In July 1991, Clarence Thomas, a relatively unknown D.C. Circuit judge, was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to replace Thurgood Marshall on the United States Supreme Court. Thomas soon found out that the only thing more perilous than replacing a historical icon on the Court is replacing a liberal with a conservative. Thomas would become an icon in his own right for conservatives: an unyielding defender of textualism and conservative jurisprudence. Yet, liberals seem more preoccupied by his race than his rigidity. This week, a leading Democrat, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison unleashed another openly racist attack on Thomas and neither the media nor the political establishment condemned the remarks.
Ellison condemned Thomas as a house slave working for white people, analogizing him to the vile character “Stephen,” played by Samuel L. Jackson in the film “Django Unchained.” (Jackson himself called Thomas “Uncle Clarence” after the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade). Ellison added that, because he disagreed with Thomas’ conservative opinions, the justice is “illegitimate” and “needs to be impeached.”
That is, of course, nonsensical from a constitutional standpoint. However, what was most striking is the response to statements. The racist attack from the top lawyer in the state of Minnesota was not condemned by a single democrat.
Not Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who previously falsely declared that hate speech is not constitutionally protected under the First Amendment and declared himself a champion against bigotry and racist rhetoric.
Not from senior Senator Amy Klubuchar, who has repeatedly denounced racist tropes and rhetoric of Republicans.
Not from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who rightfully condemned the comments of Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville on white nationalism but made no comment on a racist attack of Thomas in the same week.
Not from President Joe Biden, who has repeatedly denounced racial rhetoric and “codes” by Republicans.
Indeed, the day that Ellison’s comments were being aired nationally, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre went to the press room to denounce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at length for his statements suggesting that Covid-19 may have been engineered to spare Jewish and Chinese people. Jean-Pierre declared that “it is important that we essentially speak out” when such racist or anti-Semitic comments are made, but then made no mention of the racist attack on Thomas as nothing more than a house slave.
Thomas knew that being a conservative black jurist would not be easy when he was nominated for the bench. Thomas replaced Robert Bork on the D.C. Circuit. Bork was also savagely attacked when he was nominated for the Court. Indeed, “borked” is now a term of art for destroying nominees in the confirmation process.
Thomas’ confirmation became a battle royale after Anita Hill accused him of of sexual harassment. What followed was famously described by Thomas as “a high tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas.”
The attacks on Thomas would never end. His very presence on the Court seemed to disgust liberals who made continual reference to his race. One Democratic legislator on the Georgia Senate floor called him an “Uncle Tom” who “sold his soul to the slave master.”
The Smithsonian’s African American museum even skipped over Thomas in its selection of great African Americans at its opening despite being the second African-American appointed to the highest court. (His Senate confirmation-hearing accuser, Anita Hill, did make the cut.) It was only after a public outcry that the Smithsonian relented to include Thomas.
The media has been unrelenting in its hostile and one-sided coverage of Thomas. While running gushing pieces heralding the backgrounds of liberal justices, there has been a virtual news blackout on Thomas’ amazing life story, one of the truly most inspirational accounts of overcoming every possible obstacle in life.
Thomas was born on the Georgia coast in Pin Point, Georgia and grew up speaking Gullah, the creole dialect. He was raised in a one-room shack with dirt floors, no plumbing, and no Dad. When he was eventually sent to a Catholic school, he had to learn to read and write in English. He overcame segregation and prejudice to eventually go to Holy Cross and then was offered admission to Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania law schools. He would become the chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982, a federal appellate judge, and the second African American to join the Court.
Few of these critics could have walked the path of this man from Pin Point to Capitol Hill. He did so by being his own man — relying on his faith and his intellect to face seemingly insurmountable barriers before him.
Some 32 years ago, Thomas objected to the treatment of an “uppity black” jurist who thinks for himself. Others have made the case for him. For years, commentators have singled out Thomas for his race among the conservative majority. Now, in the face of yet another raw and racist attacks, the political and media establishment is again silent.
Ironically, the thing that made Stephen hate Django in the movie was that he would not yield to the demands of the white owners. Django defiantly admitted that he was “that one [black man] in ten thousand.” For the liberal establishment, Thomas was a threat because others might emulate him. That is why other black leaders like Sen. Tim Scott from South Carolina have faced continual racist tropes from the left, including a Maryland Delegate Gabriel Acevero stating that “Tim Scott isn’t naive, he’s cooning” to please white people.
The bitter irony is that Thomas is the antithesis of the Stephen character. He has always refused to yield to the demands of others on how he should think as a jurist due to his race.
The attacks are meant to chill others from even considering conservative or libertarian views. Ellison has long valued intimidation as a political weapon. He previously praised the ultra-violent group Antifa as useful to “strike fear in the heart” of Trump and Republicans.
Of course, Django is all about righteous rage as a license for the most extreme actions.
That is why Ellison may have had the right movie, but the wrong character. Call it the Django syndrome. When you are “one in ten thousand” who refuses to yield, you become not simply an annoyance but an obsession.
Joe Biden excels at creating a folksy image. That slick, toothy smile and chuckle are his trademark. But that’s not how politicians should be judged.
Joe Biden wrote a letter in 1977 protesting bussing to desegregate schools, saying he did not want his sons to attend a “racial jungle.” Did his opinions evolve? Years later, he said of Barrack Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean-cut and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” It’s storybook to have a clean cut, articulate black man. In an interview with Charlagmane, he said, “if you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black.” Interesting, a white man being the gatekeeper on blackness. In 2020, he said, ““unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.” When a black reporter asked if he had taken a cognitive test, as Trump had done, Biden asked if he did drugs. “That’s like saying you . . . before you got in this program, you’re take [sic] a test whether you’re taking cocaine or not,” Biden said. “What do you think? Huh? Are you a junkie?” He eulogized Robert Byrd, former KKK recruiter. (Byrd did claim to have repented his racist past.) 2006 “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” During Covid shutdowns, Biden said Americans were able to stay home because they realized “They’re saying, ‘Jeez, the reason I was able to stay sequestered in my home is because some Black woman was able to stack the grocery shelf. Or I got a young Hispanic out there, these DREAMers are out there, 60,000 of them acting as first responders and nurses and docs’,” he said. So, black people stock shelves, but Latinos are first responders, doctors, and nurses.
Taken as a whole, Joe Biden has shown a consistent trend in expressing opinions that blacks are less capable than other races. I believe people can redeem themselves, and change their opinions. I’m not going to hold one mistake against someone forever, if they’ve really changed. The problem is that Joe Biden keeps making statements that are ether blatantly racist, or show a low opinion of black people in general. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood of blacks and whites. Everyone was in the same socioeconomic class, and pretty much the same family values. It’s quite strange how the least successful segment of black society is held up as representative of the entire population. Joe Biden’s repeated statements seems to hold that he finds blacks incapable.
Karen S, BIden’s support for “equity” and affirmative action is entirely consistent with his long-standing view, expressed many times over his long career as you have noted, that blacks are incapable of achievement. This patronising attitude is characteristic of Democrats and much of our so-called establishment.
The three greatest barriers to socioeconomic improvement by the black underclass in today’s cities are broken families, poor k-12 education and criminal violence. Democratic policies have contributed significantly to all of them since the mid-1960s.
that blacks are incapable of achievement.
Like Enigmainblack?
Like Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams to add.
They are conservatives who over came and went on to accomplish varying degrees of achievement.
Nothing against Enigmainblack. He has done well by all appearances.
My parents who only had high school education, done good and have a very comfortable life. They achieved that by working hard, saving, making smart choices.
They passed that on to us kids. Between what I learned from them and the US Marines, I worked hard, saved, make smart choices, invested well, I may not be rich but I have a comfortable life. My only debt is the farm.
To everyone who reads this, invest in PMs and chickens.
Democrats: “We are the party of racial equality! The Republican Party is racist!”
Also Democrats: “Any black who votes Republican is a House Slave, Step’n’Fetchit, N word, House N word, go back to the plantation, dumb N word, Coon, Oreo, and any other racist slur I may have overlooked.
Republicans and Libertarians: People should be judged on the content of their character, not skin color. Everyone should be held to the same laws, and same standard of behavior. The bar should not be lowered for any race. No race should be deliberately discriminated against in college admissions, for example Asians. Most people can make it if they follow proven steps to success.
Not much has changed in the Democrat Party. They still attack black people who refuse to vote Democrat. Still use the same racist slurs as when they rode around dressed in bedsheets. Still have lower expectations for personal responsibility, behavior during protests, and breaking the law than quite literally any other race.
It’s quite ugly to see the regularity of racist slurs against black conservatives, and black Democrats who switch parties. This isn’t the wild eyed ranting of crazy people on subways. It’s perpetrated by prominent politicians, activists, and actors. It’s just to be expected from the Democrat Party, and as Turley remarked, it is not condemned.
