Robert Reich Also Sets the Record Straight on Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill

[flpoljunkie]

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Qualifications: Setting the Record Straight

1. Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a new autobiography, labels Anita Hill his “most traitorous adversary,” once again denying the sexual harassment claims she made against him at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, and calling her a mediocre but ambitious lawyer. If Thomas wants to dredge up his past in an autobiography for which he reportedly got a million-dollar advance, he’s fair game for those of us who want to dredge up his background, too. At Yale Law School, which I attended with Thomas in the early 1970s, he was notable only for his silence, within the classrooms and without. He wore a skullcap and a scowl. After graduating, he led an undistinguished legal career. Under Reagan, he ran the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission without interest or vigor, and was tapped by Reagan for the Supreme Court only because he was a black conservative. Since then, Thomas has spoken rarely from the bench, asked few questions of lawyers appearing before the Court, and has issued opinions often lacking clarity or coherence. By contrast, Anita Hill has had a distinguished career as a lawyer and legal scholar, teaching and publishing on issues ranging from legal contracts to discrimination. She was my colleague on the faculty of Brandeis, and I know few people with more integrity. There’s not the slightest doubt in my mind that she told the precise truth at Thomas’s confirmation hearing, about the lurid sexual comments and advances he made to her. In my view, he was unqualified then to be a Supreme Court justice, and America is much the worse for the ease by which the Senate was intimidated into confirming him by his claim of being subjected to a “high-tech lynching.”

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/09/qualifications-setting-record-straight.html

Thank you again, Robert Reich!

[CatWoman]

1. I thought Poppy Bush was the one who put this jerk on the court?

:shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

7. I think he meant to type Bush. Was perhaps still thinking about Reagan "discovering" Clarence Thomas

In 1981 the new administration of President Ronald Reagan took notice of the rising young conservative and appointed him assistant secretary for civil rights in the Education Department. Thomas said in a 1987 speech, "I had, initially, resisted and declined taking the position of assistant secretary for civil rights simply because my career was not in civil rights and I had no intention of moving into this area... I always found it curious that even though my background was in energy, taxation, and general corporate regulatory matters, that I was not seriously sought after to move into one of these areas." After only ten months in the job, Reagan promoted him to be the director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/thomas.htm

[nvme]

61. it was Shrub 1

The nomination immediately came under attack. President Bush had called Thomas the best qualified candidate for the job, and said that race had not been a factor in his selection. But not even Thomas was sure he believed it. He was only 43 years old with barely a year's experience on the bench, but he was confident he could do the job.
From the 60 minutes interview sept 30 transcript p6.

I remember those hearings and how vile the pubic hair on a can of coke incident. Funny how he loves that discipline that granpappie gave him. too bad when his granpappie threw him out he didn't get hooked on crack or something nice like that.

[xxqqqzme]

77. The ONLY reason was because he was black.

He was a sorry ass excuse to take Thurgood Marshall's seat.

[flpoljunkie]

78. Reich has corrected his inadvertent error. Clarence Thomas appointed by George H. W. Bush.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Qualifications: Setting the Record Straight

1. Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a new autobiography, labels Anita Hill his “most traitorous adversary,” once again denying the sexual harassment claims she made against him at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, and calling her a mediocre but ambitious lawyer. If Thomas wants to dredge up his past in an autobiography for which he reportedly got a million-dollar advance, he’s fair game for those of us who want to dredge up his background, too. At Yale Law School, which I attended with Thomas in the early 1970s, he was notable only for his silence, within the classrooms and without. He wore a skullcap and a scowl. After graduating, he led an undistinguished legal career. Under Reagan, he ran the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission without interest or vigor, and was tapped by George H.W. Bush for the Supreme Court only because he was a black conservative. Since then, Thomas has spoken rarely from the bench, asked few questions of lawyers appearing before the Court, and has issued opinions often lacking clarity or coherence. By contrast, Anita Hill has had a distinguished career as a lawyer and legal scholar, teaching and publishing on issues ranging from legal contracts to discrimination. She was my colleague on the faculty of Brandeis, and I know few people with more integrity. There’s not the slightest doubt in my mind that she told the precise truth at Thomas’s confirmation hearing, about the lurid sexual comments and advances he made to her. In my view, he was unqualified then to be a Supreme Court justice, and America is much the worse for the ease by which the Senate was intimidated into confirming him by his claim of being subjected to a “high-tech lynching.”

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/09/qualifications-setting-record-straight.html

[DrDan]

43. it was poppy

[mediaman007]

2. Good find!

As a educated American, little about Clarence Thomas inspires me.

[immoderate]

21. When I see him speak, it's usually to children.

Just like Bush does.

--IMM

[defendandprotect]

44. Remember Quale and "potato" incident -- wasn't that also a kids' classroom?

[jgraz]

54. Um...it's Quayle, not Quale ;)

The Irony Faery strikes again. :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

67. typo -- too late to fix -- but funny . . ..

[rodeodance]

3. REC and thanks

[rodeodance]

8. lewd that he gets a million bucks for it upfront!

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. I

knew Anita Hill many years ago. Before the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. I believe every word she said.

[RufusTFirefly]

5. I Like Reich! K & R

Heard his speech before the Commonwealth Club of California recently. As always, it was insightful, inspiring, and occasionally hilarious.

At one point he compared life in Washington with life in the Academy (I'm paraphrasing):

"I've spent half of my adult life in Washington and the other half in the
Academy, and I can tell you that the politics in the two places are very different.
In Washington, it's dog-eat-dog. In the Academy, it's the reverse."

[Adelante]

72. That last line is wonderful

:D

[depakid]

6. Reich got his facts wrong

Bush appointed him and Southern Democrats confirmed him.

[rodeodance]

9. I do not recall the dates.Could it be pre-Bush (Bush just followed)?? just a thought?

[rodeodance]

11. I checked. seems it was GHWB that did the deed

[Cha]

10. Yeah, that's too bad cause

it's important for people to come out point out where clarence thomas is dead wrong. I know all those fascists are all ugly but we have to try and keep their names straight.

[Submariner]

16. Biden led the charge against Anita with Spector and Hatch

For that reason I could never vote for Biden for prez.

[oasis]

28. I remember Specter, Hatch and Alan Simpson going after Hill, but not Biden. Did Biden

say anything in particular that damaged her case?

[Cameron27]

30. If I remember correctly,

Biden held off her testimony till late in the day (?) but I thought he treated her contemptuously. I was furious with him about it for a long time, but I can't remember specifics right now though.

[gateley]

31. That surprises me about Biden as I know he's a champion of women's rights

today.

That was such a weird time. We'd never heard of a woman coming out and accusing a man of sexual harassment. On the one hand it just seemed so bizarre, on the other hand, it made no sense that such an intelligent young woman would put herself through a painful ordeal if she wasn't telling the truth.

If I recall, the reaction among we common folk was mixed. I think, in part because as I said, it was such an unheard of allegation. At least on the national level. We were all squirming.

At that time we (women) kind of went along with the status quo even if it made us uncomfortable. Old conditioning, I imagine. I try not to be too hard on myself because we were still fighting to be equals (we still are!) but as I said, it that type of behavior was pretty much accepted and ignored.

I bet a lot of people were not sure how to handle it, and in retrospect, realize where they were wrong and what they could have done better.

I'm not condoning Biden if your assessment is accurate, but I have no doubt if that's how he reacted at that time, he's a much smarter man today and would sincerely fight for Anita's rights.

We've all learned a lot and come so far. It breaks my heart that Anita, after her incredible bravery in coming forward, was villified.

[Cameron27]

32. Maybe he was getting the wrong info,

who knows. I've long since gone back to liking him though, because I think he's basically a very decent man.

[gateley]

35. Yeah, that's how I feel about him too. And even decent people make the wrong

choices at times. :)

[depakid]

38. He and others had every bit of information that they needed

Everything else aside- Thomas was not and is not qualified to sit on the bench.

Biden knew that well, and sold America out anyway.

[gateley]

39. Agree with your first statement. Not with your second. Like you care. nt

[depakid]

40. Because of Biden and the Southern Dems sell outs- we're stuck

with an incompetent, unethical ideologue for life.

That's just a fact. Biden's a lawyer- and the ABA itself (along with other witnesses) let EVERYONE know that Thomas was unqualified.

Apologize for him all you like- but there's no getting around that fact.

[gateley]

51. I'm not apologizing for him so much as trying to understand his actions. But

we really can't do that very objectively -- or at least I can't. So I guess I'm just accepting what occurred and moving on. People make fucked choices, but there's always the opportunity to learn from that and move in a better direction, and that's my feeling about Biden.

I WILL project enough to assume that people of conscience and basic goodness are deeply affected by their actions which they've come to realize and understand are just wrong and unjust. Considering myself one of those people, it's painful for me to acknowledge some of the things I've done in the past -- not sure I'll ever forgive myself, but I realize the wrongs and from my heart and experience, I don't make the same mistakes again. I think that's what growing as a person means. And I keep tryin!

I worked with a guy from Germany and someone asked if he felt a sense of guilt at the Holocaust. His feeling was despite the horror and shame and sadness, he didn't necessarily feel guilt because it was before his time, but he felt a strong responsibility to do what he could to ensure it didn't happen again.

Well I feel guilt (thank you, Catholic upbringing) because I was involved in the wrongs I committed (duh). Again, I'm assuming most people of goodness and good intent feel the same way. So that's why I look at Biden and don't assume if he felt that way then, he feels the same way now.

[CreekDog]

58. Biden voted against Thomas nt

[beaconess]

87. He voted no - AFTER he screwed up the hearings

[KoKo]

70. And Biden made Hill's corroborating witness wait until 2:00 a.m. in the morning

and then adjourned the hearing not allowing her to testify. I can't remember her name but she was the witness that could verify. I think David Brock wrote about her.

Biden conducted a sloppy hearing where he seemed pre-determined to confirm Thomas and was arrogant with HIll. I remember because I watched it......it was a big deal with many of us.

Anyway, David Brock should have a few choice words about Thomas's book. Also John Danforth was the biggest promoter of Thomas and he's the one whose now a minister but was being pushed for some position in Bush administration a few weeks ago.

[beaconess]

48. Biden completely screwed up the hearings and allowed Thomas' nomination to get to the Senate floor

Among other things, Biden knew about but chose to ignore the Anita Hill allegations when they were first brought to the Committee's attention. Had he done his job as Chair, it is likely that Thomas' nomination would have been withdrawn. Instead, he sat on the issue until it became public and then he lost control of the public spectacle that ensued. I remember how frustrated I was watching Clarence Thomas read the Committee the riot act while Biden sat there and said nothing. It was disgraceful.

[oasis]

52. Thomas' "Hi-tech lynching" bit was calculated to get the public to rally

to his support. He obviously had someone write his statement for him.

[CreekDog]

60. If Biden had scuttled a nomination because of unproven

Harassment allegations, the outcome would not have been any different.

You know, the same thing could be done to a Democrat and I have a feeling it would be interpreted differently here.

The real reason to vote against Thomas was not because of this allegation but because of his record (and lack of), his positions and his lack of experience.

This issue actually resulted in some civil rights organizations supporting Thomas simply because he was a black American. Had the issues been about his record and not unproven allegations, he might have lost that vote, but that's not what happened.

[beaconess]

62. I didn't say he should have "scuttled" the nomination

But had Biden done what he should have done as Chair - among other things, convened the Committee in Executive Session to consider the allegations - I have no doubt that Thomas' nomination would have been withdrawn. And even if they had not, the Committee's Democratic Senators would likely have voted the nomination down and it would never have gotten out of Committee.

You're right that there were plenty of reasons, aside from the Anita Hill matter, for Thomas to be defeated. And Biden, in my view, showed no leadership as Chair and seemed more concerned with hearing himself talk and not appearing to be too hard on Thomas than doing what he needed to do to keep him off of the bench.

[CreekDog]

73. I agree with the "hearing himself talk" quip about Biden, BUT

If that stopped anybody from being President, nobody else would have a chance.

[beaconess]

86. Who said anything about it stopping him from being president? I was talking

about his role in Thomas' confirmation

[PatSeg]

64. I just said something very similar

on another thread. Thomas was not qualified and that was verifiable. Hill's allegations, though disturbing, could not be proven and distracted from Thomas's poor credentials.

[defendandprotect]

45. Right -- Biden betrayed the many witnesses waiting to testify re Clarence's perversions ---

And, don't forget Allan Simpson -- another GOP pig ---
Imagine that we still have Specter -- the JFK assassination bully + cover-up aide --
and Orin Hatch -- specialist in turning women in to witches -- still in the Senate!!!!
How dumb are we????

[midlife_mo_Jo]

75. Although there were rumors of many waiting

There was only one woman waiting.

[CreekDog]

57. Biden voted against Thomas

Biden also had Anita Hill testify. A Republican would not have allowed her to testify.

The criticism of him on this is unfair. As chairman of the committee then, he allowed her to testify and as appropriate, he allowed Thomas to defend himself. What Thomas said doesn't appear to be true, but there is no way Biden could have prevented Thomas from defending himself and maintained ANY credibility.

Again, your criticism is patently unfair and I watched the hearings during breaks between college classes --I remember.

[DURHAM D]

81. I watched the entire hearing.

Biden turned it into a circus. He wanted the camera time for his cruel circus. He pitted Anita against Clarence. He made it look like they were both applying for the same job. A decade later I watched a discussion (think it was CSpan) wherein the rightie said that "Clarence won by beating Anita".

Every female law professor in the country knew about Clarence's problem for years before the 1991 nomination. When he was appointed head of the EEOC they felt it was a cruel joke played on all women by the Reagan White House.

Biden was in control of the process and he screwed up royally. I will never forgive him. And then he helped give us Condi and Gonzo.

[Quantess]

68. No, I think you're mistaken.

Joe Biden was on Anita Hill's side, as I remember.

[Jillian]

80. Biden also defended her butt by keeping a former collegue of hers from testifying

that would have discredited her even further

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v45/ai_13794068

The strongest evidence refuting Miss Hill's version of the circumstances surrounding her job change came from two people who, because of time pressures, were never called to testify before the Judiciary Committee.

Andrew Fishel was the head of the personnel office in the civil-rights division of the Department of Education during Miss Hill's tenure there. In a interview, he said that when she arrived at the department in late August 1981, he personally briefed her on her status as a Schedule A attorney. A year later, in 1982, Mr. Fishel continued, "we also had a discussion just prior to her leaving and going over the EEOC. . . .She told me she was going over as a Schedule A. She said she liked being a Schedule A because she was not subject to dismissal. . . .She said she was personally and professionally flattered to be going with Thomas, that it was a great career move. She showed no hesitancy."

[Susang]

89. You know that article is from the National Review, right?

And was written in 1993 by pre-liberal conversion David Brock? Or did you think to just slip that highly conservative source in without anyone challenging it? An article written by the man who wrote the smear job "The Real Anita Hill"?

Now, why would you want to post something like that to prove your point? Doesn't exactly look very good, does it?

[tigereye]

85. very few Senators of either party acquitted themselves well in those hearings

as I recall.

The whole thing was horrifying, esp. since Thomas was confirmed and the media aspect of it was so reprehensible.

[scarface2004]

12. uncle clarence is a right wing stooge

who would be standing on a corner holding a piece of cardboard with 'anything helps god bless' if he were white!!

[rodeodance]

13. In 1994, Thomas performed, at his home, the wedding ceremony for conservative radio host Rush Limbau

per wikipedia

[Teacher in SC]

14. Setting the Record Straight

I have believed Anita Hill from the beginning. If you watched her testimony on TV, understood her background including her childhood influences and values, you had no doubt she was telling the truth. I so identified with her need to see justice served in this situation, even though she risked ridicule and the ruin of her own career. Why that alone didn't give her the credibility she needed, I'll never understand. That was another dark period in our country's history.

In the meantime where is that yahoo who destroyed her in "The American Spectator," I think it was, and later recanted? How convenient. Long after the deed was done. Did he find a way to give her back her reputation?

[Raster]

15. Anita Hill should be sitting on the Supreme Court, not Thomas.

She is far more the worthy successor to the late, great Thurgood Marshall. Thomas is cut from the same Rethuglican cloth as Raygun, the bush*'s and cheney*. His very presence disgraces a once noble judiciary.

[goclark]

18. You got that right ~ Thomas is a sorry site on the bench

or off the bench.

[eppur_se_muova]

17. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[immoderate]

19. Was it David Brock? If so he has done penance...

He is the prop of Media Matters.

--IMM

[tblue37]

25. David Brock founded and runs _Media Matters_. He is doing

excellent work for our side and doing his best to make amends. In his political autobiography, Blinded by the Right he also detailed the vast right wing comspiracy in a way that has helped us to combat it and to illuminate its inner workings.

What he did was terrible, certainly, but he acknowledges that, is genuinely contrite, and is working his ass off trying to help reverse the damage.

And he doesn't need to give Anita Hill her reputation back. She did that very niceley all by herself. She is admired and respected. Clarence Thomas, not so much.

[Raster]

26. Welcome to DU. You are among friends.

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

46. I think you mean David Brock? Yes, he recounted -- but had done really vicious harm ---

Called Prof. Anita Hill "a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty" --

Ironically, Biden's last witness -- at the mike more than 4 hours into the wee hours of the morning -- was also African-America . . . a male trying to suggest that Hill was just that.

Biden let the GOP whackos go wild and let this guy ramble on for hourse -- until finally about 4 am he decided that he couldn't remember if indeed Prof Hill had called him or if HE had called her!!!!

That was the thrust of the GOP attack -- to make her nutty and slutty ---

Didn't work -- she stands today as an example of the fight for freedom and truth --
and Clarence as the epitome of shame and embarrassment of our neo-con Supremes and the damage they have done to the nation.

For anyone interested in the Hearings, there's a great book "Strange Justice" -- probably in your library -- Prof. Hill has a forward, as I recall and lots of input -- her story was edited, as I recall by two female journalists?

[spooky3]

79. the reason why, was sexism--pure and simple.

Doonesbury had a great cartoon about this time--asking why people would believe someone who had every "garden variety" motivation to lie and deny (Thomas), versus someone who had NO reason to make up a bizarre and colorful lie and, who testified only after some pressure to do so (Hill)?

[Pachamama]

20. A former professor of mine knows her well and even went out on some dates with her...

He spoke very highly of her and said that she had a lot of integrity and if she said what she did about Clarence Thomas, he believes her without a doubt.

[durrrty libby]

22. Clarence Thomas will be on 60 minutes Now

[ClintonTyree]

59. Is that for sure, or just a hunch?

Number one, I doubt he could stay awake for the time required for an interview. Number two, his ignorance and conservative bias would be on display for a nation that knows little about this unqualified sycophant that holds a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Whores.

I think it would be great if he were on 60 Minutes. Then the nation would see what an unqualified asshole Poppy Bush appointed to the Supreme Whore Court.

BRING IT ON! :applause:

On edit: From reading other posts I see he's already been on 60 Minutes. RATS! :banghead: I missed it. I'll have to keep an eye out in case they have a re-run.

[BrklynLiberal]

23. Clarence Thomas is just about the poorest excuse for Supreme Court Justice this country has ever had

As was stated in an earlier post, Anita Hill would have been a far better choice for the court. The entire country would have been far better off!

[defendandprotect]

47. Agree -- Professor Anita Hill would be a fine Supreme Court Justice --

and obviously will fight the good battle for justice and truth wherever she is ---

[jgraz]

55. Wouldn't that be a kick in the nuts?

Can we start lobbying now to put Anita Hill on the court?


Or maybe we should just call her back to testify and impeach Thomas' nazi ass for perjury.

[defendandprotect]

65. If C-SPAN ran the hearings IN FULL we could probably do it -- !!!!

[LuckyLib]

24. Thomas is (and was) a lightweight. The shocker was the Repugs did so little digging

that all they could come up with was a third-rate bureaucrat. Reich's comment about Thomas' "silence" in law school reveals something: Thomas has always known to keep his mouth shut -- opening it would reveal his minimal skills.

[defendandprotect]

49. The selection of a pervert in Clarence Thomas, IMO, is purposful . . ..

-- and a way to control him if he should ever get any liberal notions ---

Thomas has already been worth gold to them in the Gang of 5 decision to put Bush in the White House ---

He is a pervert nonetheless and I hope someone is keeping an eye on him --

[Grandrose]

27. Sorry Clarence....I still believe Miss Anita Hill!

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” Abraham Lincoln :nopity:

[stevebreeze]

29. I might have given some credence to Thomas if he had not lied before

Hill ever became an issue. He claimed in testimony before Congress before Hill became an issue that he did not discuss or ever gave much thought to Roe vs Wade. This happened while he was in law school. I was in an all boy trade school at the time WE discussed it there and Thomas never had a relevant discussion in law school? He has lived down to every expectation I have had of him.

[motocicleta]

33. I took a class with Ms. Hill at Brandeis,

and there is no question in my mind that Professor Reich has it right. Clarence Thomas should be ashamed to write this BS, but I guess a million dollar advance might inspire all kinds of narrative sleight-of-hand.

[Quixote1818]

34. He came across as someone who was bought by the Republican movers and shakers

He clearly sold out so he could move swiftly up the ladder. The guy despised Republicans then suddenly he saw $$ and did a 180 degree turn. He was exactly what they were looking for at the time. The whole thing reeks to high heaven.

[ProudDad]

37. I think thomas

was a fucked up puppy from the beginning...

Sociopaths come in all colors...

[defendandprotect]

50. Right -- Thurgood Marshall warned us before Clarence was nominated, saying . . ..

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

[ProudDad]

36. Grounds for impeachment?

"While most recent Supreme Court nominees have been deemed "well-qualified" by the American Bar Association (ABA), the rating for Judge Thomas was split between "qualified" and "not qualified." The ABA, however, has no official standing in the nomination or confirmation process.

Organizations including the NAACP, the Urban League and the National Organization for Women opposed the appointment based on Thomas's criticism of affirmative action and suspicions that Thomas might not be a supporter of the Supreme Court judgment in Roe v. Wade. Under questioning during confirmation hearings, Thomas repeatedly asserted that he had not formulated a position on the Roe decision."

He lied to Congress about Roe...

Y'all do realize that SCOTUS justices CAN BE IMPEACHED and REMOVED.


I can dream, can't I?

[chelsea0011]

41. Thomas is a judge with a huge chip on his shoulder and that

doesn't come from his beginnings which I found quite interesting on 60 Minutes. It comes when he enters Yale Law School and graduates and claims his degree is only worth $.15 and he keeps it packed away in the basement. What a fraud. I just wish that the video store he rented movies from would have leaked the list of the movies he did rent. We are all against invasion of privacy but at this point in time, that act would have kept him off the court because he would have been shown to have lied during his hearing into not renting porn.

[DrDan]

42. wow - tell us how you really feel about him . . .

[riona]

53. I'll never forget how she was treated at that hearing

It was a disgrace. I admired her greatly for her patience and dignity in the face of those horrid senators' comments, cruelty and relentless questioning.

[Peregrine Took]

66. I agree 100% - the rethugs were, typically, horrible to her but the Dems didn't

give her any support, either. She was out there all by herself.

[loudsue]

56. Watching him on 60-Minutes gave me the heebie-jeebies.

The man must really hate women. And himself.

As a youth, his mom packed his bags & sent him & his brother off to live with his VERY authoritarian (and likely, abusive) grandfather, and his grandmother. From what Thomas said about his grandfather, it sounded like his grandfather was pretty mucked up in the head. It sounded to me like his grandfather, even though he was in the black liberation movement, also taught Clarence that "whitey" was all powerful, and that he should learn how to "play the game". Well, playing the game has certainly helped this man all his life, and he has prospered by selling out his own soul.

Clarence Thomas is one mucked up mofo. I can't even imagine that a lot of the white, right-wing conservatives watching the show would have felt very comfortable with what Thomas said during the 60-minutes show, and I now see why we don't hear much from Thomas. He's just so ANGRY. I felt like I was watching a time-bomb.

rec. & a kick.

:kick:

[Hamlette]

63. k&r

[madrchsod]

69. never underestimate the damage this man can do

untill he retires from the court. roberts,thomas,and scalia have already started rolling back america to the 1800`s .

[Disturbed]

74. He was accused of sexual harrasment & spun that into

a racial attack. This is what Repugs typically do. They re-frame the issue. It certainly worked for him because he got the votes he needed to obtain a job that he was unqualified to do.

[avrdream]

71. Great post and another excellent thread.

I remember being flabbergasted when Thomas was actually CONFIRMED, that's how much I believed Anita Hill's testimony.

I still shake my head everytime I see him on the news at all.

And I love the idea of putting Anita up as a possible candidate for SCOTUS. HA!

[WilyWondr]

76. Clarence on 60 mins on Youtube

in case you missed it......and want to see it.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

[tigereye]

82. I love Robert Reich!

too bad he's not running.

[ooglymoogly]

83. I watched those hearings intently.

Anita came across as one of the most honest witness I have ever witnessed...Clarence like Shitler came across as a congenital Lier and climber way beyond his abilities. Am happy to hear Anita has done well, she is a class act. Nobody is going to believe that idiot uncle Thomas, book or no.

[cobalt1999]

84. I remember how neutered the dems were during that hearing.

The "high tech lynching" combined with Ted Kennedy's nephew (?) party and sexual assault accusation going on at the same time had the dems afraid to say anything.

[roxnev]

88. Qualifications

Means sh!t to Republicans, a pledge to Republican bullsh!t means more to Republicans than TRUTH. As a fact Truth is not in the Republican dictionary.