September 28, 2007

"She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed. That's not the person I knew."

"She could defend herself, let's just put it that way... She did not take slights very kindly and anyone who did anything, she responded very quickly."

"Didn't take 10 years?"

"It didn't take 10 minutes."

Clarence Thomas talks about Anita Hill in his "60 Minutes" interview (to air this Sunday, leaked at Drudge).

70 comments:

hdhouse said...

Is there a curse around that has us relive the Hill/Thomas fiasco every decade or so?

Silence is indeed golden.

Bob said...

And you can bet the MSM will all flock to Anita to get her reactions to the interview, and yet more red state/blue state conflict will result from it.

Pogo said...

The Roe decision was extremely flawed, so much so that it has had the unintended consequences outlined by Thomas. It was a bad decision that has contributed to the polarization of US politics and society in general.

Had a federal approach reigned, the same place we're in now might have been reached, but over a decade or so, and not immediately. The workaround caused lots of downstream harm, and is still doing so.

hdhouse said...

and Bob, why should the media flock to her for "her side" or "reaction" as you put it. Clarence has alread spoken his mind, he went first, now he gets what he gets. Or are you against fairness?

EnigmatiCore said...

"Is there a curse around that has us relive the Hill/Thomas fiasco every decade or so?"

Once one lets those little buggers out of Pandora's box, they tend to fly around and pop in at random, inconvenient times.

MadisonMan said...

Does Clarence Thomas have a book coming out?

MadisonMan said...

...and I just looked. Yes he does!

Bob said...

Fair, hdhouse? Do you think that perhaps Hill's reaction to the book will probably get more coverage, and far more favorable coverage at that, than the book itself, which will probably be ignored by the MSM?

mcg said...

Yes, he has a book coming out, very soon now; hence the interviews with 60 Minutes and other places. Funny then that Toobin's recent book about the SC states, "More than three years after the contract was announced, and $500,000 paid to him, Thomas had still not delivered a manuscript." Oops.

rcocean said...

Of course he has a book coming out, otherwise he wouldn't talk to 60 minutes.

His comments on Hill being outspoken and not taking any guff from anyone, simply echo the sworn testimony of Hill's co-workers and students both in DC and at Oral Roberts. None of them recognized the sweet, timid, Christian Anita Hill that was on TV.

Her story was always unbelievable.

She supposedly was brutally harassed by this "Monster" for years, yet followed him to another agency, never took notes of the harassment, never complained to her fellow AA woman co=workers about it, and never even told Thomas to stop doing it. She continued to socialize with him after she left DC, and never brought up the matter up when he was confirmed as an Appeals Court judge.

Plus we know the party line put out by Totenberg and other MSM was a total lie. She was a liberal democrat not a "Reagan Republican". And she's a lesbian.

She knew destroying Thomas would get her out Oklahoma. And there's no doubt she understood all the rewards that would come her way for playing Judas.

Robert Cook said...

I pine for the days when 60 MINUTES was truly a hard-hitting muckraking journalistic enterprise, where interviews with prominenet civil servants and corporate executives had to do with interrogating their perfidies, and no whisper of "(s)he's got a book coming out," escaped from the lips of Mike Wallace, Morely Safer, Harry Reasoner, et al. The recent suck-up interview by Lesley Stahl of Alan Greenspan was a particularly painful example of their recent devolution into US Magazine style pandering.

rcocean said...

BTW, Justice Thomas will be on Rush Limbaugh for 90 minutes on Monday, October 2nd.

It will start 10 Am EST.

Richard Dolan said...

Explaining his reasons for speaking out, Justice Thomas says that the abortion issue was the driving force behind the effort to destroy him; Ms. Hill was just the human torpedo who partly volunteered and was partly pushed by others in the attempt to do so. His personal bitterness about the whole thing is deep and understandable, as is his view of Ms. Hill's role in the whole sordid mess. No doubt, she and her supporters see it differently, while sharing the bitterness.

But his larger point is that the federal judiciary is being destroyed by the partisan war rooted in the perception (by both sides) that the Court is an overtly political institution that can be used to impose political results unobtainable any other way. In the past, those partisan battles over judicial nominees were restricted to the SCOTUS. Today, however, one can see the same partisan battles play out over nominations to the intermediate federal appellate courts and (more rarely) the district courts.

Unfortunately, clucking about the "politics of personal destruction" is no answer. The reality is that the federal courts today are political institutions, and in some respects cannot avoid being so. Whether because they had to or because they wanted to, the courts have taken on and exercised the power to decide all manner of divisive social issues about which the Constitution speaks (if it speaks at all) only in the most vague and general terms. No one believes that the results in such cases are dictated by Constitutional text, or history, or precedent; and all understand that, with a change in membership, such cases can just as easily result in a win for one side of the partisan divide as opposed to the other.

In short, the bitter battles over SCOTUS and circuit court nominees, complete with the no-holds-barred political tactics that are the norm in electoral contests today, are not some passing aberration rooted in Clinton- or Bush-hatred. Unfortunately, it is the rational response of the political classes to the judicial realities. So get used to it. When we avoid it, as we did (sort of) with the Roberts and Alito nominations, it is not for lack of willingness to engage in such scortched-earth battles, but only because too few of those opposing the nomination believe that they have either the ammunition or the right political moment to pull it off.

Thomas is concerned (rightly, I think) about whether the SCOTUS can survive as an institution, at least as the institution we have known, for the long term. Be that as it may. His willingness to speak out is not just a walk down one of memory's nastier lanes. In its way, it's a warning that battles over future nominations are quite likely to make the Thomas-Hill dust-up look quite tame in retrospect.

MadisonMan said...

His willingness to speak out is not just a walk down one of memory's nastier lanes.

You just aren't cynical enough. His speaking out is only occurring because he has a book to sell.

Trooper York said...

I just want to know why the Knick's hired her after all this mess.

P. D. "Bo" Steele said...

Trooper York: very nicely done.

You have established yourself as a first among equals on the message boards of this blog, and I think it high time Professor Althouse recognized you as such. Anybody can (and has, in some cases) spout the usual nostrums on a topic such as this, but you have outdone yourself and the others this time.

BTW, how the horse business nowadays?

jeff said...

"His speaking out is only occurring because he has a book to sell."

His book he is selling is of him speaking out. Can you blame him?

Richard Dolan said...

MM: There's nothing cynical about an author's desire to see his book reach a large audience ("sell"). But suit yourself. It still pays to listen and understand the man, before dismissing him if that's what you think makes sense.

Darkbloom said...

Richard Dolan, I think much of what you write is true, but this sentence:

No one believes that the results in such cases are dictated by Constitutional text, or history, or precedent

is clearly not. Justice Breyer, for example, has written and spoken quite extensively about his constitutional views, and he believes that. Similarly, Scalia believes the same thing about his decisions regarding divisive social issues.

And this is pretty key to the heart of the matter. Yes, the court is a political institution. But is it issuing opinions that are so divorced from constitutional analysis at a greater rate than in the past? I'm not so sure about that.

Luckyoldson said...

rcocean said..."Her story was always unbelievable."

You mean; to YOU and those on the right.

Right?

Luckyoldson said...

Richard Dolan said..."But his larger point is that the federal judiciary is being destroyed by the partisan war rooted in the perception (by both sides) that the Court is an overtly political institution that can be used to impose political results unobtainable any other way."

You mean little things like Presidential elections?

rcocean said...

R.D.,

Excellent Post. I agree with almost every word you wrote.

IMO, the US Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to reign in the Federal courts, thereby letting them decide issues that are political and not judicial in nature.

Its impossible for anyone (with any intellectual honesty) to explain SCOTUS decisions such as Roe V. wade, Gore V. Bush, or the banning of school prayer by referencing the original intent of the Framers or even the plain meaning of the words.

Its simply judges determining the cases based on their politics and then writing some B.S. to justify it.

