Printable View
Justice Clarence Thomas' wife asks Anita Hill for apology - latimes.com
I guess Uncle Tom Thomas let's his wife do his fighting for him.
To call a woman out of the blue to ask for an apology, after your husband sexually harassed her, 20 years ago is obtuse. He seems like a very angry black man and hates liberals so why doesn't he just resign?
This nutty lady is helping undermine democracy and claims to fight Obama policies. How can a wife of a supreme court justice take dirty political money from just about anyone while not disclosing who is bankrolling her and to use that money to fight the current government agenda, I guess it's ok but seems a little wrong to me. I think the supreme court members have to do backflips to prove impartiality as opposed to attending this Koch Industies Radical Right Wing Ideology event.
See here:
RICHMOND, Va.??Of all the disclosures in the fascinating new biography of Justice William Brennan by Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel, one of the most powerful is this: The worst job in the entire history of the world has to be Supreme Court wife.
Unlike the wives of regular politicians, Supreme Court wives can't go out on the stump for their husbands. They can't defend them in the media. They can't do much more than allow the photographers in to see the window treatments and the fruit bowls. As Stern and Wermiel describe it, at the Red Mass in 1963, after the Bishop of Richmond slammed the Supreme Court for its recent school prayer decisions, Marjorie Brennan finally lost it. On leaving the church she excoriated the bishop: "You're not fit for my husband or me to kiss your ring." It seems to have been a single act of public rebellion in a lifetime of swallowed insults and attacks on her husband.
Virginia Lamp Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has learned this lesson well. As she addresses the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention Friday night, she wants it to be perfectly clear that nobody is going to lock her in the attic anytime soon. She's fighting for what she believes in, and for that she should get enormous credit.
But what, one wonders, might happen if she prevails?
Thomas is an extraordinarily youthful 53, as she takes the main stage in Richmond's downtown convention hall. Her hair is a honey-colored bob and her jacket is a cheerful red. She greets several hundred Virginia Tea Partiers (2,000 participants are expected, the largest such gathering ever) with "Hello Patriots!" Thomas is charming, even girlish in her delivery. She opens with the story of the goose and the golden egg, and segues gently into a warning that "we are ruled by an elite that thinks it knows better than we know and tells us what to do."
There is very little specificity in Thomas' Tea Party indictment, which targets Washington's "political class" and their generalized "power grab" from a Washington that "doesn't believe the founders and think they know best." Perhaps Thomas can't speak in specific detail, or perhaps the idea is that there is no detail, no clear explanation of how the current elites are worse than the previous elites. Perhaps it's enough to allude to the collective certainty that "freedom has never been more fragile" and that "in my lifetime it's never been this bad." Thomas explains, to much applause, that a Tea Party member's neighbors either believe he is crazy, or a hero, that "people either see it or they don't."
She talks of "reclaiming America" and of a current government that "sees the Constitution as an impediment to having power over our lives." There is a code here, about being unable to choose one's doctors and the deceptions of the mainstream media, but Thomas seems to be speaking only in the spaces between Tea Party particulars, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court.
Thomas serves up a much-cheered slam on the "mainstream media" which "used to pride itself on gotcha journalism, but either went to sleep or became lapdogs for the other side." That's followed with the warning that people with an "extreme point of view" have "burrowed into the media, our churches, schools and publishing houses." There is a call to reject traditional media and turn to cable television, the Internet and Liberty Central??the Website Thomas founded to empower citizens to empower themselves. Thomas warns that the "hard left is working right now to dismiss us, demoralize us, and destroy our good candidates." She then offers eight "habits of highly effective citizen patriots" which include sprinkling more AM radio into one's media diet (she recommends Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin by name) and connecting with others and prayer. She explains that the opposition wants you "demoralized, tricked and fooled," but the answer is to focus on the fact that "ordinary people armed with truth can change the world." The crowd surges to its feet, as she tells them which incumbent Democrats to defeat in Virginia's November elections.
and here:
Reports that two Supreme Court Justices have attended seminars sponsored by the energy giant and conservative bankroller Koch Industries has sparked a mild debate over judicial ethics.
On Tuesday evening, the New York Times reported that an upcoming meeting in Palm Springs of "a secretive network of Republican donors" that was being organized by Koch Industries, "the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes." Buried in the third to last graph was a note that previous guests at such meetings included Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the more conservative members of the bench.
It's not rare for a Justice to attend a seminar sponsored by a group with judicial or political interests. Members of the court, for instances, often speak at academic institutions or think tanks. Virtually all companies, meanwhile, are affected by the judicial branch. So long as Scalia and Thomas did not participate in overt partisan activities, there would be no apparent conflict of interest.
"There is nothing to prevent Supreme Court justices from hanging out with people who have political philosophies," said Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University who teaches courses on Legal Ethics.
But the Koch event appears more political than, say, the Aspen Ideas festival. In its own invitation, it was described as a "twice a year" gathering "to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it." In addition, it's not entirely clear what the two Justices did at the Koch event. A copy of the invitation that served as the basis for the Times's report was posted by the liberal blog Think Progress. It provided no additional clues. A call to the Supreme Court and an email to a Koch Industries spokesperson meanwhile were not immediately returned.
Faced with a lack of concrete information, and cognizant of Koch's fairly intense history of political involvement, legal ethicists are urging for more disclosure.
"This is certainly worth more reporting," said Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University. "It is intriguing because the Koch brothers are so politically active and identify with a point of view. I know I would be curious to know exactly what forums the Justices went to. Obviously they could not go to a strategy session about how to elect more Republicans. On the other hand if it was a forum on the meaning of the First Amendment and it didn't involve strategy or fundraising a Justice could appear... It's fascinating and it merits more reporting."
Justices Scalia And Thomas's Attendance At Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate
Where was this twat during confirmation hearings, hiding to protect herself and she let this scum get a pass by not backing up Anita Hill as to what a freak he is, she dated him and knows his perversions.
Now we have this guy who never says a word in court, a total liberal hater, and an idiot who attends Koch Industries think tank events as a SCOTUS.
washingtonpost.com
In the wake of news that Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, recently contacted Anita Hill, the woman behind a sexual harassment scandal that almost derailed the Justice during his confirmation hearings, Thomas's ex-girlfriend is now seeking to enter the fray with serious new allegations about his demeanor in the years before the Hill controversy. In an interview with the Washington Post, Lillian McEwen says Hill's allegations fit a pattern:
"He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners," McEwen told the Post, adding that he was particularly "partial to women with large breasts" and even would ask woman about their bra size.
"He was obsessed with porn," McEwen also said of Thomas, a claim that is particularly relevant to Hill's allegations that the then-chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had repeatedly relayed scenes from pornographic movies to her. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting," McEwen continued.
As for why McEwen has decided to break her silence now, the Post explains that the woman who partook in Thomas's "freewheeling sex life" between 1981 and 1986 has a story to tell.
She has written a memoir, which she is now shopping to publishers. News broke that the justice's wife, Virginia Thomas, left a voice mail on Hill's office phone at Brandeis University, seeking an apology -- a request that Hill declined in a statement. After that, McEwen changed her mind and decided to talk about her relationship with Thomas
??Who has put pubic hair on my Coke??Quote:
Who has put pubic hair on my coke?
:wtf: