Clarence Thomas

Nearly 57 percent of callers to SUNDIAL, or 285 out of 502 callers, say Clarence Thomas should be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. The 43 percent against confirmation represents 217 callers.Fully 69 percent of 499 callers, or 345, guess that Thomas will be endorsed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and 154 callers (30 percent) say he won't."It's Your Call" represents a sampling of opinions from certain segments of the community, but it is not balanced demographically, as a scientific public opinion poll would be.@

Buried deep in his dissent of this week's Supreme Court opinion outlawing the practice of sentencing juveniles to prison without parole for crimes short of murder, Justice Clarence Thomas hit upon an indefensible flaw in the majority's reasoning. The five justices who signed on to the majority opinion determined that such a sentence violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because juveniles are not fully mature and cannot be held culpable in the same way as adults are. Because such offenders are still developing, the courts cannot justifiably determine that they are irredeemable and must at least entertain the possibility that they have been rehabilitated.

Does former Del. John S. Arnick have a Clarence Thomas problem? Is the ex-Baltimore County legislator's District Court judgeship in jeopardy because of the abusive language he used to harangue two women at a private dinner last year?That's what the Senate Executive Nominations Committee has to decide as it parses fact from fiction, allegations from reality. Much is at stake: for Mr. Arnick, his reputation and a much-sought-after judgeship; for the legislature, its credibility.In Maryland, the process for approving a gubernatorial appointment is woefully weak.

CHICAGO -- Mitt Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani have many differences and something in common: Each governed a liberal place, and each, while in office, often sided with liberals on particular issues. They are both making the presidential campaign more entertaining through strenuous but unconvincing attempts to live down those youthful indiscretions. Lately, they have been arguing over the line-item veto, which lets a president excise individual spending programs without killing an entire bill.

The Senate's 52-48 confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas yesterday as an associate justice of the Supreme Court was more directly related to politics, partisanship and electioneering than any in history. It culminated an ugly, inappropriate spectacle. We are glad it is over.Judicial nominations are usually political, and to a significant degree. But no justice in this century has been sent to the Supreme Court on the basis of so close and partisan a division. Republicans voted 41-2 for. Democrats voted 46-11 against.

In what may be a triumph of hope over realistic assessment, we recommend the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. We do so in the belief that he could become as good a justice as any nominee President Bush is likely to name to this vacancy.To dispose of the politics of the nomination first: Obviously this president, having run on a platform that took positions opposite those of his Democratic opponent's on such high-profile issues as a woman's right to an abortion and minorities' right to thepreferential treatment of affirmative action, has the right to nominate to the Supreme Court someone with compatible views.

In nominating Judge Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, President Bush has chosen the most widely experienced black conservative on the short list of prospective justices who have been considered by this administration. It is a controversial choice, one that will challenge the liberal civil rights philosophy that has long prevailed among African Americans and has been articulated on the court by Justice Thurgood Marshall, whose resignation cleared the way for the Thomas selection.Whatever the outcome of the coming Senate confirmation battle, it will provide insight into the current state of race relations and attitudes in America.

Clarence Thomas may do in the Bush presidency. It is at least possible that Judge Thomas will be confirmed to the Supreme Court, help provoke the electorate to chuck out the president next year, and then serve four more decades, playing a decisive role in constitutional questions yet to be imagined.His threat to President Bush's re-election does not turn on Judge Thomas' votes on issues of individual versus group rights. Rather it is the possibility of his joining a majority to erase Roe v. Wade of 1973.

This evening the Senate will vote on Judge Clarence Thomas to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. On Sept. 22 The Sun recommended his confirmation in what we conceded may have been "a triumph of hope over realistic assessment" of his judicial qualifications. Today we again recommend that he be confirmed, in what we must concede is the hope that he has not been guilty of sexual harassment and of lying about it.Three days of hearings into the charges against Judge Thomas by a former aide, law professor Anita F. Hill, provided no grounds for a realistic assessment of the charges either way. We predicted that on Oct. 9. Senators are right back where they started.

It would be hard to think of anyone whose portrayal in the media differs more radically from reality than that of Justice Clarence Thomas. His recent appearances on 60 Minutes, the Rush Limbaugh program and other media outlets provide the general public with its first in-depth look at the real Clarence Thomas. These media appearances are part of the promotion of his memoir, My Grandfather's Son. In an era when too many judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, seem to be playing to the media gallery - if not writing opinions or leaking information with an eye toward favorable coverage in the press - Justice Thomas' refusal to play that game tells us a lot about him. His memoir tells us more.

WASHINGTON -- Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. - who was quietly sworn in yesterday as the 110th justice of the Supreme Court - will have only one vote, of course. But it could be the decisive one in several of the marquee cases that will dominate the balance of the Supreme Court's term. By the end of the term in early summer, legal analysts said, the nation will most likely have a good sense of whether Alito will affirm or veer away from the direction set by his predecessor, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in cases involving the treatment of terrorism suspects and campaign finance.

When it comes to Supreme Court nominees, conservatives are in agreement: Situation matters. Pundits on the right shouted down Harriet E. Miers over concerns that her evangelical backbone would whither under Washington winds. Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. stepped into her spot seeming of far more stalwart vertebrae, but as his backers have stressed recently, he is a creature of situation as well. Responding to liberal criticism over a 1985 document in which Judge Alito championed the position "that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," conservatives quickly pointed out that the assertion was made in the context of an "advocate seeking a job" and thus could offer no insight into how Judge Alito would behave as a justice confronting an actual abortion case.

The people supporting Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination, who started out looking defensive, have now proceeded to acquire symptoms of outright desperation. Rather than strain themselves with the impossible task of justifying the appointment, they are now on the attack. The critics, they claim, are opposing Ms. Miers just because she's a woman. In truth, Ms. Miers' gender was one of her two attractions for President Bush - the other being her canine worship of him. But the complaints about her weak credentials would be made even if she had testosterone coming out of her ears.

WASHINGTON - As a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, John Roberts consistently advocated a more limited role for the courts, staking a classically conservative position that decisions on social policies were best left to elected legislators, not judges with lifetime tenure. In the thousands of pages of documents released in the past month, Roberts - nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court - has emerged as a forceful defender of President Ronald Reagan and his policies, and as an advocate who carefully articulated the administration's positions on key social issues, from abortion to school prayer.

On issues ranging from presidential powers to law and order, legal analysts say the written record of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. suggests he would align most often with the current court's staunchest conservatives, and perhaps most closely with the man he once worked for, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. In style and in substance, there is much common ground between Rehnquist, 80, and his clerk from 25 years ago, Roberts, now 50. Both men cut their teeth as young lawyers in Republican administrations, have shown a deep reverence for the court as an institution and share a low-key, self-effacing style.

CHICAGO - George W. Bush has succeeded through his reputation as a straight talker who doesn't shrink from a fight, regardless of the political consequences. When he chooses a successor for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, we'll find out if the reputation is warranted. The central issue hanging over the court for the last 32 years has been abortion. When conservatives talk about the imperial judiciary or judges who legislate social policy from the bench, they're thinking first and last of the court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade - which gave constitutional protection to abortion rights.

President Bush and his White House staff typically say little when asked about possible Supreme Court nominees. There is no opening on the court, they point out, so there is no reason to talk about replacements. But amid rampant speculation that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will announce his retirement when the court finishes its term this month, the president offered a hint this week of how he would fill the seat. "I look forward to talking to members of the Senate about the Supreme Court process, to get their opinions as well, and will do so," President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday.