# SCOTUS Wife Virginia Thomas asks Anita Hill to apologize - WTF? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 20, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798 "2010-10-20T16:56:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/541 "2010-10-25T13:38:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is it tone deaf to request an apology from someone whose deliberate lie caused your husband to make history as the second-ever impeached president? It’s outrageous. For one reason, because, as I said I-don’t-know-how-many posts ago, a proper apology is not something someone \*requests \*because they are butt-hurt. A proper apology is \*offered \*by someone who is contrite. Anybody who calls someone 20 years after the fact to ask them to consider an apology about anything is tone-deaf. Just common-sense-wise … if you haven’t gotten an apology yet, what makes you think leaving a passive-aggressive message for someone is going turn the tide? If the story came out that Hillary had left a message like that on either Jones’s or Willey’s answering machine last week, I wouldn’t have thought she was tone-deaf; I’d have thought she was crazy. For one thing, can you imagine the endless inundation we’d be subjected to from Fox ‘News’ under that circumstance? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/542 "2010-10-25T13:46:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is a good example. (Not Lewinsky, because we have physical evidence that corroborates her story, but Jones or Willey are excellent examples. NOW you’re concerned with physical evidence? When you invoked your Elizabeth Smart analogy, you included an assumption that no corroborative evidence existed, which was so far removed from reality that multiple posters objected on that basis. > [@](#): > > So, let’s assume that Hillary Clinton is revealed to have called up Paula Jones and said, in effect, “You should apologize for the lies you told about my husband.” And let’s assume that someone here posted a thread that said, “Wow – regardless of your politics or how you feel personally about which way those events actually happened, that was pretty tone deaf of Ms. Clinton.” > > I don’t think there would be universal agreement. People would assume, as they should, that Jones deliberately lied and that Clinton knew Jones deliberately lied. Would they? Why does Hillary’s (or Virginia’s) request lead to that assumption? It continues to escape me why an accusation of lying should cause one to assume a lie has been told. I guess it might lend one to assume a lie _might_ have been told (in a “he said, she said” case, this is always a possibility), but there’s also the emotional and personal involvement of the spouse to consider and that the spouse of the accused has an incentive to challenge the accuser or harbor long-term resentments. > [@](#): > > Why is it tone deaf to request an apology from someone whose deliberate lie caused your husband to make history as the second-ever impeached president? It’s outrageous. Well, this depends on one’s definition of “tone-deaf”, of course. My position toward Hillary would be comparable to mine toward Virginia: [ul][li]Your husband weathered the storm, bruised but intact[/li][li]People made up their minds long ago and aren’t likely to change them now[/li][li]There’s nothing to be gained by putting the issue back into the public eye (and putting your husband’s behaviour back under the microscope)[/li][li]It’s unfortunate that biographies written about your husband, even decades or centuries from now, will always include this chapter[/li][li]The accuser has no incentive to recant, and in fact quite a disincentive[/li][li]There’s nothing you can really do about it, anyway, and the attempt turns you into Jon Stewart fodder, since he’d just love to recycle all the various dirty jokes that were told about your husband when the scandal first broke[/li][li]So let it go, already.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/543 "2010-10-25T13:54:25Z")
Just visiting this old thread to see how it is doing. Thriving still - remarkable. It is 11 pages of trying to get aligned on the definition of tone-deaf with a tone-deaf person. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/544 "2010-10-25T13:57:29Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > If the story came out that Hillary had left a message like that on either Jones’s or Willey’s answering machine last week, I wouldn’t have thought she was tone-deaf; I’d have thought she was crazy. Yes, I agree completely. And if the OP had said, “Regardless of how you feel about the truth of Hill’s testimony, expecting her to apologize now is just crazy,” then I’d have agreed. But I didn’t agree with “tone-deaf,” and it appears you wouldn’t either. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/545 "2010-10-25T13:58:45Z")
I’m starting to wonder about it, myself. Will finding such a trivial flaw (i.e. the situation doesn’t quite match the official definition of “tone deaf”, assuming there is such a thing) in the OP really matter? Will it vindicate Thomas? Demonize Hill? If this was argued in court, would the judge have said by now “Noted, counselor. Now move your line of questioning along or I’ll order this cross-examination at an end.” ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/546 "2010-10-25T13:58:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I agree completely. > > And if the OP had said, “Regardless of how you feel about the truth of Hill’s testimony, expecting her to apologize now is just crazy,” then I’d have agreed. > > But I didn’t agree with “tone-deaf,” and it appears you wouldn’t either. _snerk_ Whatever. Fine; she’s crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/547 "2010-10-25T14:03:56Z")
If someone had just said Ginnie Thomas was a raving nutball on page one, we’d be on to a completely different nit-pick by now. Crazy? Sure. Nuts? Absolutely. Divorced from reality? No doubt about it. Tone-deaf? Where do you get that nonsense from? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/548 "2010-10-25T14:10:29Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > If someone had just said Ginnie Thomas was a raving nutball on page one, we’d be on to a completely different nit-pick by now. > Crazy? Sure. > Nuts? Absolutely. > Divorced from reality? No doubt about it. > Tone-deaf? Where do you get that nonsense from? Not quite. The combination is what creates my disagreement – the combination of “tone deaf” with “regardless of politics or what actually happened…” Someone calling her tone deaf, alone, would not have sparked my meter. Someone calling her “crazy,” alone, would not either. But the idea that she’s tone deaf _even if Hill fabricated her testimony_ is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/549 "2010-10-25T14:23:55Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > is Mr. Thomas obligated to recuse himself if and when it hits the Supremes? So I \*just now \*figured out that “when it hits the Supremes” wasn’t some sort of newfangled version of “when the shit hits the fan” involving [The Supremes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supremes). :smack: > [@Bricker](#): > > But remember that what I object to arises when we assume that Hill knows she lied, and Thomas knows Hill knows she lied. > > How did your lesbian bar example capture that aspect? Dude doesn’t \*know \*that they’re actually lesbians and not two hot college co-eds who think they may be bi and are into experimentation. > [@Captain\_Midnight](#): > > Nobody gave me love for my statement, so I will ask again, what is he doing with a white wife? Is he “too good” for a wife of his own race? Does this ever upset anyone in the black community, especially black women? No one cares about your questions, you disgusting bigot. Why the hell are you still on this forum? > [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think there would be universal agreement. People would assume, as they should, that Jones deliberately lied and that Clinton knew Jones deliberately lied. This is what I think we’re in disagreement over. There is \*no way \*someone not involved in either incident could \*know \*who was lying without having access to some additional evidence, which if they had they would be sharing publicly. Ms. Thomas cannot \*know \*that Hill was lying; Rodham Clinton could not \*know \*that Jones was lying. They can _suspect_, but they cannot _know_, because they were not the ones being potentially lied about. > [@Bricker](#): > > And if the OP had said, “Regardless of how you feel about the truth of Hill’s testimony, expecting her to apologize now is just crazy,” then I’d have agreed. > > But I didn’t agree with “tone-deaf,” and it appears you wouldn’t either. What the hell?! What the hell does “tone deaf” _mean_, then, if not “unable to anticipate a negative reaction to your words that everyone else sees as obvious”? You agree that there’s no way this was going to end in an apology, but you don’t think Thomas is tone deaf? You’ve agreed that the VM can’t be reasonably classified as an olive branch; you’ve agreed that you’d have to be crazy to think you were getting an apology. So which is it, then? Is Thomas shit-stirring, or is she tone deaf? Or do you have some \*reasonable \*explanation for a third option? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/550 "2010-10-25T14:30:06Z")
