Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

[Nancy Waterman]

Source: Washington Post

Now, she says that Thomas often said inappropriate things about women he met at work -- and that she could have added her voice to the others, but didn't.

snip

To McEwen, Hill's allegations that Thomas had pressed her for dates and made lurid sexual references rang familiar.

"He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners," McEwen said matter-of-factly. "It was a hobby of his."

snip

...she said Hill's long-ago description of Thomas's behavior resonated with her.

"He was obsessed with porn," she said of Thomas, who is now 63. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102106645.html?hpid=topnews

---

Ginny Thomas is probably sorry she opened her big mouth and this big can of worms.

[mbperrin]

1. I cannot, for the life

of me, understand why Ginny Thomas started this up again.

Is she just stupid?

[bemildred]

4. Whatever it is, I am glad she is that way.

It's just the perfect time for it too.

[saigon68]

70. Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas

Long Dong Silver is a retired porn star. He appeared in several pornographic movies in the UK and USA during the late 1970s and early 1980s, famed for the apparent size of his penis (reputedly 18 inches / 45 centimeters), which is reported to have been extended with a prosthetic sheath.<1> His debut film was the low-budget Sex Freaks released in 1979, in which he co-starred with Vicki Scott. In 1982 he appeared with the legendary Seka in Beauty and the Beast, shot in America. His name is a reference to Long John Silver.

He received new fame in the wake of allegations of sexual harassment during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate in 1991.<2><3><4><5><6>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Dong_Silver

[Tansy_Gold]

9. Maybe Clarence hasn't cleaned up his act

Maybe this is her payback for personal grief.

Those who are addicted to pornography can make life very hellish for their partners in ways that cannot be traced or documented. Unless you've been there, you can't begin to imagine.



Tansy Gold, been there

[Hepburn]

13. I was thinking the same thing about this...

...it's payback time from Ginni to Clarence. Something had to trigger this after nearly 20 years of silence.

[CanonRay]

112. Yeah, Jack Daniels at 7am

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Properly, it is not an addiction, it is a fetish.

It can be terribly destructive, but nobody in history has suffered withdrawal when unable to access porn. It is a psychological fixation.

I am sick to death of people attaching 'addiction' to every malady under the sun.

And, I'm sorry you been there - it's hard to deal with people who suffer mental illness.

[Tansy_Gold]

16. While I bow to what is obviously your superior knowledge,

I would also suggest that those who are denied their fetish/obsession do suffer "withdrawal." While it may not involve the physical reactions that withdrawal from "drugs" causes, there is a reaction. And it is not pleasant.

I'm sorry the use (or should I say "misuse"?) of the term "addiction" affects you so strongly as to produce a fatal infirmity, but for the sake of clarity of discussion, I suggest the word "addiction" has colloquial as well as clinical meanings. But I could be wrong.


Tansy Gold

[defendandprotect]

25. Agree ... those studying internet porn certainly see an "addiction" ...

and when many of these married men are hiding this use of internet porn from wives --

who often discover it in rather unfortunate ways -- it looks very much like an addiction.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. I know where you're coming from; I just think that precision in language is important.

After all, there is a colloquial understanding of the word "theory" which is the source of uncounted problems with morons across the country.

Having been with people who were going through DTs, I can't imagine someone going through that for lack of access to a VCR.

Addiction has two elements - the physical and the psychological. Alcohol, drugs, tobacco, encompass both. Other so-called addictions - sex, gambling, porn, pot, videogames, even exercise - only have a psychological component. Abruptly stopping them may trigger nervousness or short tempers, but not curl-up-in-a-ball screaming. That doesn't mean they are not potentially as destructive, or any easier to deal with. They may, actually, be harder to deal with because there is no simple, obvious cause for it. Take enough Oxycodone and you will get addicted, whether you want to or not. But obsessive behavior, otoh, comes from a deep-seated psychological flaw and there is not clear trigger to it.

At the heart of my argument, Clarence Thomas is a deeply disturbed man suffering a mental illness - and he is on the Supreme Court. He doesn't even have the option of disappearing to dry out for a couple months. He is in need of intensive therapy, and has been for years.

But we all knew that right along.

[cartach]

102. Why would he have to "dry out for a couple of months" if he isn't -

suffering withdrawal symptoms? "Nervousness or short tempers" and "curl-up-in-the-ball-screaming" are exactly the same thing,withdrawal symptoms.The only difference is in the degree. After all as you say,"precision in language is important" so try to remember that the next time you're developing an argument. Now,have I been precise enough you f'ing nerd?

[femrap]

54. Tansy...now you

know better than to get uppity with da boyz who know everything. Da boyz actually know what you are thinking before you think it. I know so. Da boyz told me....:sarcasm: as if it's needed.

[demigoddess]

69. can we keep on topic, especially when it is so much fun

to discuss.

[Control-Z]

110. My only problem with using the term

"addiction" is the resulting "I can't help myself" excuses, and the license these people often feel it gives them to behave badly with impunity.

Edit to add: This comes from 21 years married to a Narcissist who is an alcoholic/addict and self proclaimed sex addict. Nothing in 21 years has been his fault. Nothing. It is the alcoholism that makes him a nasty liar, the driving sex addiction that makes him screw 5 women at a time, and the narcissism that makes him brag about it. He can't help it.

[bitchkitty]

184. My unsolicited opinion: dump his worthless ass. n/t

[bongbong]

32. Uncle Clarenence explained

Now it is easy to see the reason for the long sleeping sessions that Uncle Clarence engages in when he should be ostensibly listening to oral arguments at the SCOTUS .... he is tired out from surfing pron all night long on the Intertubes.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

80. PROCESS ADDICTIONS show the same disease path as substance addictions

and respond to twelve-step programs and similar treatment courses.

It is compulsive behavior, which wording may be less incendiary to you.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-process-addiction.htm Process addiction is an addiction to an activity or process, such as eating, spending money, or gambling. These addictive behaviors can be as debilitating as those associated with substance addictions, and they require psychological treatment. People sometimes have difficulty understanding process addictions, because they believe that people should just be able to stop negative behavior, but people with process addictions face the same problems that people with substance addictions do.

Research into sex addictions has been pioneered by noted psychologist Dr. Patrick Carnes. He is the author of the groundbreaking book, "Out of the Shadows: Understanding Sexual Addiction (1983), and has written other books since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Carnes
He has also worked in the field of sexual addition in a number of other capacities:
clinical director for sexual disorder services at The Meadows in Wickenburg, Arizona,
editor-in-chief of Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention (official journal of the National Council of Sexual Addiction/Compulsivity),
board member of the National Council of Sexual Addiction/Compulsivity organization,
advisor in the national advisory board of the American Academy of Health Care Providers in the Addictive Disorders.<2>
He is the primary architect of Gentle Path treatment programs for the treatment of sexual and addictive disorders.

[ProudDad]

170. With probably the same under 5% "success rate"

that 12 step programs enjoy...

I get kind of tired of a (theocratic cult) program that fails 95% of the time being held out at some kind of paragon of addiction treatment...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

174. my experience with 12 step programs has been good

And the theocratic aspect was played waaay down.

I knew many people who made a LOT of personal growth using the program as a guide and support for self improvement

That's my experience anyway...obviously your mileage has been different.

[ProudDad]

175. I also know folks who derived some benefit from 12-step

I also know many who were driven back into their addictions by the hierarchical, all-knowing, theocratic, complicated nature of the exercise.

12 steps are WAY too many. I could never get past the first one. It is highly objectionable to most rational folk.

Addicts ALREADY feel powerless they have NO need to be convinced that they ARE and that they must give over what little power they may still have to some flying spaghetti monster.

