But it was the late-breaking allegations of sexual harassment, whichprompted an unprecedented round of lurid and spellbinding televised hearings, that distinguished Thomas` confirmation from other political and ideological battles.
``I think what`s different is the attacks were sexual in nature. That may be a hot button,`` said Georgetown University law professor William Eskridge. But, he said, ``the battles have always been acrimonious . . . . The charges have always been personal.``
For instance, Louis Brandeis, a brilliant Boston lawyer and the first Jewish nominee, faced four months of bitter opposition when President Woodrow Wilson nominated him in 1916. Critics said he would be biased against business and too liberal; some comments were anti-Semitic.
One opponent called him a ``business-baiter, stirrer up of strife, litigious lover of hate and unrest, destroyer of confidence, killer of values, commercial coyote, spoiler of pay envelopes.``
The Senate confirmed Brandeis 47-22.
In 1967, Southern Democratic senators, including Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who is now a Republican, opposed Thurgood Marshall`s nomination as the first black justice. The civil rights legend was approved 69-11.
During this century, confirmation controversy has defeated only a handful of nominees. The Senate rejected two Nixon nominees to replace Justice Abe Fortas, who resigned in 1969 amid conflict-of-interest questions: Judge Clement Haynsworth of South Carolina because of possible ethical violations and Judge G. Harrold Carswell of Florida for racial insensitivity and mediocrity.
But more recent battles have reflected a broader societal struggle between liberals and conservatives, as well as the divided government in which different parties have controlled the White House and Congress during most of the last 20 years.
In 1987, the Senate voted 58-42 against the nomination of Judge Robert Bork, with opponents saying his constitutional views threatened a host of hard-won civil rights. Bork`s nomination ushered in an era of closer-than-ever public scrutiny of nominees, with television airing Judiciary Committee hearings and interest groups using TV ads to sway public opinion on the nominees.
Some scholars said the Thomas hearings may have blurred the distinction between public and private behavior, so that future nominees could face close review of their intimate lives as well as their paper trail.
