The Honorable Clarence Thomas
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMKdI3SSlnNjCDVe71Ulb...ebhCowyIGg]](https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMKdI3SSlnNjCDVe71Ulb4WWV5NhJ4uL-7K7_1n8fhebhCowyIGg)
Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice. He is reviled in some circles because he is a black conservative. His opinions often track his conservative counterparts, like Antonin Scalia and John Roberts. Unlike other justices, he rarely speaks and even had a streak of seven years without asking a question from the bench. He did finally speak up in 2013, when he joked that a law degree from Yale might be proof of incompetence. Anita Hill was a professor at the University of Oklahoma, who worked with Thomas in the 1980’s in Reagan’s Department of Education and Reagan's EEOC.
Before we get into the controversy, lets compare Thomas’ and Hill’s lives. Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point Georgia, a historically black community that was originally founded by freedman (freed slaves) after the Civil War. The town he grew up lacked a sewage system and paved roads. Further, his father left his mother when he was the tender age of two. He then moved to live with his maternal grandparents, who lived in a more privileged community and was provided an opportunity for a real education. At sixteen, he was strongly leaning towards becoming a minister, however, after overhearing a seminary classmate saying (after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.) that he hoped “that son of bitch n***** died.” He left seminary thinking the church wasn’t doing enough to combat racism. He then went to college and eventually enrolled in Yale Law School – an impressive feat. He first worked in Missouri, then in DC for the Reagan administration, before being appointed to the federal bench by George H. W. Bush. After a couple years on the bench, Thurgood Marshall retired. Thurgood Marshall was the first black man to serve on the Supreme Court and H. W. Bush thought it was appropriate to nominate another black man – and Thomas was the only black conservative that was qualified.
Anita Hill
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXW62yN-GC9xhpqvUIWZ1...mQ6T-uFtNK]](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXW62yN-GC9xhpqvUIWZ1tRTlFbkhDdGUwKwmHX3mQ6T-uFtNK)
Anita Hill had a similar childhood experience. She was the last child of 13, born to poor farmers in Arkansas. She was the typical female overachiever and attended Oklahoma State University, then Yale Law School. She took the DC bar, began working for a local, prestigious law firm. After a year, she became the attorney-adviser for Clarence Thomas. She worked for him for over three years, following him with his various appointments by Reagan. After her time with Thomas, she taught commercial paper and contracts (the most grueling first year class) at a couple law schools before Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court. Her approach to life couldn’t be more strikingly different than Thomas’. Thomas has self-described as having a “strong libertarian streak.” Thomas’ life is emblematic of that. He recognizes that racism hurts blacks very bad, but he also understands that if he works hard, then success can be had. He didn’t make any excuses for himself and worked very hard in his life. As for Anita Hill, the same can’t be said. She is an avowed feminist and currently teaches women’s studies and a Critical Race Theory class at Brandeis University. Check out my criticism of CRT: http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-23259.html Short version: she seeks to blame everybody else for her problems in life.
As I said before, H. W. Bush was looking to promote a black man to replace the esteemed Thurgood Marshall. To be sure, Thomas was on Bush’ short list the year prior, when Bush decided to promote David Souter - who ended up being fairly liberal, so go figure. However, the nomination was racially tinged from the outset. First, was the fact that Thomas graduated towards the middle of his class at Yale Law. From my perspective, it is Yale Law for crying out loud. Further, like anything else in life, it is what you do with your education that matters. Thomas had proven himself, time and again, to be very competent at lawyering. Further, American Bar Association gave him the lowest possible “qualified” rating; the ABA routinely gives recommendation on the lawyering and judgeships of nominees. Bush announced in July 1991 that he was going to appoint Thomas to the bench. For the rest of the summer, the Bush administration geared up for what they correctly perceived to be a tough nomination battle. Women’s rights group all summer prepared to battle the nomination, mostly because he made critical remarks about Roe v. Wade – which established a woman’s right to abortion; although he said he was undecided about the decision. However, feminists couldn’t have predicted the gift they were given to topple his nomination. Even Joe Biden, then a Senator from Delaware, asked him, “Are you now or have even been a libertarian?” Biden is such a fucking blowhard.
Robert Bork
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-OJvXtqpl28AEC0oQ9Ua...joDT5oX4i2]](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-OJvXtqpl28AEC0oQ9Ua-FldB2L9AiB14l0GHsNjoDT5oX4i2)
Let’s quickly step through a previous Supreme Court nominee whose abortion of a nomination loomed over Thomas’. Robert Bork was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987, much to the joy of conservatives. He was a strong conservative Chrisitian and was strongly supported by conservatives. However, the late Edward Kennedy hatched a plan to derail the nomination and conjured up an infamous speech – here is the most relevant excerpt:
Bork was defeated in his confirmation vote, 42 to 58. This speech by Kennedy stunned the Reagan White House and was never actually rebutted for over two months – signaling that Reagan admitted defeat. However, “bork” became a term for politically assassinating a Supreme Court nominee. In lead-up to Thomas’ Senate hearing in September, Florynce Kennedy at NOW gave a speech saying, “We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from.” The feminist response to his nomination was just laced with latent racism, but it exploded when Anita Hill was called to testify against his nomination. Do note that Floyrence Kennedy is black.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWMBXEmNvuRjMEEXuFJqC...8RCMgdXHAw]](https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWMBXEmNvuRjMEEXuFJqCqoz2QzAOKyM19_MugEb8RCMgdXHAw)
A female at NPR leaked FBI documentation detailing Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment. Women’s rights groups and the media began to pressure her to testify. Indeed she did, in October 1991. She testified to a broad array of bizarre behavior on the part of Thomas. She described how he would comment on porn flicks he watched in which women had sex with horses and chickens and would get raped. She alleged he claimed to be well-endowed and knew how to hit it right. A famous claim of hers is that he approached her after he bought a Coke and asked, “Who put a pubic hair on my soda can?” Her testimony was reportedly viewed by over 20 millions Americans when it happened.
Hill’s commentary was questioned by the Senate Members on the board. Arlen Spector, then a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, questioned her entire testimony, wondering aloud if it amounted to perjury. Democrats were worried about her credibility, as she was oddly specific about the incidents – later information would prove their fears rights. Two other women claimed to have been approached by Thomas, but one only said she was asked for a date – although that woman was quick to claim another woman could perceive repeated asking for a date to be oppressive. These two women never testified and it has never been resolved as to quite why.
Two of Thomas’ assistants testified on his behalf. His personal assistant, who worked for him for sex years, claimed to never have heard any sexist remarks or sexually harassing speech. Others testified to his adherence to professionalism and strict standards of propriety. Outside those two women who agreed with Hill, nobody testified against Thomas. All of his colleagues testified on his behalf.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOrAwJW0KAnNGI_qaZmMu...vpELC94pEx]](https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOrAwJW0KAnNGI_qaZmMud6OcYBgTlJm-5XgXqfovpELC94pEx)
Feminists, true to form, immediately began denouncing the proceedings as misogynist and hateful. They claimed the questioning of Hill wasn't based on their belief in her truthfulness, but on men wanting to perpetuate the culture of sexual harassment. Remember, this was the zenith of feminism in America – just a couple years later feminists cheered when Lorena Bobbitt chopped off her husband’s penis. Feminist stormed the capitol, angry as shit, decrying the sexist patriarchy that supported this man. They spewed all manner of hateful bile towards Thomas, some of it racially charged. Even some black feminists recall having a bad taste in their mouths after the debacle, as they correctly perceived racism on the part of their sisters. Feminists used this incident to campaign against sexual harassment, penning screeds in major media outlets and just pounding the feminist pavement hard. Feminists claimed, after the fact, the media was against them - but that wasn't the case. How can you claim the media is against you if they are publishing your opinions, giving you serious airtime and treating this allegation as very serious? Delusional.
However, in the end, damning evidence against Hill came out. Phone records showed the Thomas and Hill both exchanged numerous private phone calls, including after her employment with him. They also found hard evidence that they went on dates and often went to dinner, even after she left his employ. The Oyez Project (at Chicago-Kent Law School that religiously follows the Supreme Court) concluded there was no substantial evidence to back up Hill’s claims. Further, some female commentators pointed out that women who are really harassed tend to distance themselves as far from their harasser as possible – they don’t go to dinner with him regularly two years after leaving the job. My take is this – she is upset that she couldn’t lock him down and now homie is going on to one of the most prestigious positions a man can hold in society – a Supreme Court justice. Also, remember she is an attorney, so the prestige even more palpable to her. I have been waiting to drop this gem – take a wild guess what race his wife is?
Justice Thomas & Virginia Lamp Thomas
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSS_KTnDkWz3BJ_pBH78d3...UBJ2o_qVvt]](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSS_KTnDkWz3BJ_pBH78d3DFRxxh-GvY8FyK3U4KyUBJ2o_qVvt)
I mean, come on. The analysis practically writes itself. Aging, single black female testifies against what was most likely a former lover, who married a white woman a few years before his nomination. No hard evidence backs up her testimony and everybody else testifies against her, supporting Thomas.
However, Thomas was given a chance to respond to the allegations. He smacked the hell out of the allegations, dropping some serious heat in his speech:
Thomas’ nomination went forward to the whole of the Senate, with no recommendation from the Judiciary panel (they almost always give one). The vote was 52-48 in his favor – by far the closest vote in over century on a Supreme Court nominee. He eventually was sworn in and currently sits on the Supreme Court to this day, consistently ranking as one the most respected Justices.
In the end, Thomas was a hardworking, self-made black man who arose from the backwards racism of the 1960's and 1970's to become one of the most erudite, perceptive and successful men of his generation. He also dealt with being a black conservative/libertarian his whole life, he stated that it was often tough to engage politically with fellow blacks - marrying a white woman sure as hell didn't help him with black women. He came from nothing and became a symbol of the fading American Dream. In the appointment of a lifetime, whomever does he see derailing his dreams? A black woman. A black woman he trusted, called and went to dinner with of the course of years. A black woman who helped him professionally. A black woman who falsely accused him of harassment at the time of his ascension to the Supreme Court - an institution that for most of American history pissed all over black people. He had (and has had) a real chance to change the arc of American jurisprudence. He still is only the second black man to be on the court - Obama thought women were more important to put on the court than qualified black men. Oh well.
He proved that a black person can achieve greatness through the political and legal system. As I developed in my CRT thread, this sort of man is threatening to women and black women (and some black men). It shows that real success and power can be achieved despite racism. Many people don't want to hear that nonsense. They want to be coddled and hear about how it somebody else's fault they aren't the person they want to be.
To a man like Clarence Thomas that is foolish. He would the last person to deny racism exists and hurt blacks. However, he believes in hard work and bettering himself. Look at him now - a senior member of the Supreme Court. A self-made man who deserves accolades not accusations. A man who came from a community with no functioning toilets and is now handing down serious legal opinions. Look at Anita Hill, a professor of law and women's studies at Brandeis University. All she does in her job is complain about how bad women have it in society - at school funded primarily by men's tax dollars. The dollars that men like Thomas helped create. Which is emblematic of the relationship between the two - a giver and taker. He was her boss, who helped groom her and promote her. Her response? Accuse him of sexual harassment with no evidence.
To this day, Anita Hill has never married and has no kids. She is 55 and has no hope of reproducing. Thomas is happily married with kids and is still grinding out serious legal analysis on the Supreme Court.
I wonder who won this battle?
Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice. He is reviled in some circles because he is a black conservative. His opinions often track his conservative counterparts, like Antonin Scalia and John Roberts. Unlike other justices, he rarely speaks and even had a streak of seven years without asking a question from the bench. He did finally speak up in 2013, when he joked that a law degree from Yale might be proof of incompetence. Anita Hill was a professor at the University of Oklahoma, who worked with Thomas in the 1980’s in Reagan’s Department of Education and Reagan's EEOC.
Before we get into the controversy, lets compare Thomas’ and Hill’s lives. Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point Georgia, a historically black community that was originally founded by freedman (freed slaves) after the Civil War. The town he grew up lacked a sewage system and paved roads. Further, his father left his mother when he was the tender age of two. He then moved to live with his maternal grandparents, who lived in a more privileged community and was provided an opportunity for a real education. At sixteen, he was strongly leaning towards becoming a minister, however, after overhearing a seminary classmate saying (after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.) that he hoped “that son of bitch n***** died.” He left seminary thinking the church wasn’t doing enough to combat racism. He then went to college and eventually enrolled in Yale Law School – an impressive feat. He first worked in Missouri, then in DC for the Reagan administration, before being appointed to the federal bench by George H. W. Bush. After a couple years on the bench, Thurgood Marshall retired. Thurgood Marshall was the first black man to serve on the Supreme Court and H. W. Bush thought it was appropriate to nominate another black man – and Thomas was the only black conservative that was qualified.
Anita Hill
Anita Hill had a similar childhood experience. She was the last child of 13, born to poor farmers in Arkansas. She was the typical female overachiever and attended Oklahoma State University, then Yale Law School. She took the DC bar, began working for a local, prestigious law firm. After a year, she became the attorney-adviser for Clarence Thomas. She worked for him for over three years, following him with his various appointments by Reagan. After her time with Thomas, she taught commercial paper and contracts (the most grueling first year class) at a couple law schools before Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court. Her approach to life couldn’t be more strikingly different than Thomas’. Thomas has self-described as having a “strong libertarian streak.” Thomas’ life is emblematic of that. He recognizes that racism hurts blacks very bad, but he also understands that if he works hard, then success can be had. He didn’t make any excuses for himself and worked very hard in his life. As for Anita Hill, the same can’t be said. She is an avowed feminist and currently teaches women’s studies and a Critical Race Theory class at Brandeis University. Check out my criticism of CRT: http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-23259.html Short version: she seeks to blame everybody else for her problems in life.
As I said before, H. W. Bush was looking to promote a black man to replace the esteemed Thurgood Marshall. To be sure, Thomas was on Bush’ short list the year prior, when Bush decided to promote David Souter - who ended up being fairly liberal, so go figure. However, the nomination was racially tinged from the outset. First, was the fact that Thomas graduated towards the middle of his class at Yale Law. From my perspective, it is Yale Law for crying out loud. Further, like anything else in life, it is what you do with your education that matters. Thomas had proven himself, time and again, to be very competent at lawyering. Further, American Bar Association gave him the lowest possible “qualified” rating; the ABA routinely gives recommendation on the lawyering and judgeships of nominees. Bush announced in July 1991 that he was going to appoint Thomas to the bench. For the rest of the summer, the Bush administration geared up for what they correctly perceived to be a tough nomination battle. Women’s rights group all summer prepared to battle the nomination, mostly because he made critical remarks about Roe v. Wade – which established a woman’s right to abortion; although he said he was undecided about the decision. However, feminists couldn’t have predicted the gift they were given to topple his nomination. Even Joe Biden, then a Senator from Delaware, asked him, “Are you now or have even been a libertarian?” Biden is such a fucking blowhard.
Robert Bork
Let’s quickly step through a previous Supreme Court nominee whose abortion of a nomination loomed over Thomas’. Robert Bork was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987, much to the joy of conservatives. He was a strong conservative Chrisitian and was strongly supported by conservatives. However, the late Edward Kennedy hatched a plan to derail the nomination and conjured up an infamous speech – here is the most relevant excerpt:
Quote:Quote:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.
Bork was defeated in his confirmation vote, 42 to 58. This speech by Kennedy stunned the Reagan White House and was never actually rebutted for over two months – signaling that Reagan admitted defeat. However, “bork” became a term for politically assassinating a Supreme Court nominee. In lead-up to Thomas’ Senate hearing in September, Florynce Kennedy at NOW gave a speech saying, “We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from.” The feminist response to his nomination was just laced with latent racism, but it exploded when Anita Hill was called to testify against his nomination. Do note that Floyrence Kennedy is black.
A female at NPR leaked FBI documentation detailing Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment. Women’s rights groups and the media began to pressure her to testify. Indeed she did, in October 1991. She testified to a broad array of bizarre behavior on the part of Thomas. She described how he would comment on porn flicks he watched in which women had sex with horses and chickens and would get raped. She alleged he claimed to be well-endowed and knew how to hit it right. A famous claim of hers is that he approached her after he bought a Coke and asked, “Who put a pubic hair on my soda can?” Her testimony was reportedly viewed by over 20 millions Americans when it happened.
Hill’s commentary was questioned by the Senate Members on the board. Arlen Spector, then a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, questioned her entire testimony, wondering aloud if it amounted to perjury. Democrats were worried about her credibility, as she was oddly specific about the incidents – later information would prove their fears rights. Two other women claimed to have been approached by Thomas, but one only said she was asked for a date – although that woman was quick to claim another woman could perceive repeated asking for a date to be oppressive. These two women never testified and it has never been resolved as to quite why.
Two of Thomas’ assistants testified on his behalf. His personal assistant, who worked for him for sex years, claimed to never have heard any sexist remarks or sexually harassing speech. Others testified to his adherence to professionalism and strict standards of propriety. Outside those two women who agreed with Hill, nobody testified against Thomas. All of his colleagues testified on his behalf.
