"Dear Justice Thomas, I'm Sorry You're a Shilling Asswipe, Love Anita Hill"

Virginia Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas, has asked for an apology from Anita- Hill. Will she or won’t she, I wonder…

For those Dopers not old enough to remember, Clarence Thomas was the Official Token of Lord Bushdemort I, occasionally telling stories to young Dubya while animated whitebirds sang “Zippity” songs. Having the three major criteria Bush 1 sought in a replacement for the retiring Thurgood Marshall (a conservative record, a history of kissing ass to Republicans since Reagan, and though he wasn’t as light skinned as the liberal pinko Thomas he at least had a white wife), Clarence was rewarded by adding diversity to the Supreme Court (black Bush lovers being REALLY minorities after all).

Unfortunately an evil scheming woman who was probably a secret voodoo queen named Anita Hill came out of the woodwork to “lynch an uppity black man” (paraphrase of Thomas’s actual quote) by saying he’d sexually harassed her repeatedly when she worked for him a decade before. Hill took a lie detector test- Thomas refused- and the nation was riveted by that oddest of things- a 24/7 News Coverage of something sordid and soapy but actually relevant to the nation. In the end Thomas was confirmed and Hill told to go watch a movie of women screwing themselves, and the whole affair sort of died for 16 years. (Odd for a scheming floozy, Hill not only did not try to cash in on her fame but spent the rest of her career generally ignoring it- almost as if she was telling the truth).

Anyway, now Clarence has written a book in which, in addition to saying white liberals were worse than the KKK in black history (Thomas is still p.o.d that neither group would let him join) and in the book he once again calls Hill a liar. In an interview Thomas’s wife, Virginia, asked for an apology for Hill.

It may just be wishful thinking, but perhaps after years of being a relatively media shy and completely above board law professor, could this be the “off with the clip ons and off with the slip ons, I’m going for your hair, bitch!” moment for Anita? AH please let it be let it be let it be…

(Loved Jon Stewart last night showing the clip of Thomas in a recent interview claiming that a white politician would not have had to deal with such negative tales of sexual impropriety, followed of course by a collage of Clinton and Paula, Monica, and the lesser Billettes.)

More MPSIMS I suppose, but I’ll make it a bit more pit worthy by saying “Fuck Clarence Thomas, Fuck Virginia Thomas, and may they both choke on each other’s pubic hairs till the bells ring out 'Long Dong the Quisling is [something less than dead for that would violate the wishing death on somebody- let’s just say] Exposed”.

I have to say that I think that Thomas’s rather blatant involvement in the political scene is a somewhat troubling sign.

I think that sitting Justices should be very, very wary of their involvement in political causes and I feel that Souter, Scalia, and others have come too close to crossing this line in the past, but what’s the precedence for actually publishing a book as a sitting Justice? Furthermore, appearing on Foxnews to continue to attempt to harass Ms. Hill?

I hear Thomas is retiring in a fit of betrayed pique because he thought he was a lock for the Chief Justice position, then Georgie-boy went and put Roberts in the seat. Hence, a pre-retirement tell-all.

No cite. Made it up. :smiley:

A very incestuous appearance at that- Fox News is of course owned by Rupert Murdoch News Corporation, which also owns Harper-Collins, which paid Justice Thomas a $1.5 million advance (or, 7.7 times Thomas’s $194,200 Supreme Court salary) for the book. If I thought Thomas would be required to recuse himself should Murdoch ever be involved in litigation brought before SCotUS I’d be a bit more forgiving perhaps, but I don’t think anybody seriously thinks that.

It never crossed my mind that Thomas was married. I thought he was like Souter - sort of a male vestal virgin who lives only for the law.

Why would you ever think that about Thomas? :confused:

Can’t forget Angela Wright. And those who corroborate both Hill’s and Wright’s stories.

Ruth Marcus had a pretty good summary of that bit of ancient history this morning.
Shorter Clarence Thomas: “Help, help, I’m being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!”

Even shorter Clarence Thomas: “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!”

Yep, just him, his law books, and his extensive vestal porn collection. :smiley:

And, of course, a couple of frosty six packs of Coca-Cola. Things go better with Coke.

From the lately late Alice Ghostley as Bernice on Designing Women: “I don’t know what her problem is. I’ve been to Long John Silver’s lots of times and I’ve never had a hair in my Coke.”

Poor Justice Thomas. I guess he goes home and cries himself to sleep every night with nothing but his lifetime appointment to the highest court in the United States to sustain him.

