Well, my suspicions are now confirmed--this all about the 'Legacy' of Clarence Thomas.

[msanthrope]

Okay, so after hearing about this drunk-dialed phone call, husband and I pondered the meaning of it last night.

We came up with 2 reasons why it happened....

1) Another woman was harassed. Getting Hill to apologize, publicly, would probably scare off any threatened suit/story, as the accuser would be dismissed as 'another Anita Hill.'

2) Thomas isn't long for the court. His 'Legacy' will be tarnished by new allegations.

And well, well....


"In her Senate testimony, Hill said that Thomas would make sexual comments to her at work, including references to scenes in hard-core pornographic films. Thomas angrily denied the allegations, memorably saying they amounted to a "high-tech lynching."

But Lillian McEwen, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer who said she dated Clarence Thomas from 1979 through the mid-1980s, told The Washington Post in an interview that Hill's long-ago description of Thomas's behavior resonated with her.

"The Clarence I know was certainly capable not only of doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then," said McEwen, who is writing her own memoir but has never before publicly discussed her relationship with Clarence Thomas.

McEwen also told the Post she was not surprised that Virginia Thomas would leave Hill a message, even after all these years. "In his autobiography, Clarence described himself as a person incapable of doing what Anita Hill said he did," McEwen said. "He is married to a woman who is loyal to him and religious in a way he would like to be. This combination of religiosity and loyalty and belief that he is really the kind of person who he describes in his book would just about compel her to do something like that.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101907062.html?hpid=topnews

One can only hope that my latter prediction comes true, too.

On edit--a bit of DC insidery......Judge McEwan used to work for Joe Biden, fyi....

Anybody here think Joe didn't know about this???

[soryang]

1. I almost choked to death reading this

Clarence Thomas and his wife are completely unethical people trying to cover their tracks.

[Tatiana]

2. Clearly Clarence is up to his old tricks again. Way to go Virginia!

Stand by your sexually harassing, repulsive, disgusting, POS man.

[Jankyn]

20. Yeppers, I think you may have nailed it...

I'm willing to bet there's a Supreme Court clerk about to bust this wide open...

[msanthrope]

26. another Judge, actually---

Judge Lillian McEwan, Thomas' ex and writer of her memoir. His ex-girlfriend--who backs Dr. Hill.

and who was the judge working for when she was dating Thomas?

Joe Biden.

[Tatiana]

36. Oh HELL no. How did I miss the Biden connection?

It's all fitting together in such a logical non-conspiracy manner now.

[gateley]

3. Are we sure it was a drunk dialing incident?

It certainly has all the hallmarks but the hour of the call gives me pause. When I was drinking I'd have passed out long before then. Even when up all night partying with "aids" to keep me awake, I don't think I made it long past 6 am. But that's just me -- just having a hard time identifying with it.

Your suspicion is interesting -- and if that was their/her goal, I think a new whole can of worms has just been opened. Good. :evilgrin: In 'this day and age' more people will be willing to come forward, too. Anita Hill was the first, in my memory, to have ever had enough courage to do this, it was almost "odd" at the time. Women for the most part just put up with that shit, and there was a lot of it and pretty much accepted as okay.

I sure hope your prediction comes to pass, too. I loathe that man.

[Dappleganger]

10. The rich drunks in DC begin early in the morning.

I have several friends in gov up there, it's no secret.

[gateley]

28. Yes. It's always 5 o'clock somewhere. :-) nt

[struggle4progress]

46. "Ya gotta start in the mornin if ya wanna drink all day"

[msanthrope]

13. I think they knew something 'new' was about to hit the fan....

either this book, another woman...something.

There's a lot of money to be made thanks to Citizen's United. Ginny wouldn't want anything to interfere with that.

[gateley]

29. Boy, I think she fucked up royally then (good!) because even right now Andrea

Mitchell is having a couple of reporters on who interviewed other women at the time who had similar stories about Thomas and she had Anita Hill's attorney on (now a Harvard law professor) who said the lie detector test she took showed her to be telling the truth but the results weren't permitted into evidence. They're all saying that the Senate was strongly pressured to bring a quick end for political reasons (I'm guessing racial maybe?).