Imagine if any of these racist slurs left the mouth of a Republican, what the public reaction would be. I’m so curious how the Democrat Party so successfully normalized racist slurs against black people who refuse to vote Democrat. Since racism is unjust, why is it normalized in the Democrat Party? Why the dual standards of behavior?
Don’t forget the whole basis of the demoncrats is attacking White people now, too. Their entire platform is based upon denouncing White people and demanding they be replaced and the history of the USA rewritten from a non white perspective, a racists history.
Democrat elites seem to think that public self deprecation, and general racist statements about whites, will save them. They think they can keep their success and influence if they only make racist disparaging remarks against whites and Asians. This is hypocritical. If they really feel like the US is hopelessly systemically racist, then those elites, including Nancy Pelosi, should give up their jobs, their homes, and their bank accounts, and demand they be given to a black person. Every white college student who proclaims that the US is systemically racist should give up their spot at university to a black student. Each and every one.
What we currently see are wealthy Leftist white elites claiming they benefit from ill gotten gains they are unwilling to give up. Any white politician or university administrator pushing to discriminate against Asians and whites should promptly give up their own place to a black person. Put their money where their mouths are.
Karen S,
Well said.
It is the double standard that is so appalling or disingenuous.
Upstate Farmer, true, it is the double standard that is so anathema to individual rights.
Democrats have a long and documented history of whipping, shackling, and beating blacks who do not do their bidding.
Democrats never got over the fact that “their” blacks were freed by Republicans and Abraham Lincoln, which is why James Carville is now attacking black professor Cornel West in truly racist terms: “a menace, the threat of the continued constitutional order in the United States.”
“We are witnessing the Democrats’ final revenge for losing the Civil War”
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/04/we_are_witnessing_the_democrats_final_revenge_for_losing_the_civil_war.html
IMHO it is really unfortunate that we have outlawed dueling in this country ! A quick slap in the face and the meeting of seconds would solve a lot of problems.
How ironic that Turley decries the “age of rage”, which is something he feeds into every time he writes since going on the Fox payroll. The problems people have with Clarence Thomas have nothing whatsoever to do with his race. He admittedly is NO Thurgood Marshall–intellectually or otherwise. Thomas is disrespected because of his lack of intellectual ability and mostly his ethics–or, more precisely–lack thereof. He failed to disclose the massive gifts he received from Harlan Crow–someone he didn’t know before ascending to the bench. Now, why would some billionaire befriend a Gullah who grew up speaking Geechee, and had to be taught how to speak English–other than to curry favors? Thomas is really not very bright if he can’t figure out this one–or, maybe, he’s just in denial–believing himself to belong to the same league as very wealthy white people like Crow. In addition to refusing to disclose the gifts he refuses to recuse himself from cases involving Crow and his business interests. He refused to recuse himself from the case involving subpoenas from the J6 committee and was the only vote to deny this access–even though his white wife was directly involved in the Big Lie and the insurrection. In the Dobbs decision, he would have gone much further–not just taking away the Constitutionally-protected right to reproductive freedom for women up to the age of fetal viability, but also same-sex marriage, sexual activities among consenting adults and contraception — rights that also were found to be Constituionally protected by a previous SCOTUS on the same basis that Roe relied on. Curiously, he didn’t mention rolling back Loving v. Virginia–a miscegination case involving inter-racial marriage–something directly affecting him, since he’s married to a white woman. Miscegenation laws were struck down on the same grounds as Roe and the other cases. These are the main reasons he is NOT respected–which have nothing whatsoever to do with his race. Thomas’s jurisprudence (if that’s what you want to call it) is at odds with the values and views of most black people–and this is why he’s called “Uncle Tom” and other such monikers. If he had been on the bench when Brown v. Board of Education was decided, he would have voted against it. There’s no doubt that he benefitted from race consciousness in admissions to college and law school–ironically, something he would deny others of his race going forward. Why else, other than to curry the favor of white people, would he do this, besides the fact that he isn’t very bright and certainly no champion for members his own race and the disadvantages they are dealing with? If the title fits……..
+100
Let me apprise all y’all. Anita Hill followed Justice Thomas in earlier days from one dept to another. Then when Thomas married a white woman, it was more than Hill could tolerate. Remember, Hell hath no fury compare with the scorn of a woman. Now, if Liberal Socialists Dems disagree with a majority ruling or anything, their response is just hell, destroy the Court or what ever institution or individual they disagree with.
1. A witness said she was told details about the supposed sexual harassment while the two were living in Washington, except this witness was not living in Washington when Hill worked for Thomas.
The witness supposedly corroborating Hills’ allegations had moved out of Washington before Hill even began working for Thomas. How could she have possibly been told about the harassment before it happened?
2. Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job.
Hill claimed that she feared losing her government job if she did not follow Thomas from job to job. As Brookings Institute senior fellow Stuart Taylor Jr. points out, Hill was an employee of the federal government, known for its incredible job security.
3. Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.
Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.
Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.
4. Hill initially asked to be kept anonymous when her accusations were presented to Thomas. But if her accusations were true, then Thomas would know that the accusations were launched by Hill, so why ask for anonymity?
Sowell elaborates: “The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.
“Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present,” adds Sowell. “If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.”
5. Hill lied five times about being told something from a Democratic staffer, which she later admitted to under oath.
The Federalist highlights that Hill admitted, under oath, that although she previously denied being told something by a Democratic staffer, she actually was. This of course reeks of a political motive for the allegations and, again, a lack of credibility of the accuser.
6. A dozen females who worked with Thomas and Hill gave favorable testimony about Thomas and refuted the claims by Hill of Thomas’ inappropriate behavior.
As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “a dozen” women came out in support of Thomas, giving glowing testimony of his behavior, lending contradiction to Hills’ accusations.
It’s becoming ever more clear that 99%+ of what the democrats claim are republican scandals are merely democrats lying.
Shakdi, I see it not that they’re simply lying, but rather projecting. If claims by Democrats were wagered in Las Vegas as to whether they were true, false or what the Democrats were actually doing, I’d place all my money on the latter. Even without looking at the facts. The odds of losing would be astronomically low.
Anonymous – You highlight the dishonesty of Anita Hill. But let’s suppose she had been honest. All I remember her complaining about was Thomas’s alleged mention of the name of a porn actor (“Long John Silver” or something similar) and reference to something on a Coke can that resembled a pubic hair, neither of which comments she complained about at the time. It these two comments, spread over the period of a decade or more, constitute sexual harassment, then it is impossible for people to work together. Everyday conversation is not devoid of sexual innuendo, even from women. The absurdity of the persecution of Thomas was that one of his most vocal critics was Edward Kennedy, the well-known swimming champion, whose carelessness and callousness had brought about the death of a young woman. No complaint from “feminists” there.
I beleived Hill at the time.
I still do.
I opposed Thomas’s appointment to the Supreme court based on Hill’s allegations.
The Most troubling part of the whole issue was that Thomas was head of the EEOC at the time.
He should have had the highest sensitivity to what constituties workplace harrasment of anyone in the country.
All that said – it was a MINOR incident. This was not an allegation of rape.
This was a tiny potatoes issue
I opposed Thoams because there is no RIGHT to be a supreme court justice.
And based on circumstances at the time I felt like Republicans ought to be able to find a candidate that did not engage in minor workplace harrasment while head of the EEOC.
I do not beleive Supreme court nominations should be pitched partisan battles.
I do beleive that minor issues should be able to derail candidates.
More minor than for any other government position.
Cabinet secretaries are for 4 years at most.
Supreme court Justices are for life.
At the same time I AM upset about the vitriole then and now targeting thomas.
There is a big deal of difference between – thanks but no thinks I think l we can find someone who does NOT have a credible claim of workplace harrassment,
And the vile attacks that have targeted Thomas since.
Regardless, Thomas was confirmed. END OF STORY.
As noted this was a very minor incident if True.
As to Thomas’s tenure.
Thomas’s oppinions nearly always are either absolutely excellent or complete garbage.
Thomas is by far MOSTLY the most libertarian of justices – even today.
At the same time he is the most “democratic”.
In a conflict over individual rights it is hard to tell if he is going to fall storngly on the presumption of liberty,
or on the presumption that the elected members of congress can do as they wish.
This democratic originallism was a HUGE mistake for conservatives. This is reflected by Scalia, Thomas, Alito.
While these “Democratic” originalsits Tend to follow the constitution closely – they do not allow laws that are clearly unconstitutional. They all too often completely ignore the “presumption of liberty”
As an example I beleive Dobbs was decided wrongly. But not for the reasons those on the left purport.
There is no right to an abortion. But there is a right to control of ones own body.
SCOTUS should have slammed the door on Covid regulations that attempted to constrain ones control of their own body.
And it shoudl have said there is a constitutional right to control your own body.
While a Fetus is NOT a part of your body – it is IN your body, and you have the absolute right to remove it (at your own expense), even if that results in the death of the fetus.
BUT The state CAN step in and require – at no additional risk tot he women, that the feuts be removed in a fashion consistent with preserving its life.
