One interesting thing about this whole matter is related to the current Limbaugh flap. Many of the stories of Thomas and Hill were written by David Brock founder of Media Matters. Brock then a gay conservative and a darling of the right wing because of his unremitting attacks on Anita Hill, remember his famous “a little bit nutty a little bit slutty.” Brock had a change of heart when he realized all his attacks on Hill were unsubstantiated, he simply did not look for any evidence that deviated from is preconceived notion that Hill was in the wrong. Brock was as he put it Blinded by the Right, the title of his book about the conservative media machine as his place within it.
Reading up a little, I find my memory failed me. Hill did not claim that Thomas had put a pubic hair on her Coke, but that he had loudly asked who had put a pubic hair in his.
Also, Hill has responded to Thomas’ latest public statements, in an Op-Ed for the New York Times entitled The Smear This Time
I think James Oliphant’s blog puts it best: :
This last sentence is the part that is wrong.
Senate liberals smeared him exactly because of his race. Democratic thinking on the subject of race is, “listen, boy, ever since the civil rights movement of the 60s, we own your black ass, and don’t you forget it”. Any black man who is uppity enough to stray from the Democratic party line is treated like a “nigra” who wanted to vote in 1963.
She didn’t want to - she wanted to testify secretly, but Nina Totenberg of NPR and Sen. Paul Simon leaked her testimony to force her to go public. (A felony on the part of Simon or whoever in his office leaked it, by the way.)
To torpedo the nomination - Hill is pro-abortion (and a registered Democrat), and Thomas is not.
As mentioned earlier, it is a bit much to expect Thomas to be warm and accepting about a group that orchestrated the false accusations against him.
Hardly unique on the right side, I am sure you would agree.
Regards,
Shodan
Thank you for your responses on this. I have read the wikipedia entry in the matter and from my perspective it seems like a typical political fight. One side, the Democrats, did not want Thomas to be in the Supreme Court. And the other side, the Republicans, were determined to have Thomas in the Supreme Court. A political fight ensued, and Thomas was finally put in the court.
What I haven’t been able to determine is what, other than political point scoring, caused the fight to be to big? Was Thomas expected to be some sort of leader in the Supreme Court that would bring it to the Republican side?
[ul][li]Thomas was not reliably pro-Roe v. Wade. []Democrats had assumed that the black Justice would be a Democrat. []Democrats had succeeded in smearing a nominee into defeat with Robert Bork. [*]Black conservatives are threatening to liberals, because blacks (along with gays, feminists, and union members) are reliably Democratic. Someone who refuses to grin and say “that’s right, boss” when Dems speak sets a bad example, as far as they are concerned.[/ul]Wiki is probably not a good source for all this. Read The Real Anita Hill, mentioned earlier. Brock tried to disavow this (actually, mostly after he had written a book on Hilary Clinton) but it is too well-documented for him to get around with a “doesn’t count”. All the claims in the book are extensively cited from sworn testimony. Anita Hill lied, it’s as simple as that. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
It really must be interesting to look at the latter half of the 20th Century through Shodan’s eyes. How so much false victimization can come out of an adherent to the Party Of Standing On One’s Own Two Feet And Pulling Oneself Up By The Bootstraps is simply impossible to figure out.
I think we are confusing terms here. Desegregation is a very different thing than affirmative action, as I think we all must admit.
I am happy that you agree that an evolution in affirmative action is necessary. I do not support eliminating it, as I have said, but I do think it needs to be retooled to make it work for problems we face today.
I sure hope you know what you are talking about.
Regards,
Shodan
This is just plain nonsense. No liberal senator said anything even remotely resembling this. Thomas was questioned the same way any other nominee would have been. He lied, either when he said he’d never discussed Roe v. Wade, or when he asserted that he was qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. He was confirmed anyway.
Well, that’s your opinion.
Only if any other nominee has some lying bitch accusing him of shit and being lionized by some other lying bitches.
:shrugs:
The first part is just shit you made up, and the second is contradicted by the ABA, which rated him as qualified.
This is pretty much the sort of thing being discussed. Thomas is a black Republican, and therefore treated as a race traitor, and is dismissed and/or lied about for that reason.
Fortunately, the shrieking Left were unable to derail the nomination.
Regards,
Shodan
This is a hell of a fucking tangent, but here goes:
I didn’t spend one lousy semester at any law school, and even I know that this is not wholly what affirmative action is about. Why do you personally buy into that?
Your family’s belief are noble. I am sure there are some who admire the fact that your pride in self-achievement is so powerful that you dismiss all empirical evidence of the effect of disadvantage on education as “ridiculous.” That’s fine.
But IMHO you’re mischaracterizing affirmative action by implying that its purpose is solely to make up for prior disadvantage. I’m used to that from the average joe, but you’re a lawyer. You know the arguments that went up to the court. I find this hard to reconcile.
I do believe he left the Catholic Church, but I don’t know about whether or not he trained for the priesthood. But in any case, what do you think that says about him? What does that have to do with not having a “middle ground?” A person can’t decide a particular Church isn’t for them and change to a new one?
I’m not sure what you mean about “emotional intelligence,” but maybe what he has are convictions and principles.
Not being black myself, I’m not going to presume to tell someone what he feels like inside his black skin. If he felt that the questioning was racially motivated, why shouldn’t he make those beliefs be known? Just because the Senate liberals didn’t come right out and say that their was a racial element to their treatment of him, it doesn’t mean that their wasn’t. I’m sure he, as a black person, is pretty well tuned into racist undercurrents in the way people act towards him.
She struck me as someone who was feeling pretty uncomfortable about telling lies about someone before the U.S. Senate on live television.
Again, he has principles and a pretty specific way of interpreting the Constitution. If he is predictable in his rulings, maybe it’s due to the fact that he sticks to those prinicples, instead of letting emotion, political gain, or the direction the wind is blowing in rule his decisions.
ETA: When Justice Thomas was confirmed, I was a liberal Democrat. This event was a turning point in the way I saw American politics.
I believe that when he left the Catholic Church he joined the Episcopal Church. That’s like switching from Coke to Pepsi, not like swearing off all soft drinks.
To me, that just sounds like someone who sticks to his principals.
It wasn’t Anita Hill, per se, that he was referring to, but the Senate Democrats and those on the left who actively sought to derail his confirmation.
I kept asking myself: if she was so harassed and so put upon, why did she stick with him for so long? Someone with her background (a Black woman lawyer) surely had many other opportunities available to her. The whole thing seemed like one big he-said/she-said to me.
Are you unsure of how Justice Ginsberg will rule on any given case? I don’t see much of a difference.
They gave him that rating before he said this, under oath:
You can be insufficiently interested in constitutional law to discuss Roe v. Wade, or you can be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, but you can’t be both.
Well, by that standard Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be automatically excluded, wouldn’t she? After all, she refused to get into detail about her view on this and numerous other subjects during her own confirmation hearing.
Now, she was pretty forthright about not wanting to answer, but it is clear that Thomas was dodging the question for the same reason as her - so as not to prejudge the case. So if you come down hard on him for evasiveness in the confirmation hearing, I think we’d have to examine how she answered her questions, and how Breyer answered his, and how Roberts answered his, and so on.
No. Refusing to answer is different from giving an answer that shows one to be unqualified.
The fact is none of the Senators, whether they voted for or against him, believed what Thomas told them. That’s why Anita Hill’s motives are often subscribed to the fact that she disagreed with Thomas on abortion rights. How would she have known his position if he never discussed it?
Well, all he said is that he didn’t remember participating in any debates. That’s not the same thing as being uninformed about it. Considering what we know about his style on the court (he asks very few questions), it is not inconceivable that he hadn’t participated in any debates. Frankly, I don’t blame him for being evasive on that issue. They were trying to back him into a corner, and he didn’t allow them to.
You’re missing the point. Liberal Democrats are going to oppose any Republican who won’t publicly commit to upholding Roe v. Wade. Avoiding the question is acceptable only if you are a liberal Democrat yourself, because then they are relatively sure you will vote the right way anyway.
Of course, that means your rather dishonest attempt to move the goal posts of confirmation are set in stone, but that’s only to be expected.
So, now we have reached the point that “it’s OK to spread lies about anyone with whom you disagree on some key isssues”. Fine as far as it goes, until it gets to Swiftboating or Memogate, apparently.
Regards,
Shodan
There are two main goals to affirmative action, as I understand it:
[ol]
[li]Reverse the effects of previous discrimination[/li][li]Create diversity in environments[/li][/ol]
My comment went generally to point #1, because I was in a position that might be seen as the target for assistance under point #1. I have an opionion on point #2 as well, but since my personal circumstances cannot offer me any more particular insight than anyone else on the issue, I didn’t delve into it.
In other words: as a potential benefactor of #1, my rejection of it is clearly not motivated by self-interest, and my credibility in holding my position is not diminshed as it might be by supporting a position that personally benefits me.
My rejection of #2 is no different than any else’s rejection of #2, and thus deserves no special mention.
And if there are points 3 or beyond… I’m all ears.