If I am correct, there were others who agreed will Anita Hill about how he treated them. Them being the black women in his office not the white women. The white women I believe said that he treated them with respect. What that told me a white woman was that he had a tier system and that it was open season on the black women.
2
To all these people so worried that Judge Kavanaugh’s life and career will be ruined by a false allegation:
It may be a true allegation. He has vigorously denied it; ho hum. That is to be expected - when has a prominent man of any profession; priest, politician, producer; NOT denied allegations? Denial, sadly, has not correlated with innocence in the past.
Why do you assume his career will be ruined? Frankly, in this partisan age, even if a dozen women accuse him, he has already achieved martyr status in conservative circles. He will keep his present judgeship. He will have his choice of well paid speaking gigs; and of course the obligatory book telling his “true story” will sell very well in conservative circles. It could be a better outcome for him, actually, than a rushed, crammed through confirmation that results in his being considered a Trump tool on the Supreme Court.
Finally, for all those men feeling cold sweat and thinking “there but for the grace of God go I”, courage. If you, like most men, never tried to assault young women, you will be fine. Even if you did, it would be so shocking to hear a man say “I am sorry that this incident has come to light after so many years, but I am even sorrier that I committed it in the first place. I was foolish (drunk, high, unenlightened, horny, insert excuse here) and I deeply regret my behavior and its effect on the accuser.” I’m sure the novelty value alone of such an admission would insulate you from severe consequences.
8
I just watched McConnell speak to the Senate. It is astounding that he could be so obtuse as to suggest there was no corroboration of Ford's accusation. As though there usually would be a witness to such an act, and as if Kavanaugh's friend would really testify against him. I'll admit that this is a hot mess and there is no easy answer. I'm not sure Kavanaugh is truly lying because I have had friends who drank to the point of not remembering; however, if I were attacked, I would certainly remember that. If only Kavanaugh had been more forthright and just said he had no memory of this happening but if it did, he had behaved badly and was very sorry about it. I realize that young people drink too much and behave badly, even when they aren't truly bad. It could be overlooked if he had shown some humility. I can't help but believe Ford because I can't imagine why she woild subject herself to this abuse otherwise.
10
"(In 2009, Harlan Crow, member of all-male Bohemian Club) provided $500,000 to Liberty Central, which was established by Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Thomas (who gave his Frederich Douglass' Bible to Crow)." "..as early as 1997 (Crow) hosted Thomas as a guest at the group's annual summer encampment, the Bohemian Grove."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Crow
Virginia Thomas called Anita Hill for an apology, 10 DAYS PRIOR TO HER LOBBYING FIRM hosted a web cast and eventually backtracked on posting her husband's SIGNED memo (that he supposedly didn't review).
"Liberty Central activities have included hosting a live web cast on October 20, 2010, in conjunction with the Family Research Council to protest the January 2011 expiration of tax cuts..On October 21, 2010, (Clarence) Thomas was specifically criticized for taking a position, via Liberty Central, on an issue that was likely to come before the Supreme Court - whether the 2010 health care legislation was unconstitutional."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Central
Clarence Thomas' wife is one influential member of conservative group , Groundswell. In 2013, David Corn reported on her; John Bolton; Frank Gaffney, Max Pappas, a top aide to Sen. Cruz; Stephen Bannon; Leonard Leo; Sandy Rios, a Fox News contributor; Washington Examiner executive editor Mark Tapscott; and more.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/groundswell-rightwing-group...
Just heard that Mitch McConnell is saying that the accusers are paid actors that the Democrats hired - well why not, when they got the idea from Trump who hired actors to cheer on his candidacy announcement - or are GOP's only allowed to hire actors. And I think old Mitch is grasping at straws now as he sees his candidate going down in flames, as he should.
8
I gather that Kavanaugh denies his presence at the party at which Dr. Blasey Ford was attacked. How does he know which party that was? It seems to me that only if he never went to any parties in the relevant years could he be so very sure. He needs to re-examine his memory, and if he went to any parties at all he needs to honestly consider the possibility of his guilt.
7
@es
A problem of adding too many details something that investigators spot quickly.
4
We appoint judges and justices to make decisions based on and in favor of truth. We select them because we believe that they themselves always tell the truth. What if the prospective judge or justice himself lies in order to get the job?
The Republican senators are proceeding on the basis that the truth may be unknowable and Ms. Ford's allegations are frivolous. They are also deliberately, and fraudulently, allocating insufficient time and effort to determine the truth in order to quickly approve Mr. Kavanaugh’s appointment to the highest court. That is how I see the developing situation.
The public might think that Ms. Ford is telling the truth even if she may not be prove it in the court, while Mr. Kavanaugh is or may be lying. A possible lier is about to be appointed for life to the highest court.
What should be done by a ‘wise’ senate if the veracity of both the accuser and the accused is not completely verifiable? I would suggest that we look for a candidate who is free from any stigma in the public opinion.
5
We appoint judges and justices to make decisions based on and in favor of truth. We select them because we believe that they themselves always tell the truth. What if the prospective judge or justice himself lies in order to get the job?
The Republican senators are proceeding on the basis that the truth may be unknowable and Ms. Ford's allegations are frivolous. They are also deliberately, and fraudulently, allocating insufficient time and effort to determine the truth in order to quickly approve Mr. Kavanaugh’s appointment to the highest court. That is how I see the developing situation.
The public might think that Ms. Ford is telling the truth if even if she may not be prove it in the court, while Mr. Kavanaugh is or may be lying. A possible lier is about to be appointed for life to the highest court.
What should be done by a ‘wise’ senate if the veracity of both the accuser and the accused is not completely verifiable? I would suggest that we look for a candidate who is free from any stigma in the public opinion.
A second female accusor today. Both to be believed? Both liars?Judge Kavanaugh, in addition to his strong denials about both accusations, presents a piece of paper as evidence to defend himself and to help clear his impugned good name and reputation.A calendar, of whatever age, written in the Judge's handwriting at age 17, noting that he was elsewhere, THEN, even with his imprinted DNA, is little more than a piece of paper! She claims, and He says, can be investigated.An investigation of a remembered/denied event and violating process may not be adequately proven if, and when, a central issue is belief. By diverse members of two divided sides who don't behave civilly to the other in our growing toxic,WE-THEY culture which enables violating a targeted, selected "the other!" Be it an ethnic "other." A gender identity "other." An age "other." A practicing-religiosity "other."Two sides, in America, known as the United States, but not behaving in a united manner since our beginnings! Not united in mutual trust for "the other." Not in mutual respect. Caring. Not mutual help, if and when needed, for those known by us as well as for strangers.Serious issues exist. We, all of US, are trapped in an either/or choice. In a "fact"- "alt-fact" constructed reality. Believing that ALL problems are solvable.Occurring in a culture of personal unaccountability, toxic complacency and complicity to HARMS,at all levels of selected and elected policymakers. Local to national."distinct difference?"
Another sad racial truth:
Young and impoverished black men in this country fill our prison system, some teenagers, while time and time again, we find white, prep school and frat boys getting away with sexual assaults and hazing deaths with little or no consequences but maybe a slap on the wrist by the school, or a misdemeanor conviction, or worse, a wink of "boys will be boys" or just flat out pay offs to get them out of hot water.
The women get a lifetime of nightmares, PTSD, and too many memories they try to forget.
Disgusting.
30
If my 30 year old son were to act in that manner it would not be unlike a direct assault on his mother
1
Mr Blow, I believe it was black men, not black women who erred in supporting Thomas. Why didn’t you mention that point?
5
There's no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They'll both bite.
--Justice Marshall
I say, let's not add any more snakes to the court.
10
I wonder at the naïveté of people who can't believe black America sided with Clarence Thomas over a Anita Hill. In realpolitik terms, what would supporting Anita Hill gain the black community? Perhaps moral integrity, and not much else. Clarence Thomas was a rare chance for representation in the halls of power, even if he was hostile to the activist wing of the community. Is it really so hard to believe that political ambition often wins out over moral integrity? If so, that would explain the staggering lack of skepticism on display regarding this latest SCOTUS debacle.
I wonder what planet these people live on, who make shocked noises to the effect of "Nobody would EVER lie for political gain!"
Are these people being serious? Do they think the public is that dumb?
2
I knew it: somebody would try to play the race card to differentiate the high tech lynching Clarence Thomas suffered from the updated version being experienced by Brett Kavanaugh. The only thing we need yet for this to be a properly political correct psychodrama is for Kavanaugh to beat his breat thrice, "through my white privilege, through my white privilege, through my grievous white privilege." Move On!
1
I wonder if Bill Clinton could have become President today based on what we know about his sexual exploits which were well-known to many before he was elected. Just asking.
6
Good point. Trump was also elected (by the Electoral College, no less!) even though his sexual exploits were well known - and even exceeded Clinton's!
9
Of course there is a racial element to this mess!! One Justice, a Black man, was never accused of assault, he was accused of talking dirty to a woman in the workplace. Sexual harassment. HE WAS INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI.
The white man has been accused of sexual assault. In fact, another woman has now come forward, accusing him of sexual abuse. Avenatti tells us he has another victim and a witness who claim there was actually a conspiracy to intoxicate women severely then line up boys to rape them. (I believe this is called "pulling the train") Kavanaugh and another friend were in on this. If we are to believe this, then the WHITE MAN candidate has been accused of two horrendous assaults, maybe even more, and of one incident of sexual abuse. BUT THE WHITE MAN IS NOT INVESTIGATED.
So to summarize, The Black man accusations included no physical touching at all. The White man is accused of physical abuse and assault. But the white man is not investigated. The Black man is.
This--investigate, immediately, the Black man, but shrug off the white man--has become so normal in our society that no one mentions it or cares. Even this Black writer does not see how incredibly racist this all is.
10
My take is that it was the Bork's thwarted nomination to the SJC that started us down the path that has led to the politicization of the SJC nomination process and a substantial loss of respect for the SJC as an institution.
It is my understanding that the Founding Fathers intended that the President could appoint whoever he wanted to *as long as* the person was clearly qualified as a lawyer and jurist. And the Senate's role was to check that the nominee's legal qualification was up to standard.
I am a liberal but I think the Democrats were wrong to challenge Bork's nomination. He was qualified. And Bush's response was to appoint Thomas... An unqualified black man with serious character flaws... And Bush basically dared the Democrats to vote against him... Which they couldn't.
McConnell's stalling on Obama's nominee is just another step in the politicization of the SJC and, with this Kavanaugh fiasco, another step in destroying an important government institution.
4
@Engineer
Please check out Borks backgroundnot just education but who he worked for and what he did while working for them.
4
Race was at issue in Thomas's hearings, but not as Blow outlines; it was a racism/sexism exclusive to black women. Anita Hill was not believed by white men on the Senate Judiciary committee for the same reason that these men think Sally Hemings's relationship with Thomas Jefferson was non-existent or consensual. To most of white America, black women aren't raped or harassed; they give it up willingly.
As to the majority of blacks supporting Thomas, I bet they were black men showing the sexism that some black men have shown black women historically. Every black church member, every black female staff member that has worked for a black Congressman, and every black woman at a black-managed NGO will tell you they know of a #MeToo incident. Black male rappers brag about using sex to control women; it is thus not surprising that some black men would view Anita Hill as "betraying the race" by accusing Thomas.
Black educated women believed her, because we know that
speaking out for Civil Rights was driven largely by female power. The majority of the protestors in Birmingham and Montgomery were women. Constance Baker Newman formed the movement's brilliant legal strategy while Thurgood Marshall presented it (sexism). Marshall was tapped for the Supreme Court, but not Newman. Harriet Tubman, Merlie Evers, Sojourner Truth, Fannie Lou Hamer, Ida B. Wells---rarely heralded commensurate to their contributions. Men are conditioned to ignore the concerns of black women.
23
I still do not understand why Kavanaugh's gambling and debt problems seem to be swept aside. His ludicrous claims of not attacking Dr. Ford will be shown false soon enough, but he can't possibly hide his personal finance scandals. They are shameful and certainly with the likelihood of cases involving stocks, banks and finance before the courts he would not be a worthy adjudicator.
7
Nominating Thomas was G.H.W. Bush's worst moment as President. He is, and was, a generally undistinguished lawyer who has few of the qualities of an outstanding jurist. I voted for Bush twice and think he was a fine President, but this was a terrible decision, compounded by his failure to withdraw the nomination when it became apparent Thomas' confirmation would stain the Senate, the Court, and his Presidency for years to come.
5
Clarence Thomas was attempting to abuse his position of authority over an inferior at work, for sex. He did abuse his authority. He did not attempt to rape his victim.
This distinguishes the two.
3
I am fearful and dismayed that WE THE PEOPLE are witnessing the destruction of the American Democracy. There are many reasons why Judge Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court is a poor and frankly dangerous choice. It remains disgusting to me that Merrick Garland's appointment was never actively addressed. WHY? The good ol' rich White Boys are desperately grasping utilizing every tool they have in their possession to maintain power. I hope and pray that thousands of American Men & Women show up at the polls and vote as many of them as possible out of office. If we are going to save this country for the coming generations of American citizens we need to CLEAN HOUSE. The fact that Putin and his KGB cronies had a hand in Trumps insidious occupation of the White House makes me sick. WAKE UP AMERICA. We, men, women of all races and cultures need to take back the power and save the American Democracy... a government for the people, by the people. VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
4
Charles, you have missed an important point: Women, like blacks, have been the target of discrimination. I would argue that Christine Blasey Ford faces similar, if not the same, problems that Anita Hill faced, with the difference being gender instead of race.
There were Democrats with a conscience who knew Clarence Thomas deserved to be approved for SCOTUS back in the 1980's and 90's.
The Democratic Party no longer sends such people into the nomination perocess to become members of Congress, so now the Democrats in the Senate are freed of such silly moral concerns. Progressivism is so distasteful that ALL must gang up to sell it and force it whenever necessary.
Thankfully, the Democrats have behaved so badly in this nomination process that November will continue the removal of Leftists from public office begun by passage pf the PPACA in 2010.
Will Hillary Clinton be remembered as the last chance the Dems ever had to elect a Dem President?
The root cause of argument is older than black & white; it's gender--he said, she said, and: "The {nominee] doth protest too much, methinks."
Shakespeare: HAMLET III .ii.
2
Neither Kavanaugh nor Thomas deserves to be on the Court. The spectacles of these two nomination processes have been disgusting and demoralizing. I have long believed the Supreme Court was the least corrupt American institution. My respect for the Supreme Court is diminishing. If Kavanaugh is appointed, the commanding authority of the Court will be tainted.
5
Lindsay Graham has said, essentially, his vote is already locked in for Kavanaugh, no matter the Thurs. hearing.
Not that I was ever putting the hope of the republic in Lindsay's soft hands, but, gee, I wonder why this Dr. Ford even bothers.
I applaud her for doing so, but know it will not change the outcome of the nomination, and likely will further embolden ALL the old, white men in this administration to pretend they 'never did it' either.
2
"This is designed to be a spectacle that will embarrass her and elevate him, much the way the Clarence Thomas hearings featuring accuser Anita Hill played out in 1991"
One fact that the liberal media is ignoring: Joe Biden presided over the maltreatment of Anita Hill and could have done something - but didn't.
Please cross Biden off the list of 2020 candidates. We need to move forward, not backward.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/joe-biden-anita-hill-kavanaugh...
4
Fortunately, I was not one of those black folks who supported Clarence Thomas. Maybe because I was fresh out of law school and understood what his appointment to the Supreme Court portended. Now, almost 30 years later, I can say without hesitation that he has lived down to my every expectation.
5
I watched and well recall Anita Hill’s testimony. I believed her then and now. Thomas, ranked lowest SCOTUS nominee ever to that date by the America Bar Association, was a cynical choice by Bush. As Mr Blow noted, Thomas used his claimed “high tech lyinching” to advantage. Thomas NEVER should have made it on to the Court. Neither should Kavanaugh.
Whether or not Kavanaugh does get on via republican maneuvering. The Federalist Society has plenty more partisan candidates teed up for the non thinking golf loving “president”.
PS I tend to believe Dr Ford more than Kavanaugh. Reading what he wrote in his memo to ken starr and watching his phony “butter won’t melt in his mouth’ testimony re judicial impartiality and Roe should be instructive to fence sitters. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are 100% dyed in the wool republican partisans.
Real news. Fake President.
8
I am a Canadian with most of my family American. My family looks like America. Mr Kavanaugh will be confirmed. The Supreme Court will represent entrenched power privilege and the America of 1773. Two hundred years of evolution will be flushed down the toilet and the America I knew 60 years ago will be no more.
I will support our Prime Minister even though it means economic devastation. I understand George Orwell. For people like myself 1984 is dystopian for the GOP it is Government for Dummies.
2
I'm not buying it. Anita Hill was a woman, Ford is a woman. The presumption amongst good old boys black or white is that "she" has to prove herself and the burden rest with her. Had Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill been white it would have played out the same.
13
How about Rod Rosenstein instead of Kavanaugh?
Sorry, I was just dreaming.
5
While many did, Not all black people supported Clarence Thomas. 1600 Black women placed an ad in the NYTimes in support of Professor Hill. I am proud to have been one of them
44
I was so strongly sexually harassed that I had to go out on sick leave just to get away from my boss and that was just one boss and one job. There were many others. Times have changed, but the men from that time in history remain in power and have not changed. The republicans in Congress want to win no matter who or what they destroy. It's way past time to vote them all out. Let's clear the way for fair and decent lives for the upcoming generations of women. They don't stand a chance with the republicans in power and a republican-controlled Supreme Court.
9
I am middle school teacher. Before my Head of School hired me, she heard from parents who knew me through a camp the school conducted in the summer and supported my candidacy.
Had she heard from someone that I had behaved inappropriately, drank too much at parties, was a vicious gossip, or otherwise seemed to lack character, she would not have hired me; it would not have needed to reach the level of sexual impropriety.
The point it, Kavanaugh is up for a lifetime appointment. He is not entitled to this job. I hope sincerely he has not been falsely accused, and it is my sense that he has not, but I am not so worried about his “life being ruined” as Senator Graham bemoaned. Why Republicans think this man is owed this position is beyond my comprehension. If, after the testimony this week, Senators question his veracity at all, and find Dr. Ford reliable, there should be no perseverating about not confirming this man. Nothing will ever be proven on way or another in this instance, but it must be noted that this hearing will not be a trial, but a vetting.
13
Associate Justice Thomas has in some ways been very successful and in some ways not. But that no one mentions the Heritage Foundation who dictated Kavanaugh along with 24
other "corrupt bargains" to Trump. The Heritage Foundation is a special-interest group soliciting to the far right, big Corporations and Washington special interests.
10
@BMEL47
No news here. Does Trump ever make a decision on his own besides a rash tweet to defend his personal ego?
4
What's much more interesting is the similarities between the two nomination hearings. In both instances the democrats opposed the alleged to be "conservative" candidates and decided to use a no crime or even government regulation violation kind of a sex scandal smear campaign. In Thomas's case I was astonished to read the details (that were well below the fold) and find that what he was "accused" of was not even a crime or against any regulation at that time (asking Hill on a date a few times and having a playboy centerfold on his apartment wall when many of our liberal elites have painted nudes on their walls in a Washington that had triple xxx porno movies advertised as playing in theatres opposite the White House. Then of course, similarly weird, there's Ford's whatever they are ... "recovered memories"? (historically known to be unreliable) or a several second event so trivial that she was more worried about her family finding out she was attending drinking parties at 15 as she left the house? or a delusional fantasy that's she's convinced herself was true or happened with someone else who does not have Kavanaugh's name recognition that could get her a 1 million dollar a book deal and 50K speaking fees? are so flaky and so copycat-like of other politically motivated false accusations (Harvard, Virginia Tech, ...) that no one that is a law enforcement professional would ever dare prosecute for fear of being 'false prosecution' disbarred or sued into bankruptcy.
1
@winthrop staples Winthrop, what you are saying is a little cuckoo. Thomas's actions, if true, constituted illegal sex discrimination, a violation of the federal law that Thomas was charged with enforcing. You don't have a problem with that? Kavanaugh's actions, if true, constitute criminal sexual assault. It seems you don't understand, on so many levels, what you are talking about. Democrats are not making these allegations up to smear Kavanaugh. Some negative opinions about Kavanaugh are based on statements of victims whose reports are based on personal knowledge and experience. (You can decide for yourself who you believe but the allegations must be addressed.) Some negative are based on his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. He did not appear to be wholly forthcoming on several issues. Both Democrats and Republicans have concerns about whether Kavanaugh is fit to be on the Supreme Court. No one questions his knowledge of the law and intellect. The questions relate to whether he is truthful and of good character. These are legitimate concerns when making a decision about a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The commission of a criminal act is not the sole disqualifying factor. Personally, I would like to be able to respect our Supreme Court justices, whether they be conservative or liberal or anywhere in between.
5
One big difference is this is an election year.
Women are once again being told that in a He Said/She Said the man always wins. I hope they'll vote accordingly.
There is no reforming the Republicans. Only replacing them.
7
I don't know how bad Justice Marshall's health was in 1991--he died of heart failure in January 1993, the week Bill Clinton took office. I'm guessing in 1991 he, like me at the time, thought GHW Bush was a shoe-in for re-election, what with all the war high-fiving. If only he had hung on till the end: Clinton would have appointed his replacement, who would have voted for a full Florida recount in Bush v. Gore. We would be in a different world today.
3
@Dan Coleman Having Thurgood Marshall on the U. S. Supreme Court was a good thing. But I have thought for sometime that he was a much greater lawyer than he was a justice. He was the attorney for some very important cases (of course, Brown but some other very important civil rights cases before Brown) and went into some dangerous situations to represent clients.
I don't think that he gets nearly enough credit for his work as an attorney/lawyer.
4
It seems that African Americans continue to place their support in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.There is a possibility that Sanders the Democratic Socialist could have defeated Trump, iSanders could have won the nomination,but for some reason the Black vote went overwhelming for Clinton , mainly because Sanders wanted universal health care included in Medicare, which is the popular choice of Democrats today, while Clinton wanted to keep Obamacare as it was which was a failure throughout most of the country.When a black voter was asked if he would vote for Sanders, he replied," I don't know Sanders from Madoff" a strange analogy, which had all the elements of Anti Semitism, even though, Sanders was a Jew by name only, & sympathized with the Palestinians.Sanders was also for a larger Minimum pay raise than Clinton, & his Socialist economic position would have been much more beneficial to the working man , then Capitalism which Wall Street Clinton supported.Lastly, the only thing that President Clinton did for
Minorities was to put thousands in Jail for smoking Weed.
Hopefully, our Black brothers will put aside tribalism like rooting for OJ, & start doing what's best for our country, and themselves.
6
Does anyone doubt that if Clarence Thomas had been accused of sexual harassment by a white woman there would have been a different result? Ponder what that really says about us.
5
Thomas has proven to be one of the worst USSC Justices in its history. He has exhibited a pathological antipathy to civil rights, human rights, and the universality and equitable distribution of those rights to all. He appears driven by a deep seated self-loathing. President Bush could not have made a worse choice for America.
That there was majority support for Thomas among African Americans speaks to the horror of America's treatment of African Americans and the concerted political and legal efforts among White men to emasculate Black men.
As bad as Clarence Thomas was and is, African Americans were willing to accept any Black jurist over a White one. The gender biases of the Republicans at that time were secondary to their racism. The unfortunate fact outcome illustrates how policy decisions based on racist ideologies have negative consequences that reverberate far beyond the present generation. Now we are faced with policy decisions of Republicans that are based on sexist ideologies. So far the Republicans have ensured that Dr. Blasey-Ford will not be afforded equal protection of the law. If Republicans have their way Dr. Blasey-Ford's story will not evolve beyond a story. It appears that every measure is being taken by the Republicans to keep her story from evolving into an actual formal legal charge that requires investigation, subpoenas, and sworn testimony of witnesses.
9
Anita Hill was charging a previous employer of inappropriate speech in the workplace that embarrassed a subordinate which is wrong.
Dr. Ford is charging a young man with physical assault and attempted rape which is a felony.
Your trying too hard to make it about race.
4
Charles Blow, I thought you knew the rank order of roles in American society (made and enforced by the white men in power):
1) White men/white boys at the top
2) Men of any color
3) White women
4) Women of color (except black), boys of color
5) Black women
6) Girls of color at the very bottom
Even though Clarence Thomas wasn't at the very top, Anita Hill fell a few rungs down the list so the outcome is obvious. We can expect the same outcome with Kavanaugh because Blasey is still a few rungs down in rank.
I would venture to say that had Anita Hill been a white woman, it would have been the same outcome. Yes, color plays a huge role but you're missing the bigger issue that women of all races are still not valued equally.
14
Thomas has been a disaster and a great disservice to all Americans. He should never have been appointed. Kavanaugh is another mistake. I am all for the Dems getting radical if they get power - impeach Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as the first is incompetent and the latter were appointed by a Russian asset. Expand the Court to 11, the same number we need to crank our Resistance up to this November!
3
Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. While we'd like this to be about right vs wrong and justice for women, this is purely a political matter: can Republicans survive in defending and Democrats succeed proving that when it comes to coveted Supreme Court justice selection and other critical choices, there will always be a lot of ugliness, dirt and questions of immorality when Republicans are the ones choosing?
2
Thomas's statement: "a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. And it is a message, that unless you kowtow to an old order you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.” proved he was a disingenuous liar after previously attacking black civil rights groups for claiming being black was disadvantageous in American and subject to racism as being "moaners and whiners."
9
Bill Clinton with his Crime Bill did more damage to black men than Justice Thomas or Trump ever will. Please explain how blacks have been hurt by Justice Thomas?
2
“J’accuse!”
3
How does Anita Hill’s blackness fit into the support of Black Americans for Clarence Thomas? Was her color erased?
4
Kavanaugh is the epitome of a privileged white frat boy grown up. He worked in the Bush White House when they wanted to legally justify torture after 9/11, No wonder 90% of his documents have not been submitted. He has a record that is pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-labour, anti-civil rights and importantly anti- freedom of choice for women. He has long been active in right wing politics
People saying they have no memory of the party does not exonerate him. A proper investigation by the FBI might do so, but he does not want it to be done. He is stonewalling because he knows what might be found. And now we have another woman making a similar accusation, that he exposed himself and shoved his penis in her face. Again this was a drunken party, this time at Yale, not high school.
Now we have a pattern developing. How many others have there been? Being under 21 and drunk does not excuse this appalling behaviour. It is sexual assault in both instances. I do not buy these women being mistaken or lying. No woman would put herself through this to cause trouble or as a lark. The scars linger in memory.
Kavanaugh's plan is deny, deny, deny. He is not used to being questioned and objected to that in practice sessions at the WH as too personal.
These hearings should wait while the FBI investigates. If he is innocent, he has nothing to fear. The truth will be revealed and either he or the women will be vindicated. But the GOP fears the election will make this nom moot.
12
Great column Mr. Blow. But I would rephrase your phrase " If they believe Ford, they can simply say #metoo.".
If they believe Ford, they can POWERFULLY say #metoo.
That's how it is, fortunately, in 2018.
2
#metoo
4
“Black people, to their everlasting regret, backed [Justice Clarence [Thomas]...based on what poll, Mr. Blow?
In fact you have no evidence for that regret.
Justice Clarence Thomas' statement was perfectly formulated to make certain that the white Senators would feel obligated to vote in his favor. It was perhaps the most brilliant jurisprudence he ever produced. While Joe Biden has retrospectively expressed regret for the way in which he directed the "hearing" of Anita Hill, he was brutal. He allowed Justice Thomas to answer, and gave time for Thomas' answers to sink it. When Professor Hill spoke, she was cut off, interrupted and, essentially, dissed. We must no more judge books by their covers.
5
In the 1990's, I got to know a federal judge, a moderate Republican appointed by Nixon. He said Thomas was renowned as a sexual predator prior to his SC nomination, and as a moron who couldn't write an opinion if his life depended on it. Also, he said Anita Hill was already someone who was being mentioned as a possible SC nominee someday, but she threw any chance of that away by coming forward for what she knew was the right thing to do.
We don't need another sex predator on the bench.
10
Whip Ford into oblivion so Kavanagh can tip the Supreme Court and Pardon Trump and Abolish Roe v. Wade. YEA!!
--->
Are you getting what you want America? Sad.
1
Clarence Thomas was selected as a thumb in the eye to liberals and African Americans. You can have your black Justice but we will select one who is hostile to all you hold sacred.
Every single day that Clarence Thomas sits on the Supreme Court is an insult to African Americans.
Marshall is loved and respected while Thomas is reviled and he really doesn’t care.
8
#Meetoo.
2
There's another difference. Thomas's behavior was reprehensible, and it violated the very laws protecting employees in the workplace that it was his job to enforce, but it didn't threaten traumatic violence against anyone's person. Kavanaugh's behavior does, and there is circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy in the coverup, something else that didn't exist in Thomas's case. The accusations against Kavanaugh are much more serious than those against Thomas, and it is astonishing that none of the conservative Republicans in the Senate appear to recognize this.
3
@Fred Musante –
all DT and the Rs care about is having a reliable conservative vote on the SC.
It does seem, though, that they ought have found someone with less negative noise in his background.
1
@Fred Musante, "and there is circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy in the coverup". Really??? What evidence do you have, other than Dr. Ford's very incomplete recollection, to support the "serious accusations" against Kavanaugh or a conspiracy to cover it up. The only ones I see any evidence of covering this up are Dr. Ford (for 30 years) and Sen. Feinstein throughout the entire process of investigating and extensive questioning of Judge Kavanaugh in both private and public settings.
I never realized that the majority of Blacks supported Clarence Thomas's nomination. As a Black person, I certainly did not because he was obviously hostile to civil rights (he refused to do his job enforcing civil rights law) and he had NO background in constitutional law. Plus, he was nominated by Bush, which told me all I needed to know. I'm surprised anyone thought any differently at the time.
10
Do you recall all the scenes of black law students jumping up and cheering when OJ was found not guilty? It is sad how long-term oppression and injustice can cause wrong-headed thinking -- us against them, no matter the cost.
3
I think we do ourselves a disservice when we try and compare any political moment from now and decades ago. Even though there are both women accusing either sexual harassment or actual actual, there were and are both political moments, since they were/are being brought before the nation in regards to the Supreme Court.
You really can't compare anything politically that is going now (or even just in the last couple of years) to anything other in the entire history of the United States.
The republican party has been hijacked (let alone the nation from them with the help of foreign states/forces) and the United States is setting up its own oligarchy. Free speech is no longer free, and corporations are now people. These are buttressed by such hyper partisanship and radicalism from the right, that all procedures and decorum now have two sets of rules - one set for all of us, and one set (that changes) for all of them.
It is still a woman (or women) accusing powerful men of offences, but the climate in which they are protected is completely different. (regardless of race)
This time the accused is being protected by women. (2)
7
The Anita Hill hearings were on television the month I turned ten. I can't remember if I watched all of it, but I never forgot the "coke can" story, if only because I was scandalized by public talk of pubic hair, and I remember feeling really perplexed at how esoteric people could be in their seemingly continual efforts to make women feel like crap. In other words, it was an indelible learning experience for me, and I always remembered Anita Hill's name. Just a couple of years ago--in my thirties--I came across a kind of "Where are they Now" feature on Anita Hill (this was just before the recent explosion of documentaries and feature films about her) and was so pleased and excited to hear that she was now a law professor. NOW a law professor. In other words, I had no idea that she was a law professor at the time, when I was nine! That's telling to me: that no one made me feel at age nine that here speaks a law professor about what happened to her. I got the message at age nine that here is a mere secretary, and we all know secretaries have to endure pubic hair jokes at the office. Of course no one is "mere," but that's clearly the message I received.
10
What is Judge Kavanaugh's primary qualification for an appointment to the United States Supreme Court? If, as it was in Justice Thomas' case, that special quality has nothing to do with character or scruples or wisdom, then this kerfuffle over rape is pointless. Minority rule, by and for the elite, will continue unabated.
3
Let the FBI thoroughly investigate. What are the Republicans afraid of? Take the time to get it right. There is far too much at stake.
53
@Cone
I agree that the FBI should investigate but they also investigated Anita Hill's charges and look what happened there.
Hopefully if the FBI is given the chance to investigate this time they will do a better job
4
What's appalling in Mr Black's account of the Thomas/Hill hearings is his statements that Blacks continued to support Thomas even though his legal views were the anthesis of Justice Marshall. This was brought out in his confirmation hearings and backround. Secondly, they watched while Anti Hill, herself black, was debased during her testimony.
2
Do you mean one of the distinct differences?
Were Thomas and Hill drinking under age at a party 35 years before the hearing? Weren't there more accusers in the Thomas case?
2
Now a second woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.
8/17/98 Democrat President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct. After the questioning at the White House is finished, Clinton goes on national TV to admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
How can we keep our country moral, decent and honest? How can we protect our little children? How can we stop promoting indecent and immoral lifestyles to the rest of the world? Lets put God back into the equation.
@manoflamancha
No, let's not. If people aren't good because being good is its own reward, I don't think having a supernatural boogie-man is the answer.
7
Clinton, Thomas, and Kavanaugh are all Christian. I don't think more god is going to be the answer. They have that already and it's not helping. They need more education on consent and respect, which is a purely secular undertaking.
2
@manoflamancha So God is the answer? How do you then explain the sexual abuse of children by the Roman Catholic Church?! God didn’t create puppets, He gave us free will to choose right or wrong. Keep God out of this, it has nothing to do with God being in or out but everything to do with a man’s choice!
3
I think the one big difference is that the GOP knows it is deeply involved in a massive COVERUP with Kavanaugh's nomination.
3
Mr. Blow brings up very interesting and valuable context -- that the Thomas hearings coincided with the Rodney King beating, such that all Americans were extra sensitized to racial injustice at the time. However, I disagree that the Kavanaugh/Ford situation is entirely different because the protagonists are white. Rather, I'd follow Mr. Blow's logic, and point out that Kavanaugh/Ford plays out in the #MeToo era. Americans are just as extra sensitive to a social justice issue as they were in 1991. Only difference is that this time it's about sexual misconduct rather than race.
8
The Republican Party adamantly denies the existence of the issue of race in this hearing process by addressing race through subliminal double entendre and stealthy covert, innocuous presentations designed and intended to project the charade of approval of the nominee by merely accepting his word. This cleverly erected façade is tragically flawed. Both Clarence Thomas and the nominee are the subject of lurid sexual depravity accusations. The significant difference here is that in 1991 President George H W Bush immediately ordered an FBI investigation into the Anita Hill charges, and an ensuing review followed, intensely debated, watched by Americans riveted to their televisions. No stone left unturned. GOP Senator Arlen Spectre engaged in an aggressive cross examination of Hill, intended to destroy here credibility. Witnesses on both sides gave extensive testimony. And, the GOP played the 'race card' in light of Thomas's 'hi-tech lynching for uppity Blacks' statement. Here in 2018, the GOP leadership and the myopically misfocused 45 simply take the mere word of the nominee because 'he said it didn't happen' and 'that was along time ago when he was 17.' No FBI investigation. No corroborating witnesses. Just railroad the nomination through. The Republican Party today summarily rejects the very approach it coveted and held sacrosanct in 1991 to assure Thomas's confirmation, fueled by the issue race, distinguishing this nominee by mere Caucasian male privilege. No. Race matters.
2
If I was Clarence Thomas, I would be one of the angriest about how Kavanaugh's confirmation is being handled. It seems like the entire Republican Party is circling the wagons to protect their white prep school bro, but had no qualms about siccing the FBI on Thomas. I have no sympathy for Thomas, but an FBI investigation was called was called in his case but not in Kavanaugh's? Why?
If race is not the reason, I have a bridge to sell you. These white guys in the Senate were all to pleased to possibly knock Thomas out of the running, especially fellow Republicans like Orrin Hatch. They probably figured that either way they would get a conservative with HW in the WH, but if a black guy wasn't replacing Thurgood, even better. They could say they "tried" while prepping for a white candidate.
Neither the Republicans or Democrats cared about Clarence or Anita. My cynicism tells me they thought this was entertaining, seeing two black people go at it to destroy each others' lives. It is obvious they were not interested in truth, justice, and integrity and they do whatever it takes to protect their white nominees from the same scrutiny.
6
If a man came forward and accused Kavanaugh of being very drunk and wielding a gun and shooting it into a crowd when he was 17, the GOP would either do a thorough investigation or excuse him. It's just when those 11 powerful white men hear accusations of sexual violence toward women that they shrug it off as if it's not a crime. Obviously, they don't care one iota about finding the truth or justice for women.
184
@Shirley Reynolds, no. They would excuse him.
1
@Shirley Reynolds If anyone shot a gun into a crowd, it would be in the court documents, the police report, and a part of record. If a 15 and 17 year old get drunk and things don't go the way both want, then that may not be a part of record as one has to be arrested or break the law publicly for the police to even know about it. So, just because Ms Ford chose to come forward with this allegation, Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty.
1
We as women are second class citizens
In reality, if Kavanaugh is confirmed I suspect we are seeing the beginning of the end for the Supreme Court. It won't be long before they find themselves completely irrelevant.
2
I disagree with Charles Blows conclusion that Prof. Ford has been treated better than Prof. Hill. In the most important respect Prof. Ford has been treated even worse. At least George W. Bush insisted that the FBI investigate Prof. Hill's charges. This is not to say that the Senate committee called any of the witnesses the FBI found. But this time the Republican Senate and President are even worse. They are frightened to death of having the FBI investigate with the weapon of bringing serious charges against anyone who lies to them.
5
I'm afraid it does NOT come down to "did he do it or not?" I think the question is, "does it matter if he did this crime?". And the answer is, to Republicans, it does not. To Republicans, Thomas' lack of intellect was not a disqualifier, to Republicans, sexual assault of women is not a disqualifier.
6
We've come a long way when it comes to addressing racial inequality and we still have a ways to go, but sexual inequality? Not much. Substitute a race or ethnicity for some of the things Republican Senators are saying about Dr. Ford and imagine the public outcry. But she's a woman so it's okay. They aren't afraid.
In fact that Charles Blow would write this piece and not recognize that point to speaks to how little we've done to give half the population a voice.
The senators didn't humiliate Anita Hill because she was black. They humiliated her because she was a woman. And they are going to do the same thing to Dr. Ford, if they get half a chance.
8
Wrong. There is still the element of gender. And republicans, mostly white males, have the numbers. We already know how this turns out.
6
What amazed me at the time of the Thomas hearings was that he used 'high tech lynching' to discredit a black woman. Sure, the Committee was a bunch of white men, but the person whose testimony was against him was a female. That she was also black was royally (word chosen on purpose) ignored. And such is the case again. Women who accuse are ignored. It is the men who believe or disbelieve the woman who are noticed.
136
@seriousreader I was 37 when this trial occurred, and I STILL remember him saying this. At the time, I couldn't believe that the committee reacted by shutting down everything. Hopefully, that will show differently this week....yeah, hopefully.
1
This is not a criminal process. We don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's pure politics.
If Dr. Blasey is sincere, reasonable, credible and articulate, she will be more sympathetic than the judge, who has been studying denial at the knee of the president.
Judge Kavanaugh should withdraw. If that seems unfair, consider what politics did for Merrick Garland.
1
I won't live to see it, but I would love to see the day when women hold the majority of the seats in the Senate, in the House, on the Supreme Court's bench, and the leather chair in the Oval Office.
7
Obviously, there is here "the absence of a racial element" and no "high-tech-lynching". The question remains to what extent Clarence Thomas was "lynched". Invoking such actions or even motivations shouldn't be done lightly (as with invoking Hitler).
Aren't we all tired with the loss of memory of our elected officials? Dr. Ford knew she would face the wretched scorn of old white men determined to have their way. She is a brave and honest citizen.
Clarence Thomas is an abomination from beginning to end. I had a disgusting boss like him and there was no recourse in those days. I could not believe the courage of Anita Hill back then! She completely opened the world to the reality of foul behavior of those men we are all supposed to put up with and then shut up.
And Thomas, who disappointedly denies the power of civil rights, pulled his race card. Although accused by a woman of color, he cleverly scared all the white men into his approval. His consistent performance as a Supreme Court Judge ensures that he will only be noted for bringing the true plight of sexual harassment victims into the open. He needs to resign.
Likewise, Kavanaugh is so tainted, he must be shelved.
6
It's extremely ironic that black Americans and liberal white Americans, who had long condemned the use of blackface in shows and parades, proved unable even to see through it in the case of Clarence Thomas.
1
Clarence Thomas should be impeached and removed from the court. He clearly lied, under oath, to Congress, regarding his sexual harassment of Prof. Anita Hill.
4
Needless to say, that the officially state run media is in full overdrive screaming and yelling from all their screens and platforms suggestions of conspiracy trap for their president connected to Rosenstein matter.
According to the most obnoxious and loud ones, they go from Rosenstein s/b fired immediately to schemes in a Machiavellian style of a hidden trap for their beloved president.
All the while we're having sleazy porn travesty unfolding on the Supreme Court infamous hearings, and McConnell promise that Senate will “plow right through” Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault accusation and confirm Brett Kavanaugh.
Their "Value Voters" aka rich donors, were assured that Senate will fulfill their vet dreams and deliverer the final blow to our frail democracy.
BTW, the second woman came out from Kavanaugh's prestige college past and all the buzz from Yale students, who knew about all these circumstances.
And don't forget Michael Avenatti is not yet done coming with the next accusations that he's ready to unleash.
Add to all that, the war of words escalation with Iran coming from the WH, there're no end in sight for this high-speed, reckless race on all fronts coming to anything resembling peaceful finish line.
Helmets should be on, we're heading for a big crash, a.k.a. constitutional crisis, that by many experts account we've been in for some time.
More danger ahead red lights are flashing.
Too scary and terrifying to watch, but be assured WE ARE ALL WATCHING!!!
2
We are here because of racism against Barack Obama and his appointment of Merrick Garland.
8
A more accurate headline for this opinion piece would have been, 'Thomas, Kavanaugh, Race and Sex.'
Regardless, to say that 'women will not have to struggle with the choice that black people did' is a disgraceful insult to both groups and shows an utterly surprising and disappointing lack of thoughtful understanding by Mr. Blow.
2
Thomas was confirmed because he "played the race card" and vowed that Hill's comments were "racially" based and a witch hunt to prevent his confirmation to the court. Sadly, many in the Black community swallowed this, hook line and sinker.
Some of the responsibility for that lies with the Black community.
3
Mr. Blow begins his predictable tirade by assuming honesty of the accuser and unfairness by the accused. With polarizing assumptions as a starting point, where does one travel? Certainly not to truth or justice, but Mr. Blow has learned little outside his echo chamber, despite ample opportunity for growth. His circle of thought grows smaller in each column.
Notice that he handled the Justice Thomas Democrat ruse solely on issues of race, never siding one way or another. Hmmm.
3
The Supreme Court's decisions are accepted in part because of the legitimacy. If the court was viewed as a group of biased political hacks ruling on their emotions then people who disagree might not accept the decisions.
This could potentially lead to insurrection after each bad court decision. Each rank political decision by the court like Bush Vs. Gore, which if we accept majority rule was basically a 5 to 4 vote by Republican's to elect Bush even though the real count elected Gore discredits the court. Every appointment of a rank misogynist like Kavanaugh discredits it further as Thomas did. Kavanaugh needs desperately to be blocked because of his anti-abortion stance evidenced by his delay of abortion of a young immigrant and his blistering dissent from the overturning of his ruling. I am glad for Ms. Ford, and all I can say is bring them on the more the better. In this case, everything that works is good as Kavanaugh is terrible. His competence as a judge is mostly irrelevant. He is likely to support rulings which will lead to more suffering and injustice and he most not be confirmed.
2
@Michael Cohen Think the court is not biased. Maybe not all of them are but probably five are. It is easy to predict how the republicans will vote without even reading the briefs. For example, if there is a case of an individual (employee or customer) against a corporation -- the republicans always support the corporation regardless of the law or the circumstances of what happened. Individual against law enforcement -- police or prosecutor -- republicans always support law enforcement. Again, the facts of the case are irrelevant. According to them law enforcement can do whatever they want to do and it is ok.
There are other areas where this is true but I am out of space.
I don't know if they even bother to read the briefs and case law.
I agree that Bush v Gore was a travesty. The republican judges essentially said "our man is ahead so stop counting."
Kavanaugh already has too much baggage for the Supreme Court. He must be withdrawn An honorable man would withdraw himself.
171
@Karn Griffen:if he withdrew then he would tacitly admit guild from incident 36 years ago. This would destroy his family including two daughters causing forever contempt. Most likely there would be a big attempt to disqualify him from his current jurist position. I detest hearing about what goes on in these sickly high school booze parties and those horrific College fraternities, where some kids die from initiation requirements.
1
"One of these people is lying..."
Charles Blow has apparently never been to a keg party; they can both be telling the truth, as much of it as they recall.
31
Yep, they both can be 100% sure they are telling the truth when in reality they could both be wrong. Alcohol, teenage brains, 35+ years and therapy sessions can distort fiction into what each believes is the truth.
2
@NorthernVirginia
That is why an FBI investigation is warranted. Not to investigate a specific date and location but of those we know recall something from an earlier time: the therapist who has notes and Mark Judge who wrote about Bart O’Kavanaugh.
3
An FBI investigation of a high school incident of 36 years ago that no one remembers except the accuser. Sounds Soviet-like.
3
That the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas hearing was a travesty of political theater, is an understatement. There were key testimonies from witnesses which supported Ms. Hill's claims of sexual impropriety by Thomas toward her which were excluded from the hearing. Having just learned of the ability of Congress to impeach a Supreme Court justice in a recent NY Times op-ed piece, it would be highly appropriate and represent justice long overdue for Anita Hill and women everywhere, if Democrats re-open this investigation after their midterm election victories.
5
While many did, Not all black people supported Clarence Thomas. 1600 Black women placed an ad in the NYTimes in support of Professor Hill. I am roux to have been one of them
8
I beg to differ, not all Blacks supported Thomas. I did not nor did my circle of educated Blacks. I have no regrets, I never supported Thomas then or now.
107
Lying seems to be a GOP knee-jerk reaction. Kavanaugh lied when McConnell (or his representative) asked if there were any possibility of a scandal in his background: sex, drugs, money, mopery, the usual list of politicians' weak points. Believing this lie(or at least pretending to believe it), McConnell supported the nomination.
Trump's GOP circus is a house of cards, and the winds of November are coming!
1
It was an insult to all the races to have Clarence Thomas for Marshall’s seat . The beating of Rodney King is still vivid in my mind.
But Charles, has really anything changed ?
Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Kennedy ?
Kennedy could have stayed for a few more decades but was threatened and pushed out by no other than trump.
Now we have all white male in the hearing of Brett Kavanaugh , and they are deaf and mute for a Woman`s plight.
Best for everyone if Brett Kavanaugh withdraw his nomination and save us the taxpayers money and grief.
trump is a congenital liar and a bully says the top editorial post of today so we could imagine he is color Red from his tiny cubicle .
1
Biden and the Democrats put Thomas on the court. I cannot forgive their incompetence, for we still live with the consequences.
A mentally unbalanced man with woman issues helps decide our law.
What could be more obscene than that?
3
Mr. Blow tells us how the choice of Clarence Thomas to be a SC Judge became doubly shaming and offensive in his treatment of Anita Hill and of their own Civil Rights. How many of us realized that all of our rights were on the chopping block?
This is not a partisan issue. Its very close to being a constitutional disaster, because we now can expect that Kavanaugh is being paid to destroy it, by those who think the constitution is in their way.
We are not supposed to care that vast sums of dark money were paid for Kavanaugh's "Campaign". Ask Yourself, Since when do Supreme Court Justice Nominees have paid "campaigns"??
From Senator Whitehouse's testimony, we know Kavanaugh is certain to rule against democracy. He is certain to rule against women's rights, and just as Mr. Blow points out, your rights as men and women, for your children, and for the future are in the crosshairs too.
It should not be normalized that our political representation is bought, and our court system is being highjacked.
We know that these brave and vulnerable women are stepping forward because Kavanaugh violated and overrode them sexually- and because they know what's at stake. It's below the belt, and foul. Now we can predict that what Kavanaugh presents is not how he will act.
Professor Ford and Ms. Ramirez are heroes.
The significance of Kavanaugh's lies and deceptions while under oath cannot be dismissed. He is disqualified X10. I can hardly look him. Thank You Charles Blow.
3
Blacks backed Thomas and still ended up with no black representation on the Court. Perhaps everyone should have heeded the words of Mrtin Luther King Jr. - judge not by the color of the skin but by the content of the character.
2
Did no one notice that Professor Hill was black? No, because the only person in the room who mattered, who ever matters, is the man. There were plenty others who knew of CT's proclivity for porn during that time. The Senators knew. Professor Hill was subjected to disgusting and for at least Joe Biden titillating testimony/questioning that would make any normal reviewer uncomfortable and she handled it with such grace and dignity. This was never about race- always about gender. These MEN are disgusting in how they treat women and then how they lie- perjure- themselves when confronted about it. Oh yes, they are the best we can do for judges?
2
Had not realized that African Americans supported Thomas that strongly. And you say now that they regret it. I wonder if they feel the same, in retrospect, about OJ.
2
A huge non-race difference: Thomas was accused of sexual harassment, Kavanaugh is being accused of attempted rape.
2
Through all of this, #45 has the option, the mandate really, to call for an FBI investigation at any time. He refuses to do so for obvious political reasons, and for the personal reason that he himself is a fellow sexual assaulter. Any ethical Supreme Court candidate in Kavanaugh's position would have withdrawn his nomination, especially now with 2 female accusers, and evidentiary consistency. those gambling debts must have been considerable for Kavanaugh to want this lifetime appointment so badly.
3
I have never understood how "Justice" Thomas was able to play that card, when his accuser was herself a black person. Why was it so easy to throw her under the bus?
3
Clarence Thomas was able to turn the tables on Anita Hill by uttering these immortal words -- High tech lynching. The rest is history.
Grassley, Graham, and Hatch, along with their corrupt cohorts, have known this week about a new allegation of sexual misconduct perpetrated by Kavanaugh at Yale during his freshman year, when he exposed himself at a party, but have been sitting on this story, at the same time throwing mud at Blasey Ford and complaining about meeting her requests for the hearing. In this allegation, too, Kavanaugh was egged on by another male to commit the misconduct as Judge had done when he was 17. It seems as if Kavanaugh had to sexually exploit women in order to get male approval.
It is time to stop Grassley’s clock on Kavanaugh’s hearing and bring in the FBI. Clarence Thomas will always be remembered as an ignominious figure for his treatment of Anita Hill just as the GOP then and now will be seen for the misogynists that they are, Graham and Grassley and Hatch, I’m talking about you.
Enough of this clown show, GOP. Time for you to get off the stage!
3
Given his hostility to minority rights and support for Evangelical White Supremacy, I always figured Justice Thomas thought of himself as white.
1
It wasn't that Thomas was black. It was also the fact that the white men on the committee had their own baggage concerning sexual abuse and harassment and choose to mock Anita Hill and give her comeuppance. Who did she think she was, complaining about a "bit" of sexual harassment. She should have been flattered that Thomas paid attention to her.
This is the mindset of most of the men on the Judiciary Committee now as it was then.
But back then, even though there was pressure to bow to tokenism, the men did not care one whit if Anita Hill was telling the truth. They looked at her as a non-person and a Black non-person as well.
Being a woman, one blow against her
Being a Black woman, two strikes against her.
Being an outspoken, truth telling Black Woman, three strikes against her.
The only thing Ford has going for her is she is a white woman. And that is the only thing in her favor.
3
I’ve always thought there was something about Kavanaugh that was being covered up. Now we know what it is. His pious self-righteousness has proven to be just a phony facade. He’s a misogynistic woman hater and all-around creep. Not only should he not be confirmed as a SCOTUS jurist, he should lose his job as an appellate judge.
3
In the span of 17 years, the GOP went from going to the mat for the 2nd African American to serve on the Supreme Court to saying the that the First African American President was illegitimate since he was born in Kenya.
What happened during that time. The Party stopped representing the Northeast and the West and became a Southern Party. As such, racism became the dominant ideology of the GOP because let’s face it, that’s what the overwhelming majority of native born white Southerners are- racists.
The irony of the GOP being so linked to an minority Supreme Court Justice when I doubt in my lifetime the Party of Evangelical racists will ever engage with minority voters let alone ever alone nominate one to the Court.
The whole Kavanaugh episode shows how devoted the GOP is to defending white privilege but what else would expect from a party of racists.
1
"If they believe Ford, they can simply say #metoo."
Albeit, people of color have had more bias against them than women; however, your final argument belittles and therefore denigrates women.
You've more class than that.
For one: Some women want to remove reproductive choices for other women but are not OK with a (former?) sexually-violent predator.
well there is alwasy more isn't there`!
thanks Ronan!
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-yorker-deborah-ramirez-brett-ka...
1
The entire "spectacle" is simply political theatre. No facts, just impressions and who is more "credible" leading to an end result that gives the participants "cover" so they can continue getting elected and fleecing the rubes.
This is a production managed by eleven very sleazy old men who have gone through their life of privilege supported by the "good old boy network" which they will continue to support. Kavanaugh is just one more bad boy. There may be a silver lining. #metoo may crash Grassleys Party
2
@Paul
The reason there are no facts is because the Republicans on the committee have refused to allow the FBI to investigate any of the allegations to determine the facts of the case (as Prof. Ford and all of the Dems on the committee asked them to).
And since they have set the precedent that facts are unimportant in this nomination they really have nothing to complain about now that other accusers have stepped forward with even MORE abuse allegations.
Seriously, what are they going to do, call the FBI on them? <guffaw>
2
There is a scene in "Harry Potter" where the villain Valdemort turns to one of his spineless lackeys and asks him..."how do you live with yourself?"
"I don't know" the lackey whimpers.
I wonder if an obvious sellout like Thomas has those moments.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
1
Thomas was a right-winger who, according to Blow, was the subject of credible accusations by Hill. Why should his skin tone, therefore, have overridden these concerns? Shoulda been a no-brainer.
1
I remember the Thomas hearings and the way black women were pushed to choose sides. Black men accused them of siding with whites to oppose Thomas, because black feminists were seen as compromising racial unity over divisive gender questions. Nothing more than an excuse for black men's sexism in favor of a sexual harasser.
As for Kavanaugh, this is a fight between an elite and middle aged white woman and an elite middle aged white man thirty years later over the the drinking subculture they thoroughly enjoyed in their youth. Moving along, nothing to see here.
1
It would be difficult I think to face that team of 8th grade girls at the next basketball practice.
3
If delayed He-said-she-said casts doubt and exoneration, what of Bill Cosby, Al Franken and all those priests?
2
What you said on CNN reinforced my dawning impression that there is a Secret History of Rape in America, yet to be written by scrupulously truthful historians.
The vocal extremists attempting to make light of BK's obvious moral unfitness points to something deeper & more sinister.
The abomination that was slavery of course placed millions of people, especially children & the young, in direct peril of sexual violence. So did driving natives off the land. Now, we finally hear more details about the secret rapes committed by Catholic priests. On 1May 2014, the NYT reported on sexual assault in the US Armed Forces.
We know the majority of humans do not rape at all. But enough do to make many victims; when partisanship compels pundits to imply those who blow the whistle on rapists are lying whereas the accused are all Altar Boys (future priests), we have the makings of a Tribalism that will destroy democracy, even without any help from Russia.
What is Tribalism? Pride in Backwardness.
It is backward to defend slavery. It is backward to sort society into "good girls & bad girls": ("Good girls" you marry; "bad or inferior girls" elite boys are free to rape after incapacitating them & then to defame if they speak up). It is backward to fixate on a particular nominee, no matter what comes out, under the pretext that "Our opponents won't like any of our side's nominees."
The powerful need to stop raping the disadvantaged, USA!
Rape is vile. Full stop. No exceptions. No lies.
1
The stone age White Dinosaurs-aka McConnell & CO-who think of themselves as modern-times founding fathers, with one foot on a banana peel and the other one out the door, are digging their heels to imposed lasting damages before their imminent extinction.
Kavavaugh is the last White man to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
In Michelle Alexander excellent essay yesterday, she predicts the new multi-racial America is coming.
McConnell & CO knows Obama was never a one-off.
Kamala Harris is next.
Julián Castro is only 10-15 years away from the White House.
It's also a shame there isn't an immigration status element to this as well, then the Dems could just burn him at the stake.
2
Well, whatdya know . . . tonight we have another allegation of sexual impropriety by nominee Kavanaugh! How many women will it take for the Committee to realize that without an FBI investigation of these events the Party may be cutting its own throat and certainly destroying any sense of morality left to the Supreme Court?
But this is THE TRUMP SHOW where venality, immorality, hypocrisy, racism, misogyny, name-calling, bullying, abuse of the nation's mineral riches, pollution of the waterways, the air etc. are par for the course. "Step on up, people, and watch Act I as your Republican elected Senators vote another sexual predator for the Supreme Court." They can't stop now . . . .when they are so close to totally perverting the entire justice system for another 30 years. Act II: Trump Relieved of Responsibility to the Law. Act III: Kiss Your "Democratic Republic Good-Bye." Lovin' it yet? Stay tuned and perhaps you will, if you don't get sick first.
2
@B. Rothman
This is all a direct result of the republicans refusal to ask the FBI to investigate Ford's accusations.
If you set as precedent that there will be no FBI investigations of any accusations, then of course multitudes of people will come forward with stories of abuse, whether supported by evidence or not.
What did the republicans think was going to happen?
Republicans back and believe Kavanaugh. But, oh, had he been a black teenager assaulting a white teenager (or even a black one)--how quickly all the "youthful mishaps" or not developed frontal cortext (controlling judgement and impulses) argument would be off the table. Black teenagers are "out of control" and have to be punished and detained--not so white teenagers.
1
It's possible -- probable -- this morning that the Brett Kavanaugh sexual harassment hearing between Trump's SCOTUS nominee and his accuser, won't take place at all. New allegations surfaced last night --reported by Ronan Farrow in the New Yorker -- from a second woman who was at Yale University and who alleged that Judge Kavanaugh, when he was a college freshman, exposed his genitals to her at a dorm party. How much lower can America go, Charles Blow? Our 45th president is the nadir of all American men today.
Though we all wept for Anita Hill during her traumatic testimony, Clarence Thomas was confirmed as a SCOTUS Justice in 1991. That man, still on the Supreme Bench, has remained mute as a potato in his 37 years on the Court. Bet the farm that the Kavanaugh hearings won't happen. Maybe president Trump will explode against his enemies as the U.N. Security Council meets this week! Maybe president Trump will have to come up with another Supreme Court nominee! Re our demented president and his enablers, we remember the Scottish proverb from 1832 -- "Softly, softly, catchy monkey".
2
Only a fool would say the things in public these two women have said and lie. That they are telling the truth is not the issue: they are telling the truth and have been cross examined 20 times to verify it all.
Truth is not relevant, winning is. 50% of Americans will lie with dogs to get their way and win with Trump. Winning is all that America is now about. They would cheat Obama out of his selection to steal in one of their own, not caring the process is being destroyed. Winning is all now.
4
Dr. Blow....As usual, and pertinent....On Point....We, the People,
are being manipulated and controlled by a Sociopathic
(Intentional diagnosis) “President”. I deeply appreciate Your
chronic persistence regarding this chronic persistence by the
Republican Party in our present Day. I believe we, the People,
are in n a Sick Situation.
3
Dang! Are you telling me that all of my efforts, as a white woman, to support and demand equal rights for people with non-pale skin has been utterly disregarded by all men? You sure did. You equated that a black man is more equal than a black woman and any man of any color is more equal than any woman of any color.
You still don't get it. There are no races. There are different people and all people must be equal under the eyes of law or there is no law worthy of recognizing.
Anita Hill told the truth and had a valid complaint about installing Thomas onto a seat of power for the rest of his life. It wasn't because of their skin color, it was not because of prejudice. It was because the man used his power in immoral ways and to dominate those he felt were lesser humans than himself.
Shame on you.
2
So who you gonna believe? A man that is in a position to get the job of a lifetime, or women that gain nothing for their pockets, but help all women? Being a 66 year old white man, I believe the women! The boys will be boys nonsense ends now!
1
@tbs
No one knows with certainty whether Dr. Ford's allegation is true or not.
That said, financial gain is not likely what motivated Christine Ford to go public. Rather, she was driven to do so because the demons that haunt her soul have increased in volume due to the specter of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.
1
@Michael There are additional women coming forward.
@tbs
I'd prefer to not jump the gun until I hear what both of them have to say.
Every time I am reminded that "white women" voted for Trump (an admitted sexual predator) I am reminded that black women sided with both O.J. Simpson and Clarence Thomas. The truth is, there is a certain kind of woman in every race and ethnicity that will always choose "their" men over the dignity and safety of all women.
3
Mr. Blow makes good observations and valid points, adding important historical context. As a woman, what I believe is the most salient point in both of these examples, however, is that misogyny still reigns in the U.S. A man, no matter the color, outranks any woman. John Lennon had it right years ago when he said, "Woman is the (n word) of the world." And it is still so.
2
Thomas's invoking of the imagery of lynching was a remarkable example of cynical political manipulation, not to mention hypocrisy, for a man who thought civil rights advocacy amounted to overblown whining. Appointed by Reagan to the EEOC... yeah buddy. Did a bang-up job there. A year or so on a federal bench and boom, Bush nominates him to fill Thurgood Marshall's seat, while saying there shouldn't be a "black seat" on the court.
But despite Thomas's disdain for racial grievance, he had no trouble touching on the most heinous racist crime of the post-Civil War era, and comparing that abomination to the advise & consent process for appointing Supreme Court justices. High-tech lynching you say? Really? Disgraceful.
I'm glad we don't have to relive that one. But I don't know, Mr. Blow, I think women may see more parallels than you might think, given the MeToo movement's forward momentum.
2
What about the raw, unfair treatment and delays Judge Merrick Garland received at the hands of the right wing lynch mob in the Judiciary hearings?!
1
Kind of like the O.J. trial. Black people supported O.J. not because they thought he was innocent - you'd have to be from another planet to think he didn't do it - but because of his race. Pure partisanship.
3
I think the race of the women doesn’t make a difference. Anita Hill wasn’t believed then and Christine Blasey Ford isn’t believed now. Nothing comes between old men getting their man on the Supreme Court in any time.
Then it was to replace a black man with a black man. Apparently, GHW Bush and the Senate Committee weren’t concerned about the suitability of Clarence Thomas, because in no universe does he even rise to the same level of integrity as Thurgood Marshall.
Now it’s to stack the Court with hard right militant religious men who will deny women full and equal protection by law, destroy what little semblance we have left of the separation of church and state, and rule against the people’s interests every time. Kavanaugh is their man and they will seat him no matter what even if a woman came forward today claiming he raped her yesterday and she has DNA evidence to back up her claim. Senate republicans don’t care.
1
But there is a similarity between the cases too...
a black woman talking truth to a black man
a white woman talking truth to a white man
And so far, both women have had their share of disrespect.
This time it seems to be more about gender than about race...don't you agree?
3
Either a SCOTUS nominee lied under oath that he assaulted a girl when he was drunk at a party with a witness present or he didn't.
@Barrie Grenell Either sexual assault is a real crime to Republicans, or it isn't. It wasn't enough to disqualify Thomas, and it won't be enough now, either.
1
It's stunning to go back and look at that time. If Anita Hill had been white, I firmly believe that Thomas would not have been confirmed. By the same token, if Kavanaugh were black and a white woman accused him of attempted rape and, now, another white woman accused him of dropping his pants and causing a woman to have to push his genitals away from her, his nomination would never stand a chance.
2
Thomas got on the court curtesy of republican affirmative action just the sort they bemoan when law schools employ it.
2
Is there any reason Clarence Thomas couldn't still be impeached for the Anita Hill harrassment?
That would certainly be just.
3
I am extremely sad that Blacks supported Thomas in 1991-- the most vicious jurist against any issue of interest to minorities.
4
" It is not that Hill wasn’t credible, but it was that Thomas was on the defensive and the image of yet another black man under attack from a group of white men had an eerie echo of King under assault from the L.A.P.D."
The black man was under attack by a black woman. In order to support Thomas, Prof Hill had to be thrown under the bus.
75
Thurgood Marshall was one of the truly great Americans, of all time, not just ours. He would have been a hard act to follow for any American, no matter the skin color. How often I have wished that Bush the First had made a better choice. None of us expected a liberal, of course, but it would have been nice to see someone of Marshall's intellect and guts. But it was not to be. To me, the situation at hand is that Kavanaugh is as weak of a nothing as Thomas. Different life experiences and skin color aside, they are just plain weak. Missing the depth of Justice Marshall, but of many other greats as well. Missing the empathy that drove Marshall every day of his life. Both are missing the sense of history that is essential to this vaunted position, that Marshall wore with such dignity and dare I say, joy? Chief Justice Robert's phony phrase aside, this is not a job of calling balls and strikes. It is about making decisions that affect the lives of millions, often for the ages; it should never be reduced to the level of one batter getting to first or striking out.
149
@karen
"...this is not a job of calling balls and strikes. It is about making decisions that affect the lives of millions, often for the ages; it should never be reduced to the level of one batter getting to first or striking out."
In Kavanaugh's case, it's a matter of trying to score without even stepping up to the plate. The voice of justice should not have Bad Brett.
1
Thurgood Marshall was a giant of the civil rights movement. And as a justice, he continued his civil rights work. On matters unrelated to civil rights, nobody much cared what he had to say.
Marshall was the black justice that white liberals envisioned . He gave legitimacy to the Court's civil rights agenda while signing off on the liberal agenda, including abortion.
When Thomas was nominated, the liberal line was that he wasn't a spokesperson for black people. Basically, he had too little to say about civil rights and too much to say about everything else. Thomas was mocked because he had benefited from affirmative action while he opposed it as a mater of law. To say that he was looked down upon is a gross understatement. James Reston spoke for the Times when Thomas was nominated and characterized him as unfit and unworthy.
After 25 years on the Court, the views of Thomas are all over the place. Some consider him a lightweight. Some think he is unusually influential. What he isn't is what liberals want him to be. And many have chosen to lambast him over things that don't matter -- like his disdain for oral argument.L
Liberals prejudged Thomas as unfit but they had no idea how to derail his nomination. When Anita Hill came forward all heck broke loose. And the debate about Thomas's competence was forgotten. His nomination was one of the most controversial, poorly handled, and least focused on his fitness for the job.
If they believe Ford, they can simply say #metoo and vote on November 6, 2018.
1
Too much alcohol and drinking - a common thread of the Kavanaugh story. Bad behavior follows.
1
Editing your ending: "This is a much more focused battle of testimonies. Either a [drunk!] boy assaulted a girl or he didn’t. Either an older child took advantage of a younger one, or he didn’t." This is not simply he said, she said.
1
Since there is only one biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit multicolored multiethnic multifaith multi national origin human race species that began in Africa 300, 000 years ago this is not about race as in human. Neither color nor ethnicity nor nationality nor national origin nor faith are race markers.
Color is an evolutionary fit pigmented response to varying levels of solar radiation at altitudes and latitudes related to the production of Vitamin D and protecting genes from damaging mutations. Color as race is a malign socioeconomic political educational demographic historical white American supremacist myth meant to legally and morally justify black African enslavement and separate and unequal black African Jim Crow.
Both Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are human as are their accusers Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford. This is about gender as in the two procreative human genders male and female. This is about gender, misogyny and patriarchy. Both Thomas and Kavanaugh stuck to their own color. And both colors treat women as lesser beings.
Had Thomas harassed a white woman he would never have been nominated. And had Kavanaugh assaulted a black woman he would have received a Thomas Jefferson or Strom Thurmond pass. Thomas white wife Virginia was the color "progress " in his nomination.
Thomas wasn't even the most qualified blsck conservative Republican that Bush could have nominated aka Larry Thompson.
1
Another interesting angle on the race-vs.-gender issue. I recall very clearly during the 2008 primaries when Obama was squaring off against Hillary for the Dem nomination. A poll at the time asked potential voters a variety of questions along the lines of, “I would never cast a vote for president for a candidate who was [fill in the blank].” The most startling thing to me, at the time, was that the numbers were nearly identical for “black person” and for “a woman,” at about 22-23% for each (and equally appalling, IMO). But my point is, think about what that means in the case of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. For blacks, it’s a toss-up who gets the nod for “believability bias.” But for whites looking at the same scenario, the black woman has two strikes against her while Thomas only has one. That’s the difference.
In today’s Battle Royale between Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey the statistics (minus the intervening #MeToo effect) point to Kavanaugh having the edge in believability bias over the woman, Dr. Blasey.
I’d like to think we’ve moved beyond that sad state of affairs, but if anything, Trump’s influence (including his rabid white-supremacist and misogynistic base) has empowered all the bigots to come out of their closets—or crawl out from under their personal rocks.
Christine Blasey Ford is my new superhero, and I wish her well in the upcoming SJC inquisition.
1
And now another woman has come forward. Of course Kavanaugh’s friend will support him! They are also at risk. FBI please!
1
Let's look at what happens when the color of a person's skin gets in the way of an examination of the content of a person's character.
1980 -- Ronald Reagan is elected president. Southern Republicans (Jeremiah Denton, Mack Mattingly, Paula Hawkins, John East) are elected to the Senate on his coattails.
1986 -- Off-year election. Four Southern Republican incumbents lose their seats, some by very slim margins, as black voters overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. Denton loses to Richard Shelby (50.9% to 49.1%). Mattingly loses to Wyche Fowler (50.9% to 49.1%). Hawkins loses to Bob Graham (55% to 45%). John East had died, but his Republican replacement lost to Terry Sanford (51.8% to 48.2%).
1987 -- Ronald Reagan nominates Robert Bork for a seat on the Supreme Court. Blacks, especially in the South, knowing how essential their votes were to the election of their Democratic senators, call in their favors and oppose the Bork nomination. Senate votes 42 for, 58 against. Voting against are Senators Heflin & Shelby (AL); Chiles & Graham (FL); Nunn & Fowler (GA); Johnston & Breaux (LA); and Sanford (NC).
1991 -- George H. W. Bush nominates Clarence Thomas for a seat on the Supreme Court. Blacks sit on their hands and Thomas is confirmed with 52 voting for, 48 against. Voting for are Senators Heflin & Shelby (AL); and Johnston & Breaux (LA).
Southern blacks kept Robert Bork off the Supreme Court. Southern blacks allowed Clarence Thomas to get there.
There’s one distinct difference between the Clarence Thomas hearings and the Brett Kavanaugh hearings other than one guy was black and one is white? Uh, NO! Both will work out just fine!
Justice is meant to be blind. The idea that a black justice on the Supreme Court should be representing black interests contradicts the very essence of impartiality.
But there is another racial aspect in the Kavanaugh fight and that is that white males so often are given a pass for activity at the end of their youth and even late into their adulthood that black men are not. Thomas' harassment of Hill and others was done as an adult but Kavanaugh's now multiple accusations of sexual assaults are thought done between the ages of 17 and 19. K's defenders point to his youth and the length of years ago these attacks happened. This is odd, in a world where black boys as young as 10 are often tried as adults.
Remember the Central Park 5, whose youth was ignored as they were convicted as adults for a crime they did not commit. And remember that the same President who suggested they stay in jail despite their innocence is now advancing K to the highest court of the land. As my grandmother would have said, "Jesus wept!".
1
You missed something. Black groups and black people chose to support a black man over a black woman. Misogynoir carried the day. This wasn't a merely a case of black solidarity, it was a case of throwing a black woman under the bus for the benefit of a black man.
2
Boys will be boys.
If Republicans continue to have their way, so many boys will never be men.
2
Yes, one of them is lying. And yes, there are people who have gone to prison for attempted rape at 17.
Even in arbitration, there is fact-finding and investigation prior to rendering judgment. This is a political panel, with political (their own made up) rules for conduct and anything but due process. A mere pause on the path to appointment. Regardless of the votes, the majority of the people's faith in the institution of the Supreme Court can only be tarnished by this highly unqualified man and the poor process to put him there. The GOP Senators aren't asking if this is the right person to put on the Court; they are only wrestling with the impact on their re-election possibilities, particularly their primaries. If none can find their spines, the majority of the voters, who do not favor such extreme "justices", need to clearly vote the Trump sycophants out. #metoo is meaningless without voting.
1
Putting all the allegations of past sexual assault and misconduct aside for a moment is anyone else concerned that Brett Kavanaugh may have a serious drinking problem?? All these horrific sexual encounters occurred while he was intoxicated. Kavanaugh may very well be an alcoholic that he's successfully hidden up until now.
3
"One of these people is lying..." writes Charles Blow.
Not necessarily. For BK it was nothing, and so it is entirely plausible that he does not remember the episode. There are other, more pertinent reasons for which he should be disqualified.
1
I remember watching the Hill hearing and having a viscerally bad reaction to Thomas. He was married to a woman with ties to the Heritage Foundation. He played the race card and threw Hill under the bus. Her story stands tall today and she continues to speak out . Thomas has been a lazy, ultra conservative justice who has shown time and time again that he is no Thurgood Marshall.
3
Sorry, Mr Blow, but I don't recall anyone circling the wagons around Thomas after his proclamation of a high tech lynching. Rather, the civil rights groups, run by men, went silent. Why? Because they believed Thomas would reveal himself as acceptable in his rulings. Only feminists spoke out against him, and all were discredited as harpies. Thomas's nomination was the most cynical thing Bush the first did; he knew he was incompetent and chose Thomas to make a joke out of affirmative action.
3
If the reports about the fraternity Mr. Kavanaugh belonged to are true, he belonged to an organization that advocated rape ("No means yes," etc.).
The most important lesson in all of this is that we need to teach our children to tell someone right away if someone molests or tries to molest them. We need to teach them to not be afraid of telling the truth. Obviously, they need to speak up as adults, too. We need to change the culture of fear.
1
I'm surprised, Mr. Blow, that you brought up the racial prism within which the Thomas confirmation occurred but failed to analyze -- or even mention -- that in the hierarchy of bias, black women come last. The twelve old white men who questioned both Thomas and Hill didn't believe Hill because they fundamentally don't value women's reality when it comes to dealing with men. Men side with men, or at least, want to side with men. The judiciary committee of 1991 understood and recognized the many obstacles and biases that black men face but failed to even consider that black women face extra discrimination simply by being women.
3
The Clarence Thomas approval ratings would be most instructive if they had been broken down by gender. What did black *women* think of him at the time? I would suspect that most saw right through him.
1
There is no shared comparison between racial bias and gender bias. The first has to do with skin color. The second has to do with men dominating women. Sexual power of men over women transcends all races and religions. It is a scourge that supersedes all other abominations of mankind. What man would support such oppression of women except a weak man?
Women will truly never be equal until they have full control of their bodies.
Kavanaugh placed his hand over her mouth to silence her.
That is all the assault anyone should need to tell their Senator “nope, you picked the wrong guy. “
2
Clarence Thomas is the postcard example of why identity politics fails when it is only about identity and nothing else.
1
Justice Clarence Thomas is a man who through hard work and a cultivation of friends in high places rose from humble origins in the Deep South, moved north to escape racial prejudice, was a beneficiary of affirmative action to gain admission to an Ivy League law school, rose to the chair of the EEOC, was appointed a judge of the Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit and then appointed after the notorious disbelief of Anita Hill in the Senate to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill “the Thurgood Marshall seat.”
Justice Thomas took advantage of the efforts of Americans, shamed by the sacrifices of Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, to begin in the 1960s and 1970s correcting nearly three centuries of wrongs against black people.
Then, after he had climbed a ladder out of the hole where racial bigotry had deposited him with other young black men and women, Justice Thomas promptly pulled the ladder up from the hole so no one else could follow.
In an illustrated dictionary, the tough choice would be whether to use a photograph of Clarence Thomas under “Ingrate” or “Hypocrite.”
Charles Blow is right about that race does not complicate the public perception about Judge Brett Kavanaugh or play the role it played in 1991, when black Americans were hesitant to oppose a black nominee.
There is the same Senate misogyny on the Judiciary Committee in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight as existed in 1991, so fairness is still deeply at risk.
3
As a young lawyer, I was riveted and enraged by the Thomas/Hill confirmation hearings. Even before Professor Hill's accusations became public, I thought it was a travesty that Justice Marshall's seat on the court should potentially be filled by Thomas, who spent a good portion of his legal career trying to undo the civil rights gains that Justice Marshall had fought so effectively for. It was therefore even more ironic that Thomas "played the race card" by his incendiary accusation of "high-tech lynching." He was completely effective in turning the focus away from him and whether he had in fact sexually harassed Anita Hill by guilt-tripping the white male Senators with this incendiary accusation. In fact, the questioning of Professor Hill was so demeaning and insulting ["do you think you're a martyr, . . . a scorned woman? Are you a militant about civil rights" (Democrat Heflin); "what was the most embarrassing thing he said to you," (Democrat Biden) "letters are coming over the transom saying 'watch out for this woman'" (Repub. Simpson); "he didn't ask you to have sex with him" (Repub. Specter)] the person who rightly could have complained about a lynching was Professor Hill, not Clarence Thomas.
1
I still think Kavanaugh could have saved himself a world of hurt by admitting he did some stupid drunken things in college and apologizing. His alleged behavior was abhorrent, and I don't think he is SCOTUS material, but he would have given the old white men on the Judiciary Committee cover to rush this through. But that's not the way with privilege, is it?
2
Charles, Brett Kavanaugh, who's Burt O'Kavanaugh from his wasted buddy Mark Judge's memoir, should not be sent to our S.C.O.T.U.S.
We know that he's going to give wrong judgements on important issues brought before the court after nights of gambling and drinking which he lied to our Senators ,"They're past me."
The fact is, they're not. Deep down inside, he's still the 17 year old White boy who was always drinking and partying and making passes at 15 year old White girls like Ms. Ford.
Republicans who're not very fond of Black Americans unless they need their votes, sided with a anti-Black folks Clarence Thomas because they thought they'd use his anti-Black mentality to pass all the anti-Black legislations.
Anita Hill who was in favor of Black people's upliftment became the G.O.P.'s pariah in '91 Senate Hearing.
But this time when the #MeToo movement is sparing no politicians who cannot keep their hands in their pockets, Republicans are at a much worse situation with their Supreme Court's nominee's confirmation than 27 years ago.
No matter how much a crooked Mitch McConnel boasts that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed right before the election, our Dem members know how to derail his confirmation.
Senator Diane Feinstein is already calling for suspending Mr. Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing as another 53 year old woman has come forward with a very credible claim that a young Brett exposed himself to her in 1983.
Now we ask Trump to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination.
1
It will be an accomplishment if Americans ever begin to regard bodily integrity, especially but not exclusively that of women and children, as we tend to view property. Does anyone doubt that if a reasonably credible person accused a nominee of car-jacking or shop-lifting, even, and the candidate had not disclosed and explained the matter well in advance, the nominee would be toast? And that if the nominee was other than a white male that the accusation would be all but stamped a fact quickly? "Proof" would not be required. We would not risk a jurist who does not respect our right to own used Hondas and packs of gum, though there's more where that came from, which is not the case with your physical integrity and right to control what happens to your body, especially women.
1
"One of these people is lying"
Only if your definition of a lie is any factually incorrect statement. To my way of thinking, a lie has to be both false and intentional, and there are numerous scenarios in which both parties honestly believe their statements to be correct.
One of these people is incorrect would, while less incendiary, be a more accurate statement.
1
Here’s what could have been: Biden & a couple of others vote against Thomas. Bush nominates another far right jurist, who is confirmed. Meanwhile, Thomas resigns from the bench, joins a conservative think tank, and goes on the offensive, giving variations of his “hi-tech lynching” speech around the country. Rage builds at “Racist Joe Biden” and others like him.
Feeling abandoned by both parties, African Americans become ever more alienated from the political system. Disenchantment and street-crime violence increase.
Anita Hill fades into obscurity, rejected by African-Americans as a wannabe privileged white feminist.
Of course the possibilities are infinite and not knowable. But this is one.
1
Mr. Kavanaugh is a continuation of the frat-boy mindset of our government as it now exists. The only outlier is the president himself who never had the “100 keg” goal that Kavanaugh did while ‘growing up’. However, the president’s attitude about sex and superiority of his race and class are right in line with the nominee and those supporting him. Is this what we get for having a bad selection for the Court being a black man, then a good man elected President who was black? Anita Hill was right, and we are doomed to repeat history with another backward thinking white boy on the bench. We deserve what we are about to get.
The racial angle seems to be a major difference between th Thomas and Kavanaugh hearings. A huge distinction is that an FBI investigation was done in the Thomas hearings. For some inexplicable reason Trump is refusing to call for an investigation. The Thomas hearings had witnesses testify under oath. At the very least Mark Judge should be testifying under oath. Judges memory might improve if he knows lying under oath could have severe consequences.
1
The Thomas civil rights organization "bind" ended, NYT, August 1st, 1991:
N.A.A.C.P. and Top Labor Unite to Oppose Thomas
The nation's largest civil rights group and the leaders of organized labor said in coordinated announcements today that they opposed the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. "Judge Thomas's inconsistent views on civil rights policy make him an unpredictable element on an increasingly radical conservative court," said Dr. William F. Gibson, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People......
2
I don't get the "racial element" in the Thomas-Hill hearings. Before Hill's allegations, you say some black leaders chafed at his conservative hostility to civil rights initiatives, as well they should, but were conflicted because they wanted a black justice to replace a black justice. No doubt, President Bush and Republicans put black leaders in that cruel bind. But what did race have to do with Anita Hill's mistreatment by Thomas and his character defects? She is also black. The poll results showing greater support for Thomas after Hill's testimony tells me that black men (and also women) circled the wagons around a man challenged by a woman. Where is the racial element again?
77
@abigail49
She is woman
+
she is black
2 very big strikes
against her "credibility"
the components are additive in favor of denying her humanity
@abigail49: "I dont get the 'racial element' in the Thomas-Hill hearings."
Here is the racial element: black civil rights leaders and black people generally supported Thomas over Hill. They did so knowing Thomas disparaged civil rights advocates as "moaners and whiners" and after witnessing Hill's thoroughly credible testimony. In that instance, race trumped gender.
2
@abigail49 The racial element is that if Hill had been a white woman, the dynamics would have been starkly different. Maybe support for Thomas would have been stronger, given the long dark history of white women falsely accusing black men, but I also think it was easier to discount, discredit, and disparage both Hill's testimony and her character because she was a black woman, not only because she was a woman testifying against a powerful man.
1
Thomas said in his hearing, he was undergoing "a high tech lynching". It seems to me the comments by some of the supporters of Mr. K is essentially "a high tech sexual assault" re the professor. Term limits on EVERYONE, including the SCOTUS members please. Just out of curiosity, how come all the time that is provided on FOX for Trump et al does not have to be paid for by the Republicans?
1
There are two opposing issues that cannot be reconciled:
1. A system of checks and balances that presume power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely;
2. Each person is innocent until proven guilty.
The assumption that the more powerful are less innocent and less entitled to due process by both the court of public opinion and the judicial system is unacceptable. A country with a conscience does not seek answers, for answers are the tools of absolute power. We want and need questions and doubts. We need to doubt Kavanaugh's guilt. We need to doubt the guilt of the criminal dressed up in police's clothing, and we need to doubt our own righteous indignation when the public lynch mob starts crying for justice. Cooler heads must prevail.
11
@Max & Max
For 2, the assumption that "each person is innocent until proven guilty" should not be used here. Kavanaugh will not be going to jail if we find that he did do what his accuser says he did. What should be and has been used is "reasonable doubt." There should be no doubt that Kavanaugh HAS done anything wrong. This all depends on the impress Dr. Ford makes at the hearing. This being said, I do believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Clarence Thomas did harass Anita Hill and the Senators did believe her, too, but to them it was not enough not to confirm him. I also believe he was not qualified.
1
@Max & Max
I note that in each case where there needs to be doubt, you have offered tacit support for the more powerful of the two sides in conflict.
Duly noted.
1
@Max & Max
I’m not sure of the point that you are trying to make. Why are answers “a tool of absolute power”? As a scientist, we always sought data and “answers” because informed decisions were always best. Are you proposing that we disregard any search for truth and rely on our “gut”?
1
"One of these people is lying...."
No, there is an alternative explanation: Brett Kavanaugh may not remember what he did that night because he was too drunk, and by the way, this may be the case for his friend, Mark Judge, who might have been too drunk to remember. Judge himself discusses, in his writings, his drinking and blackouts from his high school days.
3
I watched the Thomas confirmation hearings. What I remember is that I felt the men in the room did not like Anita Hill. Maybe Kavanaugh's accuser will be more likable. I also sensed that Anita Hill had no sexual interest in men and that made Thomas a clueless guy for hitting on her. That alone made him unqualified.
She does not have to allow herself to be belittled.She needs courage, conviction and a good lawyer. She is more intelligent than they are and she is strong and a person of conviction. They are a bunch of devious characters who will sacrifice their integrity in order to lie to protect their jobs. They are Trump patsies. She can show them up for what they are, weak. Don't pity her, she does not need it.
1
Things go as all teen males of the past were drinking alcohol all the time and molested teen females at any occasion. If this was true, the man or woman to put on the Supreme Court should be chosen out of the exceptions. There were.
2
So Clarence Thomas represented black people, and that's why he had to be confirmed after the police brutalized Rodney King?
Then black women don't count at all?
Surely black women were represented by Anita Hill in that moment. Ms. Hill stood against confirmation of Clarence Thomas and certainly, her experience of sexual harassment reflects that of very many black women.
145
If the Republicans don't like the way the Democrats are politicizing this they need look no further than the Merrick Garland case for an explanation. And, if Democrats didn't like the way Republicans politicized the Garland case they need look no further than Robert Bork for a similar explanation. At some point these geniuses need to declare a truce, set up a new set of rules for executing their constitutional responsibilities and begin acting like grown-ups. Senators make a lot of money and have a lot of power. They need to demonstrate that they've earned those things. Thus far, not so much.
5
The other difference is that the Hill accusations did not include violence. This, in my view is as, or more significant that race.
Mr Blow undercuts this difference by referring to Kavanaugh & Blasey as children.
Let's not forget that Kavanaugh and his friend were big, strong football players who allegedly *man* handled the comparatively much younger & smaller Blasey. No wonder she was so traumatized. She is the only one who might fit the definition of "child."
Odious as were the charges against Thomas, Kavanaugh has been accused of something much darker and troubling, even as a second, equally troubling, accusation has emerged.
1
The political manipulation of the Supream court has reached
A monstrous point.In the effort made by Republican presidents
To stack the court and the same effort made by Democrats
We have almost no objective way of reaching fairness.
In this case my defense of women will seam to conservatives
To be lacking in objectivity,I no longer care.Dr. Ford will face
Many of the same men that Anita Hill faced.,and I still feel rage at that male led outrage.
You have seen the decisions made by Thomas,and his race
Isn’t involved in his lack of concern for justice.
Don’t do the same thing again congressmen,don’t .
As Saudi Arabia breaks the egg and seeks to struggle into freedom, the United States with its now conservative Supreme Court heads in the opposite direction. With the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, we are guaranteed at least thirty years of backward evolution. Like in the Dark Ages, religious beliefs will trump reason.
n the near future, however, we will program the human mind in the computer, and this will be based on a "survival" algorithm. Then we will all learn the truth of how we have tricked this survival program with our ridiculous beliefs about just what is supposed to survive. At that point, we can begin the long trek back to truth, reason, and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
I vividly remember the spectacle surrounding the Clarence Thomas Hearings. At the time, I was in Jr. High School, but I recall my family tuning in to the news for a recap of the "events," almost every evening.
Professor Anita Hill was a very credible witness, but what I have come to realize as a black woman is, --black women have no true "friends," or advocates that will fight on our behalf. After all, when we go up against white males, black males, white women, etc., our voices and concerns are rarely heard. The other party's concerns are more often than not, thought to be of utmost importance. It's almost as if, we don't exist.
For this reason, I have learned not to fight on behalf of, or side with other groups, because at the end of the day, black men, white men, white women, etc, are not fighting to ensure that black women's rights are acknowledged. Given this fact, I preserve my energy and efforts to support and fight on behalf of other black women, because no one else cares about the needs and interests of black women, besides black women.