As an atheist, NO theocracy is the only way that works for me... The 12 steps can't even PRETEND to completely avoid the christianist/Calvinist foundation from which they were created.

I chose another way, a secular way with just 1 step - Don't Drink or Use No Matter What! No need for sponsors since I didn't need anyone to interpret that one step for me. (www.lifering.org)


But my post was not a critique of AA. My objection was to the prevailing propaganda machine that holds out a "program" with a 95% failure rate as the "only way" (Bill W DIDN'T consider AA the only way, by the way)...which is exactly the attitude that drove a lot of the folks I know away from recovery.

The majority of people who quit their addictions use one main "program" - for whatever reason, they just stop on their own.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

181. yes, I think the critical factor is a determined DESIRE to grow

Improve, stop using, whatever the problem issue is.

Programs of whatever kind provide fellowhip and encoraging examples.

"Recovery" is also big business, though. So it falls victim to beaurocratization, which isn't too well known for creative problem solving seems to me.

[ProudDad]

182. I wish "recovery" were a "bigger business"

I'd end the phony "war on drugs(tm)" and use a fraction of that money for treatment on demand for anyone who asks.

And just about every drunk or junkie has one of those reachable moments just about every day when they look in a mirror and say, "I just can't do this any more." But there are so few slots for folks, especially if you don't have money.

Most of the treatment providers I knew in S.F. and here in Tucson "get it". They understand that there's more than one way to do it and so the more rational (non Christianist ones) are becoming more are open to people having a choice of support group options including buy not limited to AA. And there are many options; SMART, SOS, Lifering, Woman for Sobriety, etc.

You are very correct though, the bottom line is that it's up to the individual to make the constant choice not to use -- hour by hour, day by day and luckily after enough time has accumulated, week by week.

:hi:

[caseymoz]

37. That doesn't seem likely to me.

I don't think she would have taken such a high profile with the tea party if he had that degree of a dark, sinful secret. I mean, he's an icon for the conservative cause, and if he had a secret, he was perfectly out of the light of day before she became a teapartier. Having attached herself to him and his ideology, she and her whole cause would be embarrassed if he were.

Of course, if this spins out of control, don't put it by Thomas to present this as a porn addiction he struggling with for years and finally overcame. Be skeptical about that story, both parts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Are you kidding? If it wasn't for people with dark, sinful secrets

there wouldn't BE a tea party.

The entire movement is nothing but a public expression of private neuroses.

[caseymoz]

43. No, I'm not.

Being clueless to your own neuroses is one thing, but the teapartiers are a little hyper-aware of other peoples', their hypocrisy being well-documented. I really think with her spouse it would work like this: Clarence looks at porn, Ginny finds out, being the faithful, Catholic wife, Ginny seeks to protect him, not out him.

BTW, she could not have known that any other women were going to come out because she solicited an apology. She could not have planned on that. I mean, they hadn't for this many years.

However, for this newest, it is interesting to me that Ginny Thomas did this right as this other woman was seeking a publisher. Did she get wind of it? Is the apology part or an orchestrated attempt to diffuse the controversy that was coming? I don't know. I'll have to watch what follows.

[CoffeeCat]

87. Oh snap!

That is beautiful!

"The entire movement is nothing but a public expression of private neuroses."

So true.

They're complete misfits. That's why they cling to right-wing radio. For the
first time in their embarrassing lives--their ideas and bizarre notions are
validated. "I'm somebody! I'm somebody because Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh
tell me that I'm smarter than everyone else!"

[Nancy Waterman]

93. The entire movement is nothing but a public expression of private neuroses

yes, yes, yes! They act out their personal craziness in the public arena.
They project their irrational fears - of being controlled and of being cheated and of being powerless - onto liberals, the government,
the Democrats, Muslims, immigrants, etc. Everyone is trying to "take away their freedom" or their money or their guns, etc.

[FreepFryer]

83. If Thomas admitted that Hill et al were/are telling the truth, he would be impeached 4 perjury (n/t)

[Nancy Waterman]

94. Could we push for an impeachment for perjury?

What a great idea! Couldn't we make a case for it over this?

[Ken Burch]

71. If it's not too painful for you, Tansy....

could you tell us what the point is at which it can be called an addiction, and the kinds of harm that can result?

(Obviously, if it IS too painful, you don't have to, of course).

[Tansy_Gold]

101. I'll give you some, but with the disclaimer that

this is only based on my personal direct experience, not any further study.

I think it's more or less taken for granted that those addicted to drugs often resort to crime to obtain the money needed for the next fix, and alcoholics will blow the rent money on booze. Somewhat similar to that, the pornography addict will spend excessive amounts of money on pornography, money the family budget can't afford. ATM withdrawals show up, $20 here, $40 there, and when asked what the cash was spent on, the addict says he has no idea, or it was spent on gas (even though the debit card shows the normal expenditures on gas) or lunch or. . . . whatever. The checking account is overdrawn, bills can't be paid.

One would think that the addict, having acquired a supply of pornography -- stacks of magazines, a collection of videos -- would not need to acquire more. But in fact in this particular case, the "old" stuff no longer sufficed. There was always the lure of something new, someONE new, a new body, a new face, a new. . . . whatever. Thus the expenditures continue, regardless how precarious the family finances are.

Lying to cover the expenditures becomes habitual, to the point that lying about EVERYTHING becomes a way of life.

The pornography becomes more important than anything else. It's not just the money spent on it, but also the time. Something needs to be fixed around the house, say a leaky faucet. Under normal circumstances this would require a quick trip to Ace Hardware and an hour or two of work. But the porn addict in my life saw such circumstances as opportunities to indulge: the quick trip took two or three hours because there was a side trip to wherever it was he purchased the porn. The same with a Sunday morning trip to Circle K for the paper: it should have taken no more than half an hour to drive there, get the paper, and drive home, but he was often gone a couple of hours. And confronting him about it, even before I knew WHY he took so long, resulted in a day or two of moody silence and sulking.

Ay one point, in the early 90s before internet porn, there were phone calls to 900 numbers. They didn't amount to much in the way of charges and once they showed up on the bill, the line was blocked for any more such calls. No one would admit to having placed them, but as it turned out the person who HAD made them accused someone else, who in turn denied all knowledge. I didn't discover until years later that that person was indeed innocent.

When I did finally find out about it, and confronted him, there were the usual promises never to do it again, etc., etc., etc., etc. I was very soon to find out those were empty promises. The cash outlays decreased for a while but within a few months were right back where they had been. I knew where the money was going and there was nothing I could do about it. And he knew it.

But there was also an anger directed toward me for having put even a temporary halt. It was as if I became one of the people in the pornography, an object to be viewed, spied on, deprived of privacy and personal space. I reached the point of being afraid quite literally for my life. I felt as though he was trying to make me become one of the victim/participants in whatever stuff he was reading/watching. He wanted absolute control over me, wanted me to be a thing at his command, existing only for his pleasure and with no real existence/identity of my own.

When I started to write this, I didn't think it would be as difficult as it turned out to me. There are details I can't write about -- they are, after all, too painful. It all happened over a decade ago and he's not here to defend himself, but it still hurts.

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to Clarence Thomas' private life, but as soon as I read about Mrs. Thomas' phone call, the first motive I thought of was a reaction to living with a pornography addict, someone who becomes so obsessed with it and so damaged by it that he's lost some touch with reality.

The thing that, in my humble and non-professional opinion, makes pornography and an addiction to it so destructive is that it not only affects other people around the addict -- family, friends, co-workers, etc. -- but it requires the prior "participation" of other people in a fantasy that strips them of their humanity, that essentially makes them victims before the fact.




Tansy Gold

[Ken Burch]

109. I'm so sorry you had to experience all of that.

And talking about this probably brought up some old traumas for you, so please accept my apologies for asking you to post about what you went through in those times.

[Tansy_Gold]

180. Apology accepted.

I don't get into the DU discussions re pros and cons of pornography because I know it's not going to change anything. Kinda like the debates on abortion.

On the other hand, maybe secondary victims of pornography, which is what I consider myself in the absence of any clinical term fo rit, need to speak out more.

I'm not an Andrea Dworkin or Catharine MacKinnon anti-porn crusader, but neither am I going to blithely dismiss the potential for secondary harm it can cause. I'm not anti-sex and I'm not anti-erotica, but there is stuff out there that falls way outside the erotica category.

Clarence Thomas' treatment of Anita Hill strikes me as the kind of behavior I would expect from someone who is so addicted to pornography that he has lost the subconscious ability to distinguish between his partners in his fantasy porn world and the real women he encounters in the real world. Is that a mental illness? I'm not qualified to determine that. I think maybe it is, but I'm not sure. I do think, however, in my personal humble opinion, that Mrs. Thomas' behavior suggests she has experienced some of the results of that blurring of the lines between reality and fantasy, but she has bought into it for whatever reasons and now she can't reconcile it.

So call me crazy, call me speculative, I don't know. But based on my personal experience, that's what I think is POSSIBLE.

And that's what the OP was about, right?

Again, apology accepted,



Tansy Gold

[Nancy Waterman]

10. She lives in a tea party bubble

With her own version of reality. She reminds me of Christine O'Donnell: ditsy and very sure of her own set of facts, despite any evidence to the contrary.

[tsuki]

26. Why did Martha Mitchell phone reporters from her bath tub? I think

it's the alcohol.

[1monster]

33. Or maybe she used the alcohol to give her the courage to do so.

Martha was angry, but giving out information that eventually lead to her husband's conviction could not have been easy. No matter how angry she was at him or the people he was involved in could not have been easy. She was still married to him...

edited for clarity

[rocktivity]

46. Shades of drunk dialing

The call came in at 7:30 AM on a Saturday--now, really, do you call someone at that hour unless somebody died?

:beer:
rocktivity

[tsuki]

78. Or they were up from the night before.

:evilgrin:

[CTyankee]

91. I got one of those calls from a woman with a drinking problem.

I totally believe Ginni was under the influence when she made the call. Because inhibitions are lowered by alcohol ginni started talking to anita in a very inappropriate way...and there was also self aggrandizement in the mix. Having received one of these calls, I very much see the similarities. I also have had a whole raft of drunks in my family. I observed this kindof behavior and language from a very young age...

[newspeak]

122. on Bill Maher they were discussing this

and said it doesn't sound like she's been drinking.

[femrap]

55. You need to get the version about

Martha that the MSM did NOT report. Please don't accept the propaganda they dish out to the stupid americans.

I don't believe Ginny is a drunk at 7:31 am. She is a Fundie Church freak....that's a totally different kind of alcohol.

I have them in my family....no common sense, just 'faith.'

Martha knew everything about Watergate...she is a big reason that Watergate was exposed. She should be honored and not be degraded by stupid americans.

[Jackpine Radical]

60. You're right.

The "Crazy Martha" story was an attempt to defuze what she was trying to do. They wanted the press to treat her allegations as just more crazy talk from Crazy Martha.

[femrap]

85. If I remember clearly,

the repugnants drugged her at a hotel...I'll have to go reread her history. But wasn't there some questions about her death/murder???

My poor brain....the republicans do so much evil, it's hard to remember it all.

[Jackpine Radical]

118. I seem to recall something along those lines too.

[Catherina]

75. It was so she could turn the water on and no one would here her. n/t

[caseymoz]

35. Because she really thinks Anita Hill was lying.

It's not an act.

One scenario: she would seem to have something for the righteous, persecuted man, and probably Clarence has played up the anguished, wrongly accused, mistreated act to her repeatedly. He did it one time too often. That's just one conjecture.

Or perhaps she just thought that after so much time, and with nothing at stake, she just thought Hill would want to "make her peace with God."

How Ginny Thomas will react as other women come forward will be interesting to see. Is she going to go into crisis or denial?

[Jackpine Radical]

62. Denial.

Anybody with her intellectual history has well-developed skills in denial, suppression & repression. Those 3 defense mechanisms are often found together, and usually in people who had good reason to acquire them in childhood. The traditional fundie child rearing protocol is sufficient to give any kid good reason to try to block awareness of the abuse dealt out for "his own good" by his parents. Spare the rod & spoil the child. I recall one traveling fundie type who thought infants should be spanked. James Dobson was viewed as a hopeless Commie because he thought the beatings shouldn't start until the kid is 18 months old.

[Shallah Kali]

100. Flogging for God

it is soul sicking what some parents do to their children for their own good. Pearl, Ezzo, Dobson - they are are twisted individuals who pervert parents desires to raise their children well into hellish abuse in the name of their deity.

http://www.nospank.net/floggers.htm

I have no idea what this woman's childhood was like though I too wonder when I consider the pervert she choose for husband what would make him seem to be good husband material and enable her ignore such blatant acts.

[rocktivity]

40. She's stupid if she thought going after Anita Hill was would serve as a pre-emptive strike.

Look at all the stormclouds that have been gathering around the Thomases: questions about the appropriateness of her political activism; reports that her husband has been sitting in on partisan policy planning sessions; and most significant, a woman who has come forward gives reason to believe Anita Hill's testimony. A weapon of mass distraction was needed, and I guess she thought getting people to hate Anita Hill all over again was the answer...

:shrug:
rocktivity

[swilton]

56. I have heard she was a creationist

believing in the literal interpretation of the Bible - this may explain some of this nonsense.

[Doremus]

61. I read some speculation that she started it to deflect attention away

from her new political interests.

[jobycom]

64. Because her heart is telling her the truth but her training is telling her a lie.

This is her way of blowing the whole thing up to try to bring peace to herself. She has told herself for decades that Clarence is the nice, upstanding, religious man he pretends to be, but she knows in her heart that she's being lied to. She can't shake her training enough to admit the lie, so her mind tricked her into planting an explosive to shake the whole thing up, so she could have some piece.

Honestly, if someone lied about your SO 20 years ago, and you knew it was a lie, would you even remember it now? The fact that she is still thinking about it proves she knows the truth, even if she can't admit it.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ysabela]

82. Because the Dems are hitting hard on the Citizens United issue...

The GOP knows the only way to defend itself from the attacks about the Chamber of Commerce foreign funding is to pre-emptively strike. Now, when the Dems start talking about the Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United, the GOP is going to say that they're on a witchhunt because of stuff from 1991 like this sexual harassment issue. That's just my theory, but I think the GOP is muddying the waters in advance.

[bjobotts]

86. The bigggest ego on the court knows he's untouchable.What type would marry him

[bjobotts]

88. Court corruption when judges attend private political gatherings of the wealthy

[bjobotts]

89. who have cases pending before the court or soon will have.Citizens United was a set up from the begi

nning just to make it possible for one billionaire to buy a candidate through a PAC as is being done right now.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

107. Maybe Ginny rented this

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qVQsFuyn4SI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qVQsFuyn4SI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[curiousdemo]

104. Ginny is a Rightwing Fringe loon,

that's getting exactly one she and that buffoon husband of hers deserve. She need to visit the closest fitness center and shut the hell up. She's already violating unethical issue regarding her political involvement with Tea Party loons. Hey Ginny, go buy your husband some porno magazines. Thomas is a SuperFreak!!...Super Freak!!!!!!!!..He's Super Freaky Yall!!!!!!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ThomThom]

113. yes

in a word

[liberalmuse]

2. He ought to be removed from the bench.

In fact, it's amazing he even got confirmed, but I guess it's okay to sexually harass women and mock any woman who dares come forward. Anita Hill really got a bad rap.

[unblock]

7. a case study in framing. the circus turned a confirmation hearing into a criminal trial

where "not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" meant "lifetime appointment to the supreme court".


they forgot the fact that he was a partisan and minimally competent bureaucrat, not remotely of the caliber of a supreme court nominee. the only relevant question became whether or not he committed sexual harassment, and somehow anyone who wasn't convinced, or otherwise objected to the circus and the way the "trial" was conducted, had to vote to confirm him to the supreme court.

[Poll_Blind]

21. Great point, Unblock. I agree. n/t

PB

[JerseygirlCT]

95. Boy, you totally nailed it.

And isn't that sad? Sadder for all of us, b/c now this barely competent acolyte of Scalia's sits on the highest court of the land.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

106. Yes indeed

Remember Thomas referred to the hearing as a "lynching." What senator would want to association themself with that accusation?

All these years, Clarence has been a non-communicative, brooding man on the court. As for comparisons of Ginny to Martha Mitchell, I think her bizarre behavior is more in line with Nancy Reagan's astrologer.

[onenote]

166. +1

[defendandprotect]

27. This is Poppy Bush's joke which paid off for W and has near destroyed the nation....

We got some excellent advice from SC Justice Thurgood Marshall as he was retiring

and when in an interview he was asked what everyone else was asking -- i.e., would

Poppy Bush consider it a "black" seat -- Marshall replied . . .

"The color of a snake isn't important - what's important is whether or not it bites" --

Agree, Thomas should be impeached --

I've no doubt that Poppy Bush and others have enough info to control Thomas --

and probably current info, as well!

[Demoiselle]

34. What a wonderful comment!

I've never heard it before. Thurgood Marshall was a great man. What a tragedy that Thomas, Scalia and all those other mediocre ideologues are on the bench now.

[defendandprotect]

67. After Thomas was found "mediocre" by the ABA ... Bush/GOP had their opinions....

in future, no longer requested nor considered!!

Don't recall if we got any informal opinions from them on Roberts or Alito --

but it was Roberts who was legally guiding W's 2000 steal -- including the

GOP-sponsored fascist rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-Daded County which

was not at all interferred with by police inforcement.

[caseymoz]

39. For what? I'm guessing perjury before Congress.

I know, I answered my own question. I'd have to look at the testimony and see if he actually lied or just looked outraged and said he was being character assassinated.

At the time, though, it was her word against his. I realize there were other women who didn't testify, and the committee should have known about them even if they didn't, but on TV, it looked somewhat like a simple hit-job.

[xxqqqzme]

42. It wasn't 'character

assassination'. He played the 'race card' by calling it a lynching.

[caseymoz]

44. That's right, that was his line.

But it was a metaphor for the same thing, with race-baiting to bolster it.

I know it wasn't character assassination. I don't know how you got the idea that i believed it was. It was the repubs took the tact that the charges were lies, and successfully.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Good point - did he actually deny the accusations (lie) or did he just

arch his back and bare his teeth like a cornered rat?

The fact is, her testimony was completely credible, and she referred to incidents that took place in the presence of co-workers which THEY could have corroborated if called - but they were never called. The hit job was on Ms Hill.

[newspeak]

117. he ought to be removed from the bench just because

some of his decisions are further right than Scalia. Of course, that's not a requisite for impeachment. However, didn't Lincoln threaten to arrest a justice after the civil war for his decision on the humanity of african americans? Someone who I consider has some personal damaging problems-how does is perceptions especially about women affect his decisions? When I think of Thomas, I think he would have been a great judge during the inquisition.

[chelsea0011]

3. Long Dong Silver! Away!

The circle of life.

[DirkGently]

28. THAT'S the name I was trying to remember last night. The kind of detail too ludicrous to make up.

:rofl:

My b.s. radar has developed further since the days of the Hill / Thomas hearings. But even then it was clear Hill was mortified to even be there, and the things she was talking about were of such a specific, banal-yet-repulsive nature (and Thomas' denials were so deflecting and self-serving) that I concluded immediately she was telling the truth.

And she clearly was only the tip of Thomas' weirdo sexual harassment iceberg.

Ginny sorely miscalculated her ability to create reality outside of the Tea Party bubble here.

[rocktivity]

49. What helped me decide that Anita was telling the truth

is that Thomas spent the hearings looking like he'd been swimming in sweat.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[DirkGently]

50. He was pretty ... moist, wasn't he?

:)

[defendandprotect]

72. Sen. Danforth told him .... even if he had done these things .... he'd still stand by him....!!!

Thomas worked for Danforth at some point --

but at any rate, tremendous favor was done for Danforth/Ralston Purina by Thomas,

Here's a bit of info on it --

He practiced law for a short time in Missouri, then was an assistant to the attorney general and a corporate attorney before becoming an aide to Senator John Danforth (1979-81). Thomas caught the eye of the administration of President Ronald Reagan and ended up as the chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from 1982 until he was appointed in 1990 by President George Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals. In 1991 he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Bush, to fill the seat left by retiring justice Thurgood Marshall.

http://www.answers.com/topic/clarence-thomas


John Danforth
An heir to the Ralston Purina fortune, John Danforth was born in 1936. He served as ... his considerable clout to aid the confirmation of Thomas, a former Danforth ...

http://www.fact-index.com/j/jo/john_danforth.html



Thomas Criticized for 1990 Ruling

July 22, 1991|ReutersWASHINGTON — Clarence Thomas, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, may have violated judicial ethics in a 1990 ruling involving his political mentor, Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), a court watchdog group charged Sunday.

Thomas, a federal appeals court judge, wrote an opinion throwing out a $10.4-million fine against Ralston-Purina Co., the St. Louis-based pet food concern founded by Danforth's grandfather, said Supreme Court Watch, a nonprofit group headquartered in New York.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-22/news/mn-93_1_clarence-thomas



-----------------------

When the right wing says "someone caught their eye" ... what they mean is they found someone

willing to do unethical, corrupt and illegal things for them!!

[Jim__]

5. I'm sort of glad the Ginni Thomas brought this back into the news.

:rofl:

[LynneSin]

6. Let Sleeping Dogs lie

Guess Ginny never heard that phrase

[nc4bo]

12. Nope and now Mr. Thomas' indescretions will grow a fresh set of legs

and be exposed to another generation and refresh the memories of those who already knew.

She should have kept her big mouth shut. Then again, she's also been vocal and public with her Teabagger views.

Maybe she's trying to sabotage her husband's career?!

[speppin]

19. I am glad Ms. Thomas opened her big mouth. Glad the woman

in the OP finally said what she did. It must be difficult for her after all these years-but maybe also a feeling of relief that she finally is talking.

I wonder what Joe Biden is thinking. He was one of the big pushers to get Clarence on the bench.

[femrap]

57. If clarence was so

addicted to pron, what is he doing now??? I wonder if this has escalated to 'acting out.' He is a pervert and perversion just doesn't go away.

He has become a catholic and member of that creepy Opus Dei....

I wonder if his first wife is still living.

Possibly this marriage to the 'Church Lady' is just a way to mask his 'failings' while he continues in his perversions???

I'd put a 'tail' on him for a couple of weeks...bet one would find some lovely dirt.

[caseymoz]

47. She would have heard it as "let sleeping long dongs lie."

lol

[bos1]

8. I remember the hearings. There was no doubt that Anita Hill was telling the truth.

At one point a panel of her colleagues testified that she has told them, at the time, about the harassment by Clarence Thomas. Yet the media painted the situation as "who do you believe, him or her?"

Remember that when the media spins this elections as about an "enthusiasm gap". It's another lie. Get out and vote, it means more Elena Kagans, less Clarence Thomases, among other things.

[Nancy Waterman]

11. He played the race card and won

"High tech lynching" comment saved him.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. I wonder who gave him that line. He certainly didn't come up with it himself -

he hasn't had an original thought in his life.

[caseymoz]

48. Yeah, high-tech. She sits on a chair and tells her story.

I guess that was how they did high-tech before the Internet.

[girl gone mad]

96. He wasn't lynched, he lied his ass off.

And what an insult that statement was to the memory of victims of "low-tech" lynchings.

[caseymoz]

108. Agreed. nt

[caseymoz]

125. So, it gets an Orwell award, neither high-tech nor a lynching. nt

[femrap]

58. done by another

person of his race???? It just demonstrated to me how little weight is given to what a woman says. Hell, if 10 women testified to his sexual harassment, I wonder if it would have made any difference. Woman lose their jobs and get blackballed in DC. It's a small world in DC. It's HE SAYS, she says.

[Constance Craving]

17. Must've been in the air

I was in Santa Fe two weeks ago at a rubber-stamp shop. They had a stamp on clearance for .50 and I snatched it right up . . . thinking I was so clever. Well, looks like my new "I believe Anita Hill." stamp will be getting a LOT of use! :evilgrin:

[sadbear]

18. No reason to let this distraction die

This needs to become a story that will dog Thomas as long as he's on the bench. Throw in the Koch brothers, too. Then man doesn't even ask questions. He just votes with Scalia and Alito. He's useless and needs to resign.

[Nancy Waterman]

119. I agree. Keep the story alive

Scream that he needs to recuse himself on any sexually related case due to his harassment history and obsession with porn. Scream he should recuse himself from anything related to women due to his clear misogyny. Scream that he recuse himself over any case related to a global corporation and its taxes or or refusal to be regulated. Make life impossible for him. Organize huge demonstrations against him, demanding he be impeached for perjury. We should use some of the right-wing's tactics by stirring up an emotional cauldron that intimidates politicians and gets them to do our bidding.

[madokie]

20. Maybe its just her dumbassedness shinning through

after all she married the bastid

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. kick and recommend!! VERY IMPORTANT!!!

[ensho]

23. impeach

nt

[defendandprotect]

24. About a dozen women were prepared to testify against Clarence Thomas ....

This was one of the women --

Another woman, Sukari Hardnett, who worked as a special assistant to Thomas in 1985 and 1986, wrote in a letter to the Judiciary Committee that "If you were young, black, female and reasonably attractive, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female" by Thomas.

Note also that Lillian McEwen used to work for Sen. Joe Biden --

[wordpix]

115. sounds like the committee was holding back---obstruction of justice

[defendandprotect]

167. They tried very hard not to even let Congress know about Prof. Hill's charges ....

Prof. Hill, as I recall it, got the info to them --

perhaps in a personal note -- but she didn't want to testify --

correctly she was expecting the committee to investigate.

Several of the women in the USHR found out about it and marched

over to the Committee -- that's how it began to pile up.

[Stargleamer]

30. Anita sure could have used her help back then. . .

if only McEwan had risen to the occasion and told what she knew.

[66 dmhlt]

77. She could not be called to testify ...

She only knew Thomas socially - not professionally. And from the article Biden limited the witness selection:

She was never asked to testify, as then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who headed the committee, limited witnesses to women who had a "professional relationship" with Thomas.

Which only begs the question: would've Biden called on women to testify if they had known Thomas while working in the capacity of "the oldest profession"?

[wordpix]

116. Biden was wrong, then. He should have opened it up to both social & prof's

If a woman knows someone socially who regularly harasses her and he is being considered for high public office, her testimony should count.

In a criminal proceeding re: murder, say, a bona fide witness can be someone who was told about the murder by the perp, or who was present during events leading up to the crime, even though said witness was not there at the murder scene.

In the case of Long Dong, there were many other harassment victims or witnesses who weren't allowed to speak b/c they were not in the "professional" category. Therefore, the committee and public did not have all the dots to connect. Too bad.

[msanthrope]

178. She told Biden--heck, she WORKED for Biden while she dated Thomas. n/t

[msanthrope]

31. Judge McEwen worked for Biden while dating Thomas. Told him about Clarence.....

And Biden helped put that dirtbag on the court....

[BurtWorm]

53. Did she tell Biden? She must have!

And Biden gave Thomas a pass?!

[GETPLANING]

36. Clarence Thomas committed perjury

at his confirmation hearings. This is no longer in doubt. He should either demonstrate his committment to the high ethical standards of the US Judiciary, or he should be impeached.

[FreepFryer]

84. Ding ding ding. (n/t)

[onenote]

165. a good lawyer could probably make a case that its not clear he did

I hate being in the position of even being perceived at defending Thomas, since I have no doubt he is as big a creep as has been alleged and, in any case, is one of the least qualified individuals to ever get on the court and has certainly not "grown" in the job -- from all appearances he still has little independent understanding of, or curiosity about fundamental legal principles. He is a lap dog for Scalia.

That said, if you read the transcripts from his confirmation hearing, he was careful and clever enough to couch his denials in terms of claims of sexual harassment and to state on more than one occasion that he was not going to discuss the allegations leveled against him about his private sexual interests or behavior. While I have no doubt that he did engage in sexual harassment, I'm not sure that the statements coming out today provide more proof regarding his harassment of Anita Hill than what was known at the time he was confirmed.

My most sincere hope is that Obama serves long enough to appoint a replacement for at least one of the core conservatives on the bench. If its Thomas, great. If not, that's okay since it wouldn't surprise me that if Thomas finds himself in the minority on the court, he decides to cash out and go make some real money on the lecture/Fox News circuit.

[Bette Noir]

38. A-tee and a-hee.

Watching teabaggers squirm is so much fun.

[TomCADem]

51. AOLNews - "Ex-Girlfriend: Clarence Thomas 'Was Obsessed With Porn'"

Most of the news is still watering down her comments.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/clarence-thomas-ex-girlfriend-lillian-mcewen-says-he-was-obsessed-with-porn/19685574

[BurtWorm]

52. She was on the fucking Judiciary committee as Biden's counsel!

Did she say nothing then? Or did she say something and the committee just looked the other way?

[defendandprotect]

74. Great question ..... !! ?????

[msanthrope]

179. Joe knew. He just didn't want to preside over a 'high tech' lynching because of

his Presidential aspirations.

[Quixote1818]

59. I bet Thomas is Pissed at his wife for opening this all back up! :) nt

[USA_1]

63. Thomas Has Nothing to Worry About

Republicans can get with anything. Look how easily Bush got away with murder.

Thomas won't suffer the least bit of consequences.

[ooglymoogly]

65. This is not a can of worms, it is a can of snakes and Thomas

is the most venomous; a smarmy pusillanimous snake at that.

Instead of black, his robes should be colored red next to yellow.

[AlbertCat]

66. It might get good if Rush and his ilk start quoting...

... the then anti-Anita literature to make this all sound "nutty" and "slutty". Because the main slanderer of Hill was David Brock, who has majorly and sincerely mea culpa-ed and will gladly expose how the lie machine worked back then. Indeed, he'd love the chance to help Hill these days.

[janet118]

105. Rush was the "best man" at the Thomases' wedding . . .

I read somewhere that Danforth introduced them. I feel that Ginni and Clarence deserve each other. Their marriage must be a living hell for both of them. Thomas is completely unqualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court. He is a cruel joke played on this country by Bush I. Gawd, I fear and loathe the Bushes.

[ooglymoogly]

120. That would be in orwellian newspeek of course "best"

[jaysunb]

68. What Gall !

Anita Hill said she was telling the truth when she testified almost 19 years ago, and she reiterated that she told the truth after the voicemail from Virginia Thomas. "I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony," she said in a recent statement. There is not much to be gained in going over all of this again, is there?
Well, actually there might be. One gain can be visibility for the Tea Party. Virginia Thomas is a longtime conservative activist and founder of a new nonprofit group, Liberty Central, a right-wing, "libertarian" organization. She was a keynote speaker earlier this month in Richmond, Va., at a state convention billed as the largest tea party event ever.
Anita Hill deserves an apology for having her life once again disrupted and being used by a right-wing activist in what seems yet another attempt by the Tea Party to drive their extremist agenda and move American history backwards.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2010/10/why_anita_hill_deserves_an_apology.html?sid=ST2010102004599

Has the "stupid level" risen this high ? Clarence & Ginny both need to be smacked up side their stupid heads. :evilfrown:

[Tx4obama]

73. Sez: ''Partial To Women With Large Breasts''

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/lillian-mcewen-clarence-thomas-ex-girlfriend_n_772302.html

[KansDem]

76. Q: What did Clarence Thomas say when someone spilled a soft drink in his lap?

A: "Who put the Coke in my pubic hair?"

[BrklynLiberal]

81. I would guess that hearing that story is exactly why Ms Thomas called Anita Hill and opened this can

of worms again. She wanted to see her loving husband squirm....day and night.

[regnaD kciN]

90. I think not. I think it was gloating...

Reminding her, and us, that they won -- Thomas got his lifetime appointment, cast the deciding vote to hand the presidency to Dubya, and now sees their side as about to liquidate progressivism once and for all. The "invitation" to apologize basically comes down to "this is what you are going to have to do in order to survive once we take power for good."

[BrklynLiberal]

97. I fervently hope that they are are all very, very sadly disappointed....

[mzteris]

92. so wtf didn't Lillian tell the truth

back then?????????????????????????

I appreciate her candor now, but I would have damn site appreciated it MORE BACK THEN to keep that @sshole weasel off the damn BENCH!!

[newspeak]

123. as I understand it, there were other women ready and willing

to testify, they were not allowed. I think it was created to be a "he said, she said" hearing, so Thomas could the selected.

[HughMoran]

98. K&R!

[nadine_mn]

99. Note Ginny said "what you did WITH my husband" not "TO"

That part of the phone message stuck out to me the most

I agree with a previous post not to be surprise when Clarence comes out with 'an addiction" goes to rehab and comes back "cured"

[gauguin57]

103. Yo! Ginni Thomas! Time for some more drunk-dialing, girl!

*hic* I wan you to apologiszhe to my hushband *hic*

[Control-Z]

111. Wow. I have to question

Lillian McEwen's silence.

A Law School graduate, administrative law judge, law professor, private attorney, as well as federal prosecutor and Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer, chose not to speak publicly about her relationship with Justice Thomas for 19 years? She protected this slimy man because he told her to?

What kind of person would do that? What kind of woman would leave another woman alone to face public humiliation when she had all the power in the world to prevent it? Not to mention the broader implications had she come forth. And now, when she conveniently has a book to peddle, she breaks her silence?

Oh, and what about the first wife who also agreed not to speak about her relationship with Thomas publicly? I Googled her and found nothing. What is it with women like this? I just don't understand.

I can only imagine how completely alone Anita Hill must have felt during those hearings, demeaned and degraded for the world to see. I can only hope Thomas finally pays the price for his disgusting behavior after all these year. I hope somehow he is made to suffer for what he's done, in front of the world like Hill did.

[wordpix]

114. wow, thanks for not talking when it could have done some good, & giving us Long Dong on SCOTUS

:puke:

I wish people would speak up when they see the wrong person up for a high post

[kiranon]

121. Ginny perhaps thought with the Tea Party behind her she could force

an apology out of Anita Hill. Denial is a powerful force.

[Judi Lynn]

124. NY Times: Ex-Companion Details ‘Real’ Thomas

Ex-Companion Details ‘Real’ Thomas
By ASHLEY PARKER
Published: October 22, 2010

WASHINGTON — Lillian McEwen is not one of the women whose name is generally associated with Justice Clarence Thomas and his contentious confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court seat.

But now, at age 65 and retired from a long legal career, with nothing to lose and a book to sell, Ms. McEwen is ready for that to change.

This week’s news that his wife, Virginia, had left voice mail for Anita Hill, asking her to apologize for “what you did with my husband” at the confirmation hearings, gave Ms. McEwen an unexpected opportunity to talk about Justice Thomas, the man she was romantically involved with for “six or seven years” in the 1980s. The phone call, she said in an interview Friday, makes sense to her.

For Ms. Thomas, she said, the accusation of sexual harassment made by Ms. Hill “still has to be a mystery, that he is still angry about this and upset about it after all these years, and I can understand that she would want to know why, and solve a problem if she could — I mean, acting as a loyal wife.”

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/us/politics/23thomas.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=us

[L. Coyote]

126. A Perjurer on the US Supreme Court

Source: consortiumnews.com

In late 1998, when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about a sexual affair, many on the Right insisted that the issue wasn’t the sex but the perjury. They are now confronted with a parallel case in which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas quite clearly perjured himself to get his seat on the bench.

On Friday, former federal prosecutor Lillian McEwen, one of Thomas’s girlfriends in the 1980s, broke a long silence and confirmed that Thomas did engage in sexual harassment of women at work and did discuss pornography in the way that Anita Hill and other women described to the Senate during Thomas’s confirmation hearings in 1991.

During those hearings, Thomas angrily denied the allegations, calling them “a high-tech lynching.” Simultaneously, his right-wing allies mounted an aggressive campaign to destroy the credibility of Hill and other accusers.

The tactics worked. Thomas narrowly won Senate confirmation ...

Read more: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/102310.html

---

He said, she said. .... However, if everyone came forward, Thomas would have to resign.

Perjury before Congress is still a felony, right? ... or it that unless you are on the right?

[L. Coyote]

127. Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102106645_pf.html

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2010

For nearly two decades, Lillian McEwen has been silent -- a part of history, yet absent from it.

When Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his explosive 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Thomas vehemently denied the allegations and his handlers cited his steady relationship with another woman in an effort to deflect Hill's allegations.

Lillian McEwen was that woman.

At the time, she was on good terms with Thomas. The former assistant U.S. attorney and Senate Judiciary Committee counsel had dated him for years .....

[rasputin1952]

151. It should be remembered she was never clled to testify....

the cowards in the Senate did not pursue the proper course of action. Every aspect should have been looked at, not just some Senators would be "embarrassed" by. Thaomas would be a footnote in history if the hearings were conducted properly.

Regardless, he's still the most stupid USSC judge we've ever had, and he is worthless as a human being....a pig in black robe.

[nolabear]

128. Sounds like lying before congress to me. Sack him, I say.

[No Elephants]

129. I know the deluded fool actually described Supreme Court confirmation hearings of

pitifully under-qualified man thus:


"This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."


That was such an affront to families of victims of lynchings. However, I don't recall his denying the allegations.

[benld74]

130. Lillian THIS is BS! Where the hell were u 19 years ago when it would have mattered?

[Judi Lynn]

132. They knew about her, both sides. She has said she wondered when they would call her.

Biden got a statement from her.

[molly77]

145. Joe Biden needs to go before congress

and explain why he hid evidence and would not call Anita Hill's witnesses.

[Iliyah]

133. He's a

GOP Tea Bat extreme conservatud and they truly believe that "GOD" put them on earth to ruin I mean run the country with truthfulness, honor, patriotism, and the American dream.

[molly77]

144. I don't think Anita Hill's witnesses were called during

those god awful hearings. You know how it goes. Easy on the republicans and throw the book at democrats. It is time to impeach Thomas and John Roberts.John Roberts was not going to be an activist judge.

[Demoiselle]

159. You are correct, Molly.

They had at least three women willing to testify about his behavior waiting in D.C. Never called em. I'm still furious about it.

[happyslug]

171. He already had the votes for confirmation

Moved to 172, while I started to write it as a response to your post, the more I Wrote the more it seems to fit better as a response to the first post, so I moved it.

[INdemo]

161. She wasn't trying to find a book publisher then..

She came forward not necessarily to prove that Thomas lied...She trying to get a book deal..

[Scruffy1]

131. Silly wabbit-those laws and rules don't apply to Rethugs

[Judi Lynn]

134. You'd think the same red-faced, bloated "patriots" who chewed the scenery over Bill Clinton's

"lying to Congress" would be just as driven mad over a bona fide incident of sexual harrassment and lying to officials.

Surely they're not pompous, treacherous, lying phonies, are they? How could that be, when they are moral from even before birth?

[sulphurdunn]

135. Thomas is just a run of the mill perv.

His real claim to fame is in being to the Court what Bush Jr. was to the Presidency. :puke:

[tavalon]

137. If we get him or any of them out, we could tilt the court in a way

that would allow the treasonous Citizen's United decision to be reversed.

[ProudDad]

136. Time to Impeach -- but they won't (n/t)

[Kelvin Mace]

138. No spine in the Dem leadership for this

Rush Limbaugh would say mean things about them.

Plus, it would be so, unbipartisan.

Besides, folks are too busy getting ready to cave on tax cuts for the rich:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102206817.html

[mod mom]

157. Yep...just like past presidential elections.

:mad:

[COLGATE4]

139. It's an even easier case to make a perjurer of Slappy - in his

'hearings' he testified under oath that he had never heard or, or thought of, Roe v Wade. For anyone in Law School at the time Slappy was that was a virtual impossibility. The lying about the fascination with porn and raunchy humor (pubic hair on my Coke can) was just icing on the cake. But he got away with it, anyway. Go figure.

[onenote]

163. actually thomas' statement about the lack of discussion of Roe v Wade seems plausible to me

Let me be clear at the outset that Thomas was, is, and will forever be one of the least qualified persons to obtain a seat on the Supreme Court. He has demonstrated throughout his tenure on the bench an almost pathological inability to think for himself and his failure to participate in oral arguments is an affront to the very notion of how the courts n this country should operate.

However, it is not accurate to say that he testified under oath that he "had never heard of, or thought of, Roe v. Wade." What he said, as taken from the transcript of the hearing, was that he remembered discussions of the Griswold case, but "could not remember personally engaging in" discussions of Roe v Wade while in law school.

That statement, while seemingly shocking and unbelievable to many people, doesn't actually surprise me. I attended law school in the late 1970s. Several major cases were decided by the SCOTUS while I was in school, including the Bakke case and the Pacifica case, both of which one might think would be widely discussed by students. But I don't recall any discussion of them at the time. For the most part, law school professors (and I have one in my family) don't focus on current cases. And law students, surprisingly, and certainly in the pre-internet era when copies of the text of current opinions were not instantaneously and universally available, tend to operate in a bit of a cocoon. You are, for right or wrong, focused on what you need to know to pass your exams, not the latest decisions.

Again, I think Thomas is a waste of space and should never have been confirmed for a position on the SCOTUS. But oddly, I don't find his statement about the lack of discussion of Roe while he was in law school to be particularly surprising, given my own experience just a few years later.

[SnakeEyes]

140. Why would he have to resign?

The allegations would have to be proven true in an impeachment hearing and then he'd need to be convicted. They have no shame and won't resign without going through it all and being forced out.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

147. Then an impeachment should be commenced

[EFerrari]

141. K&R

[underpants]

142. Clinton impeached December 19, 1998 - 4 months later - Clinton cited for contempt April 13, 1999

THERE WAS NO CONVICTION OF A "HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR" TO IMPEACH HIM FOR

December 19, 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton


CLINTON IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT ON JONES LAWSUIT
April 13, 1999
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807EFDB1F38F930A25757C0A96F958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/D/Decisions%20and%20Verdicts&pagewanted=all

[happyslug]

173. It is clear that "High Crimes and Misdemeanor" is whatever Congress finds to be "High Crimes.."

The Impeachment clause is vague, but it is clear enough that what is a "High crime or Misdemeanors" is up to CONGRESS not the courts.

The best explanation came up in a story I read on the Constitutional debate on Impeaching President Clinton. The debate was between Governor Morris and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. Please note this debate is from memory not verbatim (My Spell Check change Governor Morris's first name, I can NOT remember how he spelled it, but it was different then the Conventional spelling for Governor):

Governor Morris "I move that the President be unimpeachable"
Benjamin Franklin: "He will be impeached or assassinated"
Governor Morris: "I withdraw my motion".

Basically, during Watergate, Nixon's Cheating on Income Tax was viewed as a non-impeachable offense, on the ground no one would be passing the hat to pay for an assassin over Nixon's cheating on his taxes. On the other hand, lying under oath may be enough if the lie was part of a power play on part of the President. Thus the House was about to impeach Nixon when he resigned.

Notice it was CONGRESS that decided what was an impeachable offense NOT the Courts and as such what Clinton did meets the CONSTITUTIONAL requirements of being a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" tghe House of Representatives found it to be. Clinton's acquittal tends to show that what he did does NOT meet the requirement of "High Crimes and Misdemeanor" for the Senate could NOT convict him on that grounds.

As to Clinton's crime, the same rule apply, it is up to Congress to determine what is an impeachable offense NOT any other court. What other courts do in regards to the same underlying crime does NOT come into play with impeachment (In fact the president Could commit a crime, but if Congress refuses to impeach him over it, it is NOT an impeachable offense) even if the President is later convicted of that crime in a court of law (Provided he does not pardon himself for the Crime).

[underpants]

177. Thanks I did not know that

Seriously thanks

[cstanleytech]

143. If this had come out either during or soon after he gave that testimony it

might have a good pair of legs to stand on but not after 19 years, sorry.

[ixion]

146. The impeachment of Clinton was about sex, nor was it about perjury

it was a theatrical event meant to drag Clinton through the mud.

[Enthusiast]

148. Thomas is a typical Republican.

No personal responsibility while the constantly rail against the behavior of others. They are fundamentally bad people. Sorry, that's just the way I've come to see it.

[Zambero]

154. Not to mention climbing up the affirmative action ladder..

and then once he was well-positioned, using every means possible to pull that ladder up and out of reach so that others might not benefit as well.

[BrklynLiberal]

149. There are probably 5 perjurers on the Supreme Court right now.

[Control-Z]

183. Ooh. Interesting number.

How'd you come up with that? :sarcasm:

[Botany]

150. Nothing will happen because William Rehnquist and "Operation Eagle Eye" ....

.... worked to keep minorities from registering and voting in Arizona in the 1960s
and when asked about his actions when he was up for Chief Justice Rehnquist told
the Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not remember if or if not he had tried to
stop people from voting and not a damn thing happened to him.

Besides 3 other women who did not know each other all came forward to say that Justice
Thomas had sexually harassed them but they were not not called to give testimony @
his Judiciary hearing either.


I swear to God some republicans could fuck a goat on the capital steps and then set it on
fire and some in the press and the right wing talkers would just say that the goat
was lonely and cold and the republican just came along and helped out.

[defendandprotect]

168. Nice post ...

and funny --!!

:evilgrin:

[stray cat]

152. Were you also in favor of arresting Bill Clinton for perjury?

[TwentyFive]

153. Impeach Thomas. He can always find employment at...FAUX NEWS.

But Murderock better have his sexual harassment insurance all paid up.

[NorthCarolina]

155. This puts Republicans in an untenable position.

If the Dems should explore impeachment, and the GOP tries to block it from proceeding, then the Dems can claim that the GOP impeachment against Clinton was clearly for political gain.

If the GOP goes along with proceedings to avoid the "hypocrite" label, then they stand a good chance that they would lose a conservative justice, and another SC vacancy for Obama to fill.

If they attempt to claim that it wasn't today's Republican's that sought to impeach Clinton, then they run the risk of angering their fundamentalist base who frown upon 'other peoples' sexual affairs being allowed to go unpunished.

It's a Lose...Lose...Lose for the GOP.

Too bad this entire effort will disappear after the elections.

[Tx4obama]

158. Huh?

What effort?
Have you seen where a Congressman is thinking of impeaching Thomas? I love to read that link :)
The only thing I've seen so far is that DeFazio is investigating impeachment for Roberts.

[NorthCarolina]

162. See #126

Perjury is an impeachable offense.

[Tx4obama]

164. I read that article. There's nothing in there that says anything about an effort to do anything....

regarding the 'perjury'
There is nothing in the article that says any congress person is looking into to it at all.
That is why I am asking what 'effort' are you referring to?
I wouldn't consider the fact that the ex-girlfriend coming out and talking an 'EFFORT' to impeachment - she said that she holds no bad feelings towards Thomas.
I have not seen anything anywhere that states the Congress or anyone else is pushing for impeachment of Thomas', that's why I asked for a link that says so.

[NYC Liberal]

169. "claim that the GOP impeachment against Clinton was clearly for political gain"

They've already admitted it, publicly and with no shame. Henry Hyde openly said that it was "revenge" for the Watergate investigations.

[Plucketeer]

156. OOPS!

Reckon Ginny has Lillian's phone number???

[indimuse]

160. KNR! n/t

[happyslug]

172. Lets remember the time period, Bush sr was President, and had Nominated Thomas

Biden was holding the hearing, and it was clear he did NOT want to hear the stories of Thomas's private life. Biden, like almost all of the left, could count and Thomas had the votes BEFORE Anita Hill came to light. The Democrats knew of those allegations and that it would have NO AFFECT on the Senators already committed to Confirming Thomas. Thus the Democrats left those accusation alone and concentrated on his actual legal work. The Democrats thought that such attacks would be the best way to get some of the Senators to switch votes, they had no faith that the sexual harassment charge would have ANY affect on those same Senators.

After the hearing were DONE and it was clear that Thomas would be confirmed the someone "leaked' the sexual harassment information. To this day no one knows who. It had been common knowledge in Washington, but the attitude it would appear to be a hit piece so the Democrats did NOT bring it up (In fact the reports had been given to each Senator, but had no affect on those Senators whose vote was needed to Confirmation).

The story I read at the time was the GOP (we are talking of Bush SR) had made a plan that the GOP saw as a way to divide up the Democratic Party. The plan was simple, whenever a seat opened up in the supreme Court, the GOP would nominate a radical right wing ideologue who was either female, Hispanic or African-American. When Thorougood Marshall died that meant the choice was going to be an African-American. Thus Thomas was picked. The sole purpose was to divide African-American voters from the Democrats AND (and more to the point) get the increasing number of suburban females (who have been traditionally GOP, but even then wanting Abortion and other social programs advocated by the Democrats) to return to voting GOP.

Thus the circus Thomas's second set of hearings became (Remember he had already gone through the hearing by the Senate Committee headed by Biden, and won that committee vote, through Biden voted against Thomas). The Second set of hearing was all politics and the Democrats knew it. The Democrats were forced to give what the GOP was demanding, Thomas a chance to respond to these allegations. The Democrats saw nothing but politics in play, and tried to figure out a way to minimize the time that show was to be on the air.

Worse I knew several senior Citizen African American women who were convinced that the Democrats were out to get Thomas because he was African American. Could NOT tell them anything else. There are all deceased now (The one's I personally knew) but to a degree I saw it again in 2008, the African American supported Obama because he was African American and opposed Hillary, for Hillary was just Anti-African American for she was running against an African-American. Some of this is that the African American Community has learned a hard lesson in history, support your own at any cost, so you can count of their support when you need it (It is also the reason Employers HATE African American Employees, they are the quickest to join a Union and Support a Union for the same reason).

Sorry, Thomas had the votes for Confirmation BEFORE Anita Hill name ever hit the news, and continue to have those votes afterward. The second set of Hearing was just for show and even at that the GOP hated the fact that Biden was running the show and minimizing the length of those hearings so to minimize the harm the Democrats were getting from holding those hearing ON that subject.

Biden was forced by the GOP to hold those second set of Hearings and he did all he could to minimize those hearings. No Senator was going to change their vote, for they all knew of those accusation as Thomas was nominated and underwent his first set of hearings. The accusation were KNOWN and DISMISSED for not a single Senator was going to change their vote over that issue. That was know while before the first set of hearings were done (The hearing BEFORE the accusation hit the papers). In the Second set of Hearings nothing knew came out, no votes changed. IT was all a GOP attempt to divide the Democratic Base by putting a wedge between the Democratic Party and the African American Community (It only work to a degree in that regard) AND to get female Suburban women to continue to and switch back to the GOP (See the Democrats are bring this up without any real evidence).

Sorry, I remember those hearings and that was my impression of them, a show trial but this time the person in the Dock (Thomas) was portrayed as a victim of a "high tech lynching" instead of the sexual predator he was. The GOP had planned on that for months, and when the Democrats refused to plan forced the Democrats to play by having the accusations published. The Women's and African American groups took it from there (Yes the GOP planned both like a fiddle). The Democrats had wanted to avoid the whole accusation but they hands were forced by the articles in the Papers. The Democrats then minimize the damage with the short second set of hearings.

Given those sets of facts on the ground, would you call any Witnesses except the ones you HAD to? That is what Biden did, left Anita Hill testify as to her side, left Thomas give his side and then dismiss the second set of hearings. Any more would have just given the GOP more ammunition in the upcoming elections. The Senate KNEW of the Accusations AND knew of the other Witnesses, but not a single Senator was going to change their vote on that issue alone. Everyone knew that before the second set of hearings ever started so why call those additional witnesses? Pick your battles and this was a time I think the Democrats, correctly, decided NOT to fight. No matter what the Democrats did, they lost. The best thing is NOT to play, but if you have to, play the mini mun so to minimize the lost.

[saigon68]

176. And thank Arlen Sphincter the POS for his sanctimonious Enabling

I watched that POS (Sphincter) perform his enablement of Serial Predator Thomas.

His Foul Stench still permeates the democrat(sic) party.