Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice. He is reviled in some circles because he is a black conservative. His opinions often track his conservative counterparts, like Antonin Scalia and John Roberts. Unlike other justices, he rarely speaks and even had a streak of seven years without asking a question from the bench. He did finally speak up in 2013, when he joked that a law degree from Yale might be proof of incompetence. Anita Hill was a professor at the University of Oklahoma, who worked with Thomas in the 1980’s in Reagan’s Department of Education and Reagan’s EEOC.
Before we get into the controversy, let us compare Thomas’ and Hill’s lives. Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point Georgia, a historically black community that was originally founded by freedman (freed slaves) after the Civil War. The town he grew up lacked a sewage system and paved roads. Further, his father left his mother when he was the tender age of two. He moved to live with his maternal grandparents, who lived in a more privileged community and was provided an opportunity for a real education. He then went to college and eventually enrolled in Yale Law School – an impressive feat.
He first worked in Missouri, then in DC for the Reagan administration, before being appointed to the federal bench by George H. W. Bush. After a couple years on the bench, Thurgood Marshall retired. Thomas was nominated to replace Marshall, another black man.
Anita Hill had a similar childhood experience. She was the last child of 13, born to poor farmers in Arkansas. She was the typical female overachiever and attended Oklahoma State University, then Yale Law School. She began working for a local, prestigious law firm in DC. After a year, she became the attorney-adviser for Clarence Thomas. She worked for him for over three years, following him with his various appointments by Reagan. After her time with Thomas, she taught commercial paper and contracts at a couple of law schools before Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court.
Thomas has self-described as having a “strong libertarian streak.” Thomas’ life is emblematic of that. He recognizes that racism hurts blacks, but he also understands that if he works hard, success can be had. He didn’t make any excuses for himself. As for Anita Hill, the same can’t be said. She is an avowed feminist and currently teaches women’s studies and a Critical Race Theory class at Brandeis University. Both disciplines reinforce victimhood over empowerment.
Lead-up To The Nomination
H. W. Bush was looking to promote a black man to replace the esteemed Thurgood Marshall. To be sure, Thomas was on Bush’ short list the year prior, when Bush decided to promote David Souter. However, the nomination was racially tinged from the outset. First, was the fact that Thomas graduated towards the middle of his class at Yale Law. Further, like anything else in life, it is what you do with your education that matters. Thomas had proven himself, time and again, to be very competent at lawyering.
Bush announced in July 1991 that he was going to appoint Thomas to the bench. For the rest of the summer, the Bush administration geared up for what they correctly perceived to be a tough nomination battle. Women’s rights groups all summer prepared to battle the nomination; mostly because he made critical remarks about Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to abortion. This was in spite of that fact that he said he was undecided about the decision. However, feminists couldn’t have predicted the gift they were given to topple his nomination.
Anita Hill’s Testimony
A female at NPR leaked FBI documentation detailing Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment. Women’s rights groups and the media began to pressure her to testify. Indeed she did, in October 1991. She testified to a broad array of bizarre behavior on the part of Thomas. She described how he would comment on porn flicks he watched. She alleged he claimed to be well-endowed and was good in the bedroom. A famous claim of hers is that he approached her after he bought a Coke and asked, “Who put a pubic hair on my soda can?” Her testimony was reportedly viewed by over 20 million Americans when she testified.
Hill’s commentary was questioned by the Senate Members on the board. Arlen Spector, then a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, questioned her entire testimony – wondering aloud if it amounted to perjury. Democrats were worried about her credibility, as she was oddly specific about the incidents; later information would prove their fears rights. Two other women claimed to have been approached by Thomas. These two women never testified and it has never been resolved as to quite why.
Two of Thomas’ assistants testified on his behalf. His personal assistant, who worked for him for six years, claimed to never have heard any sexist remarks or sexually harassing speech. Others testified to his adherence to professionalism and strict standards of propriety. Outside those two women who agreed with Hill, nobody testified against Thomas. All of his colleagues testified on his behalf.
Feminists – true to form – immediately began denouncing the proceedings as misogynistic and hateful. They claimed the questioning of Hill wasn’t based on only belief in her truthfulness, but on men wanting to perpetuate the culture of sexual harassment. Remember, this was the zenith of feminism in America – just a couple years later many feminists cheered when Lorena Bobbitt chopped off her husband’s penis.
Feminists stormed the capitol, decrying the sexist patriarchy that supported this man. They spewed all manner of hateful bile towards Thomas, some of it racially charged. Even some black feminists recall having a bad taste in their mouths after the fiasco, as they correctly perceived racism on the part of their sisters. Feminists used this incident to campaign against sexual harassment, penning screeds in major media outlets. Feminists claimed, after the fact, the media was against them, but how could that be the case? How can you claim the media is against you if they are publishing your opinions, giving you serious airtime and treating this allegation as very serious?
Cracks In Anita Hill’s Allegations Appear
Damning evidence against Hill came out. Phone records showed that Thomas and Hill both exchanged numerous private phone calls, including after her employment with him. They also found hard evidence that they went on dates and often went to dinner, even after she left his employ. The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent Law School – that religiously follows the Supreme Court – concluded there was no substantial evidence to back up Hill’s claims. Further, some female commentators pointed out that women who are really harassed tend to distance themselves as far from their harasser as possible – they don’t go to dinner with him regularly two years after leaving the job.
Thomas was given a chance to respond to the allegations. He smacked the hell out of the allegations, dropping some serious heat in his speech:
“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”
The Confirmation & Aftermath
Thomas’ nomination went forward to the whole of the Senate. The vote was 52-48 in his favor – by far the closest vote in over century on a Supreme Court nominee. He eventually was sworn in and currently sits on the Supreme Court to this day, consistently ranking as one the most respected Justices.
In the end, Thomas was and is a hardworking, self-made black man who arose from the backwards racism of the 1960’s and 1970’s to become one of the most erudite, perceptive and successful men of his generation. He also dealt with being a black conservative/libertarian his whole life; he stated that it was often tough to engage politically with fellow blacks. He came from nothing and became a symbol of the fading American Dream.
In the appointment of a lifetime, whomever does he see derailing his dreams? A black woman. A black woman he trusted, called and went to dinner with over the course of years, a black woman who helped him professionally. A black woman who falsely accused him of harassment at the time of his ascension to the Supreme Court – an institution that for most of American history pissed all over black people.
He proved that a black person can achieve greatness through the political and legal system. This sort of man is threatening to some – mainly women and some black men. It shows that real success and power can be achieved despite racism. Many people don’t want to hear that nonsense. They want to be coddled and hear about how it somebody else’s fault they aren’t the person they want to be.
To a man like Clarence Thomas that is foolish. He would the last person to deny racism exists and hurts blacks. However, he believes in hard work and bettering himself. He’s a self-made man who deserves accolades not accusations. Look at Anita Hill, a professor of law and women’s studies at Brandeis University. All she does in her job is complain about how bad women have it in society – at a school funded primarily by men’s tax dollars. The dollars that men like Thomas help create.
To this day, Anita Hill has never married and has no kids. She is 55 and has no hope of reproducing. Thomas is happily married with kids and is still hard at work on the Supreme Court.
I wonder who won this battle?
If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.
Read Next: Feminists Try To Debunk False Rape Culture With False Data
The feminists couldn’t stop gushing about how “courageous” Anita Hill was for “coming forward” and supposedly shining a light on the horrors of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Then, a few years later, when multiple women came out with provable, substantive accusations of sexual harassment, up to and including rape, at the hands of then-president Bill Clinton, the feminists dismissed them as bimbos and trailer trash.
Because it really is all about abortion.
Great article, learned a whole lot more about Clarence Thomas and his dealings at the time.
I think Thomas probably did make some sexual jokes around Hill, which she then took and wildly exaggerated to support her and her friends’ agenda.
Very well written!
“She is an avowed feminist and currently teaches women’s studies and a
Critical Race Theory class at Brandeis University. Both disciplines
reinforce victimhood over empowerment.”
“They want to be coddled and hear about how it somebody else’s fault they aren’t the person they want to be.”
Nailed it.
Ironic since just before I logged onto this website I was searching for the upcoming Falling Skies season (a show on TNT, for those that aren’t aware), and I stumble across some blog comparing the rebel aliens to white feminists who, though nominally on the same side, may be unwittingly responsible for “oppressing” people of color and thus shouldn’t be trusted.
So the author was basically whining…about other whiners, while talking about some cable TV show.
My reaction was just to smile, shake my head, and move on to the next site.
She was a philosophy professor at some university. Figures.
I highly recommend Thomas’ autobiography. He spent some time in his youth after college as a black radical but learned that that was a path to nowhere, sobered up, and got on with success.
Ms. Hill received her university appointment, with tenure, AFTER her testimony. At the time it struck me as a pay off for taking a hit at Thomas.
Read some of Thomas’ more important opinions sometime. They are clear, concise and well-reasoned – any educated person who understands the Constitution can digest them. Of course, there are arcane cases of little interest but the big ones are great. Look at his opinion in Raisch about California medical marijuana. Even Scalia bungled that one but Thomas nailed it.
I am an educated person who actually practices constitutional law, and I think Thomas is an idiot. If he weren’t black, he would have never even been nominated for the supreme court. And, I’m saying this as a conservative and a strict constructionist. The guy is just awful and, on the rare occasion he writes a concurring opinion, it is just simplistic, blatantly political drivel.
Hey, any court, even the Supreme Court can only have so many tokens! With their approval of the new health care, even the Supreme Court must get it from their EEOC.
Care to provide any examples? Or are you just here to Troll?
Can you provide proof you’re not black and support every single black person no matter how flawed. Or are you just here to Troll?
Trolls warring with trolls. I’ve seen it all!
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/364/d/0/troll_fight_by_baryonyx254-d360the.jpg
Yeah, I disagree with you, so I’m obviously a troll. If you want to see a poorly reasoned, poorly cited Thomas opinion, look at literally any Thomas opinion.
There is no burden of proof on me since I made no claims,unlike Nathan.
You don’t seem bright enough to know what Trolling is, despite engaging in it yourself.Hint:If Person A calls out Person B for unsubstantiated claims,that isn’t trolling.
Nope, disagreement is not Trolling.And I never said I disagreed with you.For all you know I may fully concur with you.
Hence you were asked for examples,which you have yet to provide. Since not all of us here are Constitutional Scholars like you,what’s needed is YOUR explanation as to why what Thomas wrote makes him an Idiot.
Most recently his endorsement of cops being allowed to DNA swab people who have merely been arrested. Apparently that’s not an unreasonable search for him. He was also joined by his conservative flunkies Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. (Liberal Steve Breyer and wishy-washy…I mean swing vote Kennedy wrote the opinion). If you want to read a piss poor opinion, he wrote the majority in Connick v. Thompson.
A cheek swab is way to collect biodata about the arrested.
Is your objection to the collection of biodata itself (like finger prints) ?Then this is not the case that you object to,but the original ruling and the supreme court endorsement that initiated this whole process.
If your objection is that this form of biodata collection is too ‘invasive’ as compared to another,then your objection is merely temporary,since improved technology could make DNA collection as simple as collecting it from the handcuffs that the person was arrested in.
But if your objection is that this procedure is unreasonable then that is rather silly since at or after arrest Cops conduct pat downs,Strip searches(probe your body cavities) ,take X rays,blood tests,finger prints .And you consider a cheek swab an ‘unreasonable ‘?
I would note that persons who actually practice constitutional law have, over the years, distorted the original contract amongst the American people. That contract is called the US Constitution.
They have twisted it to grant increased power to the federal government over the people rather than the other way around.
So, claiming to be a practitioner gives you a better than 50% chance of me damning you to Hell.
I would add that issues about the limits on government are inherently and fundamentally political. Your notion of “drivel” suggest support invasive and expensive government.
So, the fact that I actually study and practice constitutional law means my opinion is less valid? Like I said, I’m a strict constructionist; I think Scalia is great and I think Rehnquist was one the most brilliant minds in the history of the Court. I just think Thomas is an imbecile. Pretty much anyone who understands constitutional law, liberal or conservative, agrees.
The point is that the citizens of the USA have to agree to the terms of the Constitution in practice. The “experts” have distorted the plain understanding of the document – the results of that distortion have reduced our freedoms.
Thomas’ arguments will result in less government and more freedom and better reflect MY understanding of the political contract.
A boot up the ass of the “experts!”
I understand constitutional law, and I don’t agree with you.
That’s baloney, Thomas does not run his mouth off like most of the liberals. If something does not need to be said, he does not say it. He does not, nor should he, apologise for what he is. I doubt very much that you are conservative as Thomas is a champion of conservatism.
That is the only reason Anita Hill came forth as a puppet against him. The entire sham was a waste of time and money. By the way, had Thomas decided to sue Hill he would have won as she had no proof of her slander.
I wonder if she misses his “well endowed” demeanor, and sense of humor? Or apparently, because she testified against him, she was already missing it? The fact that she already knew the outcome anyways meant she could try and get revenge?
Haters gotta hate! I guess she realized she was not man enough, and found her rightful place to begin with?
An excellent and fair-minded analysis of the whole thing. Thomas still gets vilified to this day by the media on occasion.
Because the media is full of mindless automatons whose sole function in “improving” themselves is the proverbial race to the bottom proving who can become the bigger boot licking, faithful diarrhea brown nosing, sycophantic pussy first.
It is because of these pedantic cockologists that a journalism degree is on par with the same reputation as a women’s studies degree. Case in point, Hill teaches on the subject. Yale could give her an honorary degree in Journalism. It would be synonymous with the level of integrity to both institutions.
I’d as soon set up residence in the Fukushima reactor as it is now, or before, before knowingly drinking a Starbucks coffee these bitches that attend Hill’s seminars are barely worthy to barrister.
Education outside of engineering is worth it indeed. If you like government work.
The stark contrast between Thomas and Hill is a soliloquy of the referendum as example of what feminists claim, and what they actually get later in life.
Pity them none. They merely got what they asked for.
Good article. Inspiring.
That is why I’d rather have male staff working close to me if I can help it.
We can certainly say Thomas won, but Hill certainly didn’t lose; she was richly rewarded by the Left for her thuggish effort to destroy Thomas.
This just prevented me from buying an 8ball and creating an empire built on ruined lives. Thanks RoK
Clarence Thomas is a genius, and perhaps the greatest thinker on the court.
New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom
by Walter Russell Mead
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/
Anyone who thinks he is an idiot clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about. If John Roberts hadn’t been a coward, we would not have Obamacare.
From the link above:
Writes Toobin:
In several of the most important areas of constitutional
law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court.
Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right
when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of
gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in
each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been
leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice
enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.
Not sure I’d call him the greatest thinker on the court, but he certainly has somewhat of a pioneering approach at times.
For instance, Alito mentioned that Thomas was arguing for the interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause far more broadly than the other justices in the McDonald case, whereas the others in the majority went with the more conventional incorporation route.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kjZMAtY9ws (Start at 49:40)
The privileges and immunities clause was pretty much gutted by the slaughterhouse cases in the 1870’s and hasn’t been of significant legal impact since then.
The fact that Thomas was looking at it at all shows that he does think outside the box, even if I think his approach leaves some to be desired.
Intellectual leader of the Supreme Court? He never even asks questions during hearings and rarely writes opinions. Most of his concurring opinions can basically be summed up as: “Yeah, what Scalia said.”
YOU’RE ALL SCUM!! DIE GOYS!!!!!!!!!!
WTF is a fucking goy? Is that the new slang for gay or something? Like, gay-boy = goy. If so, that’s fucking gay. See, not so hard to say. G-A-Y. Easy to spell too.
Goy = gentile. Non-Jewish.
Ah, cheers, adiaforon.
trolls gotta troll
tl;dr. I tried though, but unless you’re a black you’re not going to give a fuck about where the black judge grew up.
I always thought it was no big deal, even if it was true.
So he made a few “off-color” remarks in the course of a long relationship. There were no threats, no direct propositions. Thomas continued to help Hill’s career up to the point she stabbed him in the back.
Even if what she said is true, she still comes across as a vicious nut.
As a black man, a libertarian and an American, I approve of this post.
The entire fiasco wouldn’t even be news if he wasn’t a conservative.
diaff thx
At the time, conservatives called Anita Hill “a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty”.
At the time, I remember thinking that was overboard. But since that time I’ve run into a couple women exactly like Anita Hill. Unmarred, childless Feminists. And both of them really were BATSHIT CRAZY.
In one case the old feminist sued the company for sexual harassment, totally lying through her teeth, and destroyed the company, got all the other women in the firm fired. She went off and got a great new job at a women’s counseling center.
By the way, none of the other women, those who got fired, would criticize the woman who got them fired. Yep. Even normal, sane women are too cowardly to defend themselves against the crazy witches.
Thomas wrote the decision for a unanimous court, ruling Myriad Genetics cannot patent our own genes. A rare common sense decision from the Supreme Court, we should all celebrate today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/13/supreme-court-gene-breast-ovarian-cancer-patent/2382053/
“They also found hard evidence that they went on dates and often went to dinner, even after she left his employ.”
Here’s what Thomas swore, under oath, in his testimony:
“Contrary to some press reports, I categorically denied all of the
allegations and denied that I ever attempted to date Anita Hill, when first
interviewed by the FBI. I strongly reaffirm that denial.”
If there is “hard evidence that they went on dates”, does that make Thomas a perjurer?
Sad that we (women and many enlightened men) still have to put up with Thomas’ kind of disgraceful behavior, the so-called “men” like Orin Hatch who support his disgraceful behavior, and the so-called “men” (I use the term loosely) making comments here. Do any of you have mothers or sisters or daughters? Do you approve of them being treated like second-class citizens?
Surprisingly, as a human, I have a mother.
Did you read the article? Thomas is more than likely innocent of the allegations.
My question is why you unquestionably believe certain authority figures when they say X, Y or Z is truth.
Why do you so readily believe a black man is an oppressor of women? Read a bit on the KKK and realize that a rallying cry of that movement was about how terribly black men treated their women.
Being harassed is not commensurate with being second-class citizens. If you were a man, you would consider child support as treating men as second-class citizens. In short, anything that inhibits your autonomy is treated as limiting your equality.
Equality with whom? Sounds like you have an ego out of control that thinks you are some big baller when you are most likely some boring, average white, heterosexual woman from an urban area.
Good work.
Shut it, bimbo. He was innocent.
Seriousl 2Wycked, you’re tollerunt, we get it.
Racism is fiction in the last couple of decades. It doesn’t hurt blacks because it doesn’t exist.
Anita Hill is a coward. If she dated Justice Thomas, then accused him of sexual harassment, it was likely because he married a white woman. This tends to really piss off many black women, often to a point of trying to destroy the man.
When it comes to non White Men, feminists and their mangina accomplices have to switch gears, since the race card would be perceived as racist and therefore, inadvisable.
So what they choose to do instead is, character assasinate based on baseless sexual indiscretions.
They did it with Herman Cain. They are doing it with Bill Cosby, and they will continue to do it because it’s the only effective tool they have, since a discussion on the merits of fact is simply out of the question (because they dont have any)
AFTER ALL OF THE .. historical documentation of both Clinton’s dirty politics, lies, and infamous hatred of Israel, her main advisor foaming at the mouth Jewish bigot Blumenthal, the outright theft , Hillary’s State Department is missing, over 6 billion dollars, by the General Accounting Office audit of Hillary’s State Department, Benghazi tragedy, the deleted emails and more .. BUT MELANIE PHILLIPS loudly proclaims “Those who aren’t signed up to either candidate find the choice they are being asked to make excruciating because both of them are so awful.” A few locker room comments and Ms Phillips crucifies Trump and distorts all facts beyond recognition.. AND anyone woman who proclaims Trump did anything or said anything inappropriate to them by Trump is telling the Gospel truth and NOT Lying ! GUILTY WITHOUT TRIAL ? Ms Phillips might as well be parading around with a sign that says “ VOTE HILLARY” Benghazi , what does it matter , ?