Clarance Thomas vs Isiah Thomas

[Nbadan]

Can anyone explain to me how the charges made by Anita Hill against Clarance Thomas are any different than the charges that Isiah was found guilty of today? Or is it only Supreme Court judges who get to write books later disaparaging their alleged victims? I'm looking forward to the Isiah Thomas book

[boutons_]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/darjeeling/image40.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&camp=foxsearch2007-emailtools02d-nyt5-511278&ad=darjeeling_tdl_88x31.gif&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thedarjeelinglimited/)

October 2, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor

The Smear This Time

By ANITA HILL
Waltham, Mass.

ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thomas/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/equal_employment_opportunity_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

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 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

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 ignor Justice Thomas’s characterization of me is also hobbled by blatant inconsistencies. es the reality: I was fully qualified to work in the government, having graduated from Yale (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/y/yale_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) 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 Liberty University, in Lynchburg, 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.

Anita Hill, a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University, is a visiting scholar at the Newhouse Center for the Humanities at Wellesley College.



http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/clientside/1682e7bQ2FuyjQ60BQ513Q5DQ60Q25Ba_mXBQ5DBSaQ3C3_Q25

[boutons_]

Witness for the Persecution
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, October 2, 2007; A19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/09/09/PH2007090901943.gif

I believe in affirmative action, but I have to acknowledge there are arguments against it. One of the more cogent is the presence of Justice Clarence Thomas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Clarence+Thomas?tid=informline) on the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Supreme+Court?tid=informline). http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

If you caught Thomas on " 60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/60minutes/main3305443.shtml)" on Sunday night, you know that he will probably consider me one of the many people who want to see him "destroyed" because he doesn't "follow in this cult-like way something that blacks are supposed to believe." That's what he told CBS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/CBS+Corporation?tid=informline) correspondent Steve Kroft -- that he'd been persecuted for "veering away from the black gospel that we're supposed to adhere to."

The up-close-and-personal "60 Minutes" piece, timed to coincide with publication (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801634.html) of Thomas's autobiography, was compelling television. It was also a useful reminder that whenever my Bush Derangement Syndrome flares up to the point where I'm actually feeling nostalgic for the days when George Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) the Elder was in the White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline), I need only recall that it was Poppy who put Thomas on the court. That snaps me back to my senses. Thomas is only 59; we'll be saddled with him, and that gigantic chip on his shoulder, for decades to come. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Thomas said in the interview that the scorched-earth battle over his confirmation wasn't really about him, it was about abortion. Yet at other points he made clear that the whole thing was about him, specifically his commission of the ultimate sin: He is (drum roll, please) a black conservative. Cover the children's ears.

"I'm black," he told Kroft. "So I'm supposed to think a certain way. I'm supposed to have certain opinions. I don't do that. You don't create a box and put people in and then make a lot of generalizations about them."

Enough with the violins. When Fox News (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/FOX+News+Network+LLC?tid=informline) bloviator Bill O'Reilly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+O%27Reilly?tid=informline) says that African Americans are "finally" beginning to "think for themselves," I chalk it up to the fact that his germane experience with black people is probably limited to that recent dinner he had with the Rev. Al Sharpton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Al+Sharpton?tid=informline) and a room full of shockingly well-behaved patrons at Sylvia's, the Harlem soul-food shrine. But Thomas should know better. Either he's being disingenuous or he has a persecution complex of Norse-saga proportions.

There are, as he ought to know, plenty of black conservatives. There are plenty of African American parents teaching their children the same lessons of hard work and self-reliance that Thomas's grandfather taught him. The black church, I would argue, is one of the more socially conservative major institutions in the nation.

Black America has never been monolithic in its views, but black Americans do vote almost monolithically for Democrats. That wouldn't necessarily be the case if Richard Nixon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Richard+Nixon?tid=informline) hadn't built an electoral strategy on a race-based appeal to Southern whites -- and if every Republican presidential candidate and party leader since Nixon hadn't followed suit. Just last week, the four leading contenders for the Republican nomination all skipped a forum at historically black Morgan State University (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Morgan+State+University?tid=informline). As long as snubbing black voters is seen as smart politics in the Republican Party, black conservatives have good reason to stick with the Democrats.

Back to affirmative action, which Thomas famously opposes: He was 43 and had one year of judicial experience when Bush the Elder nominated him to replace Thurgood Marshall (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Thurgood+Marshall?tid=informline) on the court. Even Thomas can't seriously believe Bush's claim that he was the "most qualified" candidate. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

In the interview with Kroft, Thomas spoke of his experience at Yale Law School (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yale+Law+School?tid=informline), which set aside a number of slots for minority students. He said he sees his Yale (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yale+University?tid=informline) law degree as "tainted," worth less than a white student's degree.

This is why some critics have described Thomas as self-loathing -- not because he holds conservative political views or because he's a Republican, not because he objects in principle to affirmative action, but because he so discounts his own achievement. All Yale gave Thomas was the opportunity; he had to earn the degree. Yet he overlooks his own brains and hard work.

Thomas resents the fact that he couldn't get a job despite graduating in the middle of his class. Maybe prospective employers thought his white classmates were smarter, or maybe they just didn't want to hire a black man. But even if the whole world undervalued Clarence Thomas, why does he so undervalue himself that he keeps his law diploma in the basement with a "15 cents" sticker on the frame?

Thomas really should work out these issues for himself. Instead, he seems to be doing his best to save future generations of disadvantaged minorities from the indignity and shame of a Yale law degree.

The writer will answer questions at 1 p.m. EDT today here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/30/DI2007093001386.html). His e-mail address is [email protected].

[TLWisfoine]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/darjeeling/image40.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&camp=foxsearch2007-emailtools02d-nyt5-511278&ad=darjeeling_tdl_88x31.gif&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thedarjeelinglimited/)

October 2, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor

The Smear This Time

By ANITA HILL
Waltham, Mass.

ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thomas/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/equal_employment_opportunity_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

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 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

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 ignor Justice Thomas’s characterization of me is also hobbled by blatant inconsistencies. es the reality: I was fully qualified to work in the government, having graduated from Yale (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/y/yale_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) 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 Liberty University, in Lynchburg, 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.

Anita Hill, a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University, is a visiting scholar at the Newhouse Center for the Humanities at Wellesley College.



http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/clientside/1682e7bQ2FuyjQ60BQ513Q5DQ60Q25Ba_mXBQ5DBSaQ3C3_Q25

The Honorable Clarence Thomas. A man's man huh Ray? I'm sure Ray has something negative to say about Ms. Hill now don't you?

[TLWisfoine]

Witness for the Persecution
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, October 2, 2007; A19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/09/09/PH2007090901943.gif

I believe in affirmative action, but I have to acknowledge there are arguments against it. One of the more cogent is the presence of Justice Clarence Thomas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Clarence+Thomas?tid=informline) on the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Supreme+Court?tid=informline). http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

If you caught Thomas on " 60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/60minutes/main3305443.shtml)" on Sunday night, you know that he will probably consider me one of the many people who want to see him "destroyed" because he doesn't "follow in this cult-like way something that blacks are supposed to believe." That's what he told CBS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/CBS+Corporation?tid=informline) correspondent Steve Kroft -- that he'd been persecuted for "veering away from the black gospel that we're supposed to adhere to."

The up-close-and-personal "60 Minutes" piece, timed to coincide with publication (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801634.html) of Thomas's autobiography, was compelling television. It was also a useful reminder that whenever my Bush Derangement Syndrome flares up to the point where I'm actually feeling nostalgic for the days when George Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) the Elder was in the White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline), I need only recall that it was Poppy who put Thomas on the court. That snaps me back to my senses. Thomas is only 59; we'll be saddled with him, and that gigantic chip on his shoulder, for decades to come. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Thomas said in the interview that the scorched-earth battle over his confirmation wasn't really about him, it was about abortion. Yet at other points he made clear that the whole thing was about him, specifically his commission of the ultimate sin: He is (drum roll, please) a black conservative. Cover the children's ears.

