Should Clarence Thomas be forced to stand down?

[Kingpoleon]

Neutral. Thomas was confirmed in full view of the allegations, meaning that he has a mandate from the Senate.

[Kingpoleon]

The fact that a Democratic controlled Senate confirmed a judge as crooked as Thomas and a pervert like Thomas to the Supreme Court boggles my mind.

I mean, Ted Kennedy and Daniel Inouye were in the Democratic controlled Senate at the time, so it's not like they had standards.

Thomas was confirmed (narrowly) thanks to such conservadem Senators like Boren.

There was no reason to reject Clarence Thomas.

There was no reason to reject Robert Bork.

There was no reason not to grant a hearing on Merrick Garland, and no reason not to confirm him.

Not until the Abortion question was the ideology of a nominee the big issue.  FDR appointed Justices who would uphold his New Deal legislation, but they digressed in other areas.  Truman appointed surprisingly conservative jurists (Tom Clark, Fred Vinson) and his other appointments were only moderately "liberal".  Eisenhower appointed the great liberals (Earl Warren, Warren Brennan) to go along with two (2) centrists (Potter Stewart, John M. Harlan) and one clear conservative (Charles Whittaker), while JFK appointed the rather conservative Byron White to go with liberal Arthur Goldberg.  LBJ's appointments were liberals, but each had their own specialties.  Abe Fortas was considered the most brilliant legal mind ever to graduate Yale Law School.  Thurgood Marshall was an icon of the Civil Rights movement.  LBJ's third appointment, Rep. Homer Thornberry (D-TX) was a crony appointment, that failed when Fortas's Chief Justice appointment was rejected.  Thornberry was Fortas's proposed replacement, and it is clear that he would have been a relatively conservative appointment from a Democratic President. 

It was Nixon who started the politicization of SCOTUS appointments.  Burger and Rehnquist were reliable conservatives to the end; Powell was center-right and Blackmun went from one of the most conservative to one of the more liberal (the last real "surprise" appointment).  Ford's appointment of John Paul Stevens was a non-political appointment, as was Bush 41's appointment of David Souter. 

It was not until the Reagan years that the SCOTUS appointment issue became full-bore ideological.  Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 appointed clear conservatives, whereas Clinton and Obama appointed only clear liberals.  Trump, in and of himself, would probably appoint more eclectic appointments, but in this environment, he's got to consider the GOP Senate Caucus and what it is now.  (Trump would probably appoint 11 Anthony Kennedys if it were up to him.) 

Thomas was a unique appointment; a black conservative.  There were Senators with Presidential ambitions, or Vice Presidential ambitions, from Southern states who were Democrats, and they were concerned about how they would be viewed in voting against a black nominee.  For Southern Democrats, voting for Thomas's confirmation was a chance to support a black nominee without offending conservatives; a win-win.  There was, also, an undercurrent of thought that suggested that, because he was black, Thomas would not be as conservative a jurist as was promised.  That, of course, turned out to be totally off base.  For better or worse; Thomas is what he says he was.

To call Thomas a pervert is unfair to the point of slander and libel. 

Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy are the last five “apolitical” Justices in my book. I am hopeful that Gorsuch won’t be very politicized.