POLITICAL observations & opinions

* Clarence Thomas … credibly accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill … a justice-for-life who lied his way onto the bench with the help of bullying Republicans and wimpy Democrats … does 1991 sound much different from 2010?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 22, 2010

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

Maureen Dowd adds in the NYT (10-24-10) …

It’s too late to relitigate the shameful Thomas-Hill hearings. We’re stuck with a justice-for-life who lied his way onto the bench with the help of bullying Republicans and cowed Democrats.

read Dowd’s entire column at … http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24dowd.html?hp


  • So how is 2010 different from 1991?
  • The Republicans are still bullies and the Democrats are still wimps.

Roger Simon writes at politico.com (10-22-10) …

  • Clarence Thomas lied about sexually harassing women, in my opinion.
  • But back in 1991 he accused the all-white members of the Senate Judiciary Committee of a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks” when they questioned his behavior.
  • His reward for playing the race card was a lifetime job on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • I think Anita Hill told the truth about Thomas sexually harassing her for years in very disgusting ways and telling her to keep quiet about it.
  • Her reward for playing the “sexism card” was relentless grilling by some members of the all-male Judiciary Committee and being characterized as a schemer, a vixen, a liar and a tramp.
  • Thomas won, though by a very thin margin. The Judiciary Committee voted 7-7 to send his nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation, and the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm him.
  • Today, Hill is a professor at Brandeis University.
  • A couple of weeks ago, she got a voice mail from Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni, who heads a right-wing organization that receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in anonymous contributions.
    • The voice mail said in part: “I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.” She concluded: “Okay, have a good day.”
    • Have a good day? Through her publicist, Ginni Thomas later released a statement describing the phone message as an “olive branch.”
    • Hill responded that the message was “inappropriate” and “offensive” and that she has nothing to apologize for.
  • Ginni Thomas is now getting beaten up in the media, but I think we should cut her some slack.
  • Since that hearing in 1991, Anita Hill has gotten on with her life.
  • Ginni Thomas, on the other hand, has had to get on with Clarence Thomas.
  • So who got the better deal?

Read Simon’s entire article at … http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43992.html


I agree with Roger Simon. Anita Hill told the truth and Clarence Thomas is a travesty on the Supreme Court, hardly ever saying a word or displaying any intelligent thought. All his wife has done in contacting Professor Hill is remind us that her husband should never have been confirmed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: