NEWTON'S LAW: THE COURTING OF A NOMINEE AND THE SHOTS NEEDED TO WIN

The puzzling schedule of my profession sometimes calls for me to spend daytime hours away from the office. I usually manage to spend this time productively, steering clear of the sirens of leisure, Oprah, Vanna, Joan and the rest.

Daytime television is not a place to invest your time wisely. It demands a greater toll of avarice, titillation and social disbelief than you should have at your disposal.

Professional tennis might provide a similar degree of these same conditions, yet it seems a kindly, and occasionally exciting, diversion when put into the mix of soap operas, game shows, sitcom reruns and interview programs.

A couple of weeks ago, I got caught up in the early rounds of the U.S. Open tennis tournament, which was carried on one of the cable channels. Even though the upsets were infrequent and many players of the sort you rarely hear about when the finals roll around, it was pleasant to see rich men and women breaking a sweat in the mid-day heat. I sat in the air-conditioning and lingered over their toil.

Good news of this sort begets its own mortality. Major tennis tournaments don't last forever and soon enough, if you aren't careful, you fall into the spell of Phil quizzing folks who sleep around or Geraldo asking intrusive questions of Elvis impersonators. Soon enough, your brain is soft as a pillow.

Then, along come the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it's rare for a Swede to win the men's final at Flushing Meadow, it's historic when a black man gets nominated to the nation's highest court.

The stakes are high in Washington, where the Senate Judiciary Committee will likely poke around Thomas's attic for a couple of weeks. However, similarities with the tennis programming are uncanny.

Like the sporting event, the confirmation hearings have clearly defined sides, with some players having heavier strokes than others.

Democratic members of the panel aren't thrilled by the rightward yaw of the high court, a shift in philosophy Thomas would reinforce. Republican members of the committee stand by the nominee and the president who called him to duty.

The two sides switch off in their questioning of the nominee, alternating Democratic blasts worthy of Jim Courier with softer Republican offerings that resemble second serves.

Joe Biden got off some challenging shots Tuesday, drawing from a seemingly bottomless bag of quotes he felt would stymie Thomas. (The senator, having learned his lesson, offered attribution.) Then came the conservative wing, with the venerable Strom Thurmond holding serve.

And that is the way it will go. Republicans on the committee seem steadfast in their commitment to Thomas; if the nominee gets a few Democrats to break serve, he's a shoo-in for the court ... the high court, that is. (True, this metaphor is getting tiresome, but there's more.)

Thomas is relegated to returning all serves, sustaining a demeanor that can resemble neither the fire of John McEnroe nor the stoicism of Stefan Edberg. Thomas must be animated enough to be viewed as human, yet composed enough so he isn't considered reactionary.

You slam a soft overhead when you get it, you touch off a drop shot when your opponent can't react quickly enough. Thomas needs a full game to get past these opponents.

All that's missing are grunting teen-age girls and a big paycheck for the top finisher.

The Thomas hearings won't lack for interesting exchanges. Again, it never hurts to see rich and powerful men sweat. It makes you want to sit in the air-conditioning and linger over their toil.