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.
I'm very curious what you'll think of it after you finish reading it. I had thought about getting it out of the library, out of curiosity, but all the radio reviews have been very negative, and now I read this:
I like Marie Cocco's articles. I won't buy or read his book because I believe he is a hypocrite and a liar. Having listened to most of the testimony during the confirmation hearings, I believe Anita Hill has been truthful. Hill's accusations were backed up by evidence. She took a lie detector test and passed. Thomas refused to take the test. He took advantage of the "system" he now disavows. Every new episode of Mad Men on AMC takes me back to the way women were really treated in the sixties down to the most minute detail. Here's Hill's refutation:
ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
I stand by my testimony.
Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.
But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.
In the portion of his book that addresses my role in the Senate hearings into his nomination, Justice Thomas offers a litany of unsubstantiated representations and outright smears that Republican senators made about me when I testified before the Judiciary Committee — that I was a “combative left-winger” who was “touchy” and prone to overreacting to “slights.” A number of independent authors have shown those attacks to be baseless. What’s more, their reports draw on the experiences of others who were familiar with Mr. Thomas’s behavior, and who came forward after the hearings. It’s no longer my word against his.
Justice Thomas’s characterization of me is also hobbled by blatant inconsistencies. He claims, for instance, that I was a mediocre employee who had a job in the federal government only because he had “given it” to me. He ignores the reality: I was fully qualified to work in the government, having graduated from Yale Law School (his alma mater, which he calls one of the finest in the country), and passed the District of Columbia Bar exam, one of the toughest in the nation.
In 1981, when Mr. Thomas approached me about working for him, I was an associate in good standing at a Washington law firm. In 1991, the partner in charge of associate development informed Mr. Thomas’s mentor, Senator John Danforth of Missouri, that any assertions to the contrary were untrue. Yet, Mr. Thomas insists that I was “asked to leave” the firm.
It’s worth noting, too, that Mr. Thomas hired me not once, but twice while he was in the Reagan administration — first at the Department of Education and then at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After two years of working directly for him, I left Washington and returned home to Oklahoma to begin my teaching career.
In a particularly nasty blow, Justice Thomas attacked my religious conviction, telling “60 Minutes” this weekend, “She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed.” Perhaps he conveniently forgot that he wrote a letter of recommendation for me to work at the law school at Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa. I remained at that evangelical Christian university for three years, until the law school was sold to CBN University (later Regent University) in Virginia Beach, Va., another Christian college. Along with other faculty members, I was asked to consider a position there, but I decided to remain near my family in Oklahoma.
Regrettably, since 1991, I have repeatedly seen this kind of character attack on women and men who complain of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In efforts to assail their accusers’ credibility, detractors routinely diminish people’s professional contributions. Often the accused is a supervisor, in a position to describe the complaining employee’s work as “mediocre” or the employee as incompetent. Those accused of inappropriate behavior also often portray the individuals who complain as bizarre caricatures of themselves — oversensitive, even fanatical, and often immoral — even though they enjoy good and productive working relationships with their colleagues.
Finally, when attacks on the accusers’ credibility fail, those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will believe their accusers’ versions of events, individuals confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or “slights” that should be dismissed without discussion.
Fortunately, we have made progress since 1991. Today, when employees complain of abuse in the workplace, investigators and judges are more likely to examine all the evidence and less likely to simply accept as true the word of those in power. But that could change. Our legal system will suffer if a sitting justice’s vitriolic pursuit of personal vindication discourages others from standing up for their rights.
The question of whether Clarence Thomas belongs on the Supreme Court is no longer on the table — it was settled by the Senate back in 1991. But questions remain about how we will resolve the kinds of issues my testimony exposed. My belief is that in the past 16 years we have come closer to making the resolution of these issues an honest search for the truth, which, after all, is at the core of all legal inquiry. My hope is that Justice Thomas’s latest fusillade will not divert us from that path.
Tigerlily, yes I too remember his testimony, and doubted it, and believed Ms. Hill. Yet, or in spite of my suspended belief in the Judge, I thought his book might reveal some new truths. From the NPR review(s) I heard today, it appears he failed to meet that expectation.