[PopSixSquish]

4. You Don't Say?

"The Clarence I know was certainly capable not only of doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then,"

Well, well, well, I do believe this shit just got real...

[msanthrope]

6. Oh, yeah--I think it's possible that news of the book this gal is writing

might have been what set Ms. Thomas off....

And once she got herself all liquored up, it was time to call.

[HopeHoops]

5. Clarence Thomas has a legacy?

Who would have thought? :shrug:

[msanthrope]

8. Yep. He's republican fucking royalty---

Seriously.

Just imagine how much money wifey can rake in now...

And imagine how much she could rake in if a retired SCOTUS Justice were at her side, openly courting donors?

But not if he's a sex freak.

[HopeHoops]

11. Hell, he can always do Viagra commercials.

[deutsey]

34. I doubt Coke will be very interested in him, though.

:-)

[gateley]

31. But so many Reps are sex freaks -- it hasn't seemed to hurt them all that much. nt

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

32. Scalia won't let him retire yet.

I just can't see Scalia giving up his favorite scrotum bearer while still serving on the court.

[malaise]

7. Legacy - what fugging legacy

:puke:

[Denninmi]

22. He has a legacy.

One of the worst jurists of the past century, and a string of horrible decisions he sided with that helped to destroy this country. Bush v Gore and Citizens United are two biggies of the top of my head.

[Mimosa]

42. Did Kagan have to recuse herself?

I see only 8 judges voted on the Citizens United case.

[Supersedeas]

47. a legacy for disengagement during Oral Argument, and dissent in the most irrelevant of places

[mod mom]

9. "Thomas isn't long for the court" Is he sick?

[msanthrope]

15. In his head, yes....but I think it's money.....

Given his job dissatisfaction, and the ability to fundraise through Ginny's organaization (THANKS! Citizen's United!!!)--and the trial balloon sent out earlier this year, I think it was being considered....


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/15/justice-thomas-wife-joins-tea-party-groups-launches-new-organization/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529

After all, by resigining, Palin was able to rake money, and still have a voice...

[bemildred]

43. That would explain a lot. nt

[progressoid]

12. Someone concerned with his legacy sounds like someone getting ready to hang up his robe for good.

:evilgrin:

[msanthrope]

14. I can only hope--but think of the money---

She's raking it in thanks to Citizen's United...

Now, what if she had a retired SCOTUS Justice on her arm, one free now to critique, do press junkets, appearances...

[progressoid]

18. He's 62. Early retirement wouldn't be too unheard of.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

[BurtWorm]

23. He's not exactly a workaholic.

:insert smiley with fingers crossed:

[jgraz]

38. All that sitting on his ass doing nothing was finally too much for him.

:eyes:

[benddem]

16. why didn't this McEwen woman

come out and support Anita Hill during the hearings? She's 19 years late.

[msanthrope]

17. You should ask Joe Biden why.

You might be really surprised when you hear who "this McEwen woman" worked for....

[gateley]

33. I saw upthread you posted she worked for Biden. I'm not all that familiar with

the hearings but have learned since being on DU that many here feel Biden skewed the process. I was trying to find info on it and if I recall, he had reasons why he did or didn't do something (of course) but that doesn't really mean anything. What I'm having a hard time understanding is why people feel Biden was on Thomas's side, so to speak -- it just doesn't jibe with what I feel I know about Biden.

Anyway, not expecting an explanation, just voicing my puzzlement about the whole deal.

Regardless, I'm glad this is coming out into the light now. And NOBODY on the tube seems to understand WTH Ginny was THINKING!?!?

[msanthrope]

35. Biden not only skewed the process, he admitted that he was

wrong to do so, in later years. His questioning of Dr. Hill was disrespectful and sexist.

He kept out supporting witnesses, and evidence. He didn't go after Thomas for being an intellectual lightweight.

[gateley]

37. I wonder why? Again, that doesn't sound like him (to me, anyway). I don't

doubt it, it seems to be the general impression, and you say he even admitted it. I'm just still wondering why? I wonder if he knows. Thanks for clarifying.

