Posted on 07/24/2005 1:59:02 PM PDT by wagglebee
Anita Hill, the woman who opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court by alleging sexual harassment, is now blasting President Bush's selection of John Roberts, claiming it's a step back for diversity and fears it could lead to "an all-white-male Supreme Court."
In a commentary published in Newsday, Hill, who is now a professor of social policy, law and women's studies at Brandeis University, writes:
"[W]as John Roberts chosen because he's the best choice for the court or because he may easily be confirmed? And why not choose a woman to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court? Or use this as an opportunity to nominate the first Latino to the court?
"Not surprisingly, the answer to these questions has to do with the politics of confirmability. One thing is certain: If nominees are selected based on the very narrow and elite credentials that brought us John Roberts, a wide range of equally qualified, more diverse candidates will never even be considered."
Hill admits not much is known about Roberts' political ideology, but notes "his career has been built on membership in increasingly elitist institutions that include few women and Latinos or other ethnic minorities."
"With O'Connor on the bench, the Supreme Court was the most diverse in its history," Hill continued. "If confirmability through the Roberts 'primer' becomes the rule, it is not hard to imagine a return to an all-white-male Supreme Court.
"The nomination process may have become so politicized that the only secure nomination is someone who is an ultimate Washington insider, liked by both sides. If so, it misses a chance to reflect the experiences of the vast majority of Americans. Moreover, a gold standard for judicial selection based on exclusivity appears to contradict the values of ever-expanding opportunities we espouse."
Hill's opinion is prompting reaction from bloggers across the Internet, including one from Jon Henke, who said, "Good Lord, is she really arguing that appointments to the Supreme Court should be made based on skin color and gender, rather than judicial merits? Is she really arguing that we're paying too much attention to merit and not enough to appearance?"
Another writes, "It's ironic that the woman who did her best to torpedo court diversity during the Clarence Thomas hearings, is now such a huge advocate."
In 1991, Hill nearly derailed the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas by claiming she had been sexually harassed by Thomas when she worked for him years earlier at the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
She said Thomas would discuss sexual acts and pornographic films after she rebuffed his invitations to date him.
In response to the allegations, Thomas called Senate hearings on the matter "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks."
He was eventually confirmed by the Senate by a 52-48 vote.
Why.....the MSM pimps and Madame Hillary is who.
Seems to me that Hill's opposition could very well be the best reason to support Roberts.
Look at what we got the last time she opposed a nominee! We got Justice Clarence Thomas!
Mark
Here is a link to Anita's bio
http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/200507/omag_200507_anita_e.jhtml
Note: no mention of a marriage. Was all this bitterness towards Thomas more about a Lesbian rejecting a suitor who did not know she was black and gay?
Thanks.
Ms. Hill seems to have joined the class of professional whiners!
I take it she wants more whites in the NBA too, we are very under-represented.
Poor ol Anita....... she believed the lies that she was the plantation super blackgirl. She was selected and then shoved through the masses to the top of the affirmative action heap. She believed she was real....look at where she was and where she went.
She got to DC and learned she was merely mediocre and the life she lived was a lie.
Maybe she thinks she's doing women a favor in expressing these views but just the opposite is the case. She's encouraging people to think that any time a woman is appointed to anything it's because of gender, rather than merit. I would want to be appointed on the basis of my merit and gender shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I was thinking the same thing. The woman is most likely a paid liar. I wonder who is paying her this time.
Even less, as far as I'm concerned. I do wish that Clarence Thomas would make a statement now. Something to the effect of: "I have no concerns about there being an all-white SCOTUS in the near future."
Anita who?
Maybe Arlen could think up a few more questions for her.
1. Because that opens the door to accusations of tokenism from the left
2. Because that sets a precedent of assigned seats for certain races/genders/etc, rather than seeking the most qualified jurists
3. Because you would not have made this argument to support a white male replacement for Rehnquist, etc, so clearly your question is clearly nothin' more than political posturing.
But thanks for asking.
Liar, Liar pants are soaked.
Whoops... Maybe you should try some pics of the Fox(y) babes.
Try Condi Rice.
She's Baaaaaaaaack!
Pissing off Anita Hill is a pretty good recommendation.
Anita Hill claimed that Clarence Thomas put a pubic hair on her coke can as way to harass her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.