SEN. JIM SASSER (D-TN): Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chairman. And, Mr. President, I rise today with no expectation of shedding new light on the ultimate truth of the question that's before us. The compelling events of this past week, I think we'd all agree, have reached into the deepest recesses of the human heart. In this bitterly personal matter, I do not believe, frankly, that the United States Senate can do final justice by Clarence Thomas, and I don't believe that we can do final justice by Anita Hill.
The tools and procedures of this body simply are not delicate enough or precise enough to resolve individual human conflict. We are a policymaking body established to seek the country's best interest through broad policy decisions, and I would say to my colleagues that is precisely what we must do with this nomination now before us. Yes, emotions have been released, but we can't be governed by them. The nation has been gripped by deepest passion, but these passions cannot be allowed to control what we do here today. We must decide in the clear light of day what is right for our country.
That is the question that we, as United States senators, are called upon to answer today in fulfilling our duty and our responsibility. We're not judging a criminal case. We're not seeking to determine individual guilt or innocence. We're fulfilling our sovereign obligation under the Constitution to advise and consent to a nomination to the highest court in this land, a third co-equal branch of the government of the United States. I don't need to remind anyone that this is a lifetime appointment we're talking about. There will be no second chance in this case. The standards of judgment that we exercised must be the very highest that we can impose.
Now, Mr. President, concerning the lurid aspects of this nomination, I think there's little left to say. In fact, far too much has been said already. We've had what I would characterize as "shoot from the hip" charges of perjury. We've had dark allusions to unstated proclivities. We've had ventures into amateur psychology. And I would say, quite frankly, that these are not in the Senate's best traditions. Frankly, I'm relieved to return to a plane of discourse with which we're more familiar and to which I think we're better suited.
Now, with respect to the charges themselves, there is no decisive proof. Some are absolutely certain they knew what went on 10 years ago. Frankly, I can forthrightly say that I don't have any corner on the truth in this matter. But I do have some very profound doubts. I do have some very real fears. There is no certainty in a matter of this magnitude. If we separate out the emotion, if we're honest with ourselves, in the final analysis we simply cannot be sure. We're compelled to construct our judgment on the basis of doubts.
Before the events of last week, many of us had, frankly, serious reservations about the qualifications of Judge Thomas to serve on the Supreme Court at this point in his career. I've been concerned that Judge Thomas had neither broad legal experience, as one who practiced law for 15 years before coming to this body. I've been concerned that he did not exhibit a profound grasp of the complexities of constitutional law.
The truth of the matter is he's engaged only slightly in the private practice of law and has extremely limited courtroom trial experience. He's never taught law. He's never written extensively about the law. He's been on the bench for slightly over one year, the youngest member of the US court of appeals. And frankly, the absence of seasoned experience, coupled with an apparent lack of full legal maturity, raised doubts in and of themselves, Mr. President, about this nominee's fitness for the highest judicial office in this country.
With respect to Judge Thomas' legal philosophy, there's little more than a thin record of contradiction and evasion. Questions were not answered during the confirmation process, I suppose under the guidance of White House handlers. Judge Thomas backed away from any explicit statement of his previously held opinions. In fact, he distanced himself from virtually all points of view regarding the most contentious legal questions of our day.
Once again, Mr. President, the result is doubt, doubt about the quality of Judge Thomas' legal preparation and, I'm sorry to say, doubt about his candor. Judge Thomas has sought apparently once more, with the assistance of the White House, to build his case on character, on his totally admirable struggle to rise from poverty -- we all admire that -- against great odds to a distinguished position in this country as a judge of the court of appeals.
No one, Mr. President, can take away the nobility of achievement from Clarence Thomas. The events of last week do not, in my view, toss onto the ash heap a distinguished career in public service. But, Mr. President, when you look at the record, real doubts --
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The Senator has used his seven minuted yielded.
SEN. SASSER: Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Chairman to yield me an additional two minutes.
SEN. BIDEN: Senator, I can yield you an additional one minute.
SEN. SASSER: Mr. President, we're deciding whether to send Clarence Thomas to a lifetime appointment to the highest bar of justice in this land. There are doubts -- doubts about the nominee's legal experience, doubts about his legal maturity, doubts about his legal theory, and now, sadly, doubts about his character. I would ask quite sincerely, is it in the country's best interest to lay those accumulated doubts aside? My own conclusion is that it is not.
I would say to my colleagues that, as hard as the judgment is, we've got to err here on the side of prudence and caution. Deep wounds have been opened in this country. I wonder if these wounds can be healed if we allow a cloud of doubt to hang over the highest court in this land. I simply don't think we can take that risk, and for that reason, Mr. President, I shall cast my vote against Clarence Thomas here today.