Twelve Angry Nitpickers would be more like it.
Completely disagree. If Hill apologized publicly, the small negatives of acquainting or re-acquainting the public with something best left faded into history would be outweighed tenfold by the vindication.
Alternatively, if we assume that Hill is telling the truth, an apology from Thomas would have the same effect. I wonder why Hill isn’t calling asking for apologies.
Oh wait… it’s because she’s not either stupid or batshit insane enough to expect one, and she doesn’t have any shady political dealings she’d like to distract the public from (see stupid) or political movements she’d like to attract attention to (see batshit insane).
So here’s a thought experiment.
As you may recall, Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped and spent more than half a year as the captive of a husband and wife team, raped repeatedly by the man and chained to a tree until they were confident they had tamed her. They did their job so well that even when the police rescued her, she denied she was Elizabeth until she saw her family. Her captor has thus far avoided trial with claims of incompetency.
So imagine that one day in the far future, Mitchell has been tried, convicted, served time and released, all the while claiming he didn’t do it.
And let’s imagine that Elizabeth calls him up one day and leaves a message that says, “Good morning, Brian Mitchell, it’s Elizabeth Smart. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with me. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day.”
Who here would criticize that as tone deaf?
(And please: in an effort to head off any idiocy, let’s not waste any time shrieking that I’m comparing rape to false accusations of sexual harrassment. This is an argument intended to flesh out the reason this is characterized as tone deaf. If a relevant difference is rape vs. false testimony, then explain why that is relevant.)
I will admit I don’t think I have read a Thomas opinion since law school - 2005. And I also LOVE black velvet Elvis prints.
Part of the problem is I find textualist writing to be insufferably smug. Scalia can get away with it, because at times he is a wizard with words. I don’t see that with Thomas. His dissent in the cross burning case (Virginia v. Black?) is horrible, not just because of his stance (which is utterly inconsistent with his usual free speech positions, especially given his understanding of commercial speech) but because he makes massive leaps of logic and analysis, and tries (badly) to gloss over them.
It’s a matter of opinion though. Other people (including you) like his writing. I’ve heard it most from educated non-lawyers, I think. Maybe his writing is very approachable in that way.
If we assume that Hill was telling the truth, then the OP is on pretty solid ground.
But the OP averred that even if Hill was deliberately lying, Thomas was “tone deaf” with respect to the message. I don’t agree. (I do agree that calling it an olive branch is tone deaf.
Bumped awaiting a response or a retraction.
Perhaps that’s how Virginia Thomas views it, but she’s apparently convinced her husband is 100% innocent and Hill’s testimony is 100% fabrication. Virginia herself is an attorney (though perhaps not a practicing one) and can’t possibly be unaware that Hill can casually spin an “apology” in ways that make her husband look even worse, or least to everyone who is not already convinced of his innocence.
Hill hypothetical 1: I apologize to the American public for testifying and not being strong enough to suffer in silence for what happened during the time I worked for Clarence Thomas.
Hill hypothetical 2: I apologize for the pain Virginia Hill is obviously suffering - it wasn’t my intent or goal to undermine her obvious faith in her husband.
Trying to get Hill to apologize runs a significant risk while the alleged benefit of “vindication” is more tenuous - likely most everyone who has already formed an opinion on the Thomas/Hill hearings isn’t going to change it at this late date. Inviting another debate on the subject after a hypothetical Hill apology (such debate now including a heavy element of “what was Hill promised or threatened with to make her change her mind at this late date?”) gives the generation born after 1985 full opportunity to form an opinion on the subject, and not all of these opinions will be favourable to Clarence.
Sure, I guess some older Republicans will celebrate and Fox News will be thrilled for a while. Maybe it’s worth it to Virginia if her circle of friends and her favourite channel get this opportunity. Only she can decide that. Meantime, it looks like Hill only mentions the Thomases when Thomases mention her first. A viable alternative strategy is to maintain this uneasy status quo and play up Clarence’s successes on SCOTUS rather than dwell on how he got there. Tangling with Hill, by all indication a very intelligent person not likely to blurt out something self-damaging, isn’t a risk I’d be eager to take.
deleted.
Elvish, post #149, referring to testimony later referenced by Hello Again, neither of which you appear to have addressed.
What you’re comparing here is a case in which a person (Mitchell of rape, etc.) was convicted of a crime, and a person (Hill, of perjury) who was never even arrested, let alone indicted or convicted.
You’re really stretching it here, Bricker. Thought, you say? I doubt it. Fantasy, perhaps, or daydream. I can’t for one moment imagine that you really thought about that.
I’m unclear on the relevance. In your hypothetical, Mitchell is convicted, presumably on the basis of physical evidence in addition to Smart’s testimony. Had Hill ever been convicted of perjury (or even tried, indicted or arrested), then the analogy might click.
Well, you picked a rather inflammatory subject for your thought experiment. I’m not personally affected by it, but I assume (not entirely without cause) that others might be. In the example you describe, Smart’s request for an apology is bolstered by the support of the legal community that she was wronged (in the sense that Mitchell was convicted of wronging her). Virginia Thomas’ request lacks this official sympathy, as Hill hasn’t been convicted or even charged nor (that I’m aware of) was there any serious effort by anyone to get her so charged, now or in 1991.
Minor note: I see I mistakenly wrote “Virginia Hill” instead of “Virginia Thomas” in an earlier post. I realized this when I found myself typing “Virginia Hill” in this post.
You are a very old and very smutty person.
Small nitpick here. Was he convicted already or is his trial pending?
I remember as I was typing “Virginia Hill” thinking “Huh, that name sounds familiar.”
I’m not alone. A google on the name uncovers a Salon article with a blurb that refers to “Ginni Hill” and starts “Surely if Virginia Hill can request reparations from Hill…” though clicking for the actual article shows it correctly written as “Virginia Thomas”, suggesting an early version (currently in Google’s buffers) had the error but it has since been corrected.
In Bricker’s hypothetical, Smart’s request for an apology is years in the future, after Mitchell is convicted, imprisoned and released.
His trial is pending while waiting for him to be psychologically competent to stand trial. Bricker’s thought experiment assumes that the trial, conviction, and serving of sentence has already occurred.
If she did it to get closure, it might be useless but at least understandable. A more appropriate thought experiment would be if her husband called up Mitchell and asked the same thing. Now that would be tone deaf.
Only Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill can possibly know who is lying or telling the truth, and either of them might be mistaken. So everyone who assumes one or the other is the liar has done the same thing Mrs. Thomas did, except for the phone call. So lets look at this realistically, if you call someone up asking for an apology for an incident in which you have no firsthand knowledge, you are a fool or a troublemaker. That probably applies even if you have firsthand knowledge. Clarence Thomas is an embarassment to an already embarassing profession, and Anita Hill was an embarassment to sensible people for publicly telling a story that could not be corroborated.
A plausible defense, and a fair minded person might well be convinced.