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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.