"I'm black," he told Kroft. "So I'm supposed to think a certain way. I'm supposed to have certain opinions. I don't do that. You don't create a box and put people in and then make a lot of generalizations about them."

Enough with the violins. When Fox News (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/FOX+News+Network+LLC?tid=informline) bloviator Bill O'Reilly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+O%27Reilly?tid=informline) says that African Americans are "finally" beginning to "think for themselves," I chalk it up to the fact that his germane experience with black people is probably limited to that recent dinner he had with the Rev. Al Sharpton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Al+Sharpton?tid=informline) and a room full of shockingly well-behaved patrons at Sylvia's, the Harlem soul-food shrine. But Thomas should know better. Either he's being disingenuous or he has a persecution complex of Norse-saga proportions.

There are, as he ought to know, plenty of black conservatives. There are plenty of African American parents teaching their children the same lessons of hard work and self-reliance that Thomas's grandfather taught him. The black church, I would argue, is one of the more socially conservative major institutions in the nation.

Black America has never been monolithic in its views, but black Americans do vote almost monolithically for Democrats. That wouldn't necessarily be the case if Richard Nixon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Richard+Nixon?tid=informline) hadn't built an electoral strategy on a race-based appeal to Southern whites -- and if every Republican presidential candidate and party leader since Nixon hadn't followed suit. Just last week, the four leading contenders for the Republican nomination all skipped a forum at historically black Morgan State University (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Morgan+State+University?tid=informline). As long as snubbing black voters is seen as smart politics in the Republican Party, black conservatives have good reason to stick with the Democrats.

Back to affirmative action, which Thomas famously opposes: He was 43 and had one year of judicial experience when Bush the Elder nominated him to replace Thurgood Marshall (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Thurgood+Marshall?tid=informline) on the court. Even Thomas can't seriously believe Bush's claim that he was the "most qualified" candidate. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

In the interview with Kroft, Thomas spoke of his experience at Yale Law School (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yale+Law+School?tid=informline), which set aside a number of slots for minority students. He said he sees his Yale (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yale+University?tid=informline) law degree as "tainted," worth less than a white student's degree.

This is why some critics have described Thomas as self-loathing -- not because he holds conservative political views or because he's a Republican, not because he objects in principle to affirmative action, but because he so discounts his own achievement. All Yale gave Thomas was the opportunity; he had to earn the degree. Yet he overlooks his own brains and hard work.

Thomas resents the fact that he couldn't get a job despite graduating in the middle of his class. Maybe prospective employers thought his white classmates were smarter, or maybe they just didn't want to hire a black man. But even if the whole world undervalued Clarence Thomas, why does he so undervalue himself that he keeps his law diploma in the basement with a "15 cents" sticker on the frame?

Thomas really should work out these issues for himself. Instead, he seems to be doing his best to save future generations of disadvantaged minorities from the indignity and shame of a Yale law degree.

The writer will answer questions at 1 p.m. EDT today here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/30/DI2007093001386.html). His e-mail address is [email protected].

Great article!!! This pretty much sums up many black peoples feelings toward this man. We don't hate him because he is a black conservative, many people in my family are conservative and hold many conservative beliefs, we hate him because he is a self-loathing castrated negro as I stated before!!!

I also liked when he mentioned the "Southern Strategy" and the continuing practice of it as well!!!

[boutons_]

shrub pere and shrub fils really know how to select the most qualified people who are a credit to the govt and to the USA.

Thomas is probably one of the most inexperienced, unqualified jurists ever to sit on the SC in modern times.

[TLWisfoine]

If he feels so bad about how he was able to get his law degree from Yale, and that all of his accomplishments afterwards are "tainted" then why doesn't he just forfeit his seat on the Supreme Court. Using his logic, he doesn't belong there.

