Merged Hey Girlfriend, It's Ginny From the Block!

[Puppycow]

If you actually think she was the one lying I have even less respect for you than I did previously. Damned little in the first place, but......

He is letting his political biases cloud his judgment here.

After doing a little reading to refresh my memory, I can't say for sure who's lying, but I think I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that there is no definitive proof either way. Hence, blanket statements like "Hill was lying" are not well supported.

Here is an response to these accusations that Hill wrote a few years ago when Thomas released his autobiography:

The Smear This Time

See also the article by Ruth Marcus I linked above.

 

[Roadtoad]

Regardless of whether or not you believe Anita Hill, this whole sad chapter in the SCOTUS ought to have been left to lie in the gutter, (though it should also be noted that according to the Wikipedia page about Hill, there was more than enough skullduggery behind the scenes to warrant serious questions. (And this is on both sides, folks.)

To my mind, the classy move would have been for Thomas to have stepped aside and said "Next time;" if he had it in him, the next chance would have worked out for him. Unfortunately, that turned out to be a non-starter, and we wound up with the circus that we did, and Thomas' (accurate) depiction of this episode as a "high-tech lynching."

There are times when I read his decisions and disagree. IANAL, so I can't speak to his competency or his adherence to the Constitution. I can, though, say that I could wish for better and more reliable information on Dr. Hill's claims. Ultimately, the US Senate didn't believe her, and Thomas was confirmed. No charges against anyone were ever filed, so we have to assume Justice Thomas is innocent.

But for Ginny Thomas to call Hill and ask for an apology, particularly after Hill's previous articles stating clearly that she stands by her testimony, is simply weird. It was a poorly conceived move on her part, simply because it resurrected some pretty ugly memories for those of us who follow the court. Why, after 20 years, she would make such a phone call is confusing at best.

Do I believe Hill? Is that even relevant at this stage?

 

[hgc]

...
There are times when I read his decisions and disagree. IANAL, so I can't speak to his competency or his adherence to the Constitution. I can, though, say that I could wish for better and more reliable information on Dr. Hill's claims. Ultimately, the US Senate didn't believe her, and Thomas was confirmed. No charges against anyone were ever filed, so we have to assume Justice Thomas is innocent.
...

This was not a criminal justice proceeding, so there was nothing for Thomas to be "guilty" of nor "charges" to be filed about.

I don't have to assume that he didn't do it. I can form an opinion, and I did. I don't believe him. I do believe her. Take it for what it's worth. That leads me necessarily to assume that Thomas lied to Congress, which would be a crime if it were ever able to proven.

Now, do I think that it was a good idea for the Judiciary Committee to re-open Thomas confirmation to hear the testimony of Anita Hill? Not so much. I was vehemently opposed to his elevation to the SC due to his judicial philosophy and apparent lack of intellectual firepower, and urged my Sens to oppose. Anita Hill didn't impact on my opinion on that at all.

 

[Roadtoad]

This was not a criminal justice proceeding, so there was nothing for Thomas to be "guilty" of nor "charges" to be filed about.

I don't have to assume that he didn't do it. I can form an opinion, and I did. I don't believe him. I do believe her. Take it for what it's worth. That leads me necessarily to assume that Thomas lied to Congress, which would be a crime if it were ever able to proven.

Now, do I think that it was a good idea for the Judiciary Committee to re-open Thomas confirmation to hear the testimony of Anita Hill? Not so much. I was vehemently opposed to his elevation to the SC due to his judicial philosophy and apparent lack of intellectual firepower, and urged my Sens to oppose. Anita Hill didn't impact on my opinion on that at all.

I'll grant you this, simply because I see some strong wisdom within it. But I would note that you left out mention to your senators your belief he was lying about sexual harassment. Further discussion is warranted, simply because there's a lot I don't know.

I would also say that this belonged in a court of law, not before the Senate. It's more than a little bizarre that we're rehashing this, and especially so, given why.

 

[hgc]

I'll grant you this, simply because I see some strong wisdom within it. But I would note that you left out mention to your senators your belief he was lying about sexual harassment. Further discussion is warranted, simply because there's a lot I don't know.

I wrote to my senators (Moynihan and D'Amato) before the Anita Hill thing arose.

I would also say that this belonged in a court of law, not before the Senate. It's more than a little bizarre that we're rehashing this, and especially so, given why.

A criminal court? What on earth for? A civil court? It could have happened if Hill ever chose to press the case, but that's her choice.

No, I don't have any problem dredging up the past, as some would say. This is something that will and ought to be talked about for many years to come. But yeah, it sure is weird why it came up this week. Ginny is showing real teabagger cred by taking the whacktard fight to the enemy.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, I was just listeniung to Randi Rhodes on the radio. Seems that that little teatard Ginny works for a lobbying group that is benefitting financially from Citizens United.

Why didn't doofus recuse himself?

There may be repercusions if the Democrats keep the House and Senate.

Wouldn't this be a good time to reinforce the illusion that evil people were out to get that lump of nothing who is posing as a constitutional authority?

 

[SezMe]

Why didn't doofus recuse himself?

Scalia had the word "recuse" recused from the SCOTUS lexicon.

 

[Puppycow]

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

For nearly two decades, Lillian McEwen has been silent -- a part of history, yet absent from it.

When Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his explosive 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Thomas vehemently denied the allegations and his handlers cited his steady relationship with another woman in an effort to deflect Hill's allegations.

Lillian McEwen was that woman.

At the time, she was on good terms with Thomas. The former assistant U.S. attorney and Senate Judiciary Committee counsel had dated him for years, even attending a March 1985 White House state dinner as his guest. She had worked on the Hill and was wary of entering the political cauldron of the hearings. She was never asked to testify, as then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who headed the committee, limited witnesses to women who had a "professional relationship" with Thomas.

Now, she says that Thomas often said inappropriate things about women he met at work -- and that she could have added her voice to the others, but didn't.

Over the years, reporters and biographers approached her eager to know more about Thomas from women who knew him well. But McEwen remained mum. She said she saw "nothing good" coming out of talking to reporters about Thomas, whom she said she still occasionally met. She did not want to do anything to harm her career, she added. Plus, she realized, "I don't look good in this."

Way to go Ginnie!

 

[Puppycow]

"He was obsessed with porn," she said of Thomas, who is now 63. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting."

McEwen added that she had no problem with Thomas's interests, although she found pornography to be "boring."

According to McEwen, Thomas would also tell her about women he encountered at work. He was partial to women with large breasts, she said. In an instance at work, Thomas was so impressed that he asked one woman her bra size, McEwen recalled him telling her.

Do tell. . .

 

[leftysergeant]

Scalia had the word "recuse" recused from the SCOTUS lexicon.

Oh, right then. We can't expect Thomas to rebel against that, can we. He chose his mentor and he is remaining true to the principles he learned from him.

 

[linusrichard]

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas



Way to go Ginnie!

Do tell. . .

While a lot of the world wonders whether McEwen is lying or telling the truth, we at JREF need not wonder! After all, only a few people know what went on in that workplace: Thomas himself, Hill, McEwen, the other employees, and of course our own Brainster. Brainster! Is McEwen lying or telling the truth?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

While a lot of the world wonders whether McEwen is lying or telling the truth, we at JREF need not wonder! After all, only a few people know what went on in that workplace: Thomas himself, Hill, McEwen, the other employees, and of course our own Brainster. Brainster! Is McEwen lying or telling the truth?

Brainster scan: Activated.

Scanning Lillian McEwen...

...Scan complete. Confirmed: Liberal.

She's lying.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My bet would be on Ms Thomas being drunk and stupid when she made the call. Anyone got a link to the audio? It might just reveal a slurred word or two.

 

[Puppycow]

My bet would be on Ms Thomas being drunk and stupid when she made the call. Anyone got a link to the audio? It might just reveal a slurred word or two.

The call was reportedly placed to Hill's office at 7:30 am on a Saturday. So if she was drunk she either started very early or stayed up very late drinking.

The audio has not been made public according to reports.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The call was reportedly placed to Hill's office at 7:30 am on a Saturday. So if she was drunk she either started very early or stayed up very late drinking.

The audio has not been made public according to reports.

If alcohol did play a part, it also would suggest alcoholism. Time of day would not rule out a call while drunk.

I'm not saying there is evidence Ms Thomas was drunk. But I am saying being drunk would explain a lot.

 

[Roadtoad]

Jeez...

No, I don't think Ginny Thomas was drunk when she made the call. And she has every right to associate with whom she chooses.

I do, however, think her phone call was a tacitly stupid move which only reopened old wounds, and now has dragged out people from the past who may or may not have something new to add which might possibly be worth hearing, or not.

But, hell, if personal attacks make you feel better about your stance on this issue, by all means. Personally, I'd rather have more facts. Since we're now talking about this 20 YEARS after the fact, I question the validity of "testimony" that's only now coming out. The time for it was 20 YEARS AGO, when it was worth a damn.

I haven't read Justice Thomas' book, though I'm sure I eventually will, just as I do with any number of authors with whom I sometimes (dis)agree with. It would be nice, though, to hear all sides of the issues, and then be able to make up my own mind based upon facts. From what I've heard, the book is more press release than insight, though I'm waiting for my own opportunity to decide.