Judicial Nominations

“Over the years, I have come to realize that no Senate action, with the possible exception of declaring war… matches the high drama or importance of Supreme Court confirmation hearings.” (Passion for Truth, 537)

Specter may be best remembered by many for his role in a number of high-profile- and high-stakes- confirmation hearings. The US Constitution grants the Senate the role of “advice and consent,” which includes the ability to ratify treaties and approve or deny a breadth of executive appointments, most famously judges of the Supreme Court. With his own legal background, Specter was immediately drawn to serving on the Judiciary Committee, which he joined upon first arriving in the Senate in 1981. One of the Committee’s roles is to conduct initial questioning of nominees before deciding whether to send the vote to the entirety of the Senate for confirmation or rejection.

In a career marked by moments of bucking the party line, no incident made that more clear than the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. Bork’s nomination was a contentious one, sparking outcry from a wide range of civil rights groups, particularly for his views on voting fairness and the extent of executive power. Specter was among a small group of senators who were identified as those whose votes could swing either way. Despite Republican party pressure to confirm Bork, Specter took issue with several of the Bork’s positions, including the legitimacy of judicial review, the right of minority populations, and the importance of legal precedent. Specter’s line of questioning and vote against Bork contributed to the judge’s failure to clinch the seat, which eventually went to Anthony Kennedy.

Just a few years later, Specter again found himself as a central figure in yet another contentious nomination, that of Clarence Thomas. Thomas’ nomination became the center of national attention after law professor Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment in the workplace. During the October 1991 hearing, Specter was chosen to lead Hill’s questioning due to his independent reputation and background as a district attorney. His prosecutorial approach garnered criticism for what many interpreted as a harsh attack on her credibility. After Thomas’ confirmation, Specter faced backlash on the local and national stages. During the 1992 campaign season, the Democratic challenger, Lynn Yeakel, drew on the incident to portray Specter as unsympathetic to women’s issues.

“I was perceived as too harsh,” he later wrote. Though he described increased open meetings and interactions with victims of sexual assault and harassment as “a learning experience,” he asserted in his autobiography that he would not, and had no need to, apologize for his role. “Would I prefer to have avoided the ordeal? Absolutely not. The hearing… was an important moment in American history for many reasons, not least of which were the tremendous advances women have made from it. I was glad to play a part.” (Passion for Truth 394-397)

After 30 years on the Judiciary Committee, Specter’s role in the makeup of the Supreme Court can still be seen. Of the nine sitting Justices in 2018, all but one were confirmed during Specter’s senatorial tenure. Though especially known for his involvement with Bork and Thomas, the Judiciary Committee, Nominations series provides a detailed look at the wide number of confirmation hearings he took part in, including both Supreme and lower court judges. Archival material found there includes briefing books, memos, correspondence, hearing transcripts, and more.