Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I think a lot of people have forgotten the context of the Hill/Thomas hearings.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:16 PM
Original message
I think a lot of people have forgotten the context of the Hill/Thomas hearings.
When Clarence was nominated, he was supremely unqualified for the position of Supreme Court Justice. The only thing he had going for him was the perception that he was a man of CHARACTER. Anita Hill's accusations -- that the head of the EEOC was sexually harassing his own employees -- went to the heart of the issue of character. That's why the Rethugs had to destroy her. If she wasn't destroyed, Thomas would have lost the nomination because he clearly wasn't qualified for the position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes. And we have had 19 damn years of proof n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think his sexist shenanigans disqualifies him for the position in and of itself.
Even had he a stellar background to qualify in every other respect, he should not have been confirmed. There should be no place for misogynists on the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. If we had true cojones in the Judicial Branch of Government
he would be under investigation and suspended at this point for being finally exposed, and proof is on the table, about that he lied to Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I agree, but the Senate then would not have.
As it is, they let Specter et al tear her apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. He almost lost the nomination. He got it because many
asinine Senators DIDN'T CARE about his character or that she was telling the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I think many of them swallowed the story that Danforth, the Episcopalian
minister, and others were pushing. That Thomas was wrongfully accused and she was mentally disturbed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. I bet Ginny is really, really sorry she made that call to Prof. Hill.
Talk about the law of unintended consequences!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. I remember
I thought it was a horrible way to treat Anita Hill. If the Republicans supported him I knew something was wrong with him. We were all right he has done nothing of significance except vote the way his master Scalia does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
9. Before Professor Hill even showed up, he was not doing well in the hearings.
The NAACP wasn't endorsing him as he was clearing lying when he said that he had never at any time talked about Brown v Board of Education. How a black man, head of the EEOC, in this day and age had never discussed that court case... unimaginable. And yet, we all were supposed to believe it.

This was the case that turned me from moderate Republican to a reluctant 'conservative' Democrat. (And of course now I am tilting far to the left of Gandhi on that online testing site. So at least a small thanks to you Clarence you lying sack'o'***t!) So. I remember this very well as it was a watershed moment in my adult life. I began to realize my role as a citizen and that I had been woefully under-informed for too too long. I woke up.

And many many MANY thanks to NPR and Nina Tottenberg who broadcast the entire hearing. Not just the highlights. The. Entire. Hearing. I was in a rural area without cable and was glued to the radio from start to finish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I watched the whole thing, too. It was riveting. We all got to see what happened
when an uppity woman challenged a powerful man. They attempted to destroy her -- but all they really did was reveal themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Was very gratified that the Republican Senator from IL lost his seat
because of that vote. That election Illinois voted in Durbin and what a gift that has been for my state.

Professor Hill will always have my respect. She not only stood for what she thought was right, she helped define a behavior that many of us women had been tolerating (just) for way too long. That hearing gave sexual harassment the glieg lights it deserved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You're right. She helped to define workplace harassment
and that benefited millions of women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Hadn't thought much about Roe v Wade, either
Another whopper. Hire me because the only thing ever on my mind is lunch.

We Borked Bork, then rolled for this clown, whatta farce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. The repukes were also still pissed about Bork
I remembered that the other day. And sometimes I wonder just how much worse Bork would have been than Thomas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
12. Indeed - he got the lowest non-recommendation that the ABA ever gave
to a SCOTUS nominee -- unqualified...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. There are two problems with your OP...first, , the ONLY reason
he was nominated by George "I'll Ditch My Plane and Crew in World War Two!" Aitch Dubyuh Boosh is because Thomas was black, and Boosh thought that was a good idea because Thomas was replacing Thurgood Marshall, but in a tragic turn of events, Thomas is a complete fucking conservapuke dumbass and Marshall was NOT a complete fucking conservapuke dumbass, and so the "trade" did not work out.

I can't remember the second reason, but I bet it's good, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. He was promoted as a black man of character, which of course he was not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC