Thomas, who was head of the Office of Equal Opportunity, should not have been involved in any way with a subordinate. Should. Not. So if the affair rumor was true, he got what he deserved.
If, as your roommate believed, there was no affair but an emotional "jilting", it sounds like Thomas did not handle a personnel problem effectively. Nevertheless, I believe the harassment took place pretty much as she described it, and her shock that the head of OEO could speak this way to a woman subordinate stuck in her craw. Being emotionally interested in someone is not an invitation to hear about "pubic hairs" and "Long Dong Silver" at work.
Justice Thomas seems to me like too upright a man to be involved with a subordinate. Anybody with sense knows that's trouble. And to blame a supervisor for poor managerial skills because a subordinate has a crush on him is silly. You don't know how he handled it, or if he even KNEW that she had a crush on him.
And given the fact that she has (1) been proven a liar many times over, especially the conversation that she supposedly had about Thomas BEFORE she went to work for him and (2) has had nothing but trouble in her subsequent jobs (especially at a university post where there was trouble with pubic hairs in exam papers, IIRC), I don't know why you're giving her ANY benefit of the doubt.
For those of us who are courtroom watchers, the critical moment was when the supposed witness to the complaint about Thomas was asked for the date of the conversation. She checked a date book or a telephone message slip and gave a reply that was NOT within the dates Hill worked for Thomas (but WAS during the time that she worked in a private law firm with a partner that was well known as a sexual harasser). The lawyer who was conducting the direct exam for the anti-Thomas crowd immediately called for a recess. That ALWAYS means trouble in a big way when it happens in the middle of a witness exam. The witness left the room with the lawyer for about 15 minutes, then returned and testified to a completely different date. IIRC, she was cross examined about it and said she was "mistaken" about the earlier date -- but she read it off a phone slip!
Any lawyer knows that when they went out of the room she was told, "That date is going to sink our entire case - change it NOW!" The fact that she willingly perjured herself "for the team" doesn't say much for her, either.
As I said, you're giving office gossip AND Ms. Hill way too much credit. (Plus, I know a liar when I hear one talking, since I was a courthouse lawyer for over 10 years and my livelihood depended on being able to tell the liars from the truth-tellers.)