THE CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF JUDICIAL SELECTION

B. Ackerman,S. Carter,R. Bork,H. Monaghan

Abstract:The Constitution allows the President to "nominate . .. by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate... Judges of the supreme Court."' Traditionally, the same types of faces have dominated this political ritual: White men choose other White men to inhabit the corridors of power. As women and minorities have gradually gained political access and representation, however, the President's nomination and the Senate's confirmation hearings have increasingly become starting dramas in which the collisions between race, gender and power are played out. The 1991 nomination and confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas will go down in history as the first confirmation in which these tensions became evident. The Thomas appointment process ignited a strident debate, within the African American community and the nation as a whole, over the proper definition of "fitness," or a nominee's capacity to serve in a top government position. The issues raised during Thomas' judicial selection process focused on crucial but previously little-asked questions about race and gender. The ensuing national discussion surpassed previous battles over Supreme Court nominations by demonstrating that the confirmation process is neither race-free nor neutral. And how could it be otherwise? President Bush had vaulted Thomas, a seeming cultural anomaly, a Black "neo-conservative," into the national political spotlight by nominating him for the highest judicial position in the land. The arrival of law