88 wrote:Terry, you have to be on crack. How can you read the words written by Clarence Thomas over the years and then suggest that he was not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice? You may not agree with him. But sheeit. What more does the man need to do to prove to you that he is qualified to serve?
Considering that no less a conservative icon than William Buckley pronounced himself, at the time, "disappointed" in Thomas' nomination, I'd say I'm in pretty good company. And while I'm not a huge fan of Robert Bork, I think he was dead on when he described Thomas and fellow Poppy Bush-nominee David Souter as "stealth candidates."
During Thomas' confirmation hearings, before anyone had heard of Anita Hill, he was asked at one point about what he considered important Constitutional law decisions that had come down since he graduated from law school. I would consider that a softball question for a Supreme Court nominee. Thomas named only one decision:
Roe v. Wade. Imho, that answer suggests either: (a) a compete and total failure of preparation; (b) a fundamental lack of intellectual curiosity; (c) a single-minded obsession with
Roe; or (d) some combination of two or more of the above. Not ideal qualities for a Supreme Court Justice, in any event.
Thomas was not nominated because he was the best-qualified person to sit on the Supreme Court, even on the conservative side. Rather, he was nominated solely because he was a young (43 at the time), black, conservative, sitting judge (for one year prior to his nomination) who had never written a single word on abortion. In essence, he was the ultimate affirmative action hire. Ironic, then, that he so bitterly opposes affirmative action.
Maybe there's a case to be made, especially for people inclined to agree with his positions, that he has grown into the position. But in 1991, he wasn't qualified.