I'm sure Scalia and Thomas, and the others less so, try to put personal politics aside on some cases, but the vast majority are simply decided by personal political belief.

Henry said...

impose political results unobtainable any other way

Lucky, remember your history. There was one candidate that needed the judicial system to impose a result unobtainable any other way. Hint: It wasn't Bush.

As for the Thomas / Hill fiasco, one of the best responses to it is Wendell Berrry's Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community. Whatever passed between Hill and Thomas was a private matter. The attempt to resolve it in the public forum was impossible from the start.

Synova said...

Her story was believable to those who wanted to believe her.

Everyone else found out that she'd followed him to a new job and went, "Huh?"

Personally I don't doubt his behavior, at least not much. I doubt that it bothered her greatly until it became useful to her to be bothered by it.

Or why follow him to a new job? If his behavior bothered her and she put up with it because she felt she had to... that's *believable*. But at what point does a person follow someone they hate working with to a new job?

No... not believable.

Sorry.

Luckyoldson said...

There are plenty of documented cases of women sticking with men who abuse them. Following someone to another, better job would fit into that category, especially if you're afraid of destroying your future career.

As for the Supreme Court and the 2000 election, I stand by my comment.

Ralph said...

But at what point does a person follow someone they hate working with to a new job?
While I agree with you, why do many women stay with men who beat them or serially cheat on them? Because they grew up with it?

God help the Republic if the military steps into the political arena as the judges did. Let's hear some whining about Petraeus, now.

Trooper York said...

"Why do they hang this sex stuff on any brother named Thomas, whats up with that?"
(Isiah Thomas)

Trooper York said...

"That's right baby, what's up with dat"
(Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson)

Trooper York said...

"I ain't talkin' bout none of that."
(Duane Thomas, Dallas Cowboys)

Trooper York said...

"Thank god that I am only an "Uncle Tom" so none of that gets hung on me."
(Juan Williams)

Trooper York said...

"You mother was a weasel and you stink of elderberries..or something like that...and my boots are so yellow."
(Tom Bomadil)

Trooper York said...

"Well I never."
(Tommy Tune)

Trooper York said...

"I bet you didn't and next time show up ten minutes early for dance rehersal or I will fine your ass."
(Tom Coughlin)

Trooper York said...

"I don't believe this shit."
(St. Thomas)

Trooper York said...

"The name Thomas has no causal factor in sexual harassment...hey wanna hear a song?"
(Tom Dooley)

brylun said...

"Hey I can't find my football helmet."
(Hall of Fame Running Back Thurman Thomas)

brylun said...

Hey, Lucky, What about the Florida Supreme Court in 2000? They played it straight, right?

Synova said...

Given a non-career destroying "out" she followed him to another job.

This is not at all like someone emotionally dependent, in a *relationship*, staying with an abuser.

Trooper York said...

Here she comes
You better watch your step
She is going to break your heart in two
It's true

It's not hard to realize
Just look into her false colored eyes
She'll build you up just to put you down
What a clown

'cause everybody knows
She's a femme fatale
The things she does to please
She's a femme fatale
She's just a little tease
She's a femme fatale
See the way she walks
Hear the way she talks

You're written in her book
You're number 37
Have a look
She is going to play you for a fool
Yes, it's true

Little boy she's from the street
Before you start you're already beat
She is going to smile
Just to make you frown
Oh, what a clown

'cause every body knows
She's a femme fatale
The things she does to please
She's a femme fatale
She's just a little tease
She's a femme fatale
See the way she walks
Hear the way she talks

'cause everybody knows
She's a femme fatale
The things she does to please
She's a femme fatale
She's just a little tease
She's a femme fatale

Wow-oh-wow-ow-wow
She's a femme fatale ...
(Tom Tom Club)

Synova said...

Following him to the other job may have been *good* for her career. But there isn't any reason to think she'd ruin her career by not following him to the other job. That she decided that putting up with him was worth the career benefit does not support the idea that she was emotionally dependent on her abuser.

