Clarence Thomas' Wife Calls Anita Hill To Ask for an Apology

[Redjack]

The guy is an empty suit who has arrived at his position simply by token-ism; he is everything the conservatives claim they hate about Affirmative Action. He's been rubber-stamping Scalia his whole career as a Justice (siding with him 3 out of every 4 times (75% of the time in other words) at bat) and often barely writing anything beyond, "Yassuh, boss." Just supporting Scalia is grounds for a psychiatric intervention in my book. Thomas' wife is an idiot who should not drunk dial.

[Catch22]

The guy is an empty suit who has arrived at his position simply by token-ism; he is everything the conservatives claim they hate about Affirmative Action. He's been rubber-stamping Scalia his whole career as a Justice (just supporting Scalia is grounds for a psychiatric intervention in my book). His wife is an idiot (a black person who supports and is a "fan" of Rush Limbaugh? WOW.) who should not drunk dial.

His wife is white.  She's no less of an idiot, but she's a white idiot. 

[Redjack]

Really?

Well, that's all right then.   

i'll just go back and revise. thanks.

[michaelintp]

Regarding the smears against Justice Thomas (which, in my view, rely on offensive and disgusting racial stereotypes):

Anyone who is familiar with the opinions of Justice Thomas, and who has actually read what he has written, knows that Clarence Thomas is not an empty head who parrots the opinions of Justice Scalia. Sure, they usually agree, as their judicial philosophy of Constitutional interpretation is the same. However, Thomas is more principled, as evidenced by the times he has diverged from Scalia. As in the marijuana case. Which is why I so respect Justice Thomas. He holds to his principles in a way that can only merit admiration.

The man is a brilliant jurist.  

[Redjack]

Regarding the smears against Justice Thomas (which, in my view, rely on offensive and disgusting racial stereotypes):

Anyone who is familiar with the opinions of Justice Thomas, and who has actually read what he has written, knows that Clarence Thomas is not an empty suit who rubber stamps the opinions of Justice Scalia. Sure, they usually agree, as their judicial philosophy of Constitutional interpretation is the same. However, Thomas is more principled, as evidenced by the times he has diverged from Scalia. As in the marijuana case. Which is why I so respect Justice Thomas. He holds to his principles in a way that can only merit admiration.

The man is a brilliant jurist.  

See, when you quote me, that's the opposite of leaving me alone, troll. Or did you miss that day in bigoted idiot school?

[michaelintp]

Redjack, on this thread the topic I raised was Justice Thomas's caliber as a jurist (in response to the article Reginald posted). Feel free to address the issue I raised, or any other issue regarding Justice Thomas. However, I am asking you kindly to please not directly address me if you must call names. I really do not wish to engage in any personal conversation with you at all, in light of what has transpired on the Forum between the two of us. Please. Just leave me alone.

In response to your comment, I have modified my post above, inserting synonyms that convey precisely the same concepts.

[Redjack]

LOL. Quote me, as you did, and you are addressing me, as you did again.  Which you were told, explicitly, not to do by the owner of the site.

No one is bothering YOU. You are screwing with me. Keep it up and I will make your participation on these boards so unpleasant you'll wonder why you got up in the morning. I swear to whatever invisible deity you claim exists, I will make it my business to cause you to leave. Stop playing with me. You will not like the outcome.

You started it again.  I warned you, and you were told clearly and directly by Reg.

Okay, MICHAEL...here's what you should do now.  Stop. 

Do not respond.  Let Redjack have the last word.  Because he doesn't want to talk to you.  And that seems to drive you crazy, but that is all he has asked.  To be left alone.  Do it.

Stop pushing it.

that's it, michael.

[michaelintp]

I have a serious question regarding the nature of the criticism of Justice Clarence Thomas.  Would the same pejorative adjectives, phrases and stereotypes be used against him were he not black?  I think not, given that similar attacks are not leveled against the white members of the Court.

His critics frequently describe him using terms and phrases to convey the notion that Justice Thomas is unintelligent, uninquisitive, ignorant and/or lazy. They further describe him as a mere stooge of Justice Scalia (“Scalia’s pet” “Dancing to Scalia’s tune” or similar concepts).  You are all familiar with this, we have seen it time and time again over the years.

There is an inherent racism in the nature of much the criticism leveled against Justice Thomas.  While I would not contend that everyone who engages in these smears is himself or herself a racist, what the smears do reveal is a willingness to embrace and disseminate grossly racist negative stereotypes – so long as the end justifies the means (with the end being to undermine the reputation of a conservative jurist). 

Does this not trouble anyone else?  Or do you disagree that this is, at least in part, taking place?

[Reginald Hudlin]

Thomas is exactly an example of what conservatives complain about with affirmative action.  He's a unqualifed person who got a job because of his race.  But they don't apply it in his case because he serves their purposes. 

To answer your question more directly, a black person can still actually be lazy and be called on it, regardless of racial stereotyping.  A Jewish person can be cheap, an Irish person can be a drunk, etc.....but it doesn't mean everyone in that group is.

[michaelintp]

Reginald, your general point that bigoted stereotypes can still apply to some people in an ethnic group (and people of other ethnic groups, for that matter) is of course true.

All I can tell you regarding Justice Thomas is that, from my perspective as a lawyer who has read some of his case-related writings, and particularly his dissents, those negative racist stereotypes do not apply to him. Or, at any rate, they certainly are not reflected in his writing and legal reasoning.

There have been instances where Thomas has been principled in his constitutional interpretation where other conservative Justices have not (where they really wanted to reach another result that they wanted to justify). It is for this reason that I have described Thomas as the most principled of the Justices, though I do respect other Justices as well.

I would also add that one normally hears the racist slurs from people who have never read his writings, have never made a real effort to understand his legal reasoning. Which, I believe, says a great deal about the actual motivations of the persons leveling the charges (motivations that have nothing to do with the merit of the charges themselves). Rather, they are simply engaging in character assassination, a high-tech lynching through the Media, for ideological purposes. 

Also, I find it troubling that his ideological critics are so very quick to believe and repeat the racist slurs. Rather than express their substantive disagreement on specific legal issues. If enough people repeat the slurs, does that make them true? Not necessarily. Not where political agendas are involved. Not where the norm for political discourse in our country is to NOT focus on substantive issues, but rather go to the jugular through personal attacks and smears.

[Curtis Metcalf]

While I would not contend that everyone who engages in these smears is himself or herself a racist ...

I isolated that particular statement because it illustrates a point that is of interest to me (and, I hope, to others), not to pick on Micheal. I don't know how to look into someone's heart and soul to make the racist / not racist pronouncement so I try to focus on behavior. Ultimately, what people do is more important than what they believe (or claim to believe, or think they believe). Identifying racist behavior to people of good will can hopefully prod them to change that behavior. We will know them by their deeds.

[Redjack]

I tend to really be partial to Ayn Rand, and to The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  - Clarence Thomas

This is an identifier of his inner workings. Most teenagers quickly outgrow the narcississtic world view that's rquired to be an Ayn Rand proponent. Most people can read her philosophy and see it for what it is: Naziism without an ethnic component. And yet this idiot is proud of his affection for this bankrupt philosophy and its creator. Know who else was a  Rand fan? Alan Greenspan, the man who, more than any single person alive, drove our economy into the chasm it currently occupies and who based his economic "values" on Rand's worldview. And, who, unlike Thomas, FINALLY actually woke up to the fact that it was a crap view. Of course ti took crashing the nation and, in large measure, the world into an apocalyptic economic crisis to open his eyes. What will it take for Thomas? Unknown.

The thing that bothered me when I was in college was that I saw myself rejecting the way of life that got me to where I was. - Clarence Thomas

read for yourself about Thomas at YALE. HERE



Virginia Thomas' request for an apology from Anita Hill for accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991 has prompted Thomas' former girlfriend to break her silence about the man she used to date.

Lillian McEwen agreed to speak about Clarence Thomas with Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher, whose story quotes her as saying that Thomas was "always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners. It was a hobby of his."

As Fletcher tells NPR's Robert Siegel, in his discussions with McEwen, "she talks about a Clarence Thomas that in some ways resembled the Clarence Thomas that Anita Hill talked about at the hearings."  - more HERE

I'm going to go out on a limb and post this tidbit in case no one goes to the actual article.

"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."

He occupies the position he does because the racists in the Reb party (most of the base and nearly all of those in charge) wanted to find a Justice candidate that would follow their anti-human and anti-American schema while short-circuiting the Dems ability to shut him down. And it was a big fat finger to the previous black Justice, Thurgood Marshall, a man who actually achieved greatness on his own, PRIOR to being elevated to the highest court in the land. They were essentially saying "One nigger is the same as the next. Eat that."

Like any good house... er... servant... Clarence tows the party line even though his JOB DESCRIPTION should place him at odds with it more often than not, rubber-stamping that hypocrite Scallia 3/4 of the time and, when he doesn't, bending over backwards to find a conservative-friendly opinion. His appointment was just another variation of the tried and true "Southern Strategy" that informs the Rebs' embrace (partial but growing) of the so-called "Tea Party." It also allowed Thomas to coin the phrase "High tech Lynching" in an attempt to use his blackness as a shield against the treatment he got during his vetting (which was considerably LESS aggressive than the process undergone by Judge Robert Bork who was and remains a superior (albeit equally odious) intellect. And Bork was, of course, NOT confirmed). This even though his party, the Rebs, is the party of cynicism, division and ethnic hatred.

Thomas's use of his blackness in this way was the act of an abject coward just as his treatment of the women in his sphere was, at the very least, hypocritical considering the job he was in. Or, y'know, just as a man.

By any objective measure he's a second-rate intellect. By my measure he's a third-rate human being and I have no problem whatsoever saying so.

[michaelintp]

Well, from all the comments above, I think we've got a diversity of views expressed here on Thomas. My wife mentioned to me last night that she heard some interview of a former ex-girlfriend. Makes me think that Ginny Thomas made a major blunder when she made that phone call, re-opening this can of worms.

I've not commented on the charges surrounding sexual matters from persons Thomas had romantic relationships with (or who possibly wished to have romantic relationships with him), as I'm not comfortable doing so. I don't know what is true and what is not, as I'm not sure of the interpersonal dynamics involved with people from "ex" relationships who make disclosures years later, how sexually-related matters were viewed by them at the time, or to what extent opposition to Thomas for other reasons might influence what is now said.

As to the sexual matters, though, I will say that it makes me uneasy. Though of course my attitudes were molded as an office worker in the 1990's and this past decade; I'm practically afraid to compliment a female co-worker on the dress she is wearing for fear that it would be misinterpreted.

My focus, as a lawyer, has been on his role as a Supreme Court Justice and the insightfulness of his legal analysis as a jurist. Sure, other legal scholars disagree with him; the legal discipline of constitutional interpretation reflects very diverse points of view as to the weight that should be given to the actual words of the document, the intent of those who drafted, debated and adopted the Constitution and its amendments, and the effect that future social and technological developments should have on the interpretation of the Constitution's provisions.

Certainly Thomas is a conservative jurist, viewing the Constitution as more analogous to a contract between the People and the State. That should have no bearing on the racially-tinged slurs that are thrown his way by his critics, in my view.

In any event, I think everyone here understands my view of the matter, which is obviously an area of strong disagreement on the HEF (given, for example, Reginald's strong view of the matter).

[michaelintp]

While I would not contend that everyone who engages in these smears is himself or herself a racist ...

I isolated that particular statement because it illustrates a point that is of interest to me (and, I hope, to others), not to pick on Micheal. I don't know how to look into someone's heart and soul to make the racist / not racist pronouncement so I try to focus on behavior. Ultimately, what people do is more important than what they believe (or claim to believe, or think they believe). Identifying racist behavior to people of good will can hopefully prod them to change that behavior. We will know them by their deeds.

I agree with this sentiment, Curtis. That is why I am not quick to call people racists, bigots, whatever, unless I see very strong evidence that that is in fact what is driving them. Sometimes it is evident, I won't deny that, but often times not. The assumptions one holds - positive, negative, or neutral - about the other person one is talking with will often color perceptions. When dealing with people who are essentially decent folk, people of good will, the prospects for fostering mutual understanding are great, if you assume they are coming from a decent place. That allows for the discussion of controversial, complex and hard topics, with less likelihood for misunderstanding, and greater likelihood for understanding. Doesn't mean that at the end of the day everyone will agree on every issue, of course, but that's not what you're talking about.

[Curtis Metcalf]

That's true but the other edge of that sword is that people who are not necessarily avowed "racists" do and say racist things or hold racist attitudes and beliefs, sometimes unexamined or even unconsciously. When confronted with these acts based on racism, many of these people resort to the "But I'm not a racist" defense as though that somehow inoculates them. Some even resent "being accused of racism" which makes discussion difficult. That's why I try to make the distinction between racist behavior and being a racist.