You have a right to control your own body – including to remove end the dependenace of another being on that body – even if ending that dependance kills it. But there is no right to intentionally kill it.
This essentially is near identical to Casey in Outcome – except that it rests on a firm constitutional foundation.
More importantly it reflects the “presumption of individual liberty” that is inherent in our constitution, inherent in the writing of our founders.
Thomas SOMETIMES gets that and at others he is as wrong as he can be.
“I opposed Thomas’s appointment to the Supreme court based on Hill’s allegations.”
John, how they raised the allegations should make one suspicious immediately. That reminds me of the Christine Blaisy Ford case, where they upped the ante when the initial allegations failed to be strong enough. Originally Hill wanted to be anonymous. Why? If Thomas acted that way, he would immediately know Anita Hill was raising the complaint, so there was no reason for secrecy. Like Ford, both finally appeared in person, creating non-credible images.
The FBI investigated and found nothing, but Hill’s story grew. It’s funny how the left frequently uses sex to destroy people they dislike.
Thomas turned out to be a great judge, and his history is certainly more compelling than Sotomayor, who rules based on her heart and experience rather than the law.
Permitting him to be destroyed and not be assigned to the Court for such phony accusations only demeaned the Court and everything the Court stands for. Such actions allow the repetition of those tactics.
John, you made a critical mistake.
Yes talk about an error.
It’s astounding what some people claim to expect.
I’ve never actually heard the perfect claim before.
There is never a chance for perfect the demoncrats will make certain of that.
Talk about denying your own human nature so some total purist can claim you qualify for a government position.
Wow.
All these people now believe the employee’s behavior is under constant monitor by all at the workplace. They even go so far now as to claim your entire outside the workplace life is fair game for their microscopic scrutiny it doesn’t have to be a government job, any job.
People definitely need to get over themselves. A libertarian perspective it is absolutely not.
It’s crazy lunacy. Be a perfect Jesus so we can hire you.
On the other hand, if some stupid government agency didn’t declare it against administrative policy permission, they don’t have a problem with it, no matter how pathetic or immoral or criminal in nature.
I remember the whole new argument made public and the policies newly adopted from on high with slick willie and the total promotion of this new harbinger of insanity and demolition of the sexes and attraction turned into a war between them.
I’m so sick of these government minders in everyone’s personal business 24/7/365.
Shakdi (Shakti, if the name is from Shiva and Shakti), though we might have a considerable agreement, I have difficulty responding to you because of comments you made that could be considered anti-Semitic. I recognize that most Jewish people vote for Democrats, but that is not how we should judge them as persons. Their political affiliations do not represent their entirety. Worldwide, they are a tiny number, but one of the most productive and charitable. It would be better to convince with logic because their average intellectual abilities seem higher than the average in the rest of the world. Don’t let that fact offend you because it took a lot of work for Jews to achieve that.
You recognize the Holocaust, but one should not think the Germans were the first to commit atrocities against the Jews. The Jews left many parts of Eastern Europe for Germany and the surrounding areas due to the pogroms where killing Jews for no reason was acceptable. This type of violence is not new. Anti-Semitism spread through Western Europe, and Jews were expelled, converted, or killed. But that is relatively recent. The Romans slaughtered maybe one million Jews, and other groups did similar atrocities, but none survived. The Jews do.
How the Jews survived is a miracle. They stood with their Torah even when facing death, and they stood under the worst circumstances educating their best and brightest who memorized the Oral Torah while passing it down generations. They copied the written Torah as previously written so that the oldest remnants match the newest exactly. The minute number of errors (perhaps less than the number of fingers we have) from the earliest to the latest are almost all marks, not letters, and do not affect meaning.
Jews have had a tremendous positive impact on Western civilization and law. We can say they (along with Christians) and the Greeks have been the educators of our great nation. The Romans were builders, but they borrowed from the Greeks. Other great ideas also advanced the world but need not be discussed now.
I hope you take my words kindly, and if you think Jews have acted poorly, which is true to all people, state your facts instead of relying on anti-Semitic tropes.
SM you are free to beleive Hioll or Ford or Reade or …. or not.
There is not one of these allegations that I beleive strongly enough to convict anyone of a crime.
There is probably not one of these allegations I beleive strongly enough to find in the accusors favor in a civil case – a much lower standard.
But refusing confirmation to a lifetime position on the supreme court is the lowest standard of all. There is no right to be a judge much less a supreme court justice.
While I think that Thomas has proven to MOSTLY be an excellent justice. I would not have confirmed him.
That has nothing to do with politics, nor ideology, nor judicial philosophy.
