In his new memoir, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas calls Anita Hill "my most traitorous adversary," rekindling debate about Hill’s 1991 sexual harassment allegations against Thomas. He claims Hill was part of a plot by "left-wing zealots" to block his confirmation because of his abortion views.
And on CBS’ "60 Minutes" Sunday, Thomas claimed that Hill "was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed."
But Thomas isn’t likely to have the last word on the subject. Hill responded in a New York Times commentary this week, saying, "I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me."
She went on: "Regrettably, since 1991 I have repeatedly seen this kind of character attack on women and men who complain of harassment and discrimination in the workplace."
Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson arguesthat Thomas is one of the more cogent arguments against affirmative action.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
45 Comments
Thomas is against Affirmative Action now, but where was he when he benefited him?
As for Anita Hill, I don’t know her personally but there must have been some truth to her story because she never backed down.
Why is it that Republicans, especially these Social Conservatives, always have trouble when it comes to sex? If there was not at least something to Hill’s story about Clarence Thomas and his unwanted advances, then nothing could have been made from it.
The Social Conservatives like to tell everyone else how to live but go right on and live like the Devil themselves.
It took her ten years to bring it up.
fleettwood,
And this proves…?
“60 Minutes” owes Professor Hill equal time to respond to Thomas’s allegations and trashing of her reputation.
It proves that if it was all that, she would have said something sooner.
I hope 60 minutes puts her on.
fleettwood,
Um, no. I would think that the LAST thing anyone would want to do who had been harassed by a superior in a situation like that would be to make an issue of it. It’s a lose-lose.
More, if she had been trying to gain by making the accusations, the time to do so would have been while he was still in the position at EEOC. Making the claims long after the fact netted her zero monetary renumeration, but lots and lots and negative public consequences–in addition to being gang-mobbed by Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch in the 1991 hearings.
The fact that she had nothing to gain and everything to lose by the allegations, in my book, enhances their credibility. It’s going to be great to watch Professor Hill on “60 Minutes.” Saw her on Tavis Smiley last year, and she was very impressive.
Quite a contrast with Clarence Thomas’s whiny hissy-fit.
“she was very impressive”
I’d hit it. giggity
It’s Thomas vs. Hill; the battle of the affirmative action incompetents! Just hose ‘em both off.
From the article quoted by WE Blog:
“The question of whether Clarence Thomas belongs on the Supreme Court is no longer on the table — it was settled by the Senate back in 1991.”
I think Anita Hill said it best.
It’s done, so let’s all be done with it.
Hill allegations still shadow Thomas – because Lib rags like this keep bringing up Anita Hill and the stories she told 10 years after the alleged incident.
Like the maid said, it must be true cause Anita keeps telling the same lie. So, consistency is truth.
And telling the same lie makes it true? You mean like the Bush lies running up to the Iraq War?
Those lies?
“You mean like the Bush lies running up to the Iraq War?”
The cliche maid.
You libs really have a hard time letting go of your traumas, don’t you?
Justice Thomas endured your unmerciful public lynching and has remained nothing but a gentleman about it. Anyone who hears him speak knows he’s honorable and intelligent and deserves to be on the bench.
Anita Hill was nothing but an early day Cindy Sheehan, propped-up, used by the democrats for their own enjoyment and cast aside.
Interesting that the Republicans dismiss Anite Hill so easily when they will jump all over a similar allegation by Linda Tripp. I don’t know if what Hill says is true or not – just like I don’t with other allegations.
Linda Tripp is the one who told Lewinski to save the dress, as she would need it when she was called a liar.
Roscoe,
Nice to be able to accuse some other political party of lynching for a change, isn’t it?
I would like to see Anita Hill and Condi Rice, all oiled up, doing the nasty fish slap. And Nancy Pelosi would be wearing a cheerleader outfit and jumping around, with a ball gag so I wouldn’t have to listen to her talk.
I believe Long Dong Silver.
Moderate that I am, I suspect Anita Hill was an overly-sensitive, uptight feminist accutely aware of sexist behavior by males; and that Clarence Thomas was and is an all-too-typical male oaf in a position of power.
Most women I know have come to expect most males inability to make eye-contact when presented with a fine pair of breasts. Most men I know revert to 8th Grade locker room talk when the subject veers off to sexual fantasies. (10,000 beer commercials can’t be wrong.)
My objection to Thomas’ performance on the SCOTUS is more how he seems to be driven by ideology rather than the issues of the cases at hand. He’s earned the reputation as Anthony Scalia’s lapdog precisely because Thomas’ professed conservatism has been abandoned when Republic Party priorities interfere.