Feminists, true to form, immediately began denouncing the proceedings as misogynist and hateful. They claimed the questioning of Hill wasn't based on their belief in her truthfulness, but on men wanting to perpetuate the culture of sexual harassment. Remember, this was the zenith of feminism in America – just a couple years later feminists cheered when Lorena Bobbitt chopped off her husband’s penis. Feminist stormed the capitol, angry as shit, decrying the sexist patriarchy that supported this man. They spewed all manner of hateful bile towards Thomas, some of it racially charged. Even some black feminists recall having a bad taste in their mouths after the debacle, as they correctly perceived racism on the part of their sisters. Feminists used this incident to campaign against sexual harassment, penning screeds in major media outlets and just pounding the feminist pavement hard. Feminists claimed, after the fact, the media was against them - but that wasn't the case. How can you claim the media is against you if they are publishing your opinions, giving you serious airtime and treating this allegation as very serious? Delusional.
However, in the end, damning evidence against Hill came out. Phone records showed the Thomas and Hill both exchanged numerous private phone calls, including after her employment with him. They also found hard evidence that they went on dates and often went to dinner, even after she left his employ. The Oyez Project (at Chicago-Kent Law School that religiously follows the Supreme Court) concluded there was no substantial evidence to back up Hill’s claims. Further, some female commentators pointed out that women who are really harassed tend to distance themselves as far from their harasser as possible – they don’t go to dinner with him regularly two years after leaving the job. My take is this – she is upset that she couldn’t lock him down and now homie is going on to one of the most prestigious positions a man can hold in society – a Supreme Court justice. Also, remember she is an attorney, so the prestige even more palpable to her. I have been waiting to drop this gem – take a wild guess what race his wife is?
Justice Thomas & Virginia Lamp Thomas
I mean, come on. The analysis practically writes itself. Aging, single black female testifies against what was most likely a former lover, who married a white woman a few years before his nomination. No hard evidence backs up her testimony and everybody else testifies against her, supporting Thomas.
However, Thomas was given a chance to respond to the allegations. He smacked the hell out of the allegations, dropping some serious heat in his speech:
Quote:Quote:
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
Thomas’ nomination went forward to the whole of the Senate, with no recommendation from the Judiciary panel (they almost always give one). The vote was 52-48 in his favor – by far the closest vote in over century on a Supreme Court nominee. He eventually was sworn in and currently sits on the Supreme Court to this day, consistently ranking as one the most respected Justices.
In the end, Thomas was a hardworking, self-made black man who arose from the backwards racism of the 1960's and 1970's to become one of the most erudite, perceptive and successful men of his generation. He also dealt with being a black conservative/libertarian his whole life, he stated that it was often tough to engage politically with fellow blacks - marrying a white woman sure as hell didn't help him with black women. He came from nothing and became a symbol of the fading American Dream. In the appointment of a lifetime, whomever does he see derailing his dreams? A black woman. A black woman he trusted, called and went to dinner with of the course of years. A black woman who helped him professionally. A black woman who falsely accused him of harassment at the time of his ascension to the Supreme Court - an institution that for most of American history pissed all over black people. He had (and has had) a real chance to change the arc of American jurisprudence. He still is only the second black man to be on the court - Obama thought women were more important to put on the court than qualified black men. Oh well.
He proved that a black person can achieve greatness through the political and legal system. As I developed in my CRT thread, this sort of man is threatening to women and black women (and some black men). It shows that real success and power can be achieved despite racism. Many people don't want to hear that nonsense. They want to be coddled and hear about how it somebody else's fault they aren't the person they want to be.
To a man like Clarence Thomas that is foolish. He would the last person to deny racism exists and hurt blacks. However, he believes in hard work and bettering himself. Look at him now - a senior member of the Supreme Court. A self-made man who deserves accolades not accusations. A man who came from a community with no functioning toilets and is now handing down serious legal opinions. Look at Anita Hill, a professor of law and women's studies at Brandeis University. All she does in her job is complain about how bad women have it in society - at school funded primarily by men's tax dollars. The dollars that men like Thomas helped create. Which is emblematic of the relationship between the two - a giver and taker. He was her boss, who helped groom her and promote her. Her response? Accuse him of sexual harassment with no evidence.
To this day, Anita Hill has never married and has no kids. She is 55 and has no hope of reproducing. Thomas is happily married with kids and is still grinding out serious legal analysis on the Supreme Court.
I wonder who won this battle?
![[Image: mindblown2.png]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/mindblown2.png)
![[Image: the-rock-clapping.gif]](https://lh3.ggpht.com/-GL8QXYUKatA/T3ORe07boBI/AAAAAAAAA3g/WbX4xEzYmig/s320/the-rock-clapping.gif)
![[Image: anita%20hill.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERS...7585841901]](http://blacksnob.com/storage/anita%20hill.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1287585841901)
