"Clarance Thomas was not stable" - Former girlfriend

[Tricky]

Who is the worst judge on the bench today? I think Clarence Thomas would get my vote. I thought Anita Hill's testimony against him was very credible, but the latest revelations from an ex-girlfriend make it pretty clear that the picture Anita Hill painted was pretty accurate.

Lillian McEwen, who dated Thomas for several years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, provided CNN's "Larry King Live" program with a harsh depiction of Thomas. She said when they first met, he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.

Oh yeah, I know it's not a crime, but it certainly shows his dishonesty during his testimony when the Republicans smeared Anita Hill for, what is now quite apparent, telling the truth, as verified by McEwen.

"I suppose I would call it a fetish or a hobby," she said of Thomas. "It was something that was very important to him, something that he talked about."
She said the pornography bored her and she wouldn't watch pornographic videos with him, but she also said she enabled his fantasies tied to the pornography "because we had a sexual relationship."

But even if he weren't such a liar, Clarence is still an awful judge.

Thomas is one of the most conservative justices on the nine-member Supreme Court, and is known for rarely if ever asking questions during hearings.

All this paints a picture of an angry, vengeful man who is determined to punish the liberals who "turned against him". Perhaps he has turned his life around. He has apparently quit drinking, but he still shows an unwillingness to listen to arguments and an unbending will to vote on the conservative side, regardless of the issue or the evidence.

 

[Lurker]

I am a bit confused here. Why didn't Lillian come forward when Anita's credibility was being torn to shreds. Why is she coming forward now and why should we believe her? The timing of this is very odd considering the phone call seems to have been the impetus.

 

[tyr_13]

I have big problems with Thomas as a judge, but I really don't care that he likes porn.

 

[DavidJames]

I have big problems with Thomas as a judge, but I really don't care that he likes porn.

First, the issue may not be one we care about but to his supporters it may have been and two, but more importantly, if true, his lack of honesty should be a concern to all of us.

But meh, she's probably just a jealous frustrated liberal/socialist/Democrat, most likely a feminist and maybe even an illegal immigrant*

But yeah, where was she back then?




*that was me channeling them.

 

[WildCat]

First, the issue may not be one we care about but to his supporters it may have been and two, but more importantly, if true, his lack of honesty should be a concern to all of us.

But meh, she's probably just a jealous frustrated liberal/socialist/Democrat, most likely a feminist and maybe even an illegal immigrant.

But yeah, where was she back then?

But if he was President, then his lack of honesty could be dismisased as "it's just sex".

I love double standards!

 

[Suddenly]

But if he was President, then his lack of honesty could be dismisased as "it's just sex".

I love double standards!

I don't see it. The "it was just sex" argument was about impeachment, not being a bit wary that the President was full of it. I'd think one would have to be a moron to claim Clinton was totally truthful about everything.

Being "concerned" that Clinton lied about sex is one thing, impeaching him is another.

That, and in the Clinton case the sexual activity was consensual, whereas Thomas is accused of harassment. Quite different.

 

[varwoche]

If only some light could be shed on the pressing issues of the time, such as the great pubic hair / coke can controversy.

 

[DavidJames]

But if he was President, then his lack of honesty could be dismisased as "it's just sex".

I love double standards!

You are welcome to find such a quote by me but if you don't I would like you to refrain from quoting me along with your made up ****. In fact editing your post and removing my quote would be the honest thing.

k?

I guessing you won't - prove me wrong.

 

[WildCat]

I don't see it. The "it was just sex" argument was about impeachment, not being a bit wary that the President was full of it. I'd think one would have to be a moron to claim Clinton was totally truthful about everything.

Being "concerned" that Clinton lied about sex is one thing, impeaching him is another.

That, and in the Clinton case the sexual activity was consensual, whereas Thomas is accused of harassment. Quite different.

I think Paula Jones would beg to differ.

Oh, I forgot, she can be dismissed as trailer park trash, while Anita Hill is a respected professional.

And what is consensual about a 21 year old intern being hit on by the most powerful boss in the country?

None of Thomas' body fluids ended up on Anita Hill's dress.

 

[tyr_13]

I think Paula Jones would beg to differ.

Oh, I forgot, she can be dismissed as trailer park trash, while Anita Hill is a respected professional.

