THAT is a question that (while more to the point) can never be answered to everyone's satisfaction.

Was Thomas the best qualified for the job? I'll hazard the answer will be "no". His qualifications to be appointed can't be refuted, as they are minimal requirements at best. However, if you want the best person for the job, you'd better be prepared for the kind of battle that happens every time that a nomination comes before the senate, and you'd also better be prepared to have a large number of people disagree with you.

Unfortunately, you can't arbitrarily state "So and so is the best candidate for the court. As their duty is to review laws and the like in reference to their constitutionality, and as the constitution is deliberately vague on a number of points, any decision is going to be based off of the Justice's opinions on what the Constitution means to that particular case.

Once again, though, it's somewhat pointless to argue the case. Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice. Period. Best qualified or not. I don't like it, apparently quite a few others don't like it, but this is America, and the opinions of the masses means dick.

How about some talk on how to prevent this happening again (if you are against the appointment) or on future qualified applicants?

M