I was thrilled then quickly dismayed at Clarence Thomas' nomination. I watched the testimony faithfully. I struggled back & forth as to whom I believed. In the end, I don't know that it mattered for me one way or another. Not when it comes to the entirety of Justice Thomas' life. I have great respect & admiration for President Clinton, while also despising his conduct with Monica Lewinski. My father was a great man who did MANY terrible things. I believe myself to be an incredible woman who has made some terrible errors of judgment in my own life.
One does not negate the other - perhaps the one actually builds the other. I know that I am now a better person for having learned from the errors I made.
That all being said. I have grown to have incredible respect & admiration for Clarence Thomas as well. And, you couldn't be any more of a radical lefty than me. I just believe that he & I are actually on the same side. When I saw him in recent interviews I couldn't help but admire him even more. The love & reverence he has for his grandfather & all the lessons he taught him - phenomenal. He is his grandfather's son because his grandfather molded him into who he is today.
I believe that people all too often get locked into their own way of viewing things & cannot see that they want the same thing as those they so adamantly oppose. Justice Thomas is a radical & he believes wholly in the advancement of Black people. And, while he, indeed, likely benefited from many of the systems in place that he opposes now, on some levels I have to agree with why he opposes them.
I may not agree - and often do not - with the methods or solutions he employees/suggests, but I do agree with the essence of why he feels the way he does.
Anyhow - I am one Radical Afrocentric Feminist who has changed her mind over the years about Clarence Thomas & will most definitely own & read his book.
...
Last edited by think.reciprocity; 10-11-2007 at 11:14 PM..
I'm very curious what you'll think of it after you finish reading it. I had thought about getting it out of the library, out of curiosity, but all the radio reviews have been very negative, and now I read this:
Let us know what you decide after you've finished. If you will!
I too read a similar article that seemed to mirror the washington post writer. i won't be making this purchase, I may like you say, grab it at the library instead (if i even go that far).
I was thrilled then quickly dismayed at Clarence Thomas' nomination. I watched the testimony faithfully. I struggled back & forth as to whom I believed. In the end, I don't know that it mattered for me one way or another. Not when it comes to the entirety of Justice Thomas' life. I have great respect & admiration for President Clinton, while also despising his conduct with Monica Lewinski. My father was a great man who did MANY terrible things. I believe myself to be an incredible woman who has made some terrible errors of judgment in my own life.
One does not negate the other - perhaps the one actually builds the other. I know that I am now a better person for having learned from the errors I made.
That all being said. I have grown to have incredible respect & admiration for Clarence Thomas as well. And, you couldn't be any more of a radical lefty than me. I just believe that he & I are actually on the same side. When I saw him in recent interviews I couldn't help but admire him even more. The love & reverence he has for his grandfather & all the lessons he taught him - phenomenal. He is his grandfather's son because his grandfather molded him into who he is today.
I believe that people all too often get locked into their own way of viewing things & cannot see that they want the same thing as those they so adamantly oppose. Justice Thomas is a radical & he believes wholly in the advancement of Black people. And, while he, indeed, likely benefited from many of the systems in place that he opposes now, on some levels I have to agree with why he opposes them.
I may not agree - and often do not - with the methods or solutions he employees/suggests, but I do agree with the essence of why he feels the way he does.
Anyhow - I am one Radical Afrocentric Feminist who has changed her mind over the years about Clarence Thomas & will most definitely own & read his book.
...
The problem as this editorial suggests is that Thomas is still too angry to be neutral in certain cases that come before him. Joe Biden, ACLU or Yale a few that are mentioned. I am not African American so I cannot imagine what it would have been like to live in fear of the KKK, but I cannot believe that Thomas' treatment in Washington could come close to the thought of being lynched or worse. I think that's a ridiculous comparison.
Clips:
Justice Clarence Thomas’s new autobiography dredges up his 16-year-old battle with Anita Hill and fulminates against liberal groups, Democratic senators and others who opposed his nomination. The clash with Ms. Hill has grabbed most of the headlines. But his fulminations deserve more attention. The rage he harbors raises questions about whether he can sit as an impartial judge in many of the cases the Supreme Court hears.
When Supreme Court justices write books, which is not often, they tend to write about subjects and in ways that are consistent with the dignity of the court. When he was chief justice, William Rehnquist wrote about the 1876 presidential election; Justice Stephen Breyer’s “Active Liberty” set forth a specific view of the Constitution.