I’m luck, I guess. No one expects me to be a spokesman for the Welsh/Irish/Pennsylvania Dutch “community.” I’m simply a guy with pink skin. But anyone who is considered a minority in America is automatically expected to base opinions to a certain degree on their ethnicity.
The record is there and it’s impressive that Thomas graduated from Yale Law School in the middle of his class. And it’s highly likely that he wouldn’t have been accepted into Yale Law School were it not for the color of his skin. That’s liberals for you.
Chances are just as likely that Thomas might have graduated at the top of the class at a less-prestegious law school. We’ll never know.
As with most “conservatives” (and as is demonstrated in this forum every day) the idealism of conservatism takes precedence over the reality of the issues at hand. Unless it interferes with George WMD Bush’s neo-con agenda.
There’s nothing “conservative” about a unilateral invasion and occupation of a nation halfway around the world. There’s nothing “conservative” about funding that war and occupation off-budget to the tune of $3 Billion a week. There’s nothing “conservative” about denying the right of habeas corpus or wiretapping Americans without a court-issued warrant.
For that matter, there’s nothing “conservative” about December, 2000, when the SCOTUS overrode the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in the issue of the presidential election results.
Anita Hill was idealistic enough to think she got the job she had because she earned it. Her boss, Clarence Thomas, was delusional enough to think he earned his position of power because he was a powerful male. They both were victims of their delusions.
Regardless of who ultimately gets appointed to the SCOTUS, it is the hope of this patriot that they will eventually grow into the job the Constitution made for them.
So far, Thomas hasn’t demonstrated his intelligence or independence as a great legal mind.
Hope he gets there. He’s got a government checl for the rest of his life. Clarence Thomas may well turn out to be a great conservative voice on the court.
He’s not yet.
He’s where he his because of how he got there. So far, he hasn’t becaome his own justice; he hasn’t become his own man.
He may think he has. But I doubt it.
Thomas brings it up again because it happened and he is in denial. He is defending himself from himself. It’s as classic as a senator sitting on a public toilet. Thomas may go down over this. Any betters?
“Moderate that I am,…”
uh, do what? Who was your candidate on that npr website exercise we did earlier?
Oh, yeah. The other moderate, Kookcinich.
“Any betters?”
Only that I am yours.
The hypocrisy of the feminists is what bothers me.
Clarence Thomas was accused of ONE problem in his life: A problem WITH Anita Hill.
He was accused of bad behavior 10 years after the fact.
Anita Hill had accepted promotions and positive recommendations from Clarence Thomas, from the time she says she was mistreated right up until the time she turned on Judge Thomas.
Okay, I side with Clarence Thomas.
Lets be honest, NONE of us can be sure exactly what happened between them.
However, there was no “pattern of behaviour” where Clarence Thomas is concerned.
There is a well documented pattern of behavior where Bill Clinton was concerned.
I admit that my party, the Republican Party, just doesn’t get it sometimes.
Naive Republicans thought that impeaching Clinton for, basically, disrespect towards women would work.
LOL.
Liberal Democrats are ALLOWED to sexually harrass women.
Conservative Republicans have to play by much different rules.
“Liberal Democrats are ALLOWED to sexually harrass women”
PROVE THAT PAUL!
SEEMS YOU REPUBLICANS ARE HAPPY WITH THOMAS HARASSING ANITA HILL!
door king – you raise an interesting point. Hill didn’t bring this up; Thomas did. Why?
Interesting …
BenAs far as feminists are concerned, Bill Clinton did NO wrong.
Name a single, national NOW member or vocal, nationally known feminist who went after Thomas because of Anita Hill, who also said something bad about Bill Clinton —
Do that and you will get my public apology.
Um, what Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did was between two CONSENTING adults and legal. It was NOT sexual harassment. What Clarence Thomas allegedly did was not between consenting adults and illegal. It WAS sexual harassment. If Clarence Thomas had been put under oath and forced to answer questions, or if there had been $30 million spent on an investigation, who knows how it would have turned out. Oh yeah, and Clinton got IMPEACHED for it! Also, Anita Hill did not “wait” 10 years to bring it up. She may never have brought it up if CT were not being considered for the highest court in the land.
Fleets enema worm, you’re so full of it. Going through something like that makes you want to crawl into a hole and never come out.
You mean like the Bush lies running up to the Iraq War?”
The cliche maid.
Posted by: fleettwood
And, yet, Fleetie you do not deny the lies that were told, do you?
Vas
Clinton had a PATTERN, meaning more than one accuser.
Also, Clinton DID do something illegal, as Lewinsky was a PAGE or STAFF member.
It was sex with a subordinate. However, it exposed Clinton to a CIVIL tort if Monica had wanted to take it that far.
Not a crime, no, but it is NOT legally protected to have sex with a subordinate.