> [@margin](#): > > I do love the way Bricker holds forth as if he is the most august and impartial person ever, yet his hypotheticals contain certain beliefs built in, and he never takes the other side, as such a person would do, if in fact he were fair and neutral and all that. You’re attacking **Brickers** hypothetical because it contains _certain beliefs built in_ to it? Aren’t they suppose to be suppositional or conditional argumnents? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/551 "2010-10-25T15:08:32Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > This is what I think we’re in disagreement over. There is \*no way \*someone not involved in either incident could \*know \*who was lying without having access to some additional evidence, which if they had they would be sharing publicly. Ms. Thomas cannot \*know \*that Hill was lying; Rodham Clinton could not \*know \*that Jones was lying. They can _suspect_, but they cannot _know_, because they were not the ones being potentially lied about. And yet I search in vain for the “tone deaf” condemnations of Ms. Clinton when, as First Lady, she claimed a vast right-wing conspiracy was responsible for her husband’s accusers’ actions. None exist, because the standard you attempt to apply doesn’t exist; people (including me, although I was no fan of the Clinton administration) understood that she believed her husband and was acting based on that belief. > [@](#): > > What the hell?! What the hell does “tone deaf” _mean_, then, if not “unable to anticipate a negative reaction to your words that everyone else sees as obvious”? You agree that there’s no way this was going to end in an apology, but you don’t think Thomas is tone deaf? You’ve agreed that the VM can’t be reasonably classified as an olive branch; you’ve agreed that you’d have to be crazy to think you were getting an apology. > > So which is it, then? Is Thomas shit-stirring, or is she tone deaf? Or do you have some \*reasonable \*explanation for a third option? If those are the options, then she was shit-stirring. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/552 "2010-10-25T15:20:31Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > She did not go on TV shows touting a new book. She did not use her new found fame for any gain. She did not go on speaking junkets for money. She did not crank out a book for quick profit. > … She quietly and calmly went back to her life staying out of the limelight. Bullshit. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on her. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/553 "2010-10-25T15:22:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And yet I search in vain for the “tone deaf” condemnations of Ms. Clinton when, as First Lady, she claimed a vast right-wing conspiracy was responsible for her husband’s accusers’ actions. None exist, because the standard you attempt to apply doesn’t exist; people (including me, although I was no fan of the Clinton administration) understood that she believed her husband and was acting based on that belief. How about none exist because this board didn’t exist? Jesus, I can’t remember the last time I saw someone get this hand-wringingly pedantic over one mild pejorative while swallowing much worse insults. You embody tone-deafness. You’re so busy trying to parse the precise denotation of every word that you are utterly deaf to the connotation of the entire exchange. All I can say is wow. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/554 "2010-10-25T15:42:14Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > How about none exist because this board didn’t exist? It’s true that the board didn’t exist in its present form, although I think the AOL version was going strong in 1998 when Mrs. Clinton said that a “vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.” But the board appeared in its Internet version soon after – in March of 1999, I think – and Mrs. Clinton’s comments were the subject of several conversations over the years, most posters sympathetic to her. Including, as I said, me. In a 2003 thread questioning whether Mrs. Clinton should apologize for flasely claiming the accusations were untrue, I said: > [@Did Hillary ever apologize?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-hillary-ever-apologize/179715/18): > > I don’t see that she owes anyone an apology. > > There is no question that there was a vast effort to get Mr. Clinton, and the resources expended on a perjury case exceed by orders of magnitude anything that woul have been spent had the target not been the President. > > Not to say it wasn’t warranted, and not to say that Mr. Clinton didn’t deserve to be held to a high standard. > > But even putting aside the understandable zeal of a deceived wife defendign her husband, the plain fact is that vast forces were arrayed to get Mr. Clinton. The observation being true, she owes no apology. And in 2002, in response to the claim that it was valid to attack Hillary for her defense of Bill, and that she must have known he was lying, I said: > [@Why is Hillary Clinton so hated? RE: potential White House run](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/164): > > What evidence supports this view? > > Frankly, it seems to me that this conclusion is arrived at by the same method as deciding Bush lied – a dislike for the person coloring the view of the actions. Bush is evil, so, naturally, he must have lied. Mrs. Clinton is evil, so, naturally, her actions are based on nothing but cold appraisal of appearances. > > I’d prefer to look at the evidence. It’s absolutely