...
The level of hostility is striking. He grew up fearing the Ku Klux Klan, he says, but “my worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony.”
...
If Mr. Biden, Yale Law School or the A.C.L.U.’s Southern California affiliate, which opposed Justice Thomas’s confirmation, have business before the court, it is hard to see how any of them could expect a fair hearing from Justice Thomas. But the Supreme Court allows justices to make their own recusal decisions, and no one should expect to see Justice Thomas bowing out of cases based on angry comments in his memoir.
I read the review & I simply disagree that he is as the reviewer stated. I did not see him as too angry whatsoever. I believe that his journey has shown him amble opportunity to have righteous anger & I think his is well-placed & well-focused. Of all the things related to him, his background experiences, his life, his upbringing, who he is, where he's been, & where he's headed, that I have read or observed (minus-ing the truth or falsehood of the Anita Hill thing completely) I stand by my original statement & give no credence whatsoever to the reviewer's opinion.
I absolutely believe that he is fully capable & absolutely committed to being as neutral as any human being can be - supreme court justice or not. He isn't too angry - he's being unabashedly honest & straightforward about his opinions about things that have transpired in his life. I'll tell you something, I may never get over the anger I feel towards my ex-husband for exposing my son to drugs, alcohol, & horrible immorality - but, that would not prevent me, if I were a judge, justice, whatever, from being.impartial on a case of a similar nature that came before me. My past experiences would inform my intellect & reason in all areas of my life - but would not paralyze my impartiality. Nor do I think Justice Thomas' experiences takes away his neutrality. Frankly, I believe the implication of such is offensive & narrow-minded.
That's my 50 cents on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerlily
The problem as this editorial suggests is that Thomas is still too angry to be neutral in certain cases that come before him. Joe Biden, ACLU or Yale a few that are mentioned. I am not African American so I cannot imagine what it would have been like to live in fear of the KKK, but I cannot believe that Thomas' treatment in Washington could come close to the thought of being lynched or worse. I think that's a ridiculous comparison.
Clips:
Justice Clarence Thomas’s new autobiography dredges up his 16-year-old battle with Anita Hill and fulminates against liberal groups, Democratic senators and others who opposed his nomination. The clash with Ms. Hill has grabbed most of the headlines. But his fulminations deserve more attention. The rage he harbors raises questions about whether he can sit as an impartial judge in many of the cases the Supreme Court hears.
When Supreme Court justices write books, which is not often, they tend to write about subjects and in ways that are consistent with the dignity of the court. When he was chief justice, William Rehnquist wrote about the 1876 presidential election; Justice Stephen Breyer’s “Active Liberty” set forth a specific view of the Constitution.
...
The level of hostility is striking. He grew up fearing the Ku Klux Klan, he says, but “my worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony.”
...
If Mr. Biden, Yale Law School or the A.C.L.U.’s Southern California affiliate, which opposed Justice Thomas’s confirmation, have business before the court, it is hard to see how any of them could expect a fair hearing from Justice Thomas. But the Supreme Court allows justices to make their own recusal decisions, and no one should expect to see Justice Thomas bowing out of cases based on angry comments in his memoir.
Last edited by think.reciprocity; 10-12-2007 at 11:54 PM..
Reason: ... just because I can!
I like Marie Cocco's articles. I won't buy or read his book because I believe he is a hypocrite and a liar. Having listened to most of the testimony during the confirmation hearings, I believe Anita Hill has been truthful. Hill's accusations were backed up by evidence. She took a lie detector test and passed. Thomas refused to take the test. He took advantage of the "system" he now disavows. Every new episode of Mad Men on AMC takes me back to the way women were really treated in the sixties down to the most minute detail. Here's Hill's refutation:
Well, of course, he is going to deny everything that happened. He's not going to admit to the world he's a chauvinist pig. He's not going to sacrifice his career for a stupid mistake he made earlier in life. He's a determined man and he is going to do everything to make it look like his accuser is making it up. It happens all the times in politics and big companies. Many of the men who make it to these high level positions are egomaniacs. They want to see how much they can get away with, and like Clinton, they lose control and make stupid mistakes. This is how people are.
Greenie
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.
If you will!
I Will Most Definitely Read His Book...
).
I Simply Do Not Agree...
