"Clarance Thomas was not stable" - Former girlfriend

[linusrichard]

LOL. You had me going for a minute.

Me too.

Seriously, though, I'm a little surprised at some of this thread. Shouldn't Justice Thomas as a justice be judged by the quality of his work? I don't like the man, but I have to give him some credit as a justice.

His votes are almost always wrong, from my point of view. His view of the Constitution is pretty far from mainstream. His respect for stare decisis is minimal.

But his opinions are well-crafted, readable, and largely logical. They evince an impressive intellect. I am not being sarcastic here. His votes are, in the main, principled and internally consistent. He's not afraid to be the 1 in an 8-1 or 4-4-1 decision. He also appears to be the only justice who thinks the Privileges or Immunities Clause means anything.

There's a lot not to like about Justice Thomas. There's a lot I don't like about him. But as a justice, he's underrated.

 

[tyr_13]

It was a Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

Actually I was talking about the Clinton scandal.

Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment and suggested that maybe such a person shouldn't be making decisions that could affect women's rights, which I regard as legitimate criticism. She never had him charged with a crime and indeed it may have never been discussed in the media had Thomas never been nominated.

What the Thomas team did was to try to destroy her credibility and her reputation, and they did a pretty good job of it. There are still a lot of people who think she was "lying for liberals". Indeed it is probably because of the treatment that McEwen did not come forth at the time. I can see the headlines from the right wing: "Spurned girlfriend slanders brave Afro-American jurist!" "Jumping on the hate bandwagon!"

Now it is true that she is publishing a memoir years after the events, a bit late to take advantage of the press bump it would have had if had been timely. True Virginia Thomas may have inadvertently given her a sales boost, but this doesn't have the ring of crass opportunism which has been a staple of partisans on both aisles.

What it means is that Anita Hill, in all probability, didn't lie at all. Clarence Thomas lied. Lied and slandered. And got what he wanted. And now his wife wants an apology from Anita Hill without Clarence offering one? Porn doesn't disgust me, but Clarence and Virginia Thomas do.

Oh, that explains it better. Yes, slandering a woman over what turns out to be the truth is despicable. I was 8 years old in 1991, so I didn't know that stuff. I should have looked it up.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally? Vince Foster's death and Whitewater real estate investments.

Yeah, somehow that makes it ok to ask about extramarital affairs during sworn testimony.

I thought the perjury occured when he was questioned in the Paula Jones harrasment suit.

 

[eeyore1954]

A case that the judge said "even if everything you claim happened happened you have no case?"

Then he should have just told the truth.


Because she couldn't prove damages.

 

[cwalner]

I thought the perjury occured when he was questioned in the Paula Jones harrasment suit.

That was my understanding as well.

What bothered me about Clinton, was not that he lied about an affair, but that he lied under oath, ie committed perjury. While I disagreed that he should have ever been questioned about the affair under oath in the first place, that decision was made according to the rule of law. As POTUS, one of his roles was Chief Executive. He had an obligation to follow the rule of law, not consider himself above it for such a trivial matter. Even after voting for him twice, I fully supported the senate impeaching him.

Similarly, Clarence Thomas was under oath, testifying before the senate, when he made his statements about his relationship with Anita Hill. He was being considered for the position of Supreme Court Justice. We have a similar right to expect a certain respect for the rule of law from somebody who wants to be one of the prime jurists of this country. I have a hard time respecting the decisions of a Supreme Court Justice, if he had to perjure himself in his confirmation hearing to get the job (which I believe he did). Again, the relevance of the questions is immaterial. what matters is that someone in a position to interpret the laws of the land show some respect for them when applied to his own behavior.

Now, in the Clinton case, we have about as close to definitive proof that he lied that we can get. The Thomas case is not anywhere near as certain, but the information from Ms. McEwen seems to support Anita Hill's version over Thomas'. It is still not definitive, but the she said seems much stronger than the he said now.

 

[Beerina]

I was in Europe during the hearings. The women over there could not believe the big deal made over these things he (supposedly) said.

 

[Lurker]

I wasn't embellishing, just going on memories over a decade old Lurker.

It's hardly a material difference.

No problem. I was not accusing you specifically of embellishing. The so called liberal media made the exact same mistake years back and never corrected the record. So it is no surprise that most people think it was a 21 year old intern when it actually was a 22 year old employee (non-intern). But the liberal media knew how to frame the story to make it more salacious and went with it.

Funny how the liberal media lied in order to denigrate Clinton more.