Bush picks black judge for court Clarence Thomas has served in D.C. 15 months

July 02, 1991|By Lyle Denniston and Dan Fesperman | Lyle Denniston and Dan Fesperman,Washington Bureau of The Sun Karen Hosler and Arch Parsons of The Sun's Washington Bureau and Ann LoLordo of the metropolitan staff contributed to this article.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush picked a black judge, Clarence Thomas, yesterday to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, but insisted the choice was not made because of race or to meet any quota.

Judge Thomas, 43, a conservative who has been a federal appeals court judge here for the past 15 months, "is the best qualified at this time," the president said in introducing the nominee on the lawn of his vacation home at Kennebunkport, Maine.

A top administration official said that Judge Thomas' name was on every list -- each growing shorter until it was down to two names -- since last Thursday when Justice Marshall, the only black ever to serve on the court, disclosed plans to retire.

The other finalist was Emilio M. Garza, 43, a federal appeals court judge from San Antonio, Texas, who was one of five Hispanic-Americans reviewed by top officials. Mr. Bush himself had suggested on Friday a look at minority candidates, as well as women.

If approved by the Senate, in what is likely to be a difficult and possibly prolonged test for Judge Thomas, starting with hearings in September, he would replace the 83-year-old Justice Marshall, the court's most liberal member, who said he will leave the court when a successor is approved to replace him.

The president told reporters: "I don't feel I had to nominate a black American at this time for the court . . . The fact that he's a minority, so much the better. But that is not the factor. . . . If credit accrues to him for coming up through a tough life as a minority in this country, so much the better."

Mr. Bush said he would "strongly resent any charge that might be forthcoming on quotas . . . I don't feel that there should be a 'black seat' on the court."

The nominee journeyed to Kennebunkport to be offered the job in a final way at midday yesterday, in a 15-minute, one-on-one meeting in the president's master bedroom. The president, however, had all but told Judge Thomas in a telephone call Sunday that the job was his, Mr. Bush indicated. The choice, he said, "was pretty well established" in the Sunday conversation.

Some of the president's remarks made it seem that Judge Thomas had had some hesitancy about being chosen to satisfy some "litmus test." Mr. Bush told reporters, without elaboration: "I had one or two points to make to him to see that he felt comfortable with them. I wanted to be sure that he knew they were from me, that there was no litmus test involved."

The Bush administration, like the Reagan administration, has made a point of picking Supreme Court nominees who would take a conservative view of judges' power to use the law to recognize new rights. It was unclear whether Judge Thomas wanted some assurance that he was not expected to vote in some specific way, to justify his being chosen.

The president said: "I told him . . . that he ought to do like the umpire, call them as you see them, and I'm satisfied he will."

One of the clearest tests facing any new justice is how to vote when the conservative-dominated court in the future ponders overruling major precedents. A bitter fight over that broke out among the justices at the end of its term last week. Judge Thomas' views on following, or abandoning, precedent are likely to be a major factor in questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the next one or two terms, the court may face new tests of its willingness to overrule the basic decision in favor of a woman's right to seek abortion, to abandon a variety of rulings in favor of using race as a deciding factor in jobs and public benefits, and to alter or discard basic decisions banning prayer in the public schools.

Liberals in the Senate, and in activist private groups, reacted skeptically to the choice of the conservative to succeed Justice Marshall.

Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, a liberal member of the Judiciary Committee, for example, said he was finished with "reading tea leaves and voting in the dark," not knowing how potential justices would vote on "the rights of women," and on the right to abortion in particular.

"I will not support yet another Reagan-Bush Supreme Court nominee who remains silent on a woman's right to choose and then ascends to the court to weaken that right," the senator said.

Although many Democratic senators had voted for Judge Thomas just last year to become a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge, several warned him that they would be more skeptical if he were nominated for the Supreme Court.

Civil rights groups issued statements ranging from strong criticism of Judge Thomas' record to wait-and-see caution.

Judith Lichtman, president of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, said that his "record does not demonstrate a sensitivity to the concerns of America's working women . . . [or] a strong commitment to the concerns of people of color . . . [or] support for a woman's most fundamental right to make private reproductive decisions."

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.