The majority of white feminists were no where to be found, when Professor Hill needed their assistance. As such, I urge all black feminists to preserve their energy for black women, who are battered, sexually assaulted, and killed at much higher rates than any other race of women in the U.S.
Black feminists, please sit this one out. --The white feminists have this one covered, because it involves one of their own.
1
What really amazes me about the Kavanaugh nomination and subsequent allegations is how quickly powerful and privileged white men scurried to his defense. Pointing out his "public" persona of sterling behavior and character. Very recent history is chock full of embarrassing news stories of good family men engaged in indecent,immoral or at the very least hypocritical behavior. Some examples include but are not limited to Anthony Weiner,former Congressman Tim Murphy, Bill Cosby, the infamous case of right wing segregationist fire brand Strom Thurmond who fathered a child out of wedlock with a Black woman and paid hush money to keep it a secret. The hypocrisy and lie revealed after Thurmond's death when the child came forward by then an elderly woman. Ole Strom really distinguished himself when he grilled Professor Anita Hill didn't he?Why don't we learn? Why do privileged men continue with the ruse? Why do we allow them to get away with it? We all know that power is maintained through illusion of decorum a conspiracy of facade if you will. I am tired of powerful white men who give other powerful white men the benefit of the doubt while also demanding that women like Dr.Ford and Professor Hill take the abuse they went through with them to the grave yard so as not to inconvenience someone who reminds them of themselves. I believe Dr.Ford and I believed Professor Hill.If powerful men do not want their reputations besmirched or careers ruined they need do only one thing behave.
9
The professor versus the country club judge. Perhaps the socioeconomic differences between these two people make it easy for some GOP people to assume he's one of the boys and she's an annoying impediment to his getting what he's due (just like at the party?). And where is that antipathy to east coast elite college boys that the Republicans like to throw around on the hustings? Seems to me that socioeconomic class, privilege and a sense of entitlement (which is apparently okay for white people but just terrible for people of color) might be the interesting dynamic in this confirmation.
Did you--or anyone you know--ever hear of any of the justices before they were nominated? Nine people who will make decisions for over 300 million are basically dark horses, stampeding into Washington to have the final say over all of us.
1
What I find rather interesting is that Kavanaugh was apparently a very organized 17 year old drunk who kept a calendar of his engagements.
4
Mr. Blow, I just read your article. It’s a concise, thoughtful, well-written exposition of exactly how Clarence Thomas got on the court. There is the tiniest inconsistency, though. Anita Hill was black. Go back through your work and every time you see the word “black,” read it as “black men.”
I am old enough to remember the Thomas confirmation hearings and remember that the black women that I knew at the time were privately livid, but publicly silent. That was still the era when one didn’t air dirty laundry in public, the era when black women were expected to be quiet and just keep their eyes on the prize. Thankfully, that era is now over. Believe Black Women. Better yet, vote for them!
3
I believe that Kavanaugh remembers what he did that night, and others, but at this point he knows that he cannot do anything but continue to deny that he sexually assaulted the young Dr. Blasey. He will deny to his dying breath, because he wants this lifetime appointment more than anything.
Dr. Blasey remembers the attack because anyone who is so overpowered remembers. Women do not forget this type of trauma, no matter how hard they may try to forget.
I admire Dr. Blasey greatly for having the courage to come forward. It would have been so much easier to remain mute. But she obviously believes in justice and our country, as she is willing to put her life in total disarray (and even danger) to do the right thing.
Whatever happens now -- and I'm not hopeful -- she will know that she did what she could to keep this tainted man off the SCOTUS.
3
Clarence Thomas is the textbook definition of hypocrite; denigrating the civil rights movement to gain favor with the white conservative establishment, yet using the very real terror of lynching to give a metaphor to his struggle. To say nothing of the terror he undoubtedly put Anita Hill through when she worked for him.
The very real terror of lynching is one reason why the civil rights movement was/is so important.
Kavanaugh is just another pawn in the koch bothers' attempt to overthrow our democracy. Character, integrity, ethics are virtues for "moaners and whiners" in the republican world.
"Win, just win, baby" is all that matters to republicans.
Vote them out in November.
2
Whether black, white, brown, red or yellow, men rule and will throw women under the bus when their own privilege and power are threatened. All that is left for individual women to do is to decide whether to stand up for themselves, no matter the cost, or keep silent, no matter the cost. The only power women have in any society is when they stand together in numbers too large to be ignored. And the polling place is, for now, the place to take that stand. I'm looking at you, Republican women.
3
Anyone willing to accept even a Nomination from Trump is irredeemably corruptible and, frankly, sleazy. Any person with an iota of decency and honor would RUN from HIM.
Seriously.
1
If blacks circled the wagons, as you describe it, why did they circle the wagons for a black man and not the black woman?
Here's another question: Will Dr. Blasey get more support because she is white or because a quarter-century has passed since the Clarence Thomas hearings and we have been enlightened by the Me, Too movement? And here's a third question I don't really want to dwell on: What if Professor Anita Hill had been white and given the same testimony?
1
@Ellen Freilich, What if Professor Anita Hill had been white and given the same testimony?
Clearly, her testimony, as a white woman would have trumped Clarence Thomas's testimony. Needless to say, he would not be a member of the supreme court.
3
Blow correctly notes the role of race in Clarence Thomas's case. But he focuses much more on the then social context; only passingly he mentions Thomas himself wearing the Black-man-garb to insulate himself from the credible charges leveled against him by Anita Hill. After all he disavowed his race and was vocal in his opposition to affirmative action in spite of he himself benefiting from that program.
He was an African America alright, but not the best representative of that community.
1
The Thomas/Hill confrontation did involve race, but the original metals in this alloy were male and female. A woman was dragged out into the spotlight and forced to tell her story. Ms. Hill showed her resolve and character while Thomas complained that he was not believed as he was entitled as a man to be. A bunch of men gave him a pass, and he sits on the Court today.
We will undoubtedly see a spectacle this week as accuser and accused testify, but it may not be a repeat. Circumstances have changed and keep changing. Yes, a woman has stepped up to accuse a man of sexual violence. Even though the incident took place decades ago, more than time has passed. The election of Trump has altered our perceptions of such crimes. Elevating a man to the presidency who has been accused of sexual violence by at least 16 women has awakened the giant that is the American woman. #MeToo is much more than a hashtag.
Yet, however this situation is resolved, by replacing Kavanaugh or confirming him, a new justice predisposed to decide against women’s rights to privacy will sit on the Court. Appointed by a serial groper and confirmed by a rump majority, the new justice will fulfill the contract to constrict women’s rights and those of the rest of us as well. The enriched and powerful will be exalted and their reign imposed from above.
We will yell and complain, but the better response is to vote. Voting is silent. November is coming.
2
The author refers to Kavanaugh as a child at 17 but every day other 16 and 17 year olds are being tried in court as adults. Is a racial thing that a white is a child at 17 but a black is an adult? The result is the same. The white gets a life sentence to the Supreme Court and the black gets life in jail.
6
I hesitate to suggest, if Democrats stop being too smart by half, they might gain a little ground.
Vote Kavanaugh on to the court. When the Democrats win the house and senate, investigate, investigate, investigate. Perhaps even more women come forward. Then, impeach, try, remove.
Right now, this whole circus is a charade to keep the president for getting his pick. I dare say, the next pick will fly through the senate, faster than the roadrunner.
1
Imagine the after-decision parties with Kavanaugh and Thomas...
1
"One of these people is lying." This is not at all clear. She may have a faulty memory. He may have been too drunk to remember. Both of them might sincerely believe they are telling the truth.
1
I remember women who knew and cared nothing about politics making fun of Strom Thurmond asking Professor Hill whether she was a woman scorned.
The Republicans have learned their lesson which is why they are cowardly trying to avoid questioning Dr. Blasey Ford themselves. They want her trashed by female proxy.
What is the word for a woman who enables misogyny by throwing other women under the bus to protect powerful men? Of all of the other metaphors for women (witches, Jezebels, etc.), and for race (has to do with a cabin; I won't type it), and for treason (Benedict Arnold), and for simple betrayal of a friend (Brutus), what do we call the woman who the male Republicans hire to deliberately humiliate Dr. Blasey Ford at the hearing on Thursday?
There is no way anyone could ever ascertain whether or not this woman is telling the truth. The idea that we should have an FBI investigation is a complete joke, but not surprising considering how politicized the FBI is. The press acts like women never lie. This just might be the biggest joke of all!
3
Of course this has the racial element. The man was nominated by a racist. There are expectations. History will tell.
Nothing in the accusation has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, the Senators should be duty bound not to confirm Kavanaugh if they have any reasonable doubt.
And who among them can HONESTLY say that they don't have reasonable doubt? Alas, none of those Republicans is honest. Upshot: the Supreme Court has steadily become a sham.
2
Anita Hill was a woman of African descent and was not given the respect she deserved possibly because of racial prejudice. Biden was not respectful to Anita Hill and Thomas was confirmed with the help of the Democrats in the Senate.
The polls indicate most people believe Dr. Ford and do not believe Kavanaugh and do not want Kavanaugh on the Court.
White women can identify with Dr. Ford more possibly because she is white, and racial prejudice does not enter into this as it most probably did with Anita Hill versus Thomas.
3
It will split along partisan lines, with conservatives and Republicans either deciding Dr. Blasey Ford is lying or not caring as long as they get their hatchetman forward.
It's the not caring part that bothers me. When you go full on Machiavelli, your democracy is circling the drain.
As unfair as it is, I can easily believe Dr. Blasey Ford, and can easily believe that Kavanaugh is lying or, maybe worse, the event wasn't important enough to register, to be remembered.
He could be truthful, denying something that was just a random part of his coming of age - hard partying and getting girls - because being ugly and entitled didn't stand out.
And for the next 30 or so years, as Kavaugh votes 5-4 against individual rights, against women's rights, against minority rights, I will wonder about those formative years, and wonder how it arose from a Jesuit education, which Kavanaugh calls formative. Cura personalis, sure.
2
I’d like to see the polls on Thomas support amongst Blacks broken down by gender. One unfortunate way to unite women across the racial divide is through focusing on sexual abuse. This is generally a male sport - no question that if the man is Black and the woman White there would not even be hesitation on who would be believed (and vice versa is a white man was accused by a black woman). But in this case, almost all women know that this tale is a true one and one that too many women have experienced.
I object to characterizing Kavanaugh as a Boy when he attacked a girl. Yes, that would have influenced the outcome had there been a case, but plenty of drunken 17 year olds do not express themselves through attempted rape. In any case, he’s a man now and should accept responsibility for what he did. And let’s not forget - the child is the father of the man!
2
the wager here is that a boy did force a girl into a situation that she felt ultimately to be threatening...but, having no notion of how intoxicated either was, nor how agreeable the encounter was until it turned abusive (never mind the entire question of underage drinking and parties devoted to both the drinking and the possibility of other adventures), who can say for sure anything except, once force was used, ms ford was actually abused..where ever, whenever and by whom ever.
a key difference between thomas and kavanaugh is that kavanaugh's accuser cannot remember (or has not divulged) where or when the incident happened, making it impossible for the accused to offer an alibi...
just as shady is s the exploitation of ms ford's remembrance by senator Feinstein (whose #metoo creds are shaky anyway if you consider her lack of interest in the women who have charged keith ellison with abuse or her biased statements to 7th district judicial nominee Amy Barrett over her catholicism)...sitting on ms ford's complaint, denying its priority, is exactly what women have been fighting forever, so many dismayed into silence by the attitude "authorities."
4
Black citizens who supported Clarence Thomas despite his characterization of civil rights/black rights activism as “whining” did exactly what Evangelicals did in 2016. Both groups compartmentalized a nominee’s moral failings and focused instead on “what’s in it for me.”
For blacks, Hill’s accusations may well have been compelling, and Thomas’ rigid conservatism was no doubt problematic, but having an all-white SCOTUS was just not feasible. If Hill’s accusations nixed the nomination there would have been (false) racist stereotyping of black men in general as sexually aggressive or predatory. By supporting Thomas they preserved a presence on the highest court in the land and tamped down some nasty racial stereotyping.
Evangelicals notoriously looked past the compelling and disgusting moral failings of a man who famously said he never once has felt the need to ask God for forgiveness. They saw in Trump a tool to help them make progress towards a Christian theocracy and white nationalist domionism. And so the molestation of women, the money laundering, the fraud, the gutter mentality in his shocking disparaging of honorable people and institutions were considered the cost of doing business.
American politics today is so partisan, so high stakes, so winner-takes-all, that it seems hopeless that people would see the need to be more wholistic in their analysis of candidates and nominees. Instead, they pick their sacred issue and find the guy who promises to wham it through.
Judge Thomas threw down the triple-dog-dare with his “high-tech lynching” allegory. After Rodney King, a down vote on the confirmation might have created some civil unrest as well as accusations uncomfortable to defend.
Kavanaugh’s white male privilege (and Federalist Society partisan credentials, along with legitimate heavyweight legal mind) got him to the hearing. But, hopefully he is turned away for much the same reason Justice Thomas should have been, along with other legitimate questions about truthfulness.
I can see the white nationalist folks using the comparison should Kavanaugh be (rightfully, IMHO), denied. The truth should be paramount, but sadly in each case it is not. We will forever question each confirmation regardless of outcome because of it.
1
Easy in hindsight, but Blow's essay shows Trump 1,000% should have nominated Amy Barrett.
If Barrett is eventually put up as a nominee, god willing in place of Kav after 2nd allegation, it would have been the cultural fight Trump won on: liberals decrying a woman for having her own personal opinions.
Although Sarah Palin was terrifically flawed, the vitriol she elicited after her FIRST public speech showed the Dem hand that's strong as ever today - they were terrified/livid with a woman violating the "code" of not being pro-choice.
Alas, Trump wanted someone who wouldn't let him be indicted so, short of photographic evidence, there's no way he'll reverse course and put up Barrett before midterms
1
Mr Blow is exactly right that Clarence Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall, and it's exceedingly clear that Brett Kavanaugh is no Anthony Kennedy (co-author of the court’s opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey—which upheld Roe v. Wade’s declaration that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, and author of the court’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right.)
The new sexual misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh announced tonight underscores his lack of suitability - https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-... - describes Kavanaugh as "aggressive and even belligerent" when he drank. NOT a Supreme Court justice.
1
Yes, there were different factors involving race with these two hearings. But both had more to do with attitudes toward women.
Charles notes that black people had a dilemma in that they wanted to support a black man and in fact they overwhelming did support Thomas in spite of his his own racist and sexist actions. I guess nobody considered that supporting a black women would have been an even more symbolic action.
Women make up over half the population, and that's true with all races. And women are at the bottom of the pile in pretty much every race and culture. Perhaps it's time that people of all races do something about this.
8
Rima--has it ever occurred to you that Brett Kavanaugh has a serious drinking problem that he's kept under wraps until now? All of these sexual assaults happened while he was under the influence of alcohol.
2
The similarities are more striking than the differences. Its still clueless old white men passing judgement on vulnerable women. Some are even the same old white men who apparently haven't learned a lick since 1991.
One of the most disturbing rationale for Kavanaugh is that at 17 boys will be boys... everyone did this. Sorry, no. Males at any age may NOT assult females. To do so even once 27 years ago is disqualifying for this job, especially in light of his well know positions on women's right to chose, whether he is willing to declared them publicly or not. Dig a little deeper... there is more, I bet.
1
I am fed up with the constant destruction of ethics and values in this country.
The FBI should probe K's background and all candidate backgrounds for the supreme court. That this is not being done means this is a Republican ram through. Wonder where that buck stops?
My thoughts are with the brave woman standing up to the libidinous Cavanaugh who has as his current view that presidents can do what they want.
4
Is there anything wrong by having at least 2 sexual predators on the supreme court? They might be able to give an accuser of rape. or another violent sexual crime some advice and straighten the poor fellow out. Why, look at the success that the two sexual predators have had. What is not to emulate?
1
The Republicans could win many Democrats as well as women by nominating a woman for that seat on the SC. Will the party of old white men do that? Extremely doubtful.
1
@Jean: If Kavanaugh goes down in flames, Trump's next nomination will be a woman with an explicit religious agenda.
4
Way to take the emphasis off the centuries old sexual assault of women by school boys and men, regardless of race, class, religion or upbringing.
2
Black or white everyone pays when we choose by color rather than character and what a person stands for.
5
Major problem here is that Kavanaugh was not well vetted, and usually where there is smoke there's fire.Thomas had 1 rap against him, allegations made by Hill, undermined by her own behavior, following him around even after the Long John Silver story, and anecdote of the public hair found near a coke bottle. THOMAS has turned out to be a distinguished jurist, whose knowledge of the law, even handedness are definite assets on the court.But it looks like, at this point,Kavanaugh, "il est cuit!" Problem of course is that if BK is not confirmedl it will be seen as the unforgivable sin by evangelicals, who will stay home on election day.Ralph Reed will be proven correct!Trump admin. "a fait une connerie,"and it will not be overlooked by his base supporters!"La gauche "should also be held accountable for not respecting hallowed constitutional principles like presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to face his or her accuser!But score one for the DEMS. and TRUMP, whose selection of Kavanaugh did not have the full support of his inner circle of advisers, will end up with egg on his face!
This time, there is enough of a womens wave of knowledge and disgust with the hipocrisy of the patriarchy, that this woman ( and another accusation tonight!) may actually derail this nomination and the old boy network and privilege that got him there! Let the truth come out! Women have had enough of hypocrisy.
1
Mr. Blow writes, "This is designed to be a spectacle that will embarrass her and elevate him, . . ." I agree with Mr. Blow, but not for the reason for which he wrote it. Elevating Judge Kavanaugh will be a good thing, no it will be a great thing! Ending this he said she said nonsense, in which none of her so-call witnesses recall it ever occurring, nor even knowing Brett Kavanaugh, who at the time was an impeccable student, a young scholar preparing for study at Yale University, which would launch him to an illustrious legal career and ultimately a seat on the Supreme Court; the kind of man the Framers had in mind when they invented the Supreme Court in the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution. Thank you.
I have yet to hear any feasible explanation as to why this professor would lie about this (and would have lied about this years ago to her therapist).
Once again the GOP wants us not to use our common sense.
1
With all we know now, not only should BK not be seated but Thomas should be impeached. Harassment and rape are really just points along a continuum of misogyny encoded in our laws and policies and norms. Meanwhile women have been silenced for too long by directives to be ladylike, professional, to lean in, etc. The war on women needs to end. The constitutional crisis is on...
2
I am surprised that Mr. Blow thinks race is not an issue. One big difference between Dr. Hill and Dr. Ford is their race. How does that affect whether the American people believe their claims?
21
The insights and info in this article will make it very interesting to watch the post-hearing opinion polls, the demographics of women who will still support Kavanagh’s appointment. That will tell us how far #metoo has come and how far the social change they advocate yet has to go.
2
"Thomas, a man hostile to civil rights initiatives."
I'm not exactly sure what this means, but Thomas' views are consistent with the civil rights laws. Titles VI and VII, for example, expressly command nondiscrimination against any person based on race or gender. Look it up - he has supported this principle again and again.
4
As they must women are taking a stand and even guys like myself who think we are in some way enlightened should stop look and listen before we cross the tracks of the train they are on.
We live in a society which according to the OED is by definition a "more or less" organized community. At present it appears the more organized community being men and the less women, but that is changing even as we read and write these comments.
Women share more among themselves than men ever will. As women throughout our society realize thieir strength in our still existent democracy and bond more among themselves our society will witness positive changes that have been denied not just women but most all of us.
The day of reckoning is approaching at a more rapid pace than ever and the change will be accepted, as it is the only way we can progress to a viable future. We should welcome the ascent of women and the life affirming sanity they are bringing to the death oriented cultures we men have touted for millenia.
The physical confrontation or war and the death it brings has clearly not solved any problems and while most of us know this there remains a contingent of lesser men who adhere to the long outdated concept of might making right. They hide behind laws rammed through our legislative bodies which keep their identies private .
Women's pragmatic understanding of what actually matters is taking us out of the swamp and if we men are honest we will follow their lead and climb aboard.
12
Whether Kavanaugh did it or didn’t doesn’t matter. Whether or not he is responsible for all of the unsolved murders on the East Coast doesn’t matter. What does matter is that he will be a reliable vote on the Court for thirty years. The Republican Senate is willing to sacrifice control of the House, which now is more likely to happen, to gain control of the Supreme Court for a generation. The unintended consequence is that the Court will join congress and the presidency in the low opinion people will have of government institutions.
9
@DO5
I believe that Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence "matters" greatly.
Equating the Thomas hearings to either the Rodney King beating or lynching is a stretch. Sometimes we have to just process things for what they are rather than forcing analogies, and in this case not harmless ones.
Charles, the fact that the black v white is absent in this case does not make it more simple. Dog whistles of other sorts are being employed, but they are no less important.
7
Thanks, Blow, for reminding me - it's crystal clear - that we will definitely overcome racism long before women get treated as equal human beings to men.
9
It's quite possible that Kavanaugh never remembers doing anything to anyone. If he was a heavy drinker, or even not, and simply blacked out frequently, it's possible that he assaulted women without recalling it. It's also quite possible that Dr. Blasey Ford was someone whom he assaulted. Both things can be true. Kavanaugh can say credibly that he doesn't remember, and Dr. Blasey Ford can say credibly that she does remember.
5
I believe someone who fundamentally respects women would not do this even when blackout drunk.
If he did it, it’s an indicator he sees women as lesser people. That is (or should be) disqualifying for the court.
2
There were bound to be more accusations. Behavior like that in high school that goes unpunished is sure to repeat itself, especially in college, where any parental oversight is then completely absent.
In addition to the accusers, hopefully there will also be corroborating witnesses. And since the GOP, from the rotting head on down, refuses to believe any woman (unless they accuse a liberal, that is) maybe 1 or 2 of those witnesses would be men.
Credible accusations of lying under oath during this and prior confirmation hearing. Very fishy financial activities. And now accusations of criminal sexual assault activity.
Not only should Kavanaugh be disqualified, he should also be impeached from his current appellate court judgeship.
6
Since CB can only view things in terms of whether race (or Trump) is involved, he fails to see that this is highly contentious because of the huge partisan divide. Dems will do anything they have to -- lie cheat or steal -- in order to stop K because of his conservative views, particularly on abortion. Schumer himself said they would do anything to stop the confirmation. There was no intent of keeping a Black man off the court when Thomas went through the hearings but the dems clearly will stoop to any action in order to stop whoever Trump nominates.
3
Merrick Garland much? I love it when Republicans accuse Democrats of fighting dirty. Thanks for a (grim) laugh.
137
Charles Blow wrote: "One of these people is lying ..."
Actually that is not necessarily so. All of us know that memory is not reliable. It has been proven time and again that the solidity of memory cannot be relied on: even when we ourselves are honestly certain of some remembered event.
Ford's accusation of what she 'remembers', one must consider (if one is honest!) is taking place in a tumultuous time of social and cultural battles-of-consequence. If one did not take that fact into consideration one would be remiss.
Thus, it is quite possible that Ford is being 100% honest, but that her memory is 'inflicted' by the fogs of time, and 'infused' with moods and desires that arise in the social conflicts of the day.
(I'm remembering just now that my sister really did steal that red horse toy! After I finish here I am going to write her and I hope she will settle up with me. If not, there will be consequences...)
I make the assessment that the entire event is more or less a fabricated one and fabricated completely for political purposes. Pretty obvious. I love the NYTs and what it is doing for my country. May 'journalism' destroy the office of the president. Yipee!
But then I am the only person in the US right now who is 100% free of social hysteria....
2
"Real power is fear." Trump is often quoted these words in Woodward's book. I am sure many Republicans know that a FBI investigation should proceed, but they fear being vocal about it beause the leader of the cult will publically admonish them.
2
Race still plays a role in this meeting. We're simply not facing the same racial issues we saw in 1991. In contrast, Kavanaugh is the poster child for white male privilege. If we accept Dr. Blasey's story as honest if not entirely specific, which I do, Kavanaugh attempted to rape a girl and suffered absolutely no consequences for his crime. Think about it. I've known students of many different colors expelled from school for far less. You won't hear their names up for an Ivy League commencement ceremony much less a Supreme Court nomination. Their actions as children impacted the outcome of their lives. This never happened for Kavanaugh. He's an isolated wealthy prep boy that gets to do whatever he wants. Sound familiar?
I think we can all agree though the racial and gender dimensions of these current proceedings are excessively easy to navigate. It's a tale as old as time. White men fighting to protect their privilege.
10
It is entirely possible that NEITHER Kavanaugh nor Ford are lying. Stumbling drunk, he was probably in an alcoholic blackout, and literally doesn’t remember. This also applies to his friend Mr. Judge.
6
So in 1991 black Americans backed the man over the woman, even though both were black and he was toxic. Sigh. Shows that Shirley Chisholm was right - she faced more discrimination based on her gender than she did based on her race.
16
I remember the hearings before, and I do agree that the tide changed after Clarence Thomas' declaration that it was a "high-tech lynching." And I recall that sentiment that the hearings had been unfair, and insensitive built more after the confirmation than when it was happening. Then, as now, a lot of sentiment had to do with shifting the balance of the Court.
That said, I disagree both with Charles Blow on the characterization about it being about a boy and a girl. Brett Kavanaugh is very much now going to have to deal with the fact that he is very willing to lie under oath. If Christine Blasey Ford, or at this point any of the other accusers credibly put him at these parties, he will have lied under oath -- again. He has already shown a strong willingness to do so, in 2006 and now, and a willingness to get what he wants no matter how he gets it with the stolen emails. His record on such decisions as Garza and on decisions involving Boumediene rights for detainees show that same willingness in judgments so it isn't just his personal life under scrutiny here.
Someone told me that if he had admitted to a checkered past and demonstrated that he had willfully changed, it would have been exculpatory and I agree to some extent. But he hasn't. He has start to finish tried to tell people he's never done anything wrong, and has told lies to do so.
8
“One of these people is lying“ Mr. Blow says. But that’s not the only possibility. Ms. Ford may instead be mistaken as to the identity of the person who assaulted her. I personally am sure that Ms. Ford experienced something along the lines of what she describes. The problem is that memory is notoriously unreliable. This paper and Mr. Blow have in the past rightly roundly criticized the conviction of people - particularly Black males - on the basis of eyewitness evidence. Shouldn’t the same skepticism apply in Mr. Kavanaugh’s case.
10
@Shiv. There is no reason to be skeptical about Kavanaugh’s lying. Mr. Kavanaugh has already shown himself to cover up and hide the truth in his answers to the Committee on subjects pertaining to his writings under President Bush and in his work with Ken Starr. One of these people may lie in the future, but we know that one of them has already lied to this Committee. And guess what? It isn’t the woman! Who do you imagine has more reason to lie? If you guessed the man, collect $200 and a Get Out of Jail Free card.
@Shiv, Memory may be notoriously unreliable under ordinary circumstances, but is has been proven by psychiatrists that a traumatic experience like Christine Ford experienced is imprinted on her mind and will be with her until the day she dies.
I am 93 years old and can vividly remember every little detail of the time a High School classmate molested me.
1
@Shiv
Yes, this is more complex than the simple explanation of one person is lying. But it also more complex than the simple alternative that Ms. Ford has confused Kavanaugh with another attacker. Several people have confirmed that, (as with many young people, both male and female) Kavanaugh frequently drank to excess. Just as abused persons often repress trauma, perpetrators often do the same thing, either totally repressing the memories or justifying. Both parties may believe what they claim, we probably will never know.
I am surprised that no other columnist I have read has mentioned this obvious difference between the Hill and Ford testimonies. I was hoping for a more colorblind society, but I didn't mean that literally. That makes a huge difference. The race issue allowed Thomas, a strident opponent of affirmative action and race-based affirmative policies, to cynically use the race card to secure his sinecure.
10
We're still dealing with the mostly white male patriarchy where until #MeToo women have been one, if not two or three, down. But the dynamics due to the fall of Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, and most recently Les Moonves have dramatically shifted. However, the all white male Republican patriarchy that rules the Senate Judiciary Committee still doesn't get it, and they have continually exposed their complete insensitivity to women in their comments such as those today by committee member, Lindsey Graham, who claimed that Dr. Blasey "was being used" and that this was just a "game" that wasn't going to change his mind and apparently his vote for Judge Kavanaugh. No Sen. Graham, Dr. Blasey is not being used, she was abused. The Republican Party and its President are the last bastion confronting women and the #MeToo movement. They want to dismiss the trauma of Dr. Blasey and even inflict more trauma on all women who have been sexually abused in the process by putting a man on the Supreme Court who already has trouble with the truth and who will clearly work to further assault women who wish to pursue their right to an abortion as he just did in the Jane Doe case. This is the epic confrontation between continued male dominance over women and their demand for respect and control over their own bodies. If Judge Kavanaugh really wanted to know the truth, he would have joined with Dr. Blasey in requesting an F.B.I. investigation into her allegations. His silence says it all.
9
Both presidents Bush (H.W. and W.) have ruined the Court irreparably. Pappy Bush will be forever blamed for not looking for or for not finding an exemplary and qualified minority person to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. And a glance at the make-up of the Roberts Court damns W. forever with the choices that America is now forced to pay: a Chief Justice with a long trail of hostility to voter rights--particularly those citizens whose franchise in 1965 he gutted in Shelby vs. Holder.
Clarence Thomas has been a supreme embarrassment to this Court and to this nation. He has come off as surly, sulky, pouty and "moan[ed] and whine[d]" about his treatment before a national audience 27 years ago. He has offered no window into his legal jurisprudence or his philosophy--simply simmering resentment. And, it might be argued, that the white Senators who waved him on through did so less because they believed his claims than they were motivated to send Anita Hill--and by extension, American women--the incontrovertible message that their protections don't matter at all.
The Rodney King beating offers some backdrop but what about police brutality now? Race has no bearing on this Blasey vs. Kavanaugh Armageddon. It's all about gender now. White women now realize that they're under attack and if they don't push back now, when ever will they?
They will either say "no more" or "some more." I can't see that happening. The only thing white endangered here is male (Republican) entitlement.
4
This trial does not have a racial element - but everyone is ignoring the economic one.
Kavanaugh is a wealthy man with debts from a wealthy family. Dr. Ford's parents almost lost their home, and growing up he was one of the rich kids - she wasn't.
How about if Dr. Ford had become a professor. How about if this incident had broken the young 15 year old girl and she never went to college or got her PhD. Would she be any less credible if having been assaulted and with no help, ended up not a professor or a waitress or hairdresser?
The race element is real, but I think more so is the economic element.
7
Thomas played to that real history of racism when he called the charges against him by Anita Hill a "lynching." Of course it was nothing of the kind, but black Americans couldn't help but think of the stain institutional racism had left on the USA. Don't forget, lynching was legal well into the 20th century. I hope we have moved past the misogyny and sexism that made the Senate Judiciary Committee treat Hill so badly but I am afraid that we haven't evolved as much as we like to think.
2
@Mal Stone
We have not moved past misogyny,or racism, or stupidity,
Or belief in white supremacy.
2
It’s been a puzzle to me why more attention hasn’t been given over to Judge Kavanaugh’s finances.
Self respecting people, particularly those with families, handle their finances in a decent manner. They do not spend money on what they cannot afford.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett...
233
@A. Stanton Thank you I hadn't seen that, yes a puzzle.
6
@A. Stanton So happy to see that someone out there feels as I do. Follow the money!
1
@A. Stanton
Yes... which millionaire GOP donor paid off his debts?? and what does he now "owe" them???
2
Totally agree with your points regarding Thomas/Hill and race. Unfortunately, I see a similar corollary with Kavanaugh/Ford in that catholics/evangelical christians will ignore that Ford is telling the truth because they want a 'sure thing' (Kavanaugh) to overturn Roe v Wade. And they will sell the souls to get it. Republicans show a staggering ability to bend their morals to fit whatever suits their current project. E.g.: Obama/Garland, tax cuts/deficit, repeal ACA/millions w/o insurance (no better ideas/no "replace").
19
Just as DJT deflects charges of his own dalliances with obstruction and obfuscation, thus suggesting he is lying (more often than not), so, too, are the Republicans on the confirmation hearing pushing to avoid the truth.
And let's be clear, given the years that have elapsed since this incident between a teen boy and a younger teen girl, Professor Ford would not have risked her life and career over these charges against Kavanaugh had there not been any truth to it.
What I have yet to read is, whose home was it? Who were the parents who authorized a drunkfest for teens? Were the parents out of town leaving the kids to take care of the place in their absence? Were the parents on the premises serving alcohol to teens. If Kavanaugh was so drunk he can't remember what happened, he must have had a lot to drink, with our without adult supervision.
All of this to say, someone needs to be held to account along with Judge Kavanaugh.
For now, I want the FBI to investigate. Yet they are dealing with this they a local police station deals with a car break-in.
2
I must have watched different hearings - Democratic and Republican men white men delegitimized and disrespected a black woman in order to protect a black man. They went so far as to deny three other women whom Thomas had harassed from also testifying. Joe Biden was in charge and was responsible for that reprehensible decision.
Clearly neither political affiliation nor race trumped the need for men to protect each other. It was disgusting and I have not forgiven Joe Biden. Our country is still paying the price for his cowardice and/or sexism.
243
@Theodora30
Thank you Theodora. Says it all.
1
The Anita Hill hearing went beyond race I believe. After all, she herself was an African-American. I will contend that just as detrimental to her case was the fact that she was a woman. And she dared to take on the old boys' establishment where, to quote the singer Tammy Wynette, we were to "stand by your man."
Mr. Blow, this is painful. This is harassment. This is exploitation that after 30 years my gender has taken three steps backwards in our plight for equality, respect, and dignity. It is not okay that an intelligent woman, a mother and wife, is subjected to thuggery and character assassination by an adulterer and sexual exploiter who is tainting the People's House and by his equally questionably ethical Republican "band of brothers." Look how they are treating this woman! It is beyond patronizing. It is blatant condescension. The Republican Senators have made up their minds even if Dr. Blasey Ford is telling the truth, which I firmly believe she is. If this fraud Mr. Kavanaugh is confirmed, let it be known that there are thousands of us who will not forget this. The Republicans may think they won the battle, but I predict they will not win this self-induced war.
298
@Kathy Lollock
If I'm not wrong, I believe, years later, Anita Hill chose to work for Clarence Thomas again.
Understandable if it was a necessary career move, but it diluted her story significantly.
Dr. Ford said four people were at the party. All four have sent letters to the Judiciary committee (under penalties of perjury) saying they have no recollection of the party. Seems the vast majority of the evidence sides with Mr. Kavanaugh in this case. Absent him confessing, the Senate must confirm him on Thursday.
Btw, this latest report in the New Yorker reeks of fabrication.
If the Republicans lose their stomach for Kavanaugh then Trump should immediately nominate Amy Coney Barrett and get her confirmed before the mid term elections.
Final note, I'm a Republican who was ambivalent towards the mid-term elections. However, after the past week I am 100% committed to voting Republican this November.
26
@Ryan she didn't say four people were at the party. She named four she could remember. That they don't remember, and no, not all sent letters to the Judiciary committee.
It's wrong to try to adjudicate this matter as you are doing.
What should be done is the FBI should be called in to investigate. We can afford to wait until such and investigation is complete. After all, a SC seat was left vacant for nearly a year, and a seat is a lifetime appointment.
We should all be comfortable waiting.
295
@Ryan Kavanaugh is a member of tightly knit circles where members of those circles will most certainly lie to protect each other. "What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep."
Loyalty to friends and family is a high value and if Kavanaugh were a friend of mine, even if I were an eye witness to the incidents he is accused of and remembered them perfectly, I'd deny those memories to anyone who investigated. I'm a loyal friend. Likewise, if a close woman friend claimed something to be true that I knew to be otherwise, I would never contradict her to the FBI - I would lose my memory.
Fraternity brothers, Georgetown Prep alumni, friends, colleagues, all lie for each other. I should add that there is also an unspoken code among men in general that we never tell our women friends, girlfriends and wives how some of our guy friends behave with women, be it a mistress on the side or the things that really happen at (some) bachelor parties
Brett Kavanaugh and guys like him are not friends of mine. But the guy code runs deep and I'd have a hard time ratting him out even though I despise his politics and personality type.
So let's not give too much weight to the words of friends or men in general, who are backing Brett Kavanaugh.
I believe Ms. Basey Ford. And I believe Ms. Ramirez. I thank these strong women for telling their stories. They have big downsides in coming forward and telling the truth. Brett Kavanuagh benefits from lying.
89
@Mike Marks While I appreciate the forthright revelations in your remark, this "Guy Code" is precisely why so many women have yet to come forward. They know all too well that they may have to face dishonest men who will go to great lengths to protect each other, even at the cost of their own integrity. Why is this code more compelling than compassion or honor; why does it supersede justice and the truth?
You end by thanking Ford and Ramirez for their strength and willingness to confront Brett Kavanaugh, and you say you believe them, yet you would probably lie for him because you share the same gender. I can't begin to tell you how distressing this is to me, especially since I think you speak for so many men. Looks like we'd better keep raising stronger and stronger young women, right?
2
I wish all the women involved in the lives of the Republicans involved, who have had these experiences, would turn to them and say, “me too.” They’d be many.
I worry less about the sex offenders I’ve treated and researched than many of the college students I teach. The latter ones have been raised to know they’ll face no consequences or much more lenient ones than others if caught. They’re the ones I worry about on weekend nights, when they prey on their classmates.
8
With the emergence of the Deborah Ramirez allegations against Brett Kavanagh, there is a very clear path for Christine Blasey's legal team to take, and if they do not take it they should be sued by someone for malpractice.
1. Use the Ramirez allegations as a principled reason for immediately stepping away from the tentative agreement and demanding a full investigation of both charges.
2. Announce to Grassley's team that if the Republicans now try to ram through a confirmation under these circumstances, Blasey will make sure that an investigation of at least the charges she has alleged takes place.
How?
3. There is no statute of limitations against attempted rape in Maryland, and Blasey, under such railroading circumstances, should run, not walk, to the Montgomery County, Maryland Sheriff's department and swear out a criminal complaint against Kavanagh.
Even if Montgomery County weren't the blue on blue county that it is, no prosecutor could fail to investigate those charges.
4. Also announce that your client, Christine Blasey, will immediately be open for bookings on every network or cable (except Fox) channel south of Madawaska or west of Lubec, Maine to tell her side of the story.
So go ahead, Sen. Grassley, confirm Kavanagh without an appearance of Christine Blasey in the face of a possible indictment of Judge Kavanagh by a jurisdiction over which neither you or Donald Trump has any power.
It doesn't take a Weatherman to know who wins this game of chicken.
23
@arbitrot
Well said.
1
"One of these people is lying."
Is it not possible that neither is lying? That Kavanaugh does not recall his actions at a party at which he was "stumbling drunk" 36 years ago? Or that Ford is mistaken?
The unreliability of human memory for remote events is something Mr. Blow must surely be aware of. But as with all things that involve Trump, each side rushes to vilify the other without pause, thought, or compassion.
2
I disagree. Racial animus, gender animus, the differences are just not that great. The interesting aspect of the Thomas poles that I didn't see in your piece would be the way partisanship effected voting. Today, partisanship is everything. Supporters of Kavanaugh are Republican, detractors are Democrat and the hearing is a placebo just like it was with Thomas. Republicans, Democrats, Black people, White people - all adds up to the same, a deeply divided people paralyzed and inflicting endless self harm because of it. I see little difference worth caring about. Maybe you do Mr. Blow as a matter of membership in the one group and not the other. Who amongst us is truly above all this? I don't know anymore.
1
Race was definitely a subtext during the Clarence Thomas hearings. It was never mentioned beyond Thomas's invocation of a figurative lynching, but many African Americans were offended by white people publicly airing potential sexual peccadilloes and conflicts between two of their own. The fear of racial blowback was a significant reason why Biden and Senate Democrats folded without hearing Anita Hill's corroborating witnesses.
But I think women's outrage over Anita Hill's treatment by Republican Senators, and their resulting electoral empowerment was the more enduring legacy of the Thomas hearings. Women became much more politically engaged, leading to the election of four new women Senators and a doubling of House women in 1992. A women's restroom was finally installed in the Senate.
As I write this there are reports of others who now accuse Kavanaugh of sexual impropriety, including one anonymous person represented by Michael Avenatti. So far, these accounts appear less well vetted.
But women, and many men, are already outraged by the shabby treatment of Dr. Blasey by Senate Republicans. Polling shows Kavanaugh's unprecedented and rising unpopularity. If new allegations stick, his nomination is done, probably along with his judicial career.
I think Kavanaugh is too conservative for the court, but I don't think he should be condemned over sexcapades without a full and fair investigation followed by public hearings. A SCOTUS seat must be earned by someone of character.
2
As someone well to the Left politically, Clarence Thomas remains one of my favorite examples of why identity politics is a dead-end strategy. If, as in the past, it was taken for granted a nominee to the court had to be white and male in order to be competent, assuming now that a nominee has to be anything other than that (African American, female, Latina, etc.) is equally ridiculous. What matters is ideology, legal scholarship, and the ability to serve fairly. Clarence Thomas has been dreadful for civil rights and women's rights, LGBT rights and disability rights. Oh, but he's African American, and that's certainly better than a straight white man, right? Go ahead and pretend that gender or race or ethnicity equates moral authority. You will end up with leadership positions filled by Clarence Thomas, Asia Argento, Bill Cosby, or Avital Ronel and the hypocrites who supported her. The rush to promote based on identity politics is just a repetition of a flawed, doomed practice of racial and gender intolerance that has a terrible legacy in this country and is now, in reverse, already backfiring badly.
13
I’m almost amazed at how you liberals are such great fortune tellers and predictors of future events.
These confirmation hearings are not the proper legal forum for these accusations. Each State has courts where cases are to be adjudicated.
The FBI is not tasked by Law to investigate Sexual Assaults and the U.S . Senate can not impose any legal punishment on either party.
Follow the Law and stop wasting the taxpayers funds on this.
The battle lines are drawn and no amount of testimony will change the strong positions on these allegations.
1
The Democrats and their barking dogs in the media have declared war on Kavanaugh and the Republicans. There will be no end to unprovable allegations from the distant past.
Justice Thomas' record on decisions proves that he has been a reasonable and prudent judge, and that he has demonstrated no bias against women. Anita Hill's complaints have been shown to be irrelevant.
At this point the best thing for the Judiciary Committee to do is ignore this nonsense, hold the vote, and confirm him.
2
"Justice Thomas' record on decisions proves that he has been a reasonable and prudent judge"
If I remember correctly, there was an article a while back which noted that Thomas had actually opened his mouth to ask a question or even to comment during a case being presented before the court. This was noted as unusual for him because for his first 10 or 12 years on the court, he had not even once done so prior to that.
A judge who doesn't make even one comment or ask even a single question in more than a decade strikes me as someone who has already made their mind up before arguments for and against a decision are even made.
'Reasonable and prudent'?? More like dogmatic and inflexible.
6
@Mikeweb
"dogmatic and inflexible."
Or, you only see what you want to see.
For example:
"I don't see where that advances anything," Thomas said at a speech in April, referring to asking questions. "Maybe it's the Southerner in me. Maybe it's the introvert in me, I don't know. I think that when somebody's talking, somebody ought to listen."
@Objectivist
Wow! I guess moral character is irrelevant for a Supreme Court Justice as well as a President?!
2
Thurgood Marshall was a “Hall of Fame” Justice, regardlesss of race. Marshall must have known that Thomas would not be a strong supporter of civil rights. Why didn’t Justice Marshall simply withdraw his planned retirement?
6
@James S Kennedy
Maybe Marshall couldn’t invision sitting with someone so completely unprepared to be a Supream court justice,
As Clarence Thomas was and is.
The GOP senators question just how Professor Hill in 1991 and Professor Ford and Ms. Ramirez in 2018 can recall actions that took place years earlier.
Well, a quick test: Do you remember exactly where you were and what you were doing when you first heard that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center? Sure. Now, do you remember where you were and what you were doing on September 8, 2001? Of course not … unless something traumatic or out of the ordinary happened to you.
This explains while the women who were subjected to unwanted sexual advances recall them, while those who made such advances, or who were otherwise at the event, do not - for them it did not have the necessary impact.
(For the record, I was sitting at my desk at 7 World Trade Center when the first plane hit the North Tower, and I can fully recall everything that happened that day. But I cannot tell you at all what happened on September 10.)
19
I seem to remember Thurgood Marshall being interviewed at the time of his retirement and asked how he felt about Clarence Thomas being nominated to replace him on the Supreme Court. Marshall replied to the effect "white snake, black snake ... still a snake".
33
Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Court was the most disingenuous political move ever made by George HW Bush. And there were plenty of other moves to choose from (Willy Horton, for example).
Bush knew there would be little blowback because no one wanted to talk against ‘black folks.’
And all the while, we knew that Thomas was an angry man, hostile to the very programs that put him in the running as a justice, and so politically immobile that he cannot entertain opposing viewpoints.
I felt ashamed about how Anita Hill was treated, and I’m sure I’ll feel just as ashamed regarding this latest soap opera.
13
Another difference between 1991 and today, Clarence Thomas would not be confirmed today given the same set of facts; the same testimony. We have learned too much. Women, regardless of race, have too often been the victims of sexual harassment and assault by Black men (Cosby) and White (Weinstein, Lauer).
With every report of a fraternity being suspended or shut down, we see the behavior Bret Kavanaugh has been accused. Who honestly does not believe that Georgetown Prep modeled its behavior combining alcohol, power, prestige and a "do what we want attitude toward women" that its students continue when they pledge a fraternity at say, Dartmouth?
Clarence Thomas has served for 27 years on a Court he should not have been allowed to join (and from which he should resign). The Senate should not make the same mistake with Bret Kavanaugh. I am sure, if given the opportunity, the Federalist Society will be able to find another Jurist with an expansive view of Presidential power and equally hostile to women, people of color, voting rights, and the environment.
In the mean time, the rest of us need to do our job, withdrawing control of Congress and eventually the White House from the Republicans. We need to vote.
15
Mr. Blow, I heard you make a really compelling point this week about the difference between the allegations against Thomas and Kavanaugh -- that one was sexual harassment of a work colleague and the other is of an attempted assault against a minor.
Re the poll statistics you cited after the Clarence Thomas hearings, I would find it instructive to see a breakdown of percentages between men and women, too.
I’d suggest the real parallel is Bill Cosby and Kavanaugh. Both has serious allegations against them from the past. One was investigated, prosecuted, and jailed. The other.... wasn’t.
What’s the difference between those two men?
10
What this says to me is that racism has become somewhat less powerful in the US, but sexism or misogyny still has a powerful hold on the national psyche. Maybe #MeToo will change that. It remains to be seen.
2
The Thomas appointment was perhaps the most cynically evil Supreme Court appointment of all time, that is until Kavanaugh who was nominated for his outlandish views of presidential power including virtual immunity from the rule of law. Hopefully this time we will not have to live with the wrong outcome for what has seemed like an eternity.
6
Everything I've heard thus far from Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell et. al. suggests that they want (grudgingly) to give the APPEARANCE of hearing what Professor Blasey will say without it actually mattering.
Forgive me for assuming Kavanaugh's confirmation is a foregone conclusion, but it seems that it is... unless more women come forward to allege sexual misbehavior, which, as I type, a classmate of his from Yale has just done...
15
@D Price the rush to confirm this lewd person is because this has been their agenda all along. To move the court to the right is their ultimate goal. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I firmly believe that after confirmation the republicans will take their kid gloves off, replace them with brass knuckles, and go after 45 with everything they've got. They won't need him anymore.
1
If number 45 lies each and every day and the Senate and House Republicans do not challenge each lie, how can one expect to have truth reign?
The ONLY hope is that Judge Kavanaugh has a moment of clarity and withdraws from consideration.
3
There's another important difference between Clarence Thomas and his misdeeds and those now alleged against Brett Kavanaugh. For the former it was sexual harassment, but for the latter it's attempted rape. This difference in degree makes it all the more essential that the Senate adjudicate the issues objectively, patiently, seriously, and with extremely sensitivity.
13
What no one has picked up on, but is worth noting, if the impact of Kavanaugh's high school environment on the formation of his character and attitudes. I credit my own high school education (in San Francisco in the late 1950s) with significant and beneficial impact upon my character and actions throughout my adult life. What is already clearly public knowledge about the culture of the "elite" private school Kavanaugh attended suggests a rampant culture male entitlement, pervasive disrespect for all women (both teachers & peers) and a belief that if actions are pleasurable and accepted by one's peers they are acceptable! What impact did that environment (in which he was a clear participant) have on his character & adult values??? That is the first question would put to him.
10
I was thinking earlier in the week that if Kavanaugh did something like this once, he most likely did it again. Sure enough, a former classmate of his at Yale has come forward with allegations that at a dorm-room drinking party, Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and thrust "himself" (Family newspaper and all that.) into her face. She names names, remembers quite a few details, and wants an F.B.I. investigation.
Bye bye, Brett.
14
Ramirez has come forward.
K is done for. If he gets confirmed, the first thing the Dems will do is impeach him and it won't reach the Senate.
But I think it is impossible for K to get confirmed.
The only question if how long K. will be on the cross before Trump puts him out of his misery.
K. will resign from the Federal Court.
The only real question is how long will it take for Trump to nominate what's-her-name and whether if the Dems take the Senate, they can ram her through in the lame duck session.
Because once the Dems take the Senate the only Trump nominee who will get a hearing is Merrick Garland.
I'm being definitive because I've read the New Yorker article. Before I read it, I though Ramirez coming forward would be a disaster for the Dems.
Finally, if you want to learn how wacky,the wackaloons are, go to townhall.com and read some of the articles and comments.And this isn't an Alex Jones website.
8
@Sheldon
Merrick Garland wasn't a Trump nominee.
1
Based on statements from Republican senators, the testimony from Dr. Ford will not matter. Mitch McConnell said that they plan to "plow" right through until Kavanaugh is confirmed and Senator Lindsay Graham has said that he plans to vote for confirmation no matter what Dr. Ford says. Reminds me of
a quote from Alfred E. Neuman: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
10
Something that the Romans knew 2000 years ago that the Republicans have yet to understand. Justice must not only be done, but must seen to have been done. If the Republicans believe that they can go through the motions of giving Ms. Blase Ford (and now the other accusers of their candidate) a fake hearing and plow through to a vote, they are probably in for a shock. As they say down south, this dog won’t hunt.
9
As a woman who had been sexually assaulted as a child (by adult men, not teeenaged boys) AND as a mother of two African American boys, I ask myself: if Kavanaugh were my son, how would I want him to be treated? My answer is this: I wouldn't want him to be judged based on his actions when he was 17 years old.
But then again, I ask myself: there are many people in jail (some of them for life) as a result of actions they committed while teenagers.
So I'm no longer sure how I feel. All I know is that it's terrible no matter how you look at it.
3
With all due respect, I disagree a bit with your assessment, Mr. Blow. The commonality of misogyny and sexism is very much at play here. Thomas "played the black man card" shamelessly for his own gain to stupify the unconsciously racist senate panel. They bought it. And Thomas cares NOTHING about civil rights. These days, he gets female clerks to send pictures before they are hired. Yes, race complicates patriarchy, and, yes, white men are still in power, but Thomas sees himself as one of those guys.
The misogyny and dismissal of women, the tactic that "a good man's life may be ruined," the twisting of who the perpetrator is (in reality, that "good" man caused his own problems), well....not much has changed.
And there are still women who collaborate with patriarchy. Otherwise, Trump would not have been elected. This is not a simply "say #metoo" thing, Mr. Blow. It is much more complex.
12
Re "Thomas’s nomination put black America in a bind: Oppose Thomas and risk having no black representation on the court, or support him in spite of his hostile views."
Blow's words serve as a succinct indictment of identity politics.
Any rational person should be able to discern that "black representation" by Clarence Thomas has done absolutely nothing for the causes that many African Americans hold dear, most notably, civil rights.
What good is "representation" according to the color of a justice's skin when he or she will rule in ways that harm the very causes that matter most to those who share his skin color?
8
To me this just shows a very disturbing social/ethnic/gender hierarchy. A Black man was favored over a Black woman's claims just because of representation? And this time a woman really has a chance to justice because both of them are white?
MeToo still has not become a reality for people of color (Remember the claims against R.Kelly?). Feminism and solidarity seems to be a privilege and it's power seems only to effect change when it's about white women.
Why is everyone acting surprised and shocked, shocked I tell you!, when women finally come forward and reveal this type of behavior on the part of males toward women? Who are we trying to kid here?
Every single one of us who went to high school and college in the sixties and seventies can remember the Monday morning conversation among the guys, mostly centered on who "scored" that weekend. Chat among the girls would include whispers regarding who was possibly "preggers" and worthy of shunning and thinly veiled hostility. "Tramp" was a word used regularly and exclusively in a one sided manner -- aimed exclusively at the women involved in the guys' weekend conquests.
We girls kept our mouths shut about the things that happened to us at the hands of the boys. The setup for this was firmly in place and reminders of the double standard were evident every Monday morning, in the halls and before/after school groups that formed in the corridors and lunchrooms, when the weekend "high jinks" were loudly shared by 50% of the population only. The other side hid in shame and fear of "ruining our reputations".
19
Then, as now, there is a significant difference between teenage sex between willing participants and a boy covering the mouth of an unwilling girl to stifle her screams. Attempted rape -- then, as now -- should not get a pass.
1
I wish America would have stuck to the Founding Fathers’ idea of the separation of church and state. The Dark Ages is still a way of life for an astounding number of Americans. The cynically powerful use religion as the crucible to divide and conquer your great nation. You’re better than this. There’s no shortage of decent Republican candidates who will make an excellent conservative choice. Move on.
6
Something happened allegedly over 30 years ago in school which was, to the maximu, a bad behavior should not even be entertained now as an issue.
1
And the nominee's perjury about it in the present has no bearing on his fitness to serve? Just because he was nominated for the position grants no entitlement to it. It is a life long commitment to serve the people of the United States with far reaching effect. We deserve far better than an ideologically stacked court of any stripe. The whole process has become a sickening betrayal of our constitutional aspirations as a nation.
3
@Alex E: If a black student had done that, he’d at minimum have been expelled from Yale, with a note on his transcript.
1
I see a different racial component at work in 1991. I have long believed that were Anita Hill a white law professor, Clarence Thomas would not have been confirmed, Rodney King and Thurgood Marshall notwithstanding.
12
As sickened, distressed, as I was by the Judge Thomas hearings, the accusations against him were much less extreme than in Kavanaugh's case. Already there are new and appalling allegations coming to light. Charles Blow's piece was very instructive, and I found the photos of the two men side by side here, very telling. Clarence Thomas appears extremely anxious, almost guilty, while the probably psychopathic, entitled Kavanaugh, looks smooth and oddly confident. It says it all. I'm just waiting for Kavanaugh to be swiftly withdrawn from the nomination, and taken off the bench he's already sitting on. If Avenatti, or someone else, can take him to court, so much the better.
4
Religion is the McGuffin this time. Kavanaugh was hand-picked to turn a blind eye to the establishment clause to open the floodgates to faith-based legislation. Why does one have to be Catholic to be nominated to the Supreme Court?
5
Normally I agree with you 100%, Charles, but on this I take exception. I understand that there was an imperative to have black representation on the Supreme Court after the retirement of Thurgood Marshall. But Anita Hill was also black. The hearing in 1991 was a farce not because Clarence Thomas was black, but because Anita Hill is a woman.
Our current administration doesn’t care what happens to women of any color. The proof for this is in the laws they propose to govern our bodies, and in their treatment of these brilliant women. Our president could have asked for an investigation, but he did not. If Kavanaugh fails at this, there will be an equally power-hungry Republican right behind him, waiting to further reduce all women and children to the nothing they believe they are.
17
Why couldn't George H Bush appoint another Black American Jurist to the court? You say if not Thomas it would not be a black judge - was that known at the time?
What was so upsetting among black jurists about the Thomas appointment was that there were/are so MANY amazing black jurists - actually more than in any other profession this was true, then and now - black men especially are attracted to the court and to the law - for many reasons - and George H. chose the LEAST qualified - the least stellar among so many as if to say there are not many great ones - when the opposite was the case.
Choosing him to begin with - someone not as good as so many other black jurists on both sides of the aisle was an insult - a huge insult to black jurists.
6
Let's just say the man accused in this situation were a performer or a corporate executive or any other male of notable exposure. Would there be the same level of defenses utilized for him? Recent experience says no, even one description of such forced sexual subjugation has been accepted and believed and has exposed many other instances with other women at other times.
Time, as we have seen so many times, is the enemy of lies and additional proof of wrong doing.
2
Mr. Blow, you fail to offer your readership, a scenario where Anita Hill is white, facing an all-male white panel during the hearings that nominated Judge Thomas to the Supreme Court under the shadow of inappropriate conduct, dishonorable of a gentleman, let alone a nominee for a live-long seat in the Supreme Court of the US of A.
President Bush at the time declares that he does not feel there should be a black or ethnic seat on the court, but offers no further explanation or clarification? Why? We are not in South Africa where lingers the shade of Apartheid.
Earlier I remembered my uncle, a military man, a lawyer and a justice of the peace, who after WWII would act as a translator and escort for de Gaulle, who apparently had a penchant for a glass of whiskey.
Edmund Delaney wrote his memoirs for his family 'Me Voila', and graduated from Princeton when he was 16. Not only did he never romp about females of any age in school or adulthood. He was constantly bailing out his extended and inherited family of one sex scandal or another, over the course of years, and never complained.
He was not color-blind, and a great believer in equal education for all, regardless of whether our children are black, white or green.
For the sake of his family and reputation, he would have wanted to clear his name in the face of these allegations, if he were in Kavanaugh's shoes, and then he would hold his head high and withdraw his nomination.
He was a pioneer of 'The Viable Solution'.
I was 48 when Thomas was named to the court & my cohort & I - white & black women of the same age - were dead set against it. He has shown a complete consistency - utter hypocrisy. He's denied affirmative action to others although he was a beneficiary of it. He has been complicit in denying civil rights to all but especially women. We thought it obvious from the start & I'm willing to wager the same will be true of Kavanaugh if he's seated.
14
Race is a significant figure in this appointment. Trump and conservatives appointed him because of his background and attitudes. Rich, White, Prep-School educated, Ivy League with no history of sympathy for supporting efforts to bring diversity to positions of power in government or business. You have to be blind not to see the influence of racial animosity in everything that is happening in the country today. Kavanaugh is the personification of white power. I also suggest that anyone who believes his appointment can be stopped is naïve.
155
@Disillusioned
Sadly, you are correct on all counts.
1
@Disillusioned
I regret to say that I totally agree with what you have written and I feel just as disillusioned.
1
I lived in that world and left it far behind
Mr. Blow,
a) Rodney King admitted he led the police on
a High Speed Chase, that he was high on drugs
and that he refused to follow the orders of the police.
You, Mr. Blow, you go out there and try to bring someone
as large and as powerful as Mr. King, while Mr. King
is sky high on drugs, under control and tell us how it goes.
So far, but in Washington D.C., you never know,
no one has verified Ms. Ford's claims.
Perhaps it was a different party and she has confused
who was there and who was not.
There are those who think Mr. Kavanaugh should not
be appointed to the Supreme Court under any circumstances.
There are those who think Mr. Kavanaugh should
be appointed to the Supreme Court no matter the
charges.
Most of us wonder how the country ever got itself
in this situation.
Let each one say what they think happened or
did not happen at the hearing on Thursday.
Let any corroborating evidence/testimony be presented.
Let us make Supreme Court Tenure - Ten Years.
That is long enough to have the last word in any
trial and in situations of life and death.
And let us make it the rule that you must get 75 %
approval from the Senate so we can stop the
Extremists from ruining the Supreme Court Hearings
and the Court and - thus our country.
3
Kavanaugh needs to withdraw his name (his nomination is plagued by perjury, sexual assault and extreme politics).
America is a dangerous place for women and girls, and that has got to change. The culture has to change, and we all need to help it change. Drinking and wealth do not exonerate nor justify assault. Women and girls deserve respect for their persons and their autonomy. Change begins with all of us.
10
I remember the Thomas hearings. I was stunned to see how the Black community threw Dr. Hill, a Black woman, under the bus to defend a Black man who was hostile to Civil Rights. Sadly, this was not the last time I saw "civil rights" activists treat women as if they were a subhuman class whose own rights are a trivial issue. Many "progressive" men seem oblivious to the fact that being female does not disqualify someone from humanity. I am a progressive, but I feel constantly betrayed by the toxic misogyny of the Left - which is just as virulent but much more hypocritical than the misogyny of the Right.
113
@Penny White Women have complained about this since the 60s. Fact is being a progressive, liberal, or democratic socialist is no protection from remaining a sexist.
1
it's not a race thing. It's a man thing.
1
Thomas was morally unfit to be a Supreme Court justice then and, all these sessions later, has now proven his technical inability, as well.
Professor Hill, a person of distinction and moral character, was distorted by the same white male Senators that prevail on the Judiciary Committee today and work their self-righteous indignation against Dr. Ford.
The only racial element was that Thomas was a Token. And George H. W. Bush needed a token to get the Black vote. He ultimately lost . We Americans lost more.
The male vs. female paradigm is the one driving this drama as it was in the earlier version. Women have a long way to go for equality. But men have further to go for dignity.
6
What effect, if any will this sordid process have upon the Judge’s confirmation? If their nomination is withdrawn, a speedy return to private practice? Luckily, there are enough deep pockets to bankroll a litigation career. The lap of luxury over the prestige of life time tenure. Either way, the coin toss turns up heads.
Thomas’d, Bork’d or Kavanaugh’d are the new metaphors.
Ford is calling for an investigation. Kavanaugh is opposed to an investigation.
It is transparently obvious who's lying and who isn't/
286
@Steve Simels
Facts and transparency mean little today for nearly half our culture. It's almost as if those who'll excuse anything for their side of th political aisle need to seek permission, to think their respective conscience, from Fox, hate-radio, etc.
PS: Who have you been listening to lately?
Charles and readers, forgive me for the capital letters, but I wonder why so many of you find it so difficult to use the plain English word RACISM. Here is Charles clearly writing about racism but instead of using that key word, using the terminology in capital letters: "But I (Blow) would like to draw attention to one difference, one that could bode well for Ford: the absence of a RACIAL element in a heated RACIAL environment."
Los Angeles police officers' beating of Rodney King was an expression of their racism, a belief that King was a lesser member of the only race, the human, because of the color of his skin. What was on display in the Hill-Thomas case was sexism - discrimination based on Hill being female and given Charles Blow's telling of the story here, perhaps reverse racism.
Even one of my long-time favorite Verifieds, Janice Badger Nelson writes "I didn't see race, however." where in my understanding of the English language she means "I didn't see racism, I saw discrimination of males against females - expressed in the form of sexual harassment."
Charles, to your credit, you write "Black people, to their everlasting regret, backed Thomas" but since Anita Hill is seen by the USCB as belonging to USCB's black race, they could have supported her because she too was seen as black. In that sense, your "racial element" concept was absent even in Hill vs Thomas.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
2
It is worth remembering that one Chief Justice, colluding with an incoming President -- on one case -- was all it took to start the Civil War.
Is this the same reason. No one in the democratic party cares to take the accusations against Keith Ellison seriously?
3
@Rosie If he is guilty, he should be prosecuted. But currently, he's not in the running for SCOTUS and there's nothing about the SCOTUS situation that requires Keith Ellison's situation to be discussed by the Judiciary Committee. But by all means, they can take it up. Karen Monahan should go directly to the police. The statute of limitations most likely is active. Since the accusations are not yet stale, she should definitely report, and people will take it seriously.
2
Although Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill are both black, it was still race that put Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court. However, in today’s #metoo era, Hill’s gender would likely supersede the racial component, thereby granting her testimony more credibility.
Christine Ford’s allegation levelled against Judge Kavanaugh has predictably evolved into a war of gender vs political partisanship.
Either way, it does not bode well for the country if identity politics become the sole criterion for determining an individual's merit to sit on the highest court in the land.
5
@Michael
Does lying under oath count?
I don't agree that "one of these people has to be lying". Whatever happened, happened over 30 years ago. Kavanaugh is accused of being drunk. Both were teenagers, and we know that teenagers were not fully developed. Memory is a tricky thing, as we know from all those people jailed because of eye-witness testimony, only to be proved innocent years later.
We will never know what really happened. I believe that Ford believes her memory is accurate. But, I believe Kavanaugh believes it never happened. I don't want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, but is it right that things we did as teenagers will control how we are perceived for the rest of our life?
8
@knewman
"... is it right that things we did as teenagers will control how we are perceived for the rest of our life?" -- No, it is not right, IN MOST CASES, but it is right when the job at stake is that of a Supreme Court Justice.
8
@knewman "I was drunk" used to explain away bad behavior is not acceptable. If he had murdered and hid the crime while drunk would that be ok? And today we are just finding out? I believe alcohol allows us (in our minds) to do things being sober might not, but we want to do.
And while I agree that we should not be punished for the rest of our lives for a mistake, first we need to acknowledge the mistake and make amends. And secondly, there are some jobs that require more - such as Supreme Court Justice.
6
@knewman - I would like to hear that same concern regarding "things we did as teens will control how we are perceived for the rest of our lives" when it comes to minorities and poor people who are charged as adults at the age of fourteen in many jurisdictions across the country. The Supreme Court only recently ruled that persons who committed serious crimes while under eighteen years of age could not be executed. They may get life in prison, with a good part of it in solitary confinement, for their own protection.
4
Having Clarence Thomas’ nomination revisited is music to my ears. I watched a courageous Anita Hill come forward- was so proud of her.
I hope Thomas is squirming in his “chair”.
10
@Marti
"sleeping", not "squirming"
Yes, Bush the Elder, not much later said that he nominated Clarence Thomas in order to show that blacks could be conservative too.
6
Justices will come and go over time but until their approval requires 60 senate votes again, the confirmation process is no longer credible. A casualty of hyper-partisan government, a simple majority vote just further inflames partisan resentments. Our founders had the wisdom to require a 2/3 majority knowing that such a criteria would reduce the resentments of supporters and opposers, encouraging them to accept a strong majority vote and move on, returning to bi-partisanship to work on other Senate business.
