Abstract
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court in October 1991 provided Thomas and other Americans with something to criticize: the political process. At a time when the Judiciary Committee and the nation might have focused on the general issue of sexual harassment and the specific issue of whether Professor Anita Hill was harassed by Clarence Thomas, proceduralist rhetoric served to divert attention elsewhere. The process proved a convenient object for criticism; it functioned as scapegoat for American frustration.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Published version (
Free)
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
