There is little doubt that Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearing in 1991 was an epic ordeal for all the main actors of that proceeding.
Soon to be Justice Thomas and his wife Ginni had to listen to Anita Hill, a subordinate of Thomas at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), recount in testimony before the Judiciary Committee -testimony that would have been supported by four witnesses had they been called – that in their workplace Thomas “spoke about … such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes,” adding that on several occasions Thomas graphically described “his own sexual prowess” and the details of his anatomy.”
Fun times.
Hill’s ordeal was that she had to retell these details in public, which must have been excruciating, and also to endure the savaging of the conservative press, which of course rode to Thomas’ rescue.
It was an ordeal for Judiciary Chairman Joseph Biden too, who had to dodge the slings and arrows of the press, conservative and not, launched his way for (horrors) appearing partisan, allowing Hill’s testimony, and the distain of many democrats for brokering a compromise whereby Hill would take a polygraph – which she passed – the four witnesses would not be heard, and Thomas allowed to refuse a polygraph, but instead issue forth a screed calling the hearings a “high tech lynching”.
And then be confirmed.
Some compromise.
Obviously Thomas was confirmed, by the narrowest margin in the 20th century, and everyone dismissed to attend to their physic wounds.
In his 2007 autobiography My Grandfather’s Son Thomas included a characterization of Ms. Hill that I find to be curiously telling, but I’ll let you be the judge.
He wrote (again citing Anita’s Wikipedia page) that Dr. Hill was his “most traitorous adversary” and prone to be “touchy and overreact”.
Touchy and overreacting to what exactly Clarence? Did you ask her to research an issue and she got in a huff?
Yeah, sure.
Fast forward two years and Thomas, safely ensconced in SCOTUS, loosened his tie and (according to this contemporary NY Times article)
“… began inviting clerks from other justices’ chambers to meet with him, sometimes over lunch. A clerk who went to one meeting recalled how everybody had an unspoken understanding that they would not say anything referring even remotely to the confirmation battle…
…in a conversation with two of his own law clerks, recent law school graduates chosen for their conservative views, Justice Thomas said he intended to remain on the Court until the year 2034.
Why that long? one asked. Because that would give him a 43-year term, he replied, according to the clerk’s account, explaining, “The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I’m going to make their lives miserable for 43 years.”
The notion that Justice Thomas could use his position to reflect the emotions he bears from the confirmation hearing was first suggested, strangely enough, by his wife, Virginia.”
Ah! Up jumps the devil!
The article then recounts an interview that Ginni gave to People Magazine in which she opines that Anita was “in love with her husband” and how they coped with Hill’s loving, damning testimony by holding hands, praying with friends and listening to gospel music.
Which, according to the Times , the other justices found weird.
But then the pre-sedition Ginni gives People a money quote.
“Clarence will give everyone a fair day in court,” Mrs. Thomas said. “But I feel he doesn’t owe any of the groups who opposed him anything.”
I feel like this week we got the ‘Fuck you I don’t owe you anything’ and not the ‘fair hearing’ Thomas.
Thanks bunches, Gin.
Just as the mighty R.B.G. was replaced with nothing but a vagina on the s.c., Marshall was replaced with nothing more than a black man. There were MANY qualified black and other people of color who would make any court look phenomenal. Thomas was not one of those people. He was out-classed intellectually to sit on such an august bench. Putting Thomas on the bench was the death knell of the s.c. It is now a festering corpse after the additions of gorsuch, beer bong and the vagina. A sad end to a once respected institution.
I agree with you. The elevation of Thomas was laughed at back in the day and now it’s not a joke, it’s full fledged tragedy. He never should have been given a position of that caliber. His only resemblance to Thurgood Marshall was his skin color and the fact that they put their pants on one leg at a time, presumably. Professionally, forget it.
He’s a joke Ursula, just not a very funny one.
I think it is past time for progressives to make his life miserable…or rather make his life more of a living hell than that women he married. I cannot imagine in my worst hallucinations waking up next to that women on a regular basis.
Just want to test this
Always the ad hominem, never the substance
I find it fascinating that Thomas wants to reconsider supreme court decisions regarding LBGT etc rights, gay marriage, and contraception. How very odd that he left out Loving v. Virginia, which allowed him to marry his white mama. Excuse the offensive reference. Not usually my style byt it fits.
It is very telling that thomas married a white women. Everything he has done in his life points to the fact that he wanted to be white more than anything and marrying a white women was the closest he was going to get to that little dream of his.
I’m sure he’ll find yet another rationalization to make sure Loving stands. He certainly did to help overturn Roe. Someone needs to clue the six extremists in to this: if you don’t want people to call you political hacks, you probably should not act like political hacks.
You know, these six extremists have the absolute gall to call themselves “pro life” when most of their decisions are anything but. Roe will result in women dying. Their decision on NY’s gun law will result in many people dying. Their take on agencies in our federal government, most especially the EPA, will kill people. Hate to harp on the same thing but ‘pubes are murderous scum. Oh, and you six extremists–you’re political hacks so we will give you the ‘pube label as well.
Thomas is not the first person to carry the baggage of the past on his sleeve. I suspect during his days at Yale the rejection of black students to his legal temperament and persona validated Thomas’ assumption any maltreatment afforded him was reflection of skin color prejudice internalized by black students and, as such, deserving of showing them who has value to the state. Had he read Malcolm X autobiographical most closely, he would have realized value of one’s self is derived from self.