"Don't try to make a national disgrace out of the confirmation process."

-- John Danforth

When President George H.W. Bush nominated conservative appellate judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991, Former Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., happily agreed to guide him through the Senate confirmation process. Though liberal interest groups fiercely opposed Thomas, Danforth was confident that Thomas, his friend who had worked for him as a legislative assistant and, earlier, as an assistant state attorney general, would be confirmed. But the hearings took an unexpected turn when Anita Hill, a former subordinate, charged that Thomas had sexually harassed her.

Danforth watched as his friend went through personal hell. An ordained Episcopal minister, Danforth angrily battled for Thomas' confirmation. After explosive hearings, the Senate narrowly confirmed Thomas, the second African-American to serve on the Court, 52-48.

That experience had a searing impact on Danforth, who served in the Senate from 1977 through 1994. In a recent interview with National Journal's Kirk Victor, Danforth spoke of lessons from that acrimonious battle 18 years ago that may be applicable today as the Senate considers Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. As Republicans develop their strategy for the hearings, they have a chance to repair the broken hearing process, Danforth said. Edited excerpts of the interview follow. Visit the archives page for more Insider Interviews.

NJ: Are these confirmation battles more theater than substance?

Danforth: They are opportunities to have a national discussion for at least a limited period of time on a very important question and that is: What's the appropriate [role] of courts in our country, the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government?

The idea of trying to defeat a presidential nominee is generally unwise, and filibustering a presidential nominee is unwise. There is a big difference between talking about questions of substance and attacking somebody's character. There is a difference between talking about getting the nominee's views on the role of the judiciary and the business of judging on the one hand, and trying to predetermine votes on specific issues, particularly abortion, on the other hand. I think it should be on the big questions of the role of the judiciary, not for the sake of trying to defeat the nominee but simply for the sake of having a national discussion.

NJ: You seem to be ruling the filibuster out altogether.

Danforth: Yes I am. If you say "ever" -- there could be, say, some unimaginable case for me [to justify a filibuster], but for anything that I could imagine, yes [I'd rule it out].

NJ: Then-Senator Obama opposed John Roberts and Samuel Alito, President George W. Bush's nominees. Even though Obama said they were qualified, he also said, essentially, they lacked empathy. Why shouldn't Republicans follow suit?

Danforth: It is an interesting question. The basic question for a Supreme Court justice: Is the job to interpret the law or to try to fashion policy beyond simply interpreting the law? That is a fair question and a fair criterion for a person's vote. But there is no chance that this nomination will be defeated, and precious little that it will be successfully filibustered. I think [senators should make] your case and vote as you want to vote but don't try to make a national disgrace out of the confirmation process.

NJ: Has the fact that Sotomayor is Hispanic put Republicans in a box, given the party's lack of support with Hispanic voters in the 2008 elections?

Danforth: Yes, I think it has. But I would hope that even beyond that, Republicans would take the position that we have been witnesses to the worst kind of confirmation processes and that the time has come to stop it. It is just not worth doing it. We have seen how plain mean it can get and destructive of human beings. The fact that it is an Hispanic woman [creates] a political reason to have a more low-key approach to it, but I would hope that that would be a standard we would seek anyhow.

NJ: Some people read your 1994 book Resurrection as one in which you were expressing regrets for being as tough as you were during the Thomas confirmation hearings. Do you have regrets?

Danforth: Well, people sort of read it that way as though it was a mea culpa on my part. I was not saying, "Oh, woe is me, I shouldn't have been so tough." But I was in a battle that was not of my choosing, and it had no rules. You get in that situation and you fight for your person -- my friend, in that case. I don't apologize for that, but I am sorry I got into that fix, if that is a reasonable distinction.

NJ: Then-Senator Joe Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, played a big role in the hearings involving Thomas and Robert Bork. What is your take on him?

Danforth: Well, I thought he was under severe pressure from interest groups that wanted to go all out. He was left in a very difficult situation because of that. Basically, his supporters, his constituencies, were doing anything they could to defeat the nomination. He was the chairman and trying to move it along. That was the squeeze he was in.

I just thought both of them were bad -- Bork and Thomas -- but the Thomas one was just particularly awful. I think when something awful is happening it is important for people to stand up to it and say so.

NJ: And Biden didn't do that?

Danforth: No.

NJ: Republicans are under great pressure from conservative interest groups. How worried are you about a replay of Thomas?

Danforth: Again, I think enough's enough. This is the chance for Republicans to say, "This is the opportunity to have a debate on the appropriate role of the courts." A lot of public opinion considers the courts a third policy-making branch, and so I think it is good to make that distinction and make it very, very clearly. Where I think it goes wrong is when it becomes personal, no-holds-barred, anything goes, dig up dirt, try to destroy the human being. That is absolutely the worst.

And also, [it's wrong to] try to prejudge particular results [of the nominee], especially on abortion. That is what the pro-choice people and their groups have done. Senators [in these protracted hearings] ask the same question over and over again, trying to get a predetermined decision: Should Roe v. Wade come back, how will you decide it? It is not appropriate to do that. It is the opposite of honoring the independence of the judiciary.

I would think that if Republicans did it right, they would have some well-designed, non-repetitious questions on how do you see the role of the judiciary; what do you understand original intent to mean; what do you understand stare decisis to mean; what do you understand the role of courts in deciding issues, narrow or broad. Those are all interesting questions on the role of the court. But I think that's as far as they should go.

NJ: What does the pick say about Obama?

Danforth: I don't know enough about the pick other than her biography. I think [her] background is wonderful, very impressive. [The president] does have a more active view of the law and Constitution than I would have. I don't think he is going to go out and find another Alito.

But he is the president, and he is going to get his nominee, and his nominee is going to be relatively speaking more open to expanding the terms of the language of the Constitution than would be an Alito. Republicans can point that out: This is not where we are or where we should be as a country. That is very different from the Senate disgracing itself by having [a replay of the] awful situation that happened to Clarence Thomas.

NJ: Has the Senate recovered as a body from that?

Danforth: Well, let's find out.

Recently Featured