What I’m getting from Mrs. Thomas’ voicemail is that she want Anita Hill to be sorry for calling her husband out on his shitty pigggish behaviour. It is by no means an olive branch when you expect the other person to hit themselves on the head with it.
Now, the final question. If Thomas was forced to recuse himself, and by doing so, allowed healthcare reform to be judged constitutional, because of his wife’s action against it, would it, or would it not, be ironic?
Or would it just be a bummer like rain on your wedding day?
Seriously, thanks, Bricker. So we’re going to see a lot of people calling for Thomas to recuse himself, but he probably won’t.
Somehow I don’t wonder what his response would be if Mrs. George Soros had a seat on the Court.
His response would be exactly this:
I don’t see what the big deal is - not all conflicts of interest are significant enough for the judge to recuse himself immediately. If it’s an arguable or borderline case and the judge elects to not recuse himself, the lawyer who sees this as a disadvantage would be a fool not to call it into question.
And it’s not specifically the American way, as I facetiously commented earlier. I’d expect to see examples in any system with an effective judiciary and respect for civil rights. It’s countries where the judge cannot be removed for any reason suggested by an advocate (and where the advocate could get in trouble just for asking) that make me nervous.
Yeah, that’s pretty much how the thread went. I’m personally convinced she’s not tone deaf. How else can she represent the diverse views of her clients by distinguishing the screams of “Obama’s a sekrit Mooslim from Kenya who was cloned in Brazil from Hitler’s preserved DNA!” from “You can pry my medicare and social security from my dead cold hands!” Lobbying for teabaggers requires precise auditory aptitude.
This is precisely my point. Remove “his shitty pigggish behaviour” and the equation changes.
Just for the record: Although 28 USC 455 and other sections set forth standards for when a Federal judge should recuse himself, there are no penalties attaching to a SCOTUS justice recusing or declining to recuse. In a way that should make Rand Rover glad, he and he alone is the judge of his own conduct (short of impeachment, of course); all anyone, even the other justices, can do is to try to bring moral suasion on him to recuse.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/ross1.php This court does not recuse itself easily. Scalia had no trouble staying involved with a case involving his friend ,Dick Cheney. They went duck hunting together, travel together and attend many of the same functions.
Recusal is to remove the appearance of bias toward a person in the case. His relationship certainly reaches that level. But Scalia thinks he will make all such decisions and he must be believed. I don’t believe him.
This court stretches credibility regularly.
Not really. Even if he’s 100% innocent and Hill is 100% perjurer, it’s still not in the Thomases interests to keep raising the issue. They have to realize that Hill has no incentive to recant (whether such recanting is true or not) and what’s the prize? A nicer seat on the Supreme Court?
Sure, among their circle of friends and acquaintances they can kvetch about Hill, but bringing it to the nation’s attention, even in the form of Hill’s apology? I don’t agree that the “vindication” you cite will prove all that valuable, unless the Thomases have deluded themselves somehow that it will be universal and instant. What if a significant portion of the country still believes that Clarence Thomas was a letch? Will Virginia request apologies from them as well? She could spend the rest of her life chasing this issue. The mature thing would be to let it go, already.
Of course it does.
For one thing, Anita Hill doesn’t testify. 
What was Hills motive for lying? She worked with him a long time. He was getting a chance to become even more powerful. He may have been useful to her career. Yet she went in front of the nation and testified under oath about his piggish behavior.
She did not pull a Palin and trot about giving speeches for money . She went back to teaching and has kept a low profile. The case adds up easily. Thomas like porn and acted like a pig to some women workers.
A woman scorned?
Any other female co-workers that defended Anita Hill?
Ex-dataing partners don’t count.
Why not?
They don’t? Any particular reason they don’t, or they just don’t?
Because it’s subjective dataing? 
So is discounting every woman because she might have a axe to grind.
Well there was one case of an ex dating partner, non co-worker, in support of Hill referenced earlier in this thread.
One does take liberties with a continuing dating partner that would otherwise be described as sexual harrassment.
My primary interest was to hear of other female co-workers of Thomas, and none have come forward. Anti-social behavior in the work place such as Hill has alluded to on Thomas’ part would certainly not be confined to her.
This ex-dating partner wasn’t say he harrassed her, but that Hill’s allegations about Thomas being a porn obsessed horndog who made crude jokes was an accurate description of his personality at the time.
Well, your wife wouldn’t say you harrassed her if you made crude jokes all the time in her presence . I’d expect that one reserves a different personality in an approved intimate situation from a professional situation.
The charge against Thomas wa sexual harrassment. That charge primarily depends on the relationship.