She had an out she didn't take.

People don't just disbelieve her because they refuse to believe women are harassed at work. They doubt her because it doesn't make *sense*. That other women are harassed or coerced into sex or find themselves in a hostile work environment doesn't mean that Hill was emotionally traumatized by Thomas's behavior. That she followed him from one job to another makes it quite likely that he *rightly* figured that it didn't bother her.

Ralph said...

quite likely that he *rightly* figured that it didn't bother her.
Or that it didn't happen at all, or at least not by Thomas. Was it testimony or just gossip that another man in her office had done similar things, I forget?

cyrus pinkerton said...

rcocean wrote:

Justice Thomas will be on Rush Limbaugh for 90 minutes on Monday, October 2nd.

I didn't know anybody here ever admitted to listening to Rush.

Luckyoldson said...

Whatever the fuck Trooper's doing, I'd like to buy a couple of bags or bottles.

Just let me know...

Luckyoldson said...

cyrus pinkerton said..."I didn't know anybody here ever admitted to listening to Rush."

Of course they don't.

*Nobody want to give away the source for their material.

Trooper York said...

Hey I listen to Rush all the time:

Now it's come to this
It's like we're back in the Dark Ages
From the Middle East to the Middle West
It's a world of superstition

Now it's come to this
Wide-eyed armies of the faithful
From the Middle East to the Middle West
Pray, and pass the ammunition

So many people think that way
You gotta watch what you say
To them and them, and others too
Who don't seem to see to things the way you do

We can only grow the way the wind blows
on a bare and weathered shore
We can only bow to the here and now
In our elemental war

We can only go the way the wind blows
We can only bow to the here and now
Or be broken down blow by blow

Now it's come to this
Hollow speeches of mass deception
From the Middle East to the Middle West
Like crusaders in a holy alliance

Now it's come to this
Like we're back in the dark ages
From the Middle East to the Middle West
It's a plague that resists our science

It seems to leave them partly blind
And they leave no child behind
While evil spirits haunt their sleep
While shepherds bless and count their sheep

Like the solitary pine
On a bare wind blasted shore
We can only grow the way the wind blows

(Rush, Snakes & Arrows Album 2007)

Luckyoldson said...

Ralph said..."Or that it didn't happen at all, or at least not by Thomas."

Do you actually think the woman put herself through the hearings, etc....just for grins? Or that she thought it would really help further her career?

Get real.

I know women who were pressured and harassed by their male bosses and never reported any of it. Why? Because they had families and didn't want to risk losing their jobs or sidetrack their careers.
They stayed quiet until they could get transferred or the men were finally accused by others of the same behavior and fired.

The comments regarding Anita Hill are similar to the kind of bullshit we hear every day, when women accuse men of abuse, rape, harassment of any kind.

And that's why so many never say anything or report the situation to their bosses, other employees, friends or authorities.

*From the Rape Crisis Center: Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted, and more than half of sexual assaults go unreported.

Luckyoldson said...

Trooper York said..."Hey I listen to Rush all the time..."

Now there's a real shocker.

Trooper York said...

Come on dude...I posted a nice little commie song you could whack off to...enjoy!

Trooper York said...

Obviously, you wouldn't recognize irony and word/play if it bit you in that tiny little pecker you are always waving in everyone’s face.

Luckyoldson said...

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, Trooper, you played the "commie" card!!

Now that's what I call a truly creative and dramatically underused ploy from the right.

What, run out of the standard (Rushie) slams relating to...

...being un-American or traitorous or unpatriotic?

No poems or quotes in your vast (stolen) repertoire?

And damn, I loved your "pecker" jabs. (I haven't heard anything like that since my grandfather passed away about 20 years ago.)

Maybe an update or your material is in order...and, hey...why try to come up with something of your own for a change...anybody can cut and past what others have already said.

You crazy...peckerhead?

Peter Palladas said...

Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted.

That's just too much. If I were him or her I'd stay home for a while.

Trooper York said...

