Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By itself it doesn't. However, an obsession is something else again. Makes any truly objective observer give more credence to the accusations of Anita Hill.
It also brings into question whether he's fit to sit on the SC. Of which I would suggest he's not for numerous reasons..
You are basing your decision(s) on a false unproven premise here. Therefore, you have no standing in the argument. If someone were to write and make these accusations at you, with no substantial proof, you would surely feel a different way.
We live in a country where some one is innocent before they are judged guilty by a jury of their peers. When we deviate from this rule of law, we slip into a totalitarian society that has no respect for justice and the US Constitution.
You are basing your decision(s) on a false unproven premise here. Therefore, you have no standing in the argument. If someone were to write and make these accusations at you, with no substantial proof, you would surely feel a different way.
We live in a country where some one is innocent before they are judged guilty by a jury of their peers. When we deviate from this rule of law, we slip into a totalitarian society that has no respect for justice and the US Constitution.
Oh man. Thomas is not literally on trial in the CD political forum. Therefore, your nonsense about the presumption of innocence doesn't apply here..
Oh man. Thomas is not literally on trial in the CD political forum. Therefore, your nonsense about the presumption of innocence doesn't apply here..
Figures when you can't deal with the rule of law, you have to attack the writer. Prepronderance of innocence stops at the CD door. Good to know about you. YOU LOSE!
You are spreading false and baseless accusations and because this is CD, so it makes it appropriate and logical...Where do you live in Candyland? Figures
Figures when you can't deal with the rule of law, you have to attack the writer. Prepronderance of innocence stops at the CD door. Good to know about you. YOU LOSE!
You are spreading false and baseless accusations and because this is CD, so it makes it appropriate and logical...Where do you live in Candyland? Figures
The statements made in this new book lend credibility to Ms Hill's Congressional testimony. Why didn't she testify before Congress during Justice Thomas's confirmation hearings? This may shock you, but there were two women in addition to Ms Hill that were subpoenaed and who were prepared to offer corroborative testimony, but they weren't called because of a deal made in the halls of Congress. That's politics, and the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is very political.
Why does it matter? Because it suggests that in all likelihood Justice Thomas did behave inappropriately, but that he didn't think his behavior met the standard of sexual harrassment. And still doesn't think so, hence his wife's phone call to Ms Hill. But almost 30 years later, it would be very hard to defend a superior in the workplace making personal comments of a sexual nature to other employees and not call it sexual harrassment.
Hmm..in that case, I'm sure you'll be applying the same set of standards to all the accusations we see here about President Obama...right?
And you haven't been attacked, your premise has been. There is no presumption of innocence on a political board.
Excuse me if the US Constitution doesn't apply on this board, particulalrly in this catagory. I do apply the same standards to Obama, and even you. You can discuss charges all you want, but when there is no evidence or credible support for those charges, then your premise is false and unsubstantiated until proven it has credibility. I see none of that here.
The statements made in this new book lend credibility to Ms Hill's Congressional testimony. Why didn't she testify before Congress during Justice Thomas's confirmation hearings? This may shock you, but there were two women in addition to Ms Hill that were subpoenaed and who were prepared to offer corroborative testimony, but they weren't called because of a deal made in the halls of Congress. That's politics, and the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is very political.
Why does it matter? Because it suggests that in all likelihood Justice Thomas did behave inappropriately, but that he didn't think his behavior met the standard of sexual harrassment. And still doesn't think so, hence his wife's phone call to Ms Hill. But almost 30 years later, it would be very hard to defend a superior in the workplace making personal comments of a sexual nature to other employees and not call it sexual harrassment.
These are merely statements with no credible support. You can claim all of the back room deals you want, but unless you have proof of this, then you are whistling past the grave yard. If you do have proof bring it forth and the Justice could be impeached, otherwise, it is all speculation and that with another $5 bill will get you a little more gasoline for your fire here.
Come back when you have proof and convictions and I will agree. Until then, excuse me if I don't participate in senseless partisan bashing against a repsected SCOTUS justice.
These are merely statements with no credible support. You can claim all of the back room deals you want, but unless you have proof of this, then you are whistling past the grave yard. If you do have proof bring it forth and the Justice could be impeached, otherwise, it is all speculation and that with another $5 bill will get you a little more gasoline for your fire here.
Come back when you have proof and convictions and I will agree. Until then, excuse me if I don't participate in senseless partisan bashing against a repsected SCOTUS justice.
Oh, please. And so you believe OJ Simpson is innocent, too, because he wasn't convicted? Every person who ever got away with something was innocent because they weren't convicted. It's been thirty years, there won't be any charges brought because the statute of limitations has expired regarding any wrongdoing Justice Thomas may have been involved in. And in the early 1980's, even if Ms Hill had filed a complaint, Justice Thomas may not have been found guilty of sexual harrassment because the laws have changed in the past three decades considerably in this area. Men could rape their wives legally in New Jersey in the early 1980's. They can't now. And bosses could lear and make sexual jokes in the 1980's. They can't now.
The fact is that several credible organizations, including the Wall Street Journal-a bastion of conservatism if ever there was one, conducted investigations of Ms Hill's allegations after Justice Thomas was confirmed, and the Wall Street Journal, among others, concluded that there was a preponderance of evidence that supported Ms Hill's story. At the time, was what Justice Thomas accused of doing considered to be criminal or even legally actionable? Possibly. But taking legal action would most certainly have ruined the careers of both Ms Hill and Justice Thomas and to what purpose? She chose not to take action, AS MANY WOMEN DO.
The fact that no complaint was ever made against Justice Thomas is not a ringing endorsement of his innocence. The fact that colleagues of Justice Thomas and Ms Hill did affirm that she did complain at the time of his treatment, the fact that several other women have stated that he did behave inappropriately towards co-workers suggests that either Justice Thomas does not recognize when behavior is inappropriate, or that he lied about his own behavior.
And it does matter, because as a sitting judge Justice Thomas does weigh in on such cases.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
