Awakening Anita Hill

I have not read Justice Clarence Thomas' new memoir, "My Grandfather's Son." I do not know if I will. But one thing seems clear, Justice Thomas' book has reawakened the Anita Hill controversy. Perhaps that was not a wise thing for Justice Thomas to do. Hill responds to Thomas in the NYTimes:

ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I stand by my testimony.

Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.

But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.

Strange that Justice Thomas would repick this fight. Anita Hill has been reawakened.

< Dodd's Chance In Iowa Centers On Leadership On Iraq | Supreme Court to Hear Drug Sentencing Cases Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thomas should have never been confirmed (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Saul on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:09:02 AM EST
    I believe my gut instincts.  They have been proven right the majority of the time.  I went back and reheard the Anita Hill testimony while she was being grilled by the committee.  She was then and is still know a very credible witness.  I honestly believe Thomas did all those things Hill testified to.  Why would a women, expecially at that time, expose herself to such scrutiny if what had occurred between her and Thomas was not true.  Why would she had put so much on the line had it not been true.  

    Have you ever heard (none / 0) (#6)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:53:18 PM EST
    of the Duke rape 'victim'? People do these things all the time. This is a site for defense lawyers. How many of them have had clients charged without basis?

    Hill didn't seek to testify ... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:16:43 PM EST
    ...she was pressured into it. Not exactly the behavior of someone who was going to make a false claim that could smash a career and make her a pariah among the powers-that-be.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#10)
    by Saul on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    but I did not make an judgement at the time on the Duke case but on those I did I was right after the final outcomes came through.  If the Anita hearing were being heard today I can almost gurantee that the committee would have seen it her way and not Thomas way.  It was just the times that were agains her.  Woman were not breaking the glass ceiling like they are today.  You mightg want to check out  Supreme Discomfort story.

    Historical example of swift-boating. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:31:17 PM EST
    I, too, wondered why Thomas would think.... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by eLadinMO on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    that simply because he's making his grab for the cash with this book deal, that he can rehash this debate, and nobody call him on it. Well, Anita Hill has done so and in the NYTimes, no less.

    Trolls Out (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    In full force diverting the thread to Clinton. How surprising.

    October 2nd... (none / 0) (#11)
    by desertswine on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    is All Troll's Day after all.

    She Was a Class Act Then, She's a Class Act Now (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by seabos84 on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:11:21 PM EST

    he isn't and wasn't and won't be.


    Hillary and Bill (1.00 / 3) (#4)
    by diogenes on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    Lied about Monica, blackballing her and insinuating that she was mentally troubled and making it all up, until she introduced the stained blue dress.  That doesn't seem to disqualify Hillary for high office.  Why a different standard for Thomas, who sexually harassed only one woman at most, than for Bill and his enabler Hillary?

    Several Reasons (none / 0) (#5)
    by Randinho on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    Supreme Court Justice is a lifetime appointment. Clinton apologized for his behavior, Thomas continues to dissemble.

    Did (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    President Clinton apologize to Jaunita Broderick?

    The point is that these are he said/she said accusations that can't be proven. Clinton had been a Republican and Thomas a liberal then the supporters would be taking opposite positions.


    Jeffrey Tubin (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Tubin did a nice job of summing up Claire Thomas.  The man is driven by anger and grudges, and has been all his life.  He was at one point a black separatist, now of course Claire is a conservative jerk.  He is bitter and angry because he thinks affirmative action may have helped him into law school, and says his degrees are valueless. He is essentially a nut and needs help, of course in republican land that makes you qualified for the bench/public office/any position of power.

    I'd like (none / 0) (#7)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:55:15 PM EST
    to read Jeffrey Toobin's notes during all the psychotherapy sessions he's had with Justice Thomas.

    Let's face it, the only reason he's on the bench is because he's an African American conservative...The rest of it (criticsm) is nothing more than projection and conjecture.


    You've identified the problem (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 05:16:45 PM EST
    the only reason he's on the bench is because he's an African American conservative

    Exactly.  Most Americans would prefer a legal scholar of any stripe to someone whose only qualifications are being Black and conservative.

    Thomas is an embarrassment to the practice of law.