Well, the stalker stalks his target
Just happened to see her at the super-market
Oh, hi, hey, that peanut butter sucks
You wouldn't like Jiffy, it ain't go no nuts
Why don't you try these?
She ran away scared, and I'm staring at her butt-cheeks
Cause I know she loves me, she wanna tease and tease and rub and dub me

"Hello?"
Hi, it's me
"Hello?"
You love me
"Hello?"
I love you
"Hello?" "Hello?"

Biggity bop boom!
I'm back in a stone brick house
Candle light dinner and some Mexican chow
Yo, I know she gonna show up
Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick, no luck
Peep through her window, jack off in her back yard
Somebody pulled a joker's card
And you know what joker caught you
Things you do when you's the stalker

"Are you okay?"
"I don't know, because I know he'll be back. He always come back. I'll
never be able to lead a normal again."
"It's okay."

The stalker
(Insane Clown Posse, Beverly Kills 50187 (1994) )

Trooper York said...

I could never be as original as you Lucky. All the best.

Luckyoldson said...

Peter Palladas,
Finally...someone with a sense of humor.

Ralph said...

LOS, if you remember, she said she did not want to come forward and testify publicly, but the committee got her accusation second hand, and the Totebag made it public. Was she then going to admit she made it all up?

Kirk said...

LOS,

"They stayed quiet until they could get transferred"

Exactly, and that's NOT what Hill did, and that's part of why she was less than credible.

dick said...

LOS,

You will believe anything. The woman is a law review editor from Yale and at a time when women and in particular black women could practically name their price, this one follows Thomas from job to job and then when he is named judge she comes to him for references. He gets remarried and she send presents and comes for dinner and other celebrations. He gives her more references and she send gifts to his new baby and congratulations on all the good things happening to him.

Then he gets named to the Supreme Court and all of a sudden he has been victimizing her all this time and he is a scumbag and he is terrible, the things he said to her and she was afraid of him.

Now try to find a way to justify all the things she did before he was named to the Supreme Court in light of what she claimed happened when she testified at his hearings. Makes no sense at all. All the good things that have happened to her came about because of his reputation and his giving her his blessing and this is how she repays him. She was a liar and should have lost her tenure.

Luckyoldson said...

Kirk said..."Exactly, and that's NOT what Hill did..."

I didn't say EVERYBODY does anything.

I said the women I know told me that that was how they handled matters and I believe that is the case in most instances.

If you actually believe women who are abused, harassed, etc...NEVER stick around or even follow those who can further their careers, because of the money, stature, etc...that's YOUR opinion, but I don't think reality would bear you out.

Luckyoldson said...

dick,
I know the whole story, I've read the same things you have.

But...it's my understanding Anita Hill stayed quiet until she realized Clarence would be appointed to the Supreme Court...correct?

Ralph said...

dick, you nailed her.

cyrus pinkerton said...

dick wrote:

She was a liar and should have lost her tenure.

Nothing you write establishes that Hill lied in her testimony. In fact, most of what you write is idiotic garbage. Sharpen up, please.

Trumpit said...

I find it conspicuous that Clarence didn't outright call Anita Hill a liar during the 60 minutes. Well, that's because that would make him a liar - again.

But many commentators on this blog have no problem calling her a liar. I believe there is commandment in the bible that goes something like: Thou shall not bear false witness. There you right-wing, fanatical, Republicans go again (as Ronnie Reagan would've said). Paying lip service to the Ten Commandants, while breaking every one of them when it suits your purposes.

I agree with the religious right that the Ten Commandments should be posted in every public building. Because clearly, hypocritical Republicans need constant reminders of them. Although it won't make a damn bit of difference.

rcocean said...

"I find it conspicuous that Clarence didn't outright call Anita Hill a liar during the 60 minutes. Well, that's because that would make him a liar - again."


How would calling her a liar make him "Conspicuous" on 60 minutes? Just being on TV makes him "Conspicuous".

