Posted on 12/06/2017 5:57:59 PM PST by Kaslin
It’s not the first time I’ve heard it, but after reading this op-ed from Jay Kaganoff in the Washington Post, I’m guessing we’ll be seeing more of it. After the cacophony of calls for Hollywood moguls and media figures to lose their jobs and elected officials to resign or be removed following allegations of sexual assault and harassment, it was inevitable that Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’ name would eventually come up.
Kaganoff titles his piece, Fellow conservatives, it’s time to call on Clarence Thomas to resign. The author makes at least a partially convincing case, depending on where you personally set the bar for convictions in the Court of Public Opinion. If allegations which can’t or won’t be tested before a jury are enough to remove senators, congressmen and movie studio chiefs, why not a Supreme Court justice? Kaganoff reviews the evidence from Thomas’ confirmation hearings and believes that Anita Hill’s claims pass the smell test.
It’s always a question of balance between believing the victims and avoiding mob mentality. But there are a few factors that tilt toward Hill’s version of the story.
It wasn’t exactly his word against hers; she had witnesses whom the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, did not call up. And Biden is a Democrat, so there goes the “they only attacked him because he’s conservative” narrative. He was confirmed by a Senate under Democratic control.
In an interview on CNN, conservative journalist Bethany Mandel talks about how coming forward affects women. “This will be the only thing these women are ever known for. That’s not something someone wants to sign up for.” Hill is a law-school professor with a respected career in her own right, but she has to carry this around with her — without even the satisfaction of having her harasser punished.
I would suggest we apply the same test to Thomas as we have to others in the spotlight such as Franken, Conyers and Moore. As to credibility, were there multiple victims making such reports? In this case it seems not. Did the accuser make the accusation or at least tell other witnesses at the time? Well, perhaps not at the time it happened, but contemporaneous witnesses were heard from. Did the accused own up to the deed and apologize? Not in this case, but neither have some others who are being called on to step aside.
There’s also the severity of the actions being alleged, keeping in mind that there is still a definite line between harassment and assault. Anita Hill told of some extremely brutish language which, if true, would certainly amount to harassment in 2017. But forcible, unwanted contact such as groping a sleeping woman’s breasts didn’t really come up so I suppose we’re on the harassment side of the fence here as opposed to assault.
I don’t know. I’m having a hard time mustering the same level of “They Must Go Now” reaction when considering the stories of Justice Thomas and Anita Hill, but if we believe her accusations they can’t simply be excused, either. The problem here is that Thomas has rejected all of these accusations all along. There’s no reason to think he would suddenly admit to the alleged deeds and sheepishly resign. At that point, you have no option to remove him from the bench short of impeachment. Would alleged but unproven harassment rise to the required level of offense for the House to bring the charges and the Senate convict him?
Color me skeptical on both counts, even if the Democrats held the majority in both chambers. And I’m not saying this out of convenience because he’s one of the conservative justices on the bench. Were he removed right now, President Trump would replace him with a new name off of his famous list and you’d have a new, probably younger conservative judge on the bench. This is a question of whether or not both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill are being treated as fairly and impartially as is possible under the circumstances. And unlike Mr. Kaganoff, I don’t see such a clear answer on this one.
I stand corrected.
I knew Anita Hill’s allegations were total bull$hit when she made ‘em, and those hearings (which I watched at the time) were a total farce: best described as a high-tech lynching of a Conservative Black man. She admitted she was a Democrat (Strike #1) and she followed Thomas from job to job, not exactly the mark of an abused underling and more that of a stalker (Strike #2), and she hated that Thomas married a White woman (Strike #3, you’re out).
Thomas has proven himself to be in the top 3 greatest SCOTUS jurists in the past 100 years along with Scalia and Rehnquist.
>They definitely have a game plan and they are going after big game.
They don’t have a game plan. This is a moral panic like the Salim witch trials. They’re purging people left in right trying because of Trump’s win. They can’t explain their loss so they’re applying leftist morality that’s typically only applied on their opponents to themselves in attempt to purify themselves.
This is why it’s very, very important for us not to apply their morality to our side. Let them purge their own, but demand real proof, due process, and protect our own people from their witch hunters. When they realize we’re not going to eat our own, they’ll stick to hunting witches in their own ranks.
Then there are two offended parties, er, witnesses. They definitely should resign. No doubt about it!
Good news - they’re already overstepping in their attempts to suddenly seem virtuous....”It’s a miracle! I feel virtuous today! Now, on to slime and destroy actual virtuous folks....”
That is a call to all the hystericals out there, for one of them to “remember” something that Clarence “did” 30 years ago. It’s how they do things.
Past 100 years? I’d rank ‘em Scalia, Pierce Butler and Thomas.
And I have no reason not to believe you.
Isn't that what I'm supposed to say?
‘Sometimes I wonder if this is women’s revenge.’
‘sometimes’ you wonder this...?
Damn, do these idiots want a for real shooting war?
Leave Justice Thomas ALONE!
There’s a word Australians use to describe spectacular, breath-taking stupidity: F**ktardery.
The F**tardery of Rats knows no bounds.
If Anita Hill is dead, she can’t give false testimony
‘Leftists do it because they are atheists’
they are not atheists;they practice their own religion as avidly as the most ardent evangelist...
if they were truly agnostic regarding cultural norms, they’d be far more pleasant with which to deal...
“Wouldn’t be a hoot to Justice Thomas.”
Sorry - should have been more clear. My thought was along the lines of Thomas *volunteering* to retire - and naming his “mini-me” replacement (with POTUS on board of course).
Hang 'em! That's what you're supposed to say. Belief has nothing to do with it. The seriousness of the charge is sufficient without belief. Who needs to believe it! Itjust has to be "serious." LOL!
“Thomas has proven himself to be in the top 3 greatest SCOTUS jurists in the past 100 years along with Scalia and Rehnquist.”
Yes. In retrospect, nominating Justice Thomas was the best thing GHWB did as POTUS.
No, it’s time for Anita Hill to perform seppuku. How else can she expunge herself of the shame of being such an obvious liar?
The Clinton Philosophy is "If witness X is dead, he or she can't give true testimony. Arrange their accidental/suicide/natura-cause death. Just remember we need 'plausible deniability' when it happens."
Jay Kaganoff is a freelance writer based in Brooklyn. He has written for National Review Online and Commentary Magazine, among others.
Some astute readers have been researching this guy for the last day and a half, and nobody can find any evidence that he ever wrote for NRO or Commentary at all. The website moderators are furiously deleting posts that point this out.
The Washington Post may have posted a fake op-ed piece from a fake author.
I give Rehnquist a slot on the top three if only because he deserves canonization for staying on the bench throughout the horrid Clinton regime despite being in considerable physical pain, not wanting to give him the opportunity to name another abomination to the bench (just think, he might’ve put Jerry Brown as Chief Justice).
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.