I did not find Ford credible. I strongly suspect something did happen to her 35 years ago, but her recollection is so poor that it can not be relied on.
I doubt that Kavanaugh was even at this party that we do not even know what year it took place.
It would have taken only a small amount of additional credibility on Fords part and I would have voted to reject Kavanaugh.
Again this is not about ideology or politics. It is about that fact that this is an appointment to a lifetime position.
Many of the recent attacks on Thomas – and the court more broadly I find disturbing.
While most of the attacks are political garbage. I do expect higher ethical standards from Supreme Court Justices.
The standard is not actual impropriety. I do not beleive Ginsberg or Sotomayor or Thomas has actually done anything wrong
nor is there a conflict involving their cases.
But they have done things that APPEAR shady and they should avoid that.
But the constitution requires the court to establish those standards for itself.
And if we do not like that we should change the constitution.
Without question the lies of Anita Hill didn’t constitute sexual harassment. It was laughable and the American people recognized it.
You are right about Ted Kennedy. He was known for his zipper being down at Au Bar in Palm Beach.
Now since they made it an entire branch of government minders after everyone all the time, just do what the new minders want, chop it off and show up in a dress. That isn’t workplace harassment to anyone.
This is what insane policies that deny human nature come to.
I thought libertarians had a handle on human nature but I guess not.
“Anita Hill followed Justice Thomas in earlier days from one dept to another. Then when Thomas married a white woman, it was more than Hill could tolerate”
That really explains it all. Thanks for sharing!
Lighteredknot: No. Here’s the skinny–excerpted from the History Channel:
Both Thomas and Hill had risen from poor rural childhoods in segregated America, graduated from Yale Law School and launched promising legal careers in Washington, D.C. Their paths converged at the U.S. Department of Education in 1981, when Thomas hired Hill to be his special assistant in the department’s Office of Civil Rights.
Shortly after that, according to Hill, Thomas began harassing her, a pattern that would continue after Thomas left his post to become chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Hill moved with him to continue as his assistant.
Hill, who left Washington in 1983 and became a law professor in her native Oklahoma, was initially reluctant to come forward with her allegations against Thomas. But in the late summer of 1991, she was contacted by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who had heard rumors of possible misconduct by Thomas against at least one female employee in his past. After a three-day FBI investigation led the White House to determine the allegations were “unfounded,” the reporter Nina Totenberg of NPR learned of the FBI report and revealed Hill’s accusations to the public for the first time.
On October 11, Hill testified before the committee that Thomas had asked her out repeatedly and that even after she refused, often talked to her in graphic detail about sex. Throughout the brutally uncomfortable questioning by senators, Hill retained her composure, even when forced to repeat again and again the most disturbing and embarrassing parts of Thomas’ alleged harassment. Years later, the committee’s Democratic chairman, Joe Biden, would publicly apologize to Hill for not protecting her from his fellow senators’ grilling.
Thomas vehemently denied Hill’s allegations and invoked racial discrimination, calling the hearing “a national disgrace…a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves.” imagining Thomas’ harassment, or of committing “flat-out perjury,” in the words of Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah even accused her of borrowing the Coke can incident from the 1971 novel The Exorcist. Despite Hill’s testimony, and that of four corroborating witnesses who said she talked with them about Thomas’ behavior at the time, the Senate voted to confirm Thomas 52-48, the narrowest margin in nearly a century.
Gigi the History Channel was taken over more than a decade ago as well as the Discovery Channel I don’t recall exactly by whom but it has been a pile of crap for a very long time now. Only a fool believes a word coming from it.
I was so ticked it since it used to have excellent programs, but of course I immediately stopped watching it when it was totally wrecked and became propaganda and lies.
Lighteredknot: No. According to the following excerpt from the History Channel, here’s what happened
Both Thomas and Hill had risen from poor rural childhoods in segregated America, graduated from Yale Law School and launched promising legal careers in Washington, D.C. Their paths converged at the U.S. Department of Education in 1981, when Thomas hired Hill to be his special assistant in the department’s Office of Civil Rights.
Shortly after that, according to Hill, Thomas began harassing her, a pattern that would continue after Thomas left his post to become chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Hill moved with him to continue as his assistant.
Hill, who left Washington in 1983 and became a law professor in her native Oklahoma, was initially reluctant to come forward with her allegations against Thomas. But in the late summer of 1991, she was contacted by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who had heard rumors of possible misconduct by Thomas against at least one female employee in his past. After a three-day FBI investigation led the White House to determine the allegations were “unfounded,” the reporter Nina Totenberg of NPR learned of the FBI report and revealed Hill’s accusations to the public for the first time.
On October 11, Hill testified before the committee that Thomas had asked her out repeatedly and that even after she refused, often talked to her in graphic detail about sex. Throughout the brutally uncomfortable questioning by senators, Hill retained her composure, even when forced to repeat again and again the most disturbing and embarrassing parts of Thomas’ alleged harassment. Years later, the committee’s Democratic chairman, Joe Biden, would publicly apologize to Hill for not protecting her from his fellow senators’ grilling.
Thomas vehemently denied Hill’s allegations and invoked racial discrimination, calling the hearing “a national disgrace…a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves.” imagining Thomas’ harassment, or of committing “flat-out perjury,” in the words of Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah even accused her of borrowing the Coke can incident from the 1971 novel The Exorcist. Despite Hill’s testimony, and that of four corroborating witnesses who said she talked with them about Thomas’ behavior at the time, the Senate voted to confirm Thomas 52-48, the narrowest margin in nearly a century.
Jonathan: The criticism of Clarence Thomas has nothing to do with his race. It’s his right-wing conservative judicial philosophy and his hiding of lavish gifts he has received from billionaire Harlan Crowe and others over the past 20 years. When Keith Ellison calls Thomas “Uncle Clarence” that reflects the widespread view of the Black community that views Thomas as someone who sold his soul to get a place inside the White conservative establishment.
The Black community has a long history — going back to slavery when certain slaves were called “Uncle Toms” for wanting to be “house ne*roes” and the privileges that went with that status. So if Ellison or other Black politicians call Thomas “Uncle Clarence” that’s an accurate description of his behavior, not a “racist trope”. Name one white liberal or Democrat that has used “racist tropes” in describing Thomas. You won’t find any. It’s all about his failure to adhere to judicial ethics codes that apply to all other federal judges, refusing to recuse himself in cases in which his wife has had a direct interest and his slavish support for Donald Trump–who now has been indicted for his criminal acts.
Trying to play the race card in defending Thomas won’t work. What you need to do is concentrate on why Thomas and Alito have brought so much disgrace upon the Supreme Court and why Americans feel the Court can’t be fair and impartial. That is the problem that has nothing to do with race.
Nothing here is new or novel. In fact, it defines the Democrats. Who filibustered the civil rights legislation in the 60s? Yes. Who had a former KKK member as a Senator? Yes. It is actually the Black Democrats who are the Uncle Toms.
“Ellison added that, because he disagreed with Thomas’ conservative opinions, the justice is “illegitimate” and “needs to be impeached.”
That is, of course, nonsensical from a constitutional standpoint.”….and plain ol’ commonsense which is something absent in your typical radical Leftist.
If Ellison thinks one’s political opinions are the basis for impeachment…..then is not Ellison an absolutely perfect candidate for the same treatment?
Ellison is an insult to the concept of tolerance, honor, ethics, and reason and he personifies that every bit as much as his own mentor Calypso Louie….who is very much a race baiter of the worst kind.
Black’s law dictionary defines Prejudice: A forejudgment; bias; partiality; preconceived opinion. A leaning towards one side of a cause from some reason other than a conviction of it justice.
As a noun: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience.
These definitions would place Attorney General Ellison as being prejudice. He has a preconceived opinion that Supreme Court Justice Thomas bases his ruling and behavior on wanting to please white people. That statement alone makes AG Ellison a prejudice individual. He is a pompous ass with a turgid style.
He is symbolic of ‘NOT ME’ or in different terms ‘YES BUT’: look over there; I’m not one of those! Better known as a Leftist Cretan, as all Cretan’s are liars.
The Left is busy today with its scurrilous attacks on Justice Thomas (just see some of the comments below). His real “sin” is that he doesn’t think the way the Left believes African Americans are required to think. He thinks for himself, he thinks logically, he takes the Constitution seriously, all of which, when done by a Black man, is an unforgivable sin.
Absolutely, old man. And unlike one of his new colleagues on the bench, I’m certain he can define what a woman is. He had to defend his honor against one just to be confirmed.
Imagine if a progressive judge had accepted $500,000 trips from a wealthy person trying to influence the court.
The posts by Turley would be relentless about that. But when the corrupt judge is an ideological fellow traveler Turley posts that the judge is the real victim and the people pointing out the corruption are racists. That is why we are in the age of rage – people like Turley are the cause.
“Imagine if . . .”
How many IP addresses do you have?
Surely Thomas would have opined with Sotomajor absent that trip.
Yawn.
Imagine if a progressive
judgePresident had accepted$500,000$40,000,000 trips from a wealthy person trying to influencethe courtUS foreign policyOverseas payments to Biden family could exceed $40M, Comer says: ‘This was organized crime’
https://nypost.com/2023/06/28/comer-says-overseas-payments-to-biden-family-could-exceed-40m/
56% Of Voters Agree Biden ‘Likely’ Took Bribes In Office: I&I/TIPP Poll
https://tippinsights.com/56-of-voters-agree-biden-likely-took-bribes-in-office-i-i-tipp-poll/
When you see what the education system does and does not teach rage politics comes into focus.
Racist ad hominem attacks like this allow critics to avoid having to deal with the substance of Thomas’s jurisprudence.
The best critique I have seen of that is one that says he has not applied his originalism to the notion that the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause constitutionalised the doctrine of colour blindness. His recent concurrence in the AA case sought to remedy that.
It may not be entirely persuasive. A strong argument can be made that the 14th amendment mirrored the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in outlawing discrimination based on race only with respect to a limited number of specific civil rights. On this reading, and if you stick with originalism, Brown v Board was wrongly decided. That is clearly not acceptable to Thomas or nearly anyone else. Hence his effort to square the circle.
It would be far better to engage with the substance of Thomas’s arguments than to call him names.
Quite right imo. I have had some issues with justice Thomas’ ‘jurisprudence’ in the past (along with his ideological mentor Justice Scalia, rip), but thought his recent work on AA .. . timely.
*i reserve my ‘uncle Tom’ remarks for ppl like Obama.
Bravo Professor Turley!! Thank you for your impassioned defense of this great American. Thomas’s story makes me think of the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, remember, it hated me first.” Justice Thomas left the seminary and a future as a priest to serve in another way. You neglected to mention that it was Joe Biden leading the jackals in the attempted lynching of the uppity conservative Thomas during his confirmation hearing. Ironic to think that while Thomas’s confirmation was threatened by a simple remark allegedly made by Thomas which even if true, was not THAT bad, his accuser Joe Biden was assaulting Tara Reade and showering with his daughter.
Isn’t it great being a liberal, you can trash anybody you want and get away with it because you’re so pious and holy.
Bear in mind that Ellison came out of Louis Farrakan’s Nation of Islam. He shouldn’t be in ANY office, much less attorney general of a state that used to be one of the whitest in the Union.
“there has been a virtual news blackout on Thomas’ amazing life story, one of the truly most inspirational accounts of overcoming every possible obstacle in life”
He has been going on vacations worth half a billion dollars with Harlan Crowe. Harlan Crowe paid for his mother’s house. He has ruled the way Harlan Crowe wants. That is the story of most of his life – corruption.
If Thomas were a leftist and voted the way you liked on the SC, you would care less about any alleged “corruption”. The same reason that St. Hunter’s or Joe Biden’s shenanigans do not bother you. Get real! I hate phony leftist moralizing.
Gosh I’d like to see a vacation worth half a billion dollars.
LOL! IKR. It must have been a moonshot or something.
We’d sure like to know the names of the Supreme Court cases in which Harlan Crow was a litigant. Please identify them, then tell us specifically how Thomas “ruled’ the way Crow wanted.
“vacations worth half a billion dollars “
Do you realize how foolish that sounds. Can you itemize the expenditures so we can see how your mind works, or doesn’t?
“Harlan Crowe paid for his mother’s house. “
Is that owned by Thomas? No. Can Thomas sell it? No. When his mother dies can Thomas sell it? No. On the books how much does that property increase Thomas’s wealth? $0.
You have an odd way of assessing expenditures and income.
He has ruled the way Harlan Crowe wants.
Poor, poor Harlan Crowe. Imagine having to allegedly dish out “billions” of vacation dollars and real estate to receive the same rulings that millions of American’s received for virtually nothing.
Minnesota. You can stop there. No need to explain.
‘The Point’ of this Article is that Discrimination through Speech creates prejudice(s) that are not representative of the Facts.
[Ellison] and Others have ‘accused’ Clarence Thomas of something He is not.
The accusations and innuendo are so counter to the Reality-of-Facts of Justice Thomas’ life’s timeline,
that the speech used by Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison is “Blatantly Hypocritical and Bigoted”, in its own right it plainly and clearly speaks for itself.
No One should be Accused Of Something They Are Not. Particularly for something as cheap as ‘Political Gains’. No amount of Apology and Reinstatement can ever make up for it. It’s done and cannot be undone, It can only be Stopped.