[Iggo]

19. 'Legacy'? Really?

Do the real judges even talk to him?

[librechik]

21. can you say Presidential Candidate Clarence Thomas?

Yes, Virginia, I think you can.

Hmm. The first black Teabagger Candidate. I hope I'm wrong.

[Iggo]

27. I hope you're right.

Oughta be fun.

[elehhhhna]

24. Virginia Thomas is a jackwagon. A rum swilling jackwagon.

[elehhhhna]

25. Virginia Thomas is a jackwagon. A rum swilling jackwagon.

[TexasObserver]

30. He's the least qualified person to sit on the court for at least 50 years.

He's absolutely clueless, and always has been.

THAT is his legacy.

[indepat]

41. The legacy of being wholly out of his element, inept, incompetent, incurious, and almost always

wrong in his uninspired opinions. Some legacy. ;)

[Tatiana]

39. On Biden....

Over the years, Mr. Biden has defended his role in the hearings. In “Strange Justice,” a book about the Clarence Thomas confirmation, authors Jill Abramson (managing editor for news here at The Times) and Jane Mayer, author of “The Dark Side” and a writer for the New Yorker, extensively document the internal and external machinations surrounding the hearings and interviewed Senator Biden several times.

He made decisions, they wrote, based on his views of respect for a person’s privacy about what and wouldn’t be let into the hearings – including the pornography rentals and Mr. Thomas’s thin legal record. (At Saddleback, Mr. Obama, a former law professor at the University of Chicago said, “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”)

(At one point, Senator Biden’s aides and then he told Ms. Abramson and Ms. Mayer that digging in too deep on Mr. Thomas’s intellectual legal prowess would’ve been a problem. One aide said, “it was a racial thing.” Mr. Biden himself said, “There was in fact a concern about whether or not to make the guy look stupid – what would happen if you embarrassed him.”)

In one interview, the two wrote that Mr. Biden said later that he had tried to be a statesman, to uphold decency standards. In the end, however, he conceded that his motivations might have been “misplaced.” On excluding the pornography issue alone, they quoted Mr. Biden as saying that he acted, “in fairness to Thomas, which in retrospect he didn’t deserve.”

<snip>

As a short aside, one of Mr. Biden’s key aides at the time, who reviewed the allegations and dealt with Ms. Hill, was Harriet Grant, who is now married to I. Lewis Libby, otherwise known as “Scooter.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/biden-and-anita-hill-revisited/

[gateley]

40. Thanks for posting this -- I've been asking a couple of DUers today about

the Biden brouhaha regarding this that I only learned of after coming to DU. I didn't pay close attention to the hearings -- and looking back I have to sincerely say that I think the subject made me feel uncomfortable because that type of behavior was pretty much accepted at that time (which is really hard to imagine now).

Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that peoples' criticisms of his handling of the proceedings are deserved, though it's easier for me to make that judgment now since we're in a different climate regarding sexual harassment and equal rights. But plenty of others knew at the time what the right thing to do would have been.

I know Joe has always championed womens' rights -- as well as civil rights, so I just didn't understand WHY he handled it as he did. His defense might be just him trying to justify it to himself. He's said that he learned (from his dad or granddad :7) that you can question a man's actions, but not his motives because you really don't know what motivates him. So I'll apply that to Joe in this case, I do believe his motives were 'pure', he was just wrong.

[northernlights]

44. actually he has not always championed women's rights

unless you think women shouldn't have reproductive choice.

[gateley]

45. I just discussed this with another DUer -- I think that was a Catholic belief rather

than consciously saying "women don't have the right", if I'm making that distinction clearly. I'm glad he changed his stance regardless of his motivation. Having grown up in a staunch Catholic family I understand it's an accepted belief -- even my father who was a doctor went by The Church's teaching.

I never did, but then I was always a rebel. :7

[SpiralHawk]

48. Wow 'Harriet 'Scooter' Grant - The Aspen Roots are all intertwined

Republicon moral corruption and fail is such a vast, interlocking stinking cesspool...