[xrayzebra]

Great article!!! This pretty much sums up many black peoples feelings toward this man. We don't hate him because he is a black conservative, many people in my family are conservative and hold many conservative beliefs, we hate him because he is a self-loathing castrated negro as I stated before!!!

I also liked when he mentioned the "Southern Strategy" and the continuing practice of it as well!!!

You saying black people are racist? You should only hope
one day you are half the man Judge Thomas is.

As far as Anita Hill is concerned. What else could she
say. She would never in a million years admit she was
lying.

But no matter, we got a good man when he was
appointed. You could take pointers from him.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You saying black people are racist? You should only hope
one day you are half the man Judge Thomas is.

As far as Anita Hill is concerned. What else could she
say. She would never in a million years admit she was
lying.

But no matter, we got a good man when he was
appointed. You could take pointers from him.



"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,” she added. "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 Liberty University."

yeah ray she looks like a liar..




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.

Who's lying?

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.

yeah ray who's credibilty should be questioned?

[xrayzebra]

yeah ray she looks like a liar..





Who's lying?

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.




yeah ray who's credibilty should be questioned?

Letters of recommendation, evaluations, etc. You
never have done many have you. And when you want
to get rid of someone, you don't tell the the folks
considering them how bad someone really is.

Don't know how it is now, but in my days, in the military,
if you gave someone an unsatisfactory performance
report, you lived with that person until such time as they
were separated or came up to standards. They could
not be transferred.


About her statement about:

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.

The statement doesn't make sense. Why would you ask
someone to come to work for you when they were
ask to leave. And when did Thomas learn of this
information, after she was hired, I would think.

But what difference does it make, he was appointed
and is serving and I am happy about it. And after all
I am all that matters.......... :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Letters of recommendation, evaluations, etc. You
never have done many have you. And when you want
to get rid of someone, you don't tell the the folks
considering them how bad someone really is.

Don't know how it is now, but in my days, in the military,
if you gave someone an unsatisfactory performance
report, you lived with that person until such time as they
were separated or came up to standards. They could
not be transferred.


About her statement about:

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.

The statement doesn't make sense. Why would you ask
someone to come to work for you when they were
ask to leave. And when did Thomas learn of this
information, after she was hired, I would think.

But what difference does it make, he was appointed
and is serving and I am happy about it. And after all
I am all that matters.......... :lol



Letters of recommendation, evaluations, etc. You
never have done many have you. And when you want
to get rid of someone, you don't tell the the folks
considering them how bad someone really is.

huh? no you just don't write them ray. what kind of person are you to give out recommendations for people you don't want to recommend? where i come from you don't recommend someone considering your putting your neck on the line as well.. so i guess according to you clarence thomas wasn't concerned about his reputation being harmed TWICE by recommending someone he knew not be fit for the position applied for. jesus ray you make no sense

[101A]

The three most powerful black people in government in the past 20 years; Thomas, Powell and Rice.

Irony.

Democrats: Don't buy the cow when the milk's free, huh?

[xrayzebra]

huh? no you just don't write them ray. what kind of person are you to give out recommendations for people you don't want to recommend? where i come from you don't recommend someone considering your putting your neck on the line as well.. so i guess according to you clarence thomas wasn't concerned about his reputation being harmed TWICE by recommending someone he knew not be fit for the position applied for. jesus ray you make no sense

Well in the first place, you say I don't make sense, read
what you wrote.

In most cases, you don't really write letters of recommendation in that case. You just make a statement
that they were a warm body and did as instructed. And
leave it at that. Now some folks may call that a
letter of recommendation. But I am not going to get
into management principles. And believe me, you
aren't really putting you neck on the line.
In short, you are saying they are an average worker. If
they are a professional you say essentially the same
except you qualify your statements with the facts that
they know there profession. Knowing and doing are
two different things, remember that.

[xrayzebra]

The three most powerful black people in government in the past 20 years; Thomas, Powell and Rice.

Irony.

Democrats: Don't buy the cow when the milk's free, huh?

