The Thomas Nomination

The sexual harassment allegations made by University of Oklahoma law professor Anita Faye Hill against Clarence Thomas have set off a heated debate and opened a new dimension in the confirmation process for Thomas’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is a sampling of editorial opinion from newspapers around the country:

THE THOMAS ‘SMEAR’: If thoughtful Americans are troubled by these hasty judgments, they have every right to be. Ms. Hill’s charges of sexual harassment and Judge Thomas’ denial touch on the character and veracity of a man nominated to a lifetime job on the nation’s highest court. Surely the public has a right to expect something more than a perfunctory examination of the charge, followed by a Senate committee’s spectacular indifference.

--The Arizona Republic

FOR JUSTICE THOMAS, WITHOUT DELAY: The allegation is sensational and serious, and certainly a godsend to those who opposed Thomas all along. But none of that makes it particularly persuasive. Hill waited nearly a decade to report the alleged harassment. She accompanied Thomas when he left the Education Department . . . and no one else has come forward to report similar abuses. . . . It would be a shame if a lurid, last-minute accusation were to deprive the country of his service on the Supreme Court.

--The Chicago Tribune

LITTLE ROOM FOR SERIOUS ISSUE: . . . the final chapter makes even the most jaded non-Washingtonian marvel that a matter as serious as sexual harassment would be glossed over . . . . One is left to conclude that the disparate political agendas on the Thomas nomination had no place for a full examination of a substantive charge . . . . The last three days have shown high-impact politics at its worst. This is no atmosphere for the whole Senate to vote on the nomination of a man who could sit on the Supreme Court until two or more generations of Americans come of age.

--The St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press

HARASSING JUDGE THOMAS: The timing of the disclosure of these unsubstantiated allegations stinks, to put it mildly. For months, Judge Thomas’ enemies (of whom he has plenty) have been laboring night and day to come up with something, anything, that could derail his confirmation while providing smoke to hide their nakedly ideological position. . . . It would be better if decent members of the Senate gave the would-be character assassins a slap and got on with confirming Judge Thomas.

--The Washington (D.C.) Times

THOMAS CHARGES SHOULD GET AN AIRING: Even though the charges have come late, they are serious enough--and Hill is credible enough--to warrant public discussion. . . . After all, senators are about to vote for a nominee who will serve on the Supreme Court for a lifetime. This cloud must not be allowed to hang over the court into the next century.

--The Boston Globe

HANDLING OF THOMAS ALLEGATIONS REEKS OF POLITICS: Distasteful as the allegations may be, equally distasteful are the sleazy political overtones the incident is taking. These post-confirmation hearing allegations are further evidence that something is amiss about the process for confirming judges to the nation’s highest court.

--The Austin (Tex.) American Statesman