unclear to me that Mr. Clinton’s adulterous actions should be imputed to the detriment of Mrs. Clinton. He was the cheater: how does that possibly make her the bad guy? > > It’s true that she defended him and blamed a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” instead of accepting the truth. But this makes her no different that the spouses of cheating partners throughout history who have accepted the lies, even after experience should have taught her better. The sheer weight of numbers goes to Mrs. Clinton’s side here. It’s not reasonable, but it happens – when you love someone and want the relationship to work, you blind yourself to the obvious. That’s all the inference that the facts support. > > And as an aside – there WAS a vast, right-wing conspiracy. A peccadillo like Mr. Clinton’s, if committed by Joe Average, would never have been ferretted out by a grand jury. Hundreds of Joe Averages lie in depositions all the time, and opposing parties simply do not have the financial resources to expose the lies. The only reason Mr. Clinton’s lies came to light was the intense interest shown by the special prosecutor. It’s well to note that the vast, right-wing conspiracy (VRWC) did not _manufacture_ the wrong-doing, but it’s equally true that the only reason it came to light was the VRWC. So blaming Mrs. Clinton for mentioning the VRWC seems a bit misplaced. Funny how I was considered so calm and reasonable back then, when I was simply behaving in precisely the same way as I am now. Why? Because then, my defense of Mrs. Clinton resonated with the majority of the readers; today my defense of Mrs. Thomas does not. I apply the same methods and reach the same result. When they favor a liberal, I am fair-minded and honest. When they favor a conservative, I am a blind partisan. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/555 "2010-10-25T15:42:30Z")
It’s a smokescreen, intended to let him avoid admitting (especially to himself) just how wrong he’s been. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/556 "2010-10-25T15:47:54Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Personally I think Ginny Thomas ought to _thank_ Anita Hill - while everyone was talking about hairy Coke cans, nobody was looking at Clarence Thomas’ relatively weak jurisprudence credentials. Never mind Anita Hill bringing charges; I kept hoping for the corpse of Thurgood Marshall to shamble into the proceedings, point his decaying finger at the Senate panel and shout “J’accuse!”. [Hijack Because This Thread Could Sure Use One] Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court on October 15, 1991; Thurgood Marshall didn’t die until January 24, 1993. So, any shambling he woud have done would have been as a setient being, albeit at 84-years-old, there _might_ have been some decay already setting commencing were he to have interrupted the proceedings by stepping forth with a “J’accuse!”. [/HBTTCSUO] ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/557 "2010-10-25T15:51:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Funny how I was considered so calm and reasonable back then, By people who were not me. No matter how much you claim someone else thinks you’re spiffy, it has zero meaning to me. I think you’re small. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/558 "2010-10-25T15:55:08Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > By people who were not me. No matter how much you claim someone else thinks you’re spiffy, it has zero meaning to me. I think you’re small. _sigh_ Yes, thank you. See that thing you’re studiously not looking at? It’s called “a point.” Let’s try it again, with more emphasis and avoiding any distractions. I said: we didn’t see too many people accusing Ms. Clinton of tone-deafness; the general tone was sympathetic. You said: because the board didn’t exist when she said her line. I said: Wrong, it did exist on AOL, moved to the Internet shortly thereafter, and hosted many conversations about Ms. Clinton’s behavior, in which the general tone was sympathetic. Several of those posts were mine. Now, what do you say? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/559 "2010-10-25T15:57:39Z")
Didn’t say \*how many \*considered him calm and reasonable. May be just him, but _somebody_ still considered him calm and reasonable. Which is all he said, that he was considered calm and reasonable. **Bricker** can parse a water buffalo into a daffodil. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/560 "2010-10-25T16:17:58Z")
I had a long post all written up, and then I realized that if posted it I would be dooming myself to reading the replies. Since I barely can stand to skim your posts on the best of days, Bricker, I’ll just say fine–you win. As far as I’m concerned, you may make any claims you like about AOL days, how the established a binding precedent, how tone deaf really means a purple howdah, or whatever you want. Congratulations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798.md?page=29)