As painful as it is to repudiate a man I respected, I believe Thomas should never have been confirmed and should resign.

I don’t doubt Kaganoff’s sincerity, but I think his article illustrates one of the problems with a trial in the court of public opinion. There’s no rule against double jeopardy.

However, in Judge Thomas’ case, there’s a good argument to be made that there was an official judgment. At the time, most people believed Justice Thomas and the Senate (41 Republicans, 11 Democrats) voted to confirm him. This represented a judgment on Judge Thomas and his fitness for the High Court by the body charged with that judgment. To decide 26 years after the fact that we don’t like the judgment and therefore Justice Thomas has to resign is a miscarriage of justice. It may be true that in the America of 2017, Judge Thomas’ actions a few years before would have been disqualifying, but Justice Thomas wasn’t confirmed in the America in 2017, but in that of 1991.

Even then, I’m not sure Hill’s word against Justice Thomas would have been enough to prevent his confirmation, particularly in our tribalistic times. However, if the multiple women who wanted to testify at the last minute had been allowed to, that may have been a different matter if they were found credible. Still, at this point, the decision was made, and the process for judging the accusations was followed by the Constitution. Whether people regret that decision or exult it, it is made and it is time to let it rest.