As soon as the subordinate no longer wants to have a “relationship”— she or he can sue, retroactive to the first day, and WIN!
And — of course, it was a CRIME to lie about it under oath.
Purgery
However, I call the Republican Party, MY Party, “Naive” because I think we should have let the purgery go.
I think there were other issues that were more disturbing.
I did not think the country would be mad at Clinton for an affair.
Yes, Clinton was impeached.
Yes, Clinton was disbarred.
Still, I don’t think it was wise to impeach on the Lie about Monica.
Now that it is done?
Both Clinton’s deserve scorn for how they handled the entire matter.
Hillary deserves scorn because SHE is an enabler, allowing her husband to disrespect women on a far greater scale than anything Justice Thomas was even accused of doing.
And — for the record, I do think the entire “sexual harrassment” issue is overblown, and that false accusations do happen about as often as valid claims.Again, this is why it was probably unwise to go after Clinton on purgery about sex.
All of the men out there that have been falsely accused, in the past, felt sympathy for Clinton.
And the NOW crowd?
Clinton could be videotaped attempting a rape, on the COPS TV show, and the NOW crowd would still give him a pass.
So, politically, Republicans gained NO converts impeaching Clinton — Even if Clinton WAS guilty.
Clinton got a blow job from an adult wom an who wanted to do it. And, it turned out, she had a history of using sex to get what she wanted. As for the impeachment, that was a strictly partisan affair carried out by such paragons of virtue as serial-cheater Newt Gingrich. A man who TYPIFIES the morality of the Repuke party while they preach at everyone else.
And also for the record, had the Clinton/Lewinsky thing happened in the business world, Clinton would have been fired.
I’ve seen executive lose their jobs over an ‘innocent’ beer after work before, from violating Code of Conduct and/or Ethics policies, whether the woman involved complains or not. It’s the perception of favoritism, and inpropriety that gets the boss canned.
And in a ‘he said/she said’ situation with no witnesses, HE loses every time.
Sexual harrassment laws were designed to stop the boss from manipulating his/her employees.
So Ben, by your human calculations:
Anita Hill = SAINT
Monica Lewinsky = SLUT (or Bimbo as Hillary calls Bills other women)
Thomas appears to be reigniting the scandal perhaps to fuel sales of his book. I can think of no other reason for the way he attacked Hill on 60 minutes. I don’t blame Hill for fighting back.
I’ve no interest in the book by the way. The interviews I’ve seen of this man show pretty much what I expected. The man is not terribly bright and likely got most of where he did in a submissive way. It is not surprising he fell into the orbit of Antonin Scalia.
If Hillary wins and gets a SC appointment, I would advise her to appoint Anita Hill as a Justice. Make Thomas sweat a bit. Make him uncomfortable.
If Hillary wins,Sexual Harrassment will be a joke.
“The President thinks it is ok for her husband to take advantage of women, so why can’t everyone else?”
“she was very impressive”
I’d hit it. giggity
Posted by: Judge Thomas
the bottom line on the monica era was that the repukes spent $60,000,000.00 on trying to find something wrong with Clinton.
after monica, the pukes said “oh golly he had oral sex with a woman.”
after they realized almost no one cared, they tried the “but he lied” story.
larry craig thought if Clinton was caught in a homo tryst in a (lol) PUBLIC restroom he would of let it slide.there’s always a repuke on his knees beggin for your vote.
you are going crazy because Clinton was better for the country than both bush boys combined.
kev,
“Chief Justice Hill.” Hell yes. I like the sound of that. I like it a lot, actually.
Too bad Anita Hill wasn’t white.
Then the same CONs who defended Thomas would have wanted to LYNCH him . . .
Pall,”Purgery”
Yes, my grandmother practiced purgery every spring when she dosed the family with castor oil and sent them to the outhouse as part of spring cleaning, inside and out.I believe the word you’re searching for is “Perjury.”
If Hillary wins,Sexual Harrassment will be a joke.
“The President thinks it is ok for her husband to take advantage of women, so why can’t everyone else?”
typical BushBot bullshit. Prove that claim Paul. Not just your BS claim but PROOF!
Maidmarion:
Thomas had a pattern also as evidenced by the other women lined up to testify.
Secondly, consensual sex between adults of opposite sex, is not a crime. Except in some states if you do it in the wrong position or something like that! It IS against POLICY in many organizations such as the military.
Sex with a subordinate may not be legally protected but it certainly is not outlawed. You might lose your job but probably the only lawsuits that will succeed depend upon proving that the activity made for a hostile work environment or something like that. If you think about it, a large number of people meet their significant others at work and many of the have sexual relationships. I have yet to hear of a lawsuit in such a case.