And what is consensual about a 21 year old intern being hit on by the most powerful boss in the country?

None of Thomas' body fluids ended up on Anita Hill's dress.

I with there were a name for this type of fallacious argument. Something that is like, 'you too' or something...

 

[WildCat]

You are welcome to find such a quote by me but if you don't I would like you to refrain from quoting me along with your made up ****. In fact editing your post and removing my quote would be the honest thing.

k?

I guessing you won't - prove me wrong.

Excuse me? I attrributed nothing to you.

 

[Lurker]

I think Paula Jones would beg to differ.

Oh, I forgot, she can be dismissed as trailer park trash, while Anita Hill is a respected professional.

And what is consensual about a 21 year old intern being hit on by the most powerful boss in the country?

None of Thomas' body fluids ended up on Anita Hill's dress.

Um, she was 22, closer to 23 at the time. Further, she was not an intern at the time. Read Starr.

 

[WildCat]

I with there were a name for this type of fallacious argument. Something that is like, 'you too' or something...

Let's face it, nobody really cares whether or not Thomas enjoys porn, or talked about it. It's his conservative judicial views that upset them. If the same accusations were raised against a Dem the smear campaign against the accuser would be in full gear, see Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick.

So no, this isn't a tu quoque argument.

 

[WildCat]

Um, she was 22, closer to 23 at the time. Further, she was not an intern at the time. Read Starr.

It's actually irrelevant that she was 22 instead of 21, we have the CEO hitting on the lowliest employee.

I think in most corporations that would be seen as sexual harrassment, grounds for a lawsuit.

 

[tyr_13]

Let's face it, nobody really cares whether or not Thomas enjoys porn, or talked about it. It's his conservative judicial views that upset them. If the same accusations were raised against a Dem the smear campaign against the accuser would be in full gear, see Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick.

So no, this isn't a tu quoque argument.

So wait, it isn't a tu quoque because the Dems dismissed such claims too.

Besides that, accusations with no support don't gain support because of an affair. An affair does not equal sexual assault. Mutual sexual attraction and a sexual relationship does not automatically become sexual harassment.

But claims about Clinton are neither here nor there.

And it isn't his 'conservative judicial views' that upset me per se, it's his apparent inability to care about the actual argument and make decisions based not on those arguments and case law, but his own preconceptions.

 

[DavidJames]

Excuse me? I attrributed nothing to you.

You used my quote to imply a double standard exists. The implication is clear.

You response does not surprise me. I can now put you are right up there with BAC, Cicero, mhaze and others. Well done.

You can either edit your post to create your own quote or not, your choice.

 

[DavidJames]

It's actually irrelevant that she was 22 instead of 21, we have the CEO hitting on the lowliest employee.

I think in most corporations that would be seen as sexual harrassment, grounds for a lawsuit.

and in a skeptics forums your tactic is very much a tu quoeue.

but mommy, Billy did it to....

keep digging

 

[WildCat]

So wait, it isn't a tu quoque because the Dems dismissed such claims too.

and in a skeptics forums your tactic is very much a tu quoeue.

but mommy, Billy did it to....

keep digging

It's not a tu quoque because I'm not turning it against the accuser, I'm pointing out that the argument made isn't the source of anger over Clarence Thomas.

People are upset at Thomas because he is conservative, not because someone accused him of sexual harrassment.

The sexual harrassment charge is a red herring.

 

[WildCat]

You used my quote to imply a double standard exists. The implication is clear.

You response does not surprise me. I can now put you are right up there with BAC, Cicero, mhaze and others. Well done.

You can either edit your post to create your own quote or not, your choice.

I'm not editing my post to help you out with your reading comprehension problems and martyr complex.

 

[eeyore1954]

I don't see it. The "it was just sex" argument was about impeachment, not being a bit wary that the President was full of it. I'd think one would have to be a moron to claim Clinton was totally truthful about everything.

Being "concerned" that Clinton lied about sex is one thing, impeaching him is another.

That, and in the Clinton case the sexual activity was consensual, whereas Thomas is accused of harassment. Quite different.

Lying under oath in a sexual harrasment case is what Clinton did. That is a lot more than lying about sex. Whether it was worthy of impeachment I probably would say no but it is a big deal.