    That has the ring of a religious text. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 10:15:26 PM EST
    It is religious text. (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:13:34 AM EST
    Thomas left the Church of the Left.

    That's one of 8 deadly sins....


    And became a right wing minstral (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    Tell us again about how blacks aren't smart enough to know that they're being kept on "the reservation", Jim. I never get tired of watching you out yourself.

    I've never seen any indication Clarence Thomas (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:24:15 PM EST
    was ever left-leaning.

    affirmative action (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 09:40:37 PM EST
    Is left wing, according to the wingers.

    Clarence Thomas his credibility and character (none / 0) (#19)
    by Aaron on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    One Angry Man, Clarence Thomas Is No Victim

    I've been disturbed by some of the comments that I've read around the web, which have implied that Thomas was just coming-on to Anita Hill, and he can't be blamed for that.

    As someone who's had a little bit of experience with women down through the years, I can state pretty much unequivocally that the kind of behavior and remarks engaged in by Thomas in these situations are certainly not going to get you any play with any woman, and especially not educated conservative women.  Even your average ghetto girl/hood rat would not appreciate the kind of crass, crude, loutish propositioning approaches demonstrated by Thomas in these instances.  I think the ladies will back me up on this.

    I don't for one moment believe that Thomas's propositions were genuine, I think they were specifically designed to humiliate, intimidate and harass women who he quite obviously held in contempt, simply by virtue of their race and complexion.  His behavior was nothing more than base intimidation by a man who apparently felt the need to exert some kind of primitive male dominance over the Black women who work for him, whom Thomas apparently viewed as some a threat to his authority.  His behavior in these instances seems more akin to someone who's trying to punish, than someone who is generally interested in a romantic tryst.

    One can only speculate where Thomas learned this type of behavior, but it seems likely that it was a part of his upbringing, and earliest childhood experiences.

    Interesting that most of the Caucasian women who have worked with Thomas through the years, have not report such abusive behavior.  In fact he seems to have always gone out of his way to be polite and gentlemanly with white women, in sharp contrast to his interaction with dark skinned African-American women.   It seems that the majority, if not all, of the women he has pursued with genuine romantic interest have been nonblacks.

    When Thomas first began working for the government as a lawyer during the Reagan administration, a friend visited his apartment and noted the walls were papered with Playboy centerfold's and pictures of naked women, which were almost exclusively Caucasian in type.  This would tend to support the assertion that Thomas's preference for white women is long-standing.  He is currently married to a white woman, and I am unaware of any Black women who has ever had a relationship with the man.

    It's also interesting that decades later, after Thomas was given a virtual pass by the Senate for his disgusting and criminal behavior, this justice on the Supreme Court who is presently in a position of enormous power, once again finds himself compelled to attack a Black woman, a private citizen who has virtually no power by comparison. I think these new attacks and the politically convenient historical revisions in his book to be quite telling of this man's true character.

    I wonder what's going on inside Clarence's head, one would think that a Supreme Court justice would have far more important concerns, like the cases before his court, cases which will affect all of us and the future of the United States of America. I am forced to wonder if such concerns are even a priority for Clarence.

    The NYT gave Anita Hill all the power she (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    needs at present (well, in addition to her credentials).  A very unemotional but factual piece.  Well done, Professor Hill.

    "Black Women?" (none / 0) (#21)
    by diogenes on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:46:14 PM EST
    Exactly how many black women did Thomas allegedly harass and degrade?  If Aaron the armchair psychiatrist is right, then there should have been many such women, and I would imagine that some of them would have spoken up by now if only for the money.  No such women appeared at the hearings.
    That is not a typical pattern for someone who is so driven by race-hatred that he is driven to degrade every black woman along the way.
    Clarence Thomas is regarded as being a legal clone of Scalia.  Whatever Scalia is, he is not dumb.  If Clarence Thomas were a legal clone of Ruth Bader Ginsburg then no liberal would care how smart or dumb he was, and he would have gotten the same virtual pass that liberals gave Clinton and the same virtual pass that liberal historians give JFK for his numerous, risky affairs.  

    Clarence Thomas, rapper. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:55:37 PM EST