19
Both can be telling the truth. I believe Dr. Ford. It's also possible that Kavanaugh was too inebriated to remember, or to him the assault was no big deal. Seems like this could have been handled quietly, instead of turned into a circus. I'd also be more interested to see if other women come out. I'm more concerned with his conservative leanings and what that will mean for the court, especially given that the Scalia seat was stolen. Kavanaugh will rule in favor of the powerful, influential, and wealthy. Individual rights will take a back seat. The nomination is tainted largely due to the resentment that many of us feel about denying Merrick Garland a seat on the court. Mitch McConnell has played a huge role in corrupting our politics. That will be his legacy.
36
@Ginger Walters - Is his not remembering, in truth or as a matter of political expedience, a pass for his current, adamant statement that he wasn't at that unspecified party? An investigation is in order. If it jogs his memory, he, at a minimum, owes her an apology. His supporters also owe her one.
2
@Ginger Walters
Kavanaugh’s actions towards women are a reflection of his “conservative leanings” which are deeply influenced by conservative Catholicism and are deeply misogynistic. This translates into paternalistic policies like -at best - making women wait for an abortion because we are too emotional/silly/shallow to make the decision without the court’s interference (conservative Catholic Judge Kennedy’s rationale.) At worst it results in imposing their own religious beliefs on women by denying them abortions and possibly birth control, weakening laws to protect women from discrimination, etc.
In that world women are to be “put on a pedestal” (John Kelly another right wing Catholic), where they should watch men do the important work. Women in that worldview are suppposed to not be sources of temptation. If they are, then they are of no value. Kavanaugh’s behavior towards women is definitely relevant to the kind of judge he would be.
4
If, to Kavanaugh, the assault was "no big deal," shouldn't that character defect make him absolutely unfit for the Supreme Court?
3
A person who drives an automobile under the influence of alcohol or drugs has made decisions that their actions may put other people's lives and well-being at risk. Whether that person is 16 or 60, the law holds them responsible for the consequences of their decisions.
Would any judge accept the excuse "I was so drunk that I didn't know what I was doing," as a reason to withhold a penalty for harm to person(s) or property?
Judge Kavanaugh may seek to absolve himself from his intemperate youth with "what happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep" but his personal behavior since then has not improved. Another woman, at Yale, describes his drunken behavior and exposure, and I have not read anywhere a satisfactory explanation of his large non-mortgage, non-auto loans debt that mysteriously disappeared or who paid it off (and for what reasons).
He should not sit in judgement of others with a lifetime appointment.
60
@JMT
The fact that he has a very long history of substance abuse, albeit a legal substance, alcohol, and a long history of gambling and gambling debts shows a distinct lack of good character and morals. Those alone should render him unsuitable for a SCOTUS justice.
Why is so little mentioned about these factors?
And yes, how did that $250.000 in credit card debt mysteriously disappear?
THAT should be a question that he is asked and he answers fully and completely with no evasion.
Bottom line - he is not of good moral character or ethics and he should withdraw. Although I admit that I would like him to suffer the indignity of not being confirmed.
22
The Thomas hearing uncovered a very inconvenient truth in the black community. We were as guilty of misogyny and patriarchy as the larger society was.
Our struggle for freedom had been woefully incomplete, in part because of a lack of gender consciousness that we still grapple with.
But while much of the civil rights community was ambivalent about Thomas, the black progressive community, led by many black feminists was not.
We had seen the struggle for black liberation movement devolve into a quest for individual recognition and power. And many, like Thomas, were all too willing to do the masters bidding for the individual rewards that might be dolled out.
I remember many a debate on black talk radio where the prevailing sentiment was "give the brother a chance."
The idea of giving the sister a fair hearing was lost to as we succumbed to the right-wing notion that our struggle was simply about individual rights. We got the collective character of racism but missed the collective character of sexism.
But lessons were learned, at least by some. While patriarchy and homophobia still plague the black liberation movement, progress has been made and is reflected in the composition of our leadership and the understanding that gender and sexual equality must be central to any struggle.
Our fight against the Thomas nomination was ultimately unsuccessful, but it was an important part of our awakening and for that we are grateful to Professor Hill and her many supporters.
43
@drspock I remember the Thomas/Hill hearings, and I was stunned by the how the Black community betrayed Dr. Hill The message to Black women was clear: your rights & humanity are less important than the rights of Black men. If you do not accept your second class status, we will ostracize and condemn you.
1
While I agree with your overall premise regarding the Thomas and Kavanaugh confirmation, I also feel it is important to note that President George H. W. Bush at that time claimed that Justice Thomas was the most qualified canidate. I do not believe then or even now that that was a correct statement. If the seat was to remain occupied by a person of color there were any number of other canidates who were more qualified as Thomas’s years on the bench has shown.
33
@Don Carolan - Does that make you wonder what's so special about Kavanaugh that POTUS Trump does not withdraw his name and substitute someone else?
2
I would encourage everyone who feels strongly that Brett Kavanaugh not be confirmed as a Supreme Court judge call their Senator and the Senators on the Judiciary Committee today and have noted their request and the reasons why they oppose this candidate. Your actions can make a difference.
44
There is every possibility that Brett Kavanaugh will wreck vengeance on both liberals and women after he gets his nomination to SCOTUS by swinging to the far right which is what most ultra-conservatives would love. Sad that justice would suffer from this sort of flawed selection process that needs to be thoroughly overhauled and made non-partisan.
19
"There’s one distinct difference between the Clarence Thomas hearings and the Brett Kavanaugh hearings."
Correct. It's that Anita Hill was a credible witness with tangible., believable proof, while Dr. Ford has a fuzzy story that has come out very late in the game. Despite a mountain of evidence, Thomas was unfortunately confirmed to the court, and Kavanaugh probably will be as due to the lack of evidence.
2
There isn't necessarily a lack of evidence. There IS a lack of investigation.
2
@Midwest Josh'
And the reason Thomas was appointed was not just because he was replacing a Black Jurist, but he was a man. Very important back then and still now.
2
As with the Thomas-Hill situation, this case and a zillion others come down to "did" and "did not," also known as she-said-he-said, her word against his and so on. It truly is a shame we cannot rewind time and go back to lift the barriers that prevented abused/assaulted individuals from pressing charge at the time. Better yet, to educate both males and females about right and wrong, respect, boundaries and recourse. Except for two individuals, nobody else knows what happened back then, and no decades-late investigation or Congressional hearing or media circus is going to figure it out.
Yes, and it doesn’t matter what happened.
No sexual or financial allegations arose during the Roberts or Alito confirmation. Republicans can find someone just as awful who isn’t icky.
This is a lifetime appointment to a position whose decisions cannot be appealed. Everyone on the Supreme Court should be above reproach. That is the minimal standard for the court of no appeals.
If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, his life isn’t over. He’s still a federal judge. He’ll be ok. We won’t feel sorry for him, and we won’t have to live with his sorry example.
It doesn’t matter if he’s lying. The allegations alone disqualify him from this particular rare honor. Find someone else. It’s a big country.
4
@J. Harmon Smith
Three individuals, apparently.
2
Here we have two people who are supposed to precisely recall what happened at a party they attended as teenagers 35 years ago, when they were both likely less than sober.
As an exercise, I have tried to remember events that occurred at parties I believe I attended in high school. I am having a lot of trouble. And I was not a drinker and did not do drugs. And study after study performed by social scientists have shown the unreliability of memory, even among people who seem to be 100% certain of what they saw or experienced.
I hate Trump and don’t want Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court. But I do not believe anyone can know with certainty what happened 35 years ago at that party. We have a lot of assumptions being made based on political views rather than actual facts. This type of show will only dissuade good people from accepting nominations in the future for governmental positions that require Senate approval, out of fear that they will be laid low by unknowable, unprovable allegations from before they were even adults.
Equally important—do any of us want to be judged, and essentially barred from doing our life’s work, because of the single worst thing we are alleged to have done?
11
@Jack Sonville
I’m a senior citizen and I still clearly remember many events from high school, including the specific details from parties (first time hearing Beatles music, for example) and events that happened in school. The assumption that Dr. Ford had been drinking enough to cloud her memory is just that—an assumption, as is the assumption that Judge Kavanaugh was drunk. But Dr. Ford discussed this event with her husband and a therapist long before Kavanaugh was nominated, so her memories were clear enough that the event has affected her whole life. One might also assume that the only way one 15-year-old girl could fight off and escape from a much larger male attacker is if said attacker was at least partially incapacitated. I doubt Dr. Ford was drunk.
22
@Jack Sonville
Any person who has been the target of abuse doesn't forget. The body doesn't forget.
11
@Jack Sonville ask the experts; people remember traumatic events, her testimony of fuzzy when and where details is not uncommon. Kavanaugh might not recall the event because it was not outstanding or signifiant to him and he was drinking heavily- she had one drink and it affected her enough to speak about it in therapy- women who have been assaulted will tell you it is a pivotal event, at least to them. If your parents died in a horrible crash coming to pick you up while you were at a party in high school it might stick in your memory, one beer or not.
6
The inaction by Congress (I blame both parties) has made the courts the legislating branch of our country. The depths to which both sides will sink is embarassing for the country.
3
Kavanaugh has offered what he claims to be material evidence of his innocence in the form a personal calendar from the summer of '82 that makes no mention of the party Christine Blasey Ford claims they both attended and at which he forced himself upon her to the extent that she seriously feared for her life. Facts offered into evidence become fair game for investigation. With his supposedly exculpatory calendar Kavanaugh has opened the door to a deep dive by the FBI into his doings throughout the summer of '82.
10
@Leigh - other than wondering who would keep a calendar from 1982 the only question that needs be asked is "is every event you participated in in 1982 recorded in this calendar?". Are their any days with blank days or hours? What did he do in those periods?
Did he never attend an event spontaneously?
18
@Marie Is the calendar even authentic? One wonders if it was prepared recently.
1
Unfortunately for the Republican members of the Judicial Committee, the "optics" are not on their side--precisely because of the demographics of the Republicans on the Judicial Committee.
During the Thomas hearings, yes, there was the same panel of old white men interviewing a woman about sexual harassment, and the hearings were televised, but there were far fewer people who did NOT look upon such harassment as business as usual. Many more people, particularly women and the young, are "woke" now--and the optics of the Republicans on the committee looks a lot more like the old repressive patriarchy. Moreover, there's now a contrast in diversity with the Democrats on the committee (not as diverse as many would like, but at least there are some women in that group).
The racial aspect may have been a factor back in 1992, though I think that would have had more to do with the idea that "black on black" harassment was more dismissable, as far to many still think "black on black" crime is--still a form of bigotry, of course.
The committee members have to handle this situation very, very carefully. Short of Dr. Blasey Ford speaking in tongues, they just can't come off looking well here, and female voters are already angry enough--the committee's Republican members have to realize that the blue wave they fear could be turned into a tsunami unless they act very, very contrite and sympathetic, and slow the process down, allowing FBI investigation.
9
At the end of the day, aren't we glad we have a man on the Supreme Court like Thomas who represents the poor, the disadvantaged and minorities with such passion? I believe the real lesson of the Thomas hearings was that Anita should be sitting in his seat.
44
In an otherwise good essay, not sure the line "Black people, to their everlasting regret, backed Thomas" holds up to scrutiny. Black voter turnout was down from a high of more than 66% in 2012 to 59.6% in 2016, suggesting that any 'everlasting regret' felt was insufficient motivation to show up at the polls.
3
@czb Supreme Court judges are not voted in by citizens so I’m not following your point.
3
That’s a pretty narrow measure of regret, wouldn’t you say?
In how many decisions has Thomas sided with the powerful. Amazon’s warehouse, the statute of limitations on wage discrimination, Citizens United, gerrymandering. And, let us not forget, Bush v. Gore.
I remember during the Anita Hill testimony thinking how odd it was for black groups to support Thomas because he was black. His appointment and his “high tech lynching” speech were equally Supreme in their cynicism. I could never understand why that was ok as long as he was black.
3
So where the deuce is the voice of Joseph Biden? The strong and urgent voice so desperately needed in this most demanding matter. Surely he of all people knows that 'fair play' is at issue here. He was so good at it last time around.
For that matter, where are the loud and vociferous voices of those Senate Democrats that sit outside of the hearing committee? Or, again, do the Democrats, of both Houses, play it as mutely as most did with the Garland nomination?
Come on guys and gals, this is front page stuff and the very soul of our Democracy is at stake !
10
The article ends with "Either an older child took advantage of a younger child or he didn't"? And now the adult is being tried in a circus setting for this behavior. Strange times.
4
Doesn’t matter. Find someone above reproach. They’re out there. Some are even Republicans.
It’s the Supreme Court, not a part time job after school. It’s a high bar, and even minor indiscretions matter, as it were.
267
@Ksimone
- this "adult" never apologized for what now appears to be multiple acts of this kind
- this "adult" continued to drink himself into a state of unconsciousness, and conducted himself badly as a result.
- this "adult" continues to be undisciplined and entitled--as evidenced by his irresponsibility with money, among other things.
He's not good enough. Period.
9
@Ksimone And how did Neil Gorusch make it?
It should not be a spectacle of Kavanaugh denials versus Dr. Blasey assertions.
Testimony of expert witnesses who deal with sexual assault must be part of the hearing, part of the consideration in making a decision. An informed belief needs to include an understanding of the truths about sexual assault:
1) Sexual attackers are not easily identifiable, they most often are the last person you would suspect. They most often include trusted family friends, loved uncles, persons whom the victim knows and trusted. The fact that many people who personally know Kavanaugh believe he is not capable of having sexually assaulted a 15-year old girl, does NOT mean he did not do it.
2) Sexual assault victims often do not report the crime. Ever. Too often the victim is victimized again by their family, friends and the courts, which often question their veracity, minimize the crime, validate the male culture of boys will be boys and put the victim's character on trial. What victim wants to be victimized again?
3) Victims of sexual assault too often feel shame, powerless, valueless and even question whether they might have provoked the attack. For all these reasons victims may not be able to deal with what happened to them right after being assaulted. They try to suppress the memory, but struggle for years on their own before seeking professional help, which leads to later speaking out.
Unless Republicans bring in expert witnesses, they are victimizing Dr. Blasey all over again.
27
@jabarry it also should be raising a flag that as a father of two daughters Kavanaugh has not, even as he denies the actions taken as a drunk high schooler, shown remorse that that type of action happens to young women.
That he can not find the empathy, is very telling in how he may rule.
9
@jabarry
"Too often the victim is victimized again by their family, friends and the courts, which often question their veracity, minimize the crime, validate the male culture of boys will be boys and put the victim's character on trial."
Professor Blasey went public with her accusal knowing she was putting her academic career at risk and that her quiet, anonymous, family's life would be turned upside down. To me, this gives her enormous credibility.
Going forward with the truth when you know you will be pilloried for it is the very definition of courage.
I had the pleasure of meeting Prof Hill some ten years after the hearings, and although I believed she was truthful at the time actually speaking with her made it crystal clear to me that she was a person of complete integrity. She has gone on to have a distinguished career as an academic. Thomas, on the other hand has shown himself time and again to be a person of dubious character, unable to think for himself, and personally enriching himself through his wife's ultra-conservative business activities. Then, as now, the only issue is a thoroughly corrupt Republican party.
63
Of course, there's no doubt that race played a factor in the Judge Thomas nomination, because this is America, where race plays a mighty role in everything.
I didn't believe him back then, and I still don't.
Mr. Thomas tried to play the vicitm when there was every evidence that he wasn't, and this ploy evidently worked -- Rodney King, or not.
It will be interesting to see if we've learned anything when it comes to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, but so far it looks we haven't.
And quite possibly again, the real victim will be judged guilty.
11
In my mind this is about whether Kavanaugh was the guy portrayed in the incident. Everyone on his side seems to imply he is and has always been a fine person who never could have done what he is accused of. I view him a s a teenager who was a heavy drinker who very well could have done what he is accused of. This is not about the man that he is. This is about who he was. And if he did something wrong, he should own up and be held accountable. And as to Dr. Ford, what she has had to endure since coming forward (and what she will face if Kavanaugh withdraws or is not confirmed) only reinforces why she was so reluctant to come forward in the first place and why witnesses won't "remember" what happened. Would you?
31
@Walking Man
Whether or not Kavanaugh was a "heavy drinker" in his teens years, he certainly was that night. His young brain, like other teens, was not likely ready for heavy drinking. None of that excuses his behavior.
We also know that some people experience blackouts while drunk even if they are not sleeping it off on the floor surrounded by their own vomit.
This the stuff of FBI investigation and should be thorougly reviewed.
1
I listened to or watched those hearings, and I had and have no doubt that Anita Hill was entirely truthful. She had nothing to gain by coming forward, other than bring vilified. And I think Christine Ford is in the same position. But the polls you cite in your piece — saying that a majority of African-Americans supported a radical conservative who has worked hard to roll back civil rights protections — is further proof of the problem with identity politics.
56
@Jonathan Ben-Asher....Hill did have a lot to gain: Revenge for having been unsuccessful in getting the government promotions and jobs she sought via repeated pleas directly to Thomas and indirectly through her other black bureaucrat connections "Come on, help a sister out..." And then there's the drama and attention-seeking motive that unfortunately some of us ladies have in excess. BTW, in case some hasten to categorize me, for all you know I might be in the "Me too" camp. The sad truth is, there's no tidy solution for things we don't like about the distant past!
1
Sorry, Mr. Blow but this is about the only time I disagree with you. Yes, the racial element is absent. But it will not be so easy simply because they are both white. It will not simply come down to which one of them will they believe. It will still come down to only one thing - a man's word especially one who is held in high regard by some, against that of any woman, regardless of her whiteness or color, regardless of how little or much she is regarded by others. And in this case, like Anita Hill, she will be judged whether or not she is being truthful by a group of mostly white men. Which way do we really think this is going to go?
92
I don’t see that what you say is in anyway at odds with the article
Would things be any different if her veracity were judged by, say, a body of all Hispanic men?
America’s new Supreme Court nominee legal precedent (applies only to conservatives): Guilt first, trial later. Note to record: conservatives of the Senate are white devils. Thank you.
In a strange alignment of stars, I agree with Richard and disagree with Charles! Richard is right when he says, "I can't imagine what she was thinking." He's right! He's clueless! So are many white men.
In a women's words, they cannot hear their courage, only folly. In women's story, they hear only their own fears, and deny women's truth.
Women often have values that often put key issues above their personal interest--women do not want to be raped; they are willing to sacrifice.
the Senate's white males rig an appearance to demean and embarrass the doctor and think this belittling will elevate the judge. Their strategy of shame has worked so long, they are blind and death to truth.
Herein is my disagreement with Charles: a powerful racial component is at work, more insidious then the one underlying the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill incident. White conservatives and mainstream or fringe white supremacists see any abandonment of the party narrative, any rejection of its ideology, any dissent as treason. They pursue any destructive path and use every rhetorical and social weapon to destroy dissenters, especially women.
The racial component of the gender violence issue has been used to divide white and black women and to keep white women silenced. White racism has its own internal police! It targets white women!
67
This is an interesting take. Hill had a tough road with the Thomas hearing. With the current case, if Ford lied the Dems will have a huge partisan issue on their hands and it will reverberate to the midterms. Let's just hope that Ford did not lie. I don't think she did.
9
It may be that one is telling the truth and that the other really doesn't remember, too. In the end, my guess is that the committee will "hear both sides," announce that Ford has not "proven" her case, say some nice things about what a good person Kavanaugh has been all these years, and confirm him in short order. Assuming her story is true & accurate (no reason to question her veracity, but I was not there) Ford will be left, yet again to deal with the new trauma of being harassed and abused by the fringe elements, online trolls, and haters. Kavanaugh will be sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice for life.
47
@Anne-Marie Hislop: It's reasonable to assume Kavanaugh doesn't remember. He was drunk. He was a party animal. If he did what Ford says he did, why would he remember just one more typical booze-up and failed "playfulness" with a woman? Ditto Mark Judge! To say they don't remember therefore it didn't happen, is like saying one was barefoot because one doesn't recall what shoes one wore decades ago.
6
@Anne-Marie Hislop...Absolutely correct. Senator after Senator will stand at the podium and unctiously proclaim, "She was heard, but I do not find her credible."
...and crush women, people of color, the poor, elderly, marginalized, the environment, workers, families...while giving away our country to billionaires and corporations....
3
It seems to me that a few days of judicious probing by the FBI could establish with a high degree of certainty whether Judge Kavanaugh has ever manifested a drinking problem.
180
@A. Stanton I was not aware that this accusation was that he had a drinking problem.
2
@A. Stanton If you are referring to a high school party 35 years ago, wasn't Ford also drunk? So, if that party is evidence of a "drinking problem", then maybe she also has a "drinking problem". And, I guess, so do millions of Americans who EVER got drunk at ANY party in high school or college.
@A. Stanton
Kavanaugh certainly had a peculiar problem with debt and baseball tickets.
4
The whole thing has struck me as largely clueless from the beginning. Unless Prof. Blasey Ford is supremely self-confident about her ability to be impressive before a large audience with decidedly opposed interests and with some skill at destroying those who attack those interests, then I can’t imagine what she was thinking when she sent that letter circuitously to Feinstein, who sat on it for months awaiting the perfect moment to toss a wrench into Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Did she NOT anticipate the need to defend such a charge publicly, when it’s been the only suggestion in a career of thirty years that Brett Kavanaugh is NOT a goody-two-shoes? (No, kiddies, your charges of “perjury” whose interpretation is monumentally self-interested don’t count.)
Regardless of what may have happened 35 years ago, I have little sympathy for her. If what she’s about to undergo is hellacious, then it’s certainly no more than Kavanaugh will undergo as the result of a 35-year-old sucker-punch. And no sane person with an IQ above room-temperature would have any reason to expect any OTHER outcome. This has nothing to do the traumatic outrage she may have suffered as a girl, but 35 YEARS? When it can’t be proved OR disproved at that remove? Hell, on average in the U.S., we only incarcerate RAPISTS for 9.8 years, with only 5.4 years actually served.
She never should have sent that letter after so many years remaining silent unless she had an ulterior political motive that she sought …
30
… to press with Feinstein. Republican senators will conclude the same political motive … and they will be merciless as a consequence. Tough.
But Charles should note