# You're breaking my heart, David Brock **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 27, 2001, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367 "2001-06-27T20:05:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2001, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367/21 "2001-06-29T22:59:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*While on the subject, it was my belief at the time that Hill was essentially telling the truth, insomuch as events along the lines that she described likely did take place. But it is not likely that the harassment was as traumatizing as she later suggested. \*\* As \*\*Izzy \*\*says, it’s all speculation. Still, these two intelligent, successful people were so specific in their testimony that one of them must have been committing flagrant perjury. One perjurer is remarkable enough; I refuse to believe that they were both perjurers. If you accept that one of them was entirely truthful, then it seems more likely that Thomas was telling the truth, because [li]Hill’s action in following Thomas to another job would be unusual for a harassment victim [_]She lied about her reason for following him from one agency to another. She claimed to fear losing her job, but because of her tenure she was secure where she was [_]Her offer to drive Thomas to the airport, putting them alone together in a car, would be unusual for a harassment victim. [_]Other women who worked with Thomas testified that he had never behaved this way. [_] No other subordinates were found to claim similar treatment (except for one bitter woman who Thomas had fired for homophobia. She claimed he had stared at her breasts.) If Thomas was lying, he was risking a perjury conviction. For all he know, witnesses might come forward who had overheard his conversations with Hill.[/li] Having said all that, it’s still all speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2001, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367/22 "2001-06-29T22:59:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*Clarence Thomas was not and is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court. > \*\* He certainly hasn’t proven to be a shining beacon of legal wisdom over the past ten years, has he? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2001, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367/23 "2001-06-30T01:03:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ukulele Ike \* > He certainly hasn’t proven to be a shining beacon of legal wisdom over the past ten years, has he? \*\* Actually, some of his decisions have been summarized in the NY Times. IANAL but to me they’re thoughtful, logical and well-written. Also IIRC he writes his own decisions, whereas most of the SC judges rely more on their assistants. During the hearings, ex-Solicitor General Drew Days (who happened to be a friend of mine in HS) testified against Thomas, because of his conservative views. When a Republican Senator finally asked Days if Thomas was qualified, he grudgingly responded, “Of course.” I recommend that **Ike** and **Otto** read some of Thomas’s decisions and make up their own minds. ---
**Author:** ![RTA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RTA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTA)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2001, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367/24 "2001-06-30T15:19:31Z")
> [@](#): > > to me they’re thoughtful, logical and well-written Yes … to **you** , I am quite sure they are. The “qualified” issue reminds me of the American Bar Association’s rating of Thomas, prior to the confirmation hearing. Throughout history, the ABA had issued a rating of “Highly Qualified” to every single Supreme Court nominee. Then along came Thomas, who could only earn a rating of “Qualified”. It was quite a slap in the face, but what could they do? The guy’s no shining beacon of legal wisdom; he’s a bureaucrat who got picked out of a crowd of joggers by C. Boyden Gray, solely on the basis of his black skin and yes-man conservatism. I applaud Brock’s unexpected turn of conscience; it’s just another high-profile blow to the corrupt conservative war machine and helps to expose them as cynical hypocrites who speak tearfully about truth and honor and duty but are more than eager to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve their goals. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2001, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367/25 "2001-06-30T15:51:02Z")
\*Originally posted by RTA \* \*\* > [@](#): > > to me they’re thoughtful, logical and well-written Yes … to _you_, I am quite sure they are.\*\* Wow, that italicized _you_ cut me to the quick. :rolleyes: So, how do Thomas’s decisions look to you, **RTA**? What specific criticms do you have of them? Have you read any? I bet you haven’t, and you’re merely spewing some combination of racism and pubbie-ism. We have freedom of the press in America. Use it. Thomas’s decisions must be available. Please read them and think for yourself. The one and only fact in your post is that the ABA rated Thomas “qualified.” Since the ABA has become a left-wing organization, their opinion isn’t unbiased. An amusing recent quote by Ann Coulter: > [@](#): > > Judge Pasco Bowman, the otherwise impeccable federal judge I clerked for after law school, had gotten a “qualified” rating from the American Bar Association. Maybe even — God forbid — “well qualified.” I don’t remember, it was a dark day. Upon discovering this contretemps, I called him to complain. Almost all the cool guys had gotten “qualified/not qualified” ratings — what was the matter with him? > > Among the judicial nominees who won the ABA’s desirable “qualified/not qualified” rating is Judge Richard Posner — once described by archliberal Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. as one of the two geniuses he had ever met. Others include Judges Frank Easterbrook, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Jerry Smith, and Laurence Silberman. > > If there were a dream team of federal appellate judges, these guys would be on it (as would Judge Bowman, but for nagging questions about that ABA endorsement). [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter032901.shtml](http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter032901.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2001, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367/26 "2001-06-30T15:59:32Z")
You can read a bunch of them here: [http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/thomas.dec.html#dissents](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/thomas.dec.html#dissents) Yeah, I suppose he could give the ambulance-chasers down at Brooklyn Civil Court a run for their money. But after reading several (you should too…goodness knows they’re short enough), I’m standing by the opinion expressed earlier in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2001, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367/27 "2001-06-30T16:06:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTA \* > \*\*I applaud Brock’s unexpected turn of conscience; it’s just another high-profile blow to the corrupt conservative war machine and helps to expose them as cynical hypocrites who speak tearfully about truth and honor and duty but are more than eager to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve their goals. \*\* Or it could be that he’s just a media whore who’ll figuratively sleep with whomever pays him the most. On the AH/CT. God help me, I’m nearly agreeing with **Izzy’s** assessment, that stuff happened, she didn’t think it was a huge enough deal to take a loss in pay/prestige. and he doesn’t remember doing any of it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2001, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367/28 "2001-06-30T18:55:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Miskatonic \* > So… does Anita Hill have a good basis for a lawsuit here? I thin it would be justfieid, but IANAL. > \*\* The 7-year statute of limitations ran out _just_ before Brock made his first “confession” 3 years ago. I’m sure that’s a total coincidence, just as is the timing of this latest statement _just_ before his book comes out. So, tell us, Thomas fans: Who got the “high-tech lynching”? And, now that Brock has apologized, when are the rest of those who followed him going to do so? I’m not staying up nights waiting, of course. **IzzyR** , I agree with your assessment of the hearings themselves, along with your implied headshaking over the need to find personal reasons rather than political/ideological ones to rationalize decisions on candidates for a political/ideological job (which the SC surely is - they don’t just “interpret” the law; that’s for lower courts). I’m relieved to see the Senate Democrats (or at least Schumer) state that the pretense will now be dropped, and that the “advice and consent” clause in the Constitution will now be followed explicitly instead of privately. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-breaking-my-heart-david-brock/70367.md?page=1)