SCOTUS Wife Virginia Thomas asks Anita Hill to apologize - WTF?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@WordMan

Story here

I will start this in the Pit because it will lead to bad language and politics and such, but in a general way - what good could she possibly think would come from this? She has said she “was trying to extend an olive branch” with a voicemail that includes “I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband” - regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event, how tone-deaf can an individual be?

Knowing my spouse after 20 years would qualify me to to judge the veracity of an accusation. Given the constant pain that such an accusation
holds for me spouse, the damage is never healed I could certainly see that an opportunity to either secure relief, or at the very least let the accuser know that you are not letting up and tweak her conscience, would be worthwhile to pursue.

Silence and inaction can be viewed as acceptance or defeat.

The fact that Anita Hill brought this forward to police and the public proves to me once and for all that she’s an attention whore.

Had such a phone message been repeated just once she would have some justification for claiming harrassment.

[Fear_Itself]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

The fact that Anita Hill brought this forward to police and the public proves to me once and for all that she’s an attention whore.

Yeah, she is always jockeying to get in front of the cameras. Why, I just saw her in 2007!

Had such a phone message been repeated just once she would have some justification for claiming harrassment.

She had no way of knowing if the caller was who she claimed to be. Given the high profile nature of the parties, it was prudent to report it to campus security (not the police as you erroneously claimed).

[bup]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Silence and inaction can be viewed as acceptance or defeat.

The fact that Anita Hill brought this forward to police and the public proves to me once and for all that she’s an attention whore.

It’s neat how whichever thing Anita Hill would do, you’d find fault with her.

[42fish]

@Measure_for_Measure

Let’s repeat that message!

Originally Posted by Virginia Thomas to Anita Hill’s answering machine:

Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. 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 my husband. 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.

I’ve just realized something: Virginia Thomas never does say just what it is that she’d like Anita Hill to apologize for. For all we know, Thomas could be encouraging Hill to apologize for having secretly abducted, BBQed and eaten one of Clarence’s poodles. It opens up a whole new range of hypothetical situations that we can debate the tone-deafness of. Just think, with a little effort we can get this thread to last longer than “What if LOTR was written by other authors”!

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@bup

It’s neat how whichever thing Anita Hill would do, you’d find fault with her.

Not what I intended to convey, but you made your point.

[ElvisL1ves]

@villa

And in this instance, like it or not, there is a colorable argument for the position he took. That if Anita Hill lied deliberately about Clarence Thomas, asking for an apology isn’t tone deaf.

But *demanding *one, including a suggestion that Hill pray over her own conduct, certainly is. An olive branch it certainly is not.

I simply don’t see that pointing that out has to be the product of partisanship.

It isn’t. The exclusion of all other possibilities, as **Bricker **has tried to do here, is.

[WordMan]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Knowing my spouse after 20 years would qualify me to to judge the veracity of an accusation. Given the constant pain that such an accusation
holds for me spouse, the damage is never healed I could certainly see that an opportunity to either secure relief, or at the very least let the accuser know that you are not letting up and tweak her conscience, would be worthwhile to pursue.

Silence and inaction can be viewed as acceptance or defeat.

The fact that Anita Hill brought this forward to police and the public proves to me once and for all that she’s an attention whore.

Had such a phone message been repeated just once she would have some justification for claiming harrassment.

I was just about to reply to **Bricker’s **post with a “we seem to just continue agreeing to disagree” comment and move on, when you, FD, show up with this incredibly silly statement. Yes, you know better and this is all about you. :rolleyes:

This thread - the gift I had no idea would keep on giving…

**SFG **- nice summary; interesting to see how Mr. Debating Class 101 responds…

[Bryan_Ekers]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Knowing my spouse after 20 years would qualify me to to judge the veracity of an accusation. Given the constant pain that such an accusation
holds for me spouse, the damage is never healed I could certainly see that an opportunity to either secure relief, or at the very least let the accuser know that you are not letting up and tweak her conscience, would be worthwhile to pursue.

Silence and inaction can be viewed as acceptance or defeat.

The fact that Anita Hill brought this forward to police and the public proves to me once and for all that she’s an attention whore.

Had such a phone message been repeated just once she would have some justification for claiming harrassment.

And that’s a valid stance, but if I may offer some commentary:

Virginia wasn’t married to Thomas at the time covered by Hill’s testimony. He was in fact married (though legally separated) to his first wife, Kathy Ambush. I’m not sure if Virginia had even met Thomas in 1981-3. In any case, I have my doubts that 20 years of marriage (or even 40 or 50) would give Virginia flawless knowledge of and insight into what Thomas is capable of. Nothing personal against Virginia, just my recognition that many people are fully capable of fooling everyone, including their spouses and including themselves, for years at a time.

There’s nothing inherently intolerable about acceptance and defeat - we all face it with the deaths of loved ones, the loss of a sporting event or promotion to another person, the lingering anger about bullies from high school… Obsessing about it years later can’t be healthy, I figure. I can understand why Virginia is still annoyed by Hill, but I suggest the more mature attitude is to shrug it off. Her husband was confirmed, by any measure he “won” his fight with Hill (though just barely). Dredging it up at this late date won’t help and can significantly hurt.

If Hill is indeed an attention whore, she’s a very inefficient one. She could probably trade on her fame and get a pundit job at MSNBC or something, but I see no sign of it.

And is she claiming harassment? She passed the call onto the FBI, which is something I’d expect anyone to do if they’ve received death threats in the past. Is it established that Hill knew the call was from Virginia, or just that it was from someone claiming to be Virginia? It wouldn’t surprise me if Hill had gotten a few nutty calls over the years and a weekend morning call out of the blue sounds kind of nutty on its face, worth noting, worth checking out, even if the investigation takes only a few minutes.

[E-Sabbath]

@Bricker

No.

Thanks for the summary, but why not? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the spouse of a judge is involved in a situation, where does the recusal point lie?

If the spouse works for McDonalds, and McDonalds is being sued… but she works at a restaurant in Texas, and the lawsuit is about New York?

If the spouse is on the board of McDonalds?

If the spouse’s company is a supplier of McDonalds?

If the spouse lobbies for McDonalds?

Edit:

@Bricker

So far as I’m aware, the general standard for recusal is: having a financial interest in the parties or outcome, having worked on the case in the past as a lawyer, having a close relative involved as a party or witness, or having previously made statements indicating you were unable to neutrally judge the case.

So far as I’m aware, none of those standards exist here. Purely speculative financial interests, such as “My wife’s organization will become more popular as a result of the outcome…” is not sufficient.

Aha! But her organization is actively lobbying for the repeal, and accepts donations for lobbying, as I understand it. Does that not count as a financial interest? If the wife of a judge makes statements indicating they have a strong opinion on something, such that they were unable to be impartial, would that matter?

[ElvisL1ves]

Because IOKIARDI. :rolleyes:

[E-Sabbath]

Elvis, you’re just contributing smoke. Please, I’m actually curious here.

[ElvisL1ves]

I’m serious. That’s all he’s going to provide. I’d love to be wrong.

[gonzomax]

@bup

Slightly off-topic point - whether or not a search finds anything does not have any bearing on whether it was legal. I think most Americans, and courts, agree that’s a *good *rule.

Start a poll. I doubt that most Americans would find strip searching 13 year old girls for Ibuprofen is a good idea. I also think, since no other judge agreed with him, that it shows his different slant on sexuality. He was outside the norm of judges and counter to what a parent would accept as proper for their child. It does tell us something of Thomas’s . It is not positive.

[Gadarene]

Fear Itself has posted the actual statutory standard for recusal, so I’m sure Bricker will respond directly to that at his convenience.

[bup]

@gonzomax

Start a poll. I doubt that most Americans would find strip searching 13 year old girls for Ibuprofen is a good idea. I also think, since no other judge agreed with him, that it shows his different slant on sexuality. He was outside the norm of judges and counter to what a parent would accept as proper for their child. It does tell us something of Thomas’s . It is not positive.

It’s a good thing I didn’t say anything like that, then.

[septimus]

@Morgenstern

Could you add post #125 to your consideration too.

I did look up #125; I had to laugh when I saw the Poster’s name! It appears Mr. Shodan has read David Brock’s book. I wonder if he also read Brock’s recantation.

If you have serious evidence or a thoughtful scenario, please submit it. But don’t expect me however to pursue another “see post #125”.

[Bricker]

@Shot_From_Guns

1.) Do you agree that Ms. Thomas claimed her VM to have been an olive branch?

Asked and answered above. But because you’re not too sharp: yes.

@Shot_From_Guns

2.) Do you agree that the VM could not be classified as such?

