Are You Experienced?

While many politicians say the hearings are about qualifications and competence, not politics, the question of what defines "qualification" for the Supreme Court is as vague as Thomas's stand on abortion.

"I have no doubts that he's a competent lawyer," says Professor of Law William W. Fisher. "But the Supreme Court calls for more than this."

Fisher says that if he were a senator he would not vote for Thomas, but that he understands why Thomas has tried to escape from his previous convictions on issues such as abortion. He says it is natural for Supreme Court candidates to avoid committing to political positions before being confirmed.

Rejected nominee Robert Bork, Fisher says, could neither alter nor hide his ideals because of an extensive paper trail. Souter successfully dodged most controversy because he did not have a history of scholarship or rulings on substantive issues. Thomas, he says, is caught some-where in the middle.

"Thomas has a little more difficulty because he has taken substantive positions in the past," Fisher says of Thomas's years as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "He has a record nowhere near that of Bork, but it is enough to make him seem more evasive."

He's No Thurgood

Although professors are usually able to analyze Supreme Court nominees in terms of their past decisions and writings, Thomas's race complicates the issue greatly. If confirmed, Thomas will be only the second Black person to sit on the high court, following in the steps of retiring Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall.

"Thomas's minority status is clearly the reason he was picked," Nesson says. "I think Bush wanted someone minority and conservative. Thomas fit that. The whole rhetoric that Thomas's minority status didn't play in is ridiculous."

Fisher says, though, that Thomas is hardly a worthy successor Marshall. In fact, Fisher says that he feels Thomas would decrease the Court's diversity--political diversity, that is.

"One of the strengths of the Supreme Court," he says, "has come from the diversity of its justices--preserving some range of views. Thomas will reduce that diversity."

Fisher says that while he feels racial diversity is important, he is troubled by Bush's refusal to acknowledge that it had anything to do with Thomas's selection.

"Race isn't enough," Fisher says. "We need to look at qualifications. In this case I think that was overlooked."

Vorenberg expresses similar concerns.

"It's highly desirable that a minority be taken to fill the position," he says. "I just don't think he's the best. I'm worried from positions he has held in the past that he has not shown sensitivity, especially in minority cases."

All in all, the question still remains: If the professors were senators, would they vote for Thomas? Some say they would, some say they wouldn't, and some are afraid the alternatives wouldn't be much better.

"It's not so obvious that the defeat of Thomas would generate a better candidate," Fisher says