Seriously, though, what’s his problem? He’s been at the pinnacle of his chosen profession since 1991. He’s got the brass ring, and he doesn’t have to let go until he dies. What the hell else does he want?

Well, long as we’re in the Pit and not so bound by propriety…

Gotta wonder about the evolution of his political ahd juridicial philosophy. I was quite suprised to hear he was rather the radical lefty in his college days, associated closely with the Black Panther movement, etc. Graduated from Yale Law, having done well, and surprised that he cannot find suitable work, despite a whoopity-whoop ivy-encrusted degree. (According to what I hear him say on 60 Mintures)

Things is, those of us who remember such days are likely to remember that we knew quite a few law students whose ambitions were to practice law as an instrument of social change, in the service of justice. Idealistic, rather than mercenary. (No, child, Granpa is not making this up…) It was not at all uncommon, nor is it likely that the young Thomas was unaware of any such. So it isn’t plausible that he was taken by surprise upon his graduation, he must have given the matter some thought.

At any rate, he finds that the only offer he can attract is working for John Danforth, Republican AG of Arkansas, soon to be Sen. Darth. Danforth. Slip of the keyboard.

At any rate, so begins the voyage of young Mr. Thomas to the secure harbor of conservative values.

Would it strain the gentle reader’s credulity to imagine that the young Mr. Thomas, Esq. - well educated, highly intelligent and motivated as all git out - might have seen the golden career opportunity? Of doors opening to the offices of white guys in suits, beaming with radiant approval upon him?

I have read that Thomas Sowell’s book Race and Economics had a profound effect on Clarence Thomas, and began his journey to conservativism.

If you believe that people who are left-wing cannot come by a change to a conservative point of view honestly and not merely as a means of personal gain, I am here to assure you that it does happen.

Naturally. All persons holding conservative views - or maybe it’s just all persons of color holding conservative views; I forget which - have adopted those views as a veneer only, suitable solely to gain wealth. Bonus points if the wealth comes stolen from the working class. Underneath, of course, we still believe in ideological lockstep with our leaders, The Left.

Or maybe a different set of instructions came to me, being light-brown and not black. Who can keep it all straight?

You know, I hate to be the jackass that elevates a pit thread, but would you be able to provide some context for the rest of us on what the general precedent is for the appropriateness of sitting justices to make public commentary on a wide range of issues? Is going on TV something that Justices are generally thought to be wise to avoid or is it just that no one has ever really cared to hear from them before?

And, to be fair, it wouldn’t be me being the jackass and elevating a pit thread, it would be you.

It’s funny, the quote from the interview was something like “he did well at Yale, graduating somewhere in the middle of his class.” How’s that for the soft bigotry of low expectations?

After watching the interview on 60 Minutes I was left with the following impressions:

a) Thomas had a pretty colorful grandpappy and did well in school, and
b) He’s a hypocritical jackass.

He railed about how he was treated as a commodity at Yale, and his being Black trumped his intellect, ideas, etc. And then he left and no-one wanted to hire him despite his nice Yale degree. But he catches on in a politico’s office, just when the GOP is desperately seeking out Black conservative voices and has a rather meteoric rise in the Justice Department. And Bush burdens him with the nomination to the court, and so on…

Seems to me he could have been true to his cynical nature and told the politicos, “You know, I’m a little suspicious that you want to elevate me to some of these positions so quickly. Is it purely by my merit, or because I’m a Black conservative?” And then told them to hump themselves. But he didn’t, did he? Nor did he seem to have a problem with the incredulous statement from Bush that he was the most qualified person, regardless of race, for the job.

In other words, wasn’t he equally used by conservatives, as he was by evil White liberal-types?

Just popping in to say that I, personally, would pay good money to see Ms. Hill respond to Mrs. Thomas with the thread title, verbatim.

mischievous

I certainly have no love for Clarence Thomas, in fact I cannot stand him or any of his positions, but I think even the person who graduates last in his class at Yale (if they have a class ranking) has done well. I managed to flunk out of a considerably less prestigious school in spite of having had all of the educational advantages that white middle class suburbia had to offer. Whether or not he earned a Supreme Court appointment (he most certainly did not IMHO) he did do well at college. If the poster had said something like - he did not do badly at Yale, pasing almost half of his classes - that might have been damning with faint praise, the actual comment was not.

The thing that is so interesting is that although Thomas is not telling the actual truth, he seems to be telling the truth as he sees it. That is interesting, and shows how we can twist our memories to suit our emotional needs.