I would say so. The party that says they support the
minorities don't. And they party that supposedly keeps
them down, don't........yes, real irony.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well in the first place, you say I don't make sense, read
what you wrote.

In most cases, you don't really write letters of recommendation in that case. You just make a statement
that they were a warm body and did as instructed. And
leave it at that. Now some folks may call that a
letter of recommendation. But I am not going to get
into management principles. And believe me, you
aren't really putting you neck on the line.
In short, you are saying they are an average worker. If
they are a professional you say essentially the same
except you qualify your statements with the facts that
they know there profession. Knowing and doing are
two different things, remember that.


Sort of like when calling a former employer and asking if applicant left in good standing? :rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

Sort of like when calling a former employer and asking if applicant left in good standing? :rolleyes

Yep, except, many would then ask a follow-up. Would
you re-hire them......then you would answer, well I cant
answer that because we don't have an opening right now
or we eliminated that position.......whatever.

[mrsmaalox]

His next book will be "If I Sexually Harrassed Her".

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yep, except, many would then ask a follow-up. Would
you re-hire them......then you would answer, well I cant
answer that because we don't have an opening right now
or we eliminated that position.......whatever.


so i am assuming that you think this was the type of recommendation thomas gave for hill? to teach in law school?

[ChumpDumper]

The three most powerful black people in government in the past 20 years; Thomas, Powell and Rice.

Irony.Since two of them were affirmative action hires by Republican administrations, yes -- very ironic.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The three most powerful black people in government in the past 20 years; Thomas, Powell and Rice.

Irony.

Selling one's soul to the devil is not ironic.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd be interested in what specific facets of the jurisprudence of Justice Thomas -- specific cases or decisions -- xray finds so inspiring.

I'm frankly at a loss to think of a single landmark decision that Justice Thomas has authored in his 15+ years on the Court.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'd be interested in what specific facets of the jurisprudence of Justice Thomas -- specific cases or decisions -- xray finds so inspiring.

I'm frankly at a loss to think of a single landmark decision that Justice Thomas has authored in his 15+ years on the Court.


You don't know? Thomas is a black conservative.. That's all xray cares about

[xrayzebra]

You don't know? Thomas is a black conservative.. That's all xray cares about

Yep and obviously it bothers the hell out of you. So there!

[FromWayDowntown]

Yep and obviously it bothers the hell out of you. So there!

I couldn't care less about his political persuasion. I'm underwhelmed by his work on the Court since his confirmation. So, what is it specifically about what Justice Thomas has written while on the Court that convinces you that he's such a wonderful jurist?

I mean you obviously have a deeply-held belief in the value of his judicial temperament and the wisdom of his jurisprudence -- I'd be interested in specific examples, which should be easy for someone who holds him in such high regard.

[xrayzebra]

I couldn't care less about his political persuasion. I'm underwhelmed by his work on the Court since his confirmation. So, what is it specifically about what Justice Thomas has written while on the Court that convinces you that he's such a wonderful jurist?

I mean you obviously have a deeply-held belief in the value of his judicial temperament and the wisdom of his jurisprudence -- I'd be interested in specific examples, which should be easy for someone who holds him in such high regard.

I thought I couldn't have made it plainer. He votes
the "right" way. You haven't figured that out.

And puts up with all the flack from the "left". Oh and
he doesn't cite international law to justify his opinions.

Now does that satisfy you. If not, lump it.

[FromWayDowntown]

I thought I couldn't have made it plainer. He votes
the "right" way. You haven't figured that out.

Can you give me an example? One specific example where Justice Thomas' vote resulted in a majority opinion that he wrote that has substantially impacted American law? Just one?


And puts up with all the flack from the "left". Oh and
he doesn't cite international law to justify his opinions.

Ah yes, the international law red herring is back. I've wondered where that went!!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can you give me an example? One specific example where Justice Thomas' vote resulted in a majority opinion that he wrote that has substantially impacted American law? Just one?



Ah yes, the international law red herring is back. I've wondered where that went!!


ray has no idea.