Asked and answered above. But because you’re not too sharp: yes.

@Shot_From_Guns

3.) If yes and no, respectively, would you agree that there is a disconnect between the intent Thomas is claiming and the actual effect?

This is why I dislike wasting time on the empty morass that serves you in the same way that thought serves human beings. It’s “yes,” and “yes,” above, and yet still I agree, as I have multiple times before this exchange, that the claim Thomas made (“olive branch”) suffered a disconnect from the actual effect of the VM. But you don’t remotely care what I have said; you are simply staring vapidly at the screen until you think it’s your turn to say something. If you would expend even the slightest fucking effort on the task of reading and understanding prior posts, this waste of bandwidth and time would not be necessary.

@Shot_From_Guns

4.) If so, would you also agree that there are two possibilities: she was lying about her intentions (not intended as an olive branch), or she was telling the truth (intended as an olive branch)?

A new question?!?

I mean, not really a new question, but “new” in the sense that all the facts required to answer the question probably haven’t been placed in the same sentence before now.

So: yes, I agree that those are the two possibilities.

5.) If she was lying about her intentions, would you not agree that her purpose must have been shit-stirring? If not, what could it have been?

Yes, that seems a safe assumption.

6.) If she was not lying about her intentions, would you not agree that this demonstrates an inability to predict how your words will be interpreted by others?

No, here I believe I will get off the agreement train, because it’s headed towards Fallacytown. If she was sincere in her belief that Hill lied, then she made a guess that turned out to be wrong about Hill’s potential to experience an apiphany and apologize. That does not translate to a general inability to predict how your words will be interpreted by others.

7.) Is an inability to predict how your words will be interpreted by others not the definition of being tone deaf? If not, what is your definition?

Added to that is at least the requirement that the interpretation that actually happens at the other end be unreasonable.

If I appoach a Walmart clerk and ask where the restroom is, and she screams at me, “I’m not helping a golfer because your balls taste like grass!!” then it’s certainly true that I have failed to predict how my words would be interpreted by another person, but I absolutely refuse the characterization that my words were tone deaf.

Another requirement is that the actual reaction must be unanticipated completely, not merely one of several reasonable alternatives. If I call my boss and say, “Can I get an advance on next week’s paycheck,” and she says no, we cannot conclude that I was tone-deaf for making the request.

Now do me a favor. Either read, understand, and make a cogent reply, or leave it alone and depend on the smarter people to discuss the issue. Mmmkay?

[Bricker]

@Gadarene

Fear Itself has posted the actual statutory standard for recusal, so I’m sure Bricker will respond directly to that at his convenience.

Yes. “Interest” doesn’t mean “has an interest in,” as: “Since high school, I have been interested in stamp collecting.”

I am not aware of any substantial interest Ms. Thomas has in this legislation, as “substantial interest” is used in the statute.

[Bricker]

@E-Sabbath

Thanks for the summary, but why not? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the spouse of a judge is involved in a situation, where does the recusal point lie?

If the spouse works for McDonalds, and McDonalds is being sued… but she works at a restaurant in Texas, and the lawsuit is about New York?

No recusal required.

If the spouse is on the board of McDonalds?

Recusal required.

[quote]
If the spouse’s company is a supplier of McDonalds?
/quote]
Not required, but more information might change the answer.

If the spouse lobbies for McDonalds?

Not required, but more information might change the answer.

Aha! But her organization is actively lobbying for the repeal, and accepts donations for lobbying, as I understand it. Does that not count as a financial interest? If the wife of a judge makes statements indicating they have a strong opinion on something, such that they were unable to be impartial, would that matter?

No.

[Morgenstern]

@septimus

I did look up #125; I had to laugh when I saw the Poster’s name! It appears Mr. Shodan has read David Brock’s book. I wonder if he also read Brock’s recantation.

If you have serious evidence or a thoughtful scenario, please submit it. But don’t expect me however to pursue another “see post #125”.

I wouldn’t have started this if I hadn’t found you hiding an admitted guess behind the facade of a mathematical discipline and thereafter failing to provide any supporting evidence of your finding. You, like the rest of us, lack any concrete evidence of whether or not Hill was truthful, yet you stated it was 1000 times more likely that Hill was truthful based on your application of mathematical logic. Should I just take your word for it? Queeg at least used sand to prove his mathematical theory, you’ve provided nothing.