Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 28, 2007, 09:16:54 AM
-
Breaking his silence.
Anita Hill was a liar. :)
Clarence Thomas: Abortion Was Real Issue
Supreme Court Justice Gives First TV Interview To Steve Kroft
Sept. 27, 2007
(CBS) In his first television interview, in which he discusses his childhood, his race, his rise to Supreme Court Justice and his job on the nation's highest court, Clarence Thomas says the real issue at his controversial confirmation hearings 16 years ago was abortion.
Saying the issue was "the elephant in the room," Thomas also tells 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft that the hearings he called at the time a "high-tech lynching" harmed the country.
Kroft's interview will be broadcast on Sunday, Sept. 30, at 7:30 p.m. ET, 7 p.m. PT.
Thomas, whose Supreme Court positions on abortion issues have been conservative, says the confirmation hearings in which he was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee -- allegations he continues to deny -- were really about abortion. "That was the elephant in the room ... That was the issue. That is the issue that people are apparently so upset about," he tells Kroft. "[That is the issue] that you determine the composition of your Supreme Court and your entire federal judiciary, it seems now," says Thomas.
He says the hearings harmed the accuser, Anita Hill, himself, and ultimately the country by setting a precedent manifested in other highly charged, media-infused events such as the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. "The process harmed her. It harmed me and we see sort of the precedent of this kind of thing begin to harm even people like President Clinton," Thomas says. "Things are out of control. That's not good for the country. It's not good for the court. What are we going to look like years from now if we can't get people confirmed because everybody gets to attack them. They get to draw and quarter them."
In the interview, Thomas also expresses an opinion of his accuser for the first time in public, saying of Hill, who waited 10 years to accuse him, "She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed. That's not the person I knew," Thomas says. "She could defend herself, let's just put it that way ... She did not take slights very kindly and anyone who did anything, she responded very quickly." When Kroft rejoins, "Didn't take 10 years?" Thomas replies, "It didn't take 10 minutes."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/60minutes/main3305443.shtml
-
let the bashing begin! ::)
good find. can't wait to watch the interview this weekend.
-
:) I never entirely believed that woman.
Clarence Thomas Breaks Silence on Anita Hill
Friday, September 28, 2007 11:29 PM
Breaking his 16-year public silence on his bitter confirmation hearings, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says Anita Hill was a mediocre employee who was used by political opponents to make claims she had been sexually harassed.
Thomas writes about Hill, his former employee in two government agencies, and the allegations that nearly derailed his nomination to the high court in 1991 in his autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son."
A copy of the book, which goes on sale Monday, was obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
He writes with indignation of the nationally televised hearings that he memorably called a "high-tech lynching." A child of the segregated South, Thomas says he was being pursued "not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony."
Powerful interest groups were out to stop him at all costs and chose "the age-old blunt instrument of accusing a black man of sexual misconduct," he writes.
Hill, who is also black, had worked for Thomas at the Education Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She first made her allegations after Thomas had been nominated to the high court, 10 years after she began working for him and only after she was contacted by congressional investigators.
In the book, Thomas describes Hill as touchy and apt to overreact, not someone who would wait a decade to level a charge of harassment. She had complained to Thomas only about his refusal to promote her, the justice says.
"Her work at EEOC had been mediocre," he writes.
In 1991, Thomas adamantly denied Hill's accusations that he made inappropriate sexual remarks, including references to pornographic movies. Thomas says he did talk about X-rated movies while at Yale Law School, adding that so did many other young people in the 1970s.
Thomas says now that he was "one of the least likely candidates imaginable" for a charge of harassment, having made clear his desire to run an agency staffed mainly by minorities and women as professionally as any other.
Thomas, 59, acknowledges that three other former EEOC employees backed Hill's version of events, but he says they either had been fired or had left the agency on bad terms.
Hill, a professor at Brandeis University, declined Friday night to comment on the book.
The 289-page book, for which Thomas has been paid more than $1 million by publisher HarperCollins, is an account of his up-from-poverty story from his first home in tiny Pinpoint, Ga., through his swearing-in as a justice at the age of 43.
He recounts the brief period in which he lived with his mother and brother in a one-room apartment in Savannah. The building had no indoor plumbing, and one of Thomas' chores was emptying the chamber pot. He spent most of his childhood living with his grandparents and attending Catholic school.
Thomas is the second black justice in the nation's history, having taken the seat of the first, Thurgood Marshall.
Thomas does not discuss his colleagues or his work on the court.
He does, however, trace his rightward political shift from a protesting college student at Holy Cross and a George McGovern supporter in 1972 to an appointee of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
In the roughly one-third of the book spent recounting his nomination to the court, Thomas says his opponents were obsessed with the issue of abortion and determined to stop him because they believed he would oppose abortion rights.
As a justice, Thomas has called for overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which would leave states free to deal with abortion as they wish.
But at the time of his nomination, Thomas told senators he had never discussed the case. In the book, he describes himself in the years before he joined the court as a lazy libertarian, with mixed feelings about abortion and uncomfortable telling others what to do.
Within a few months of his confirmation, however, the court was faced with a case that offered the prospect of overruling Roe v. Wade. By then, he says in a footnote, he had ample time to study the issue and concluded that Roe was wrongly decided in 1973.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/thomas_anita_hill/2007/09/28/36715.html
-
Just watched his 60 minutes interview. I must say, I was very impressed. I have come full circle on Thomas: I called my senator to voice my support for him during his nomination, thought he was a mistake during the first few years of his tenure, was upset over the hatchet job done by "Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas," which was supposedly an objective look at the Anita Hill controversy, and ultimately came to respect him. What I saw during this interview was a smart, principled, independent man with a tremendous work ethic. I like him.
-
Just watched his 60 minutes interview. I must say, I was very impressed. I have come full circle on Thomas: I called my senator to voice my support for him during his nomination, thought he was a mistake during the first few years of his tenure, was upset over the hatchet job done by "Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas," which was supposedly an objective look at the Anita Hill controversy, and ultimately came to respect him. What I saw during this interview was a smart, principled, independent man with a tremendous work ethic. I like him.
Dag!! I missed it last night. Ended up falling asleep while trying to get my younger two to bed. I'll try to catch it on one of the blogs. Was it pretty good?
-
Dag!! I missed it last night. Ended up falling asleep while trying to get my younger two to bed. I'll try to catch it on one of the blogs. Was it pretty good?
It was outstanding. These men (and woman) have such significant impacts on our lives, yet we know virtually nothing about them. It was a very revealing look at Thomas. Great story. I was very impressed. I would highly recommend getting a copy of the interview.
-
It was outstanding. These men (and woman) have such significant impacts on our lives, yet we know virtually nothing about them. It was a very revealing look at Thomas. Great story. I was very impressed. I would highly recommend getting a copy of the interview.
Thanks, bro. I just might do that.
-
I saw some of the Anita hill debacle but never followed Thomas' career. I kind of hate how the media likes to marginalize high profile non-democrat blacks. If he were for abortion they would have made him a hero or a role model all blacks should look up to. It's such bullshit.
-
I still don't trust him.... I didn't see the interview. But he still seems to have that "step and fetch it" attitude. I also believe that when you go looking for dirty laundry one will find it, and Anita Hill was his dirty laundry. Sometimes things comeback bite you in the ass.
I had watched the the Anita Hill hearing and The Clarence confirmation. What made it ironic was when he said, "high tech lynching"...the camera panned out, and you see his white wife. What black men were lynched for supposedly touching. That image still sticks in my mind, and I was in junior high school at the time.
-
Parker,
I don't trust any of them.
-
I saw some of the Anita hill debacle but never followed Thomas' career. I kind of hate how the media likes to marginalize high profile non-democrat blacks. If he were for abortion they would have made him a hero or a role model all blacks should look up to. It's such bullshit.
True.
-
I still don't trust him.... I didn't see the interview. But he still seems to have that "step and fetch it" attitude. I also believe that when you go looking for dirty laundry one will find it, and Anita Hill was his dirty laundry. Sometimes things comeback bite you in the ass.
I had watched the the Anita Hill hearing and The Clarence confirmation. What made it ironic was when he said, "high tech lynching"...the camera panned out, and you see his white wife. What black men were lynched for supposedly touching. That image still sticks in my mind, and I was in junior high school at the time.
Learning about his background, where he came from, how he was raised, his challenges, etc. really gave me a different perspective on him. I think we need people like him on the supreme court.
I don't view Anita Hill as a skeleton, because I never believed her story. It never made any sense.
I think Thomas is right: the entire issue was really about abortion and whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. That continues to be the single most important issue in the supreme court nomination process.
Imagine what would happen if Stevens (the oldest and probably most liberal member of the supreme court) died this year. There would be WWIII in D.C.
-
Parker,
I don't trust any of them.
Truest words ever written.Learning about his background, where he came from, how he was raised, his challenges, etc. really gave me a different perspective on him. I think we need people like him on the supreme court.
I don't view Anita Hill as a skeleton, because I never believed her story. It never made any sense.
I think Thomas is right: the entire issue was really about abortion and whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. That continues to be the single most important issue in the supreme court nomination process.
Imagine what would happen if Stevens (the oldest and probably most liberal member of the supreme court) died this year. There would be WWIII in D.C.
I somewhat agree and disagree. I know, it funny how she popped up, so convient, huh? But being here near DC you get to meet people who have had contact with him and others...and as I said, he has a step and fetch it mentality, that is not unlike Armstrong Williams back in the day.
-
Truest words ever written.
I somewhat agree and disagree. I know, it funny how she popped up, so convient, huh? But being here near DC you get to meet people who have had contact with him and others...and as I said, he has a step and fetch it mentality, that is not unlike Armstrong Williams back in the day.
Parker what do you mean by "step and fetch it"?
-
I saw some of the Anita hill debacle but never followed Thomas' career. I kind of hate how the media likes to marginalize high profile non-democrat blacks. If he were for abortion they would have made him a hero or a role model all blacks should look up to. It's such bullshit.
I was about 10 during his confirmation hearings, but I distinctly remember the thread running through coverage on him being his seemingly hypocritical waffling on affirmative action. Throughout his early career, he made several conclusive statements crediting affirmative action for his success, but later became a vocal opponent.
-
Parker what do you mean by "step and fetch it"?
You throw a stick and the dog will go get it. But in terms of history, there were those blacks that aligned themselves with whites, not because they disagreed with "the black collective" as some have called it, but due to the fact they liked being subservant out of fear and a belief that massa is right. AN example would be those slaves that fought along side their masters in the Civil War.
He's always had that air about him of having a dog chain around his neck. It's in his eyes, his demeanor. Like he just ran a marathon. Whereas the other justices do not. I've always wondered, what is eating at him so much.
I was about 10 during his confirmation hearings, but I distinctly remember the thread running through coverage on him being his seemingly hypocritical waffling on affirmative action. Throughout his early career, he made several conclusive statements crediting affirmative action for his success, became a vocal opbut later ponent.
That too is what gets me.
-
You throw a stick and the dog will go get it. But in terms of history, there were those blacks that aligned themselves with whites, not because they disagreed with "the black collective" as some have called it, but due to the fact they liked being subservant out of fear and a belief that massa is right. AN example would be those slaves that fought along side their masters in the Civil War.
He's always had that air about him of having a dog chain around his neck. It's in his eyes, his demeanor. Like he just ran a marathon. Whereas the other justices do not. I've always wondered, what is eating at him so much.
Thanks for that explanation.
It is difficult to judge someone like him, because he doesn't say much. That's why I thought the interview was terrific. You should try and get a copy. It might give you a different perspective.
I can understand why someone like him would be angry (assuming he is). He grew up during Jim Crow. His Yale law degree was completely marginalized because of his skin color. He was humiliated during the supreme court confirmation process. There was at least one hatchet job book written about him. I would be a little ticked too.
-
Thanks for that explanation.
It is difficult to judge someone like him, because he doesn't say much. ...
In his first year on the SCT bench, he aske zero questions. The SCT is a panel of judges that peppers those appearing before it with questions to flesh out the facts and issues. He asked none for the entire year.
He did concur with Scalia on just about every decision.
-
In his first year on the SCT bench, he aske zero questions. The SCT is a panel of judges that peppers those appearing before it with questions to flesh out the facts and issues. He asked none for the entire year.
He did concur with Scalia on just about every decision.
That's why I thought he might have been a mistake. I've changed my mind.
Aren't most of the decisions from the supreme court unanimous? Even if they aren't, why should it matter if he agrees with Scalia all the time?
-
That's why I thought he might have been a mistake. I've changed my mind.
Aren't most of the decisions from the supreme court unanimous? Even if they aren't, why should it matter if he agrees with Scalia all the time?
No, there are split decisions all the time, sometimes the Court is unanimous but with concurring opinions.
Asking no question of one's own and always concurring with another particular opinion shows me a lack of independent effort and thought.
He gives the appearance of being a yes-man and rightwing puppet.
-
No, there are split decisions all the time, sometimes the Court is unanimous but with concurring opinions.
Asking no question of one's own and always concurring with another particular opinion shows me a lack of independent effort and thought.
He gives the appearance of being a yes-man and rightwing puppet.
"Step and Fetch It" ;)
-
No, there are split decisions all the time, sometimes the Court is unanimous but with concurring opinions.
Asking no question of one's own and always concurring with another particular opinion shows me a lack of independent effort and thought.
He gives the appearance of being a yes-man and rightwing puppet.
I had the same concerns, but not anymore.
Didn't Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas agree on many decisions? Maybe they have the same judicial philosophy. You would probably find that Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan agreed most of the time too. I'd be more concerned about whether he/she is right or wrong, not whether they agree with someone else.
-
I had the same concerns, but not anymore.
Didn't Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas agree on many decisions? Maybe they have the same judicial philosophy. You would probably find that Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan agreed most of the time too. I'd be more concerned about whether he/she is right or wrong, not whether they agree with someone else.
Yes there are some general tendencies to judicial interpretation/thinking. But the man asked no questions at all in his first year.
That's inexcusable.
There are agreements w/ concurring opinions all the time. That means that in general a justice(s) agrees with the holding or dissent but writes a concurrence to point out a difference in reasoning or analysis in the process...so it's not 100% agreement.
He's not even close to being in the class of Breyer or Scalia.
-
Yes there are some general tendencies to judicial interpretation/thinking. But the man asked no questions at all in his first year.
That's inexcusable.
There are agreements w/ concurring opinions all the time. That means that in general a justice(s) agrees with the holding or dissent but writes a concurrence to point out a difference in reasoning or analysis in the process...so it's not 100% agreement.
He's not even close to being in the class of Breyer or Scalia.
General tendencies or different philosophies? I say both.
Why do you say he's not close to being in the class of Breyer or Scalia?
-
General tendencies or different philosophies? I say both.
Why do you say he's not close to being in the class of Breyer or Scalia?
Those men are articulate and flirt with brilliance in their opinions. They are also opposed philosophically. I have read some of Thomas's work and he is not a great writer/thinker.
-
Those men are articulate and flirt with brilliance in their opinions. They are also opposed philosophically. I have read some of Thomas's work and he is not a great writer/thinker.
Understood. In listening to him on Sunday, I'd say he is very articulate and very smart. Cannot comment on his writing, but I'll take your word for it. Maybe he's just a lousy writer? I know people like that (great speaker, terrible writer or vise versa).
Thomas may not be as smart as Scalia or Breyer (I don't know), but there is always a range of talent in every profession, court, school, etc.
-
Anita Hill: Thomas' Book Is Beneath the Court
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:34 PM
Anita Hill is firing back at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' portrayal of her in his new book, saying he mischaracterizes her in a way that is "beneath the Court."
"It's very typical of how people who are charged with workplace misconduct respond," she says in a New York Times podcast posted on the newspaper's Web site Wednesday. "It's particularly troublesome, however, when it's done by a Supreme Court justice."
The justice's account, she charges, is rife with inconsistencies.
"He's writing this in an effort to vindicate himself personally," she says. "But in doing so he's sending the message that this is how you respond to a complaint: Instead of dealing in fact, you deal in mischaracterization, and smear, and innuendo."
Specifically, Hill says she was not the liberal extremist Thomas suggests.
"I don't think any combative left winger would have survived at all in the Reagan administration," she says.
She also rejects the notion that she was a mediocre employee who was less than fully qualified for her position, and points out that she graduated from Yale, the same law school Thomas attended.
In his autobiography "My Grandfather's Son," Thomas writes at length about Hill, whose allegations nearly derailed his nomination to the high court in 1991.
Thomas, Hill says, is "trying to reinvent me."
"I don't know why he feels the need to vindicate himself," she says, "but I think that's what he is trying to do. But he does it in a way that is beneath the Court, and it is really beneath anyone who would be a competent arbiter of the truth, because he doesn't present any facts to support what he says."
Hill, a law professor at Brandeis University, adds that the book "sends the wrong message."
She tells The New York Times that the way she is portrayed in Thomas' book may discourage victims of sexual harassment from coming forward.
"I hope by speaking out, the message that we take away is that even if very powerful people try to destroy you, it is worth your dignity to defend your rights," she said in the podcast.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/clarence_thomas_book/2007/10/03/37800.html
-
I think Thomas is right: the entire issue was really about abortion and whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. That continues to be the single most important issue in the supreme court nomination process.
Which is ridiculous.
Abortion should be a total non-issue, but the system (of which religion is an active part) keeps our country dumbed down to the point that we fight like little bitches over something that means next to nothing.
-
Which is ridiculous.
Abortion should be a total non-issue, but the system (of which religion is an active part) keeps our country dumbed down to the point that we fight like little bitches over something that means next to nothing.
Arguably the most hot button issue in politics. I've always agreed with Barbara Bush who said abortion shouldn't be a political issue, but I'm just not sure how it can't be.
-
You throw a stick and the dog will go get it. But in terms of history, there were those blacks that aligned themselves with whites, not because they disagreed with "the black collective" as some have called it, but due to the fact they liked being subservant out of fear and a belief that massa is right. AN example would be those slaves that fought along side their masters in the Civil War.
He's always had that air about him of having a dog chain around his neck. It's in his eyes, his demeanor. Like he just ran a marathon. Whereas the other justices do not. I've always wondered, what is eating at him so much.
That too is what gets me.
I thought it was just me who got that feel off the man.