Posted on 09/27/2007 12:36:58 PM PDT by Reagan Man
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS DISCUSSES HIS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIFE AND SAYS THE REAL ISSUE AT HIS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS WAS ABORTION
In his first television interview, in which he discusses his childhood, his race, his rise to Supreme Court Justice and his job on the nation's highest court, Clarence Thomas says the real issue at his controversial confirmation hearings 16 years ago was abortion. Saying the issue was "the elephant in the room," Thomas also tells Steve Kroft that the hearings he called at the time a "high tech lynching" harmed the country. The interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES, Sunday Sept. 30 (7:30-9:00 PM/ET, 7:00-9:00 PM /PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Thomas, whose Supreme Court positions on abortion issues have been conservative, says the confirmation hearings in which he was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee -- allegations he continues to deny -- were really about abortion. "That was the elephant in the room... That was the issue. That is the issue that people are apparently so upset about," he tells Kroft. "[That is the issue] that you determine the composition of your Supreme Court and your entire federal judiciary, it seems now," says Thomas.
He says the hearings harmed the accuser, Anita Hill, himself, and ultimately the country by setting a precedent manifested in other highly charged, media-infused events such as the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. "The process harmed her. It harmed me and we see sort of the precedent of this kind of thing begin to harm even people like President Clinton," Thomas believes. "Things are out of control. That's not good for the country. It's not good for the court," he continues, "What are we going to look like years from now if we can't get people confirmed because everybody gets to attack them. They get to draw and quarter them," he says.
In the interview, Thomas also expresses an opinion of his accuser for the first time in public, saying of Hill, who waited 10 years to accuse him, "She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed. That's not the person I knew," Thomas says. "She could defend herself, let's just put it that way... She did not take slights very kindly and anyone who did anything, she responded very quickly," he says. When Kroft rejoins, "Didn't take 10 years?" Thomas replies, "It didn't take 10 minutes."
Developing...
One thing I remember about those hearing was Anita Hill saying she was doing this for the right reasons and was not an attempt to make money or something (like writing a book).
Her book was published a few years later.
The Thomas and Bork hearings were central factors in my disaffection from the Democratic Party. Ever since those events, I’ve looked at the Dems as lying, slanderous scumbags. Nothing since then has changed my mind.
I suspect some conservatives will bristle at Justice Thomas even hinting that the Clinton impeachment resembled his own experience in any way. However, I must admit I was a little uncomfortable about seeing a fullscale legal investigation surrounding whether or not the President had adultrous sex. If anyone deserved it, Clinton did, but I think the whole “investigation culture” has gotten out of hand in this country.
I read a book about Starr and the Lewinsky case, and his staff debated the wisdom of going after Clinton on the Lewinsky thing. One faction said it was a political hot-potato that could easily be turned against them (which is what happened), and they should let it go. Others said that even the President is subject to the law, and it’s immoral to let him off because it violates the principle of “equal protection under the law.” So they referred the matter to Janet Reno’s office, which gave approval to go forward with the investigation. The rest is history.
One more time: Please try very hard to understand, that the issue was Clinton’s lying under oath to a federal court, not whether or when or where he had engaged in extra-marital sexual intercourse, however defined.
The articles of impeachment did not charge Clinton with having engaged in acts of sexual intercourse and maintain that such acts were illegal and a cause for impeachment, as such.
It was not “just about sex.” It was about lying! Is the distinction between these too subtle for you?
Quit being rude.
Of course I understand the distinction. My discomfort was caused by the fact that our entire Federal Government was focused on the sex life of our President while there were gigantic matters (e.g. Bin Laden) that were being ignored, and while our troops were in harm’s way in Kosovo. It seemed unseemly and counter-productive. Of course it was primarily Clinton’s fault, and of course he shouldn’t have perjured himself, but that doesn’t mean the investigation was absolutely necessary or productive.
“our entire Federal Government was focused on the sex life of”
America’s dirty little secret. The culture inside the beltway is infused with sex and it is becoming more apparent that many aspire to elcted service in DC as not just a way to “get laid” but license to do so at any convenient opportunity.
Even the generation of the revolution saw fit to not provide a lethario a position where policy is made.
Did you ever wonder why Ben Franklin was always appointed to some position and was never elected to office? George and Tom knew he couldn’t keep his pants buttoned.
We’ve lost this ethic - politics has become directed by genitalia.
Thomas is a great America.
I have always liked Justice Thomas.
It was not until I saw him speaking to a group of high school students on C-Span that I realized the true meaning of the words ‘humble’ and ‘dignity.’
I have always said President Reagan will prove to be the greatest President in my lifetime. Justice Thomas will be one of the great Supreme Court Justices of my lifetime.
Clarence Thomas is a great man, and a great Supreme Court justice. The smear job perpetrated against him was one of the lowest episodes in the history of the Senate. Just flat-out disgusting.
The thing about Clinton is that he was impeached, but then no trial was held, as is specified in the Constitution. The trial could have been swift and definitive, because Clinton really lied. Then Congress could have removed him.
What may have saved Clinton is that no one wanted a President Gore. Still, they should have followed the Constitution. I think that after convicting Clinton, they could have fined him — maybe a few dollars, or whatever. Heck, he is a multimillionaire just from speaking fees. His notoriety probably makes him more in demand.
Great lecture by a great man.
That he was not above the law is unquestioned. The perjury rightly went to the Attorney General. But as I've told my many liberal friends over all these years, the matter would've been resolved months earlier, and with much less publicity, if Clinton would have made the admission from the get-go that he had undergone illicit sex with Lewinsky. Meaning, his lying, not his perjury, made this matter what it became.
At the height of the impeachment proceeding, my liberal friends used to scream that lying about sex is not an impeachable offense. "Yes," I would answer, "but it is a resignable offense." Clinton should have resigned rather than put the nation through the impeachment trial. But he is a product of the 1960s, where men live without honor. So he held onto power like a drowned rat holding onto a ship.
Fight onward Justice Thomas; and know that we are with you. And together, we shall prevail.
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.