil.

Ahh but I’m an adult now; I’ve lived, worked, raised a family; experienced the joys and sorrows of life and am no longer a naive child looking to emulate a popular movement to assuage my yet undeveloped ego. In short – I’ve gown up and learned to think on my own, and can only laugh and wonder what I was thinking back then.

What’s not a laughing matter though is these days the media, education system and popular culture are overtly liberal, biased and all the more powerful to influence our children…which will make it all the more harder for them to ‘awaken’ over the next twenty years like I did.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 RobL
   10/21/11 10:12

Silly me...I havent 'gown' up...really, I havent.

Meant to say grown up (not that there is anything wrong with gowning up...if thats your thing...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 MAFV
   10/21/11 10:49

Thanks Mr. Bolduc.

Justice Thomas is living proof of what happens to a "slave" who escapes the moral mongering lib-progressive redistribute the wealth ideological "plantation"...they are villified as "Uncle Toms" and condemned as mysogynistic "horndogs".

If the goofs on the left were not such tremendous fun they'd be useless.

What Fun.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/21/11 10:59

If the contempt on the right were not so palapable.

Neither fun nor encouraging.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact