Clarence Thomas' Wife Calls Anita Hill To Ask for an Apology
Virginia Thomas, who, besides being the wife of the biggest jerkoff on the Supreme Court ...
... Anita Hill alleged that Thomas was, uh, basically, a huge pig who routinely did things like ask "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"
Reginald Hudlin ... from what you posted above, it is clear that "Gawker" is a complete moron
The very worst thing that came out of those hearings were unsubstantiated allegations
of a Thomas pubic hair joke and unsubstantiated allegations
by Hill that Thomas commented on porno movies and that he was studly, without any suggestion
that he was trying to induce her to have sexual relations.
As the reputable source Wikipedia states: "Anita Hill's accusations were viewed suspiciously due to their timing (only revealed during Justice Thomas' confirmation hearings) and the "he said, she said" nature of the discussions made privately between Hill and Thomas. Further cause for suspicion were her actions after the contested events: in addition to following him to the EEOC, after that job concluded she continued personal contact with him, both in public and in private. Her accusations could not be definitively substantiated or refuted. Thomas made a blanket denial of the accusations, claiming this was a "high-tech lynching". After extensive debate, the U.S. Senate confirmed Thomas by a vote of 52–48.
I guess we have never made jokes with our friends and colleagues. CERTAINLY after the Thomas Affair
, we don't, for fear that some partisan tool
will distort what happened in his or her pursuit of political ends, or possibly out of some petty spite. To the best of my recollection, Thomas never
propositioned Anita Hill, he didn't "sleep" with her, they didn't have an affair (and as single adults, they had every right to). I wish we could say the same about Bill Clinton, who not only did so while married, but actually perjured himself regarding his conduct in a real
sexual harassment case, and was disbarred
as a result.
So let's cut the crap
The truth is, Thomas and his wife
have been forced to put up with this sh*t for 20 years.
Any pretense used to demean Justice Clarence Thomas is highly suspect
, to say the least. I could use other adjectives, but what's the point. Most of the retards
like Gawker who are critical of Thomas have never
read his legal opinions.
Justice Clarence Thomas merits our respect
. Why? Because he is a man of legal principle
. The truth is that he is probably the most principled Justice on the United States Supreme Court
Rather than looking to the result he wishes to reach, and moving backward from there to fabricate his reasoning, Thomas starts with the legal principles and follows them to their ultimate logical and proper conclusion.
For example, Justice Thomas wrote a brilliant and correctly reasoned dissent
(opposing the Supreme Court's holding) in the 2005 case that wrongly upheld the power of the Federal Government to ban the growing of marijuana for personal use, despite the existence of a more lenient state law in California. Now, I doubt that Justice Thomas is a big fan of drug use and abuse. But that did not color his principled legal reasoning
Here are some relevant passages from Gonzales v. Raich
... just in case some of you have never actually read
anything written by Justice Thomas:
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. ... By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power."
About the majority's ruling, Thomas aptly observes, "The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it."
Also involved in this case is the "Necessary and Proper Clause," which was included in the Constitution to rein in the Congress even though the framers obviously couldn't enumerate every single law that could properly be passed:
"The Congress shall have the power ... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers [previously enumerated], and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Thomas writes: "The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a warrant to Congress to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power."
Finally, Thomas references Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent, "Congress presented no evidence in support of its conclusions, which are not so much findings of fact as assertions of power," and Thomas concludes: "Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments."
Though the majority decision was terrible, the Thomas dissent injects into the record a point that is crucially important:
"... it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals--that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government--that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens' protection against the government."