acknowledge there would have been exceptions.

For many liberal Senators, Anita Hill provided a legitimate method to engage in what was then (to, I think, a majority on both sides) illegitimate purpose--refusing to vote to confirm because of the proposed Justice's anticipated rulings on key upcoming issues.

Now of course it's practically always going to be a party-line vote.

For the record, Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48, in a Senate that was 57 Democrat 43 Republican (but included southern Democrats who now would be, and some are, Republicans)

Dems voting yea: 1. Dennis DeConcini, AZ; 2. Richard Shelby AL; 3. Sam Nunn, GA; 4. Wyche Fowler, GA; 5. Allen Dixon, IL; 6. John Breaux, LA; 7. Bennett Johnson, LA; 8. James Exon, NE; 9. David Boren, OK; 10. Ernest Hollings, SC; 11. Chuck Robb, VA

Shelby is definitely a Republican now, and while Breaux and Fowler and Exon remained Democrats throughout their careers, could they have been elected in the last decade, as Democrats? (I think Nunn's popularity was such that he could have stayed a Democrat and continued to be re-elected.) But nevertheless, Thomas couldn't have been confirmed without Democratic votes, and he got 11 of them.

The two Republicans who voted "Nay" were Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Robert Packwood of Washington. Jeffords obviously left the Republican party and became an Independent caucusing with the Democrats in the early 2000s. Packwood...well, you know. For obvious reasons, if his "Nay" vote was based on the Anita Hill accusations, the ironies are obvious.