Final answer:
The Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork Supreme Court confirmation hearings caused widespread complaints about the judicial selection process due to their contentious nature, which highlighted issues of race, gender, and partisan division in the Senate's confirmation role.
Step-by-step explanation:
Controversy in the Judicial Selection Process
The confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork became controversial due to several issues related to the judicial selection process of Supreme Court justices. These controversies highlighted the interplay of race, gender, and political partisanship in the confirmation process. In the case of Clarence Thomas, nominated by President Bush, the hearings were overshadowed by Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations, which brought considerable attention to the issue of harassment in the workplace and questioned the integrity of the scrutiny process. Thomas described the hearings as a "high-tech lynching", emphasizing the contentious atmosphere. The narrow confirmation vote of 52-48 suggested a deeply divided Senate and nation on his appointment.
Similarly, the case of Robert Bork, nominated by President Reagan, became a high-profile battle over judicial philosophy and partisanship. Bork was criticized for holding what was considered an extremist view of the Constitution, leading to his rejection. The hearings and debates for both nominees intensified the public and political scrutiny of nominees, reflecting the increased partisan division within the Senate confirmation process. These events set a precedent for later confirmation battles, as seen in the nominations of Brett Kavanaugh, Merrick Garland, and Amy Coney Barrett, that continued to reflect a political sandstorm of obstruction and accusations, suggesting a shift away from the intended independence of the judiciary.