Integrity

The American Bar Association (ABA) calls integrity "self-defining." By that, the ABA seems to mean that it is clear to everybody what integrity means. In reality, it is only self-defining in the sense that anyone can give it any definition he or she pleases, and the history of Court nominations shows the term has been used to cover a number of different concerns.

A slight elaboration by the ABA designates integrity as dealing with the "nominee's character and general reputation in the legal community" and also with "industry and diligence" (ABA. Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary: What It Is and How It Works. American Bar Association. 1991, p. 3). However, the susceptibility of a term like integrity to different constructions makes it a common means by which opponents of a nominee will attack a nomination. All it takes is one person to make an allegation or a single event revealed from a person's past to raise disqualifying concerns where a nominee's integrity is involved.

Anita Hill's allegation of sexual harassment concerning Clarence Thomas is only the most recent example of the vulnerability of a nominee to a charge of lack of integrity. Concerted challenges to the integrity of Louis Brandeis almost derailed his confirmation. In 1925 Harlan F. Stone, generally regarded as possessing the highest integrity, became the first nominee in history to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a successful attempt to fend off allegations of unethical practices. Ultimately, only six senators voted against his confirmation. Nonetheless, that experience indicates how only one or two opponents can attempt to generate controversy, particularly with a charge impugning one's integrity.

In recent years, dating back to the Fortas nomination as Chief Justice in 1968, several integrity factors have made their way into the confirmation discourse:

  1. conflict of interest (Fortas, Haynsworth, Breyer)
  2. racial or ethnic bias (Haynsworth, Carswell, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas)
  3. drug use (Douglas Ginsburg and, to a lesser extent, Thomas)
  4. sexual harassment (Thomas)

The conflict of interest charges were instrumental in the defeats of Fortas and Haynsworth, as was the racial bias charge against Carswell and the drug use by Douglas Ginsburg. Of all the nominee rejections in the twentieth century, only the Bork nomination was untainted by a challenge to one's integrity. Even then, it was not for lack of some effort by Bork opponents to find such an issue. Attacking the character and integrity of a nominee has become a fairly standard method of opposing a nominee.

Adapted and used with permission from George Watson and John Stookey. Shaping America; The Politics of Supreme Court Appointments. Harper Collins, 1995, pp. 73-74. in the meantime.

FAQs The Vacancy Nomination Setting Potential Nominees The President
The Senate Senate Judiciary Com. Trivia Game The Public Speaks Vacancy Homepage