Wait, I get it now. "Trumpit" your satire on the usual left-wing Kooky KOS defense of Anita Hill was very amusing.

Well Done.

dick said...

Cyrus,

Given the behavior pattern of Anita Hill in this circumstances, is that the way a lawyer with the bona fides that she supposedly had would act? Is an honor graduate and law review scholar at Yale so beat down that she is doomed to follow anyone who will pay any attention to her because without him she is nothing? If he was so brutally mean to her and treated her like such a piece of garbage, then why would she stick around for one minute? With her degree from Yale and with the way women were being built up at the time, she could name her price at almost any law firm in the country and with the LLL orientation of the academics of the day she would not really need his help to get a good job as a professor. Why then would she be such a family friend and personal guest at dinner parties if he was such a scumbag. It just does not compute and nothing she has said since or done since has changed that one. It is like she was programmed to say these things and then the academics would pat her on the head and give her a promotion. That is to say that the only difference between her and Crystal of Durham is the price.

rightwingprof said...

I'm in Manhattan for the week, so did I miss something? Why is the Thomas Hill thing raising its ugly head?

hdhouse said...

Bob said...
Fair, hdhouse? Do you think that perhaps Hill's reaction to the book will probably get more coverage, and far more favorable coverage at that, than the book itself, which will probably be ignored by the MSM"

Please define MSM. it is a rightwing fool's term so please put it out in definition form so we can understand it and repond. Otherwise it is just a bunch of typical right wing bullshit...which it truly is.

If you write a book that distorts or attacks history as other people saw/lived it (her version) then you get what you get or don't write the friggin book. Very few people care what Clarance has to say other than his role on the court.....I frankly don't give a tinker's damn if he likes his porn soft or hardcore....but if he brings it up it is on the table...or haven't you ever seen a criminal trial where the prosecutor jumps on a defendant because "he brought it up".

rcocean said...

"Please define MSM. it is a rightwing fool's term so please put it out in definition form so we can understand it and repond. Otherwise it is just a bunch of typical right wing bullshit...which it truly is."

What a great example of Left Think.

Why should anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy waste their time interacting with you?

John Stodder said...

Actually, left-wing bloggers are just as likely to use the term "MSM" as right-wing bloggers. It's a term many new-media types use to denigrate the establishment media. Especially when the establishment media publishes/airs something they don't like.

For example, the left blames the MSM for not questioning Bush's "rush to war." The New York Times' ex foreign affairs writer Judith Miller is the devil-doll of the MSM. Chris Matthews is another MSM-er who enrages the left, even though he agrees with them 95 percent of the time. Tim Russert is another one; the left doesn't like the fact that he does his, "Today you say this, but in 1994 you said that" shtick to heroes of the left as much as he does everyone else. Cokie Roberts, the editorial page of the Washington Post, the New Republic until they started smearing soldiers; all of these are betes noires of the left, and they're all MSM habitues.

Daryl said...

It's good to see Thomas fight back.

He can't prove his innocence but he can set the record straight.

It's almost amazing how willing feminists are to believe any woman when she's speaking against a man, no matter what.

It's similar to how ready Muslims are to believe any other Muslim when they speak against an infidel, no matter how preposterous their claims (e.g., that the Israeli attack on Jenin was a "massacre" of innocent civilians, etc. etc.)

It's similar to, during the time of the Klan's ascendancy, the willingness of white Southerners to believe what a white said over the word of a black, no matter what the evidence was.

It's bigotry, and it's despicable. False charges can destroy people. Standing against false charges is part of standing up for justice.

Feminists have put themselves at odds with justice, because a just result will not always favor women.

They have said time and again how important abortion rights are to them. Of course they would be willing to lie to stop a vote against Roe from getting onto the Supreme Court. Of course they would be willing to destroy a man to accomplish that.

Daryl said...

synova: This is not at all like someone emotionally dependent, in a *relationship*, staying with an abuser

Yes. It is utterly ridiculous to claim otherwise. It makes light of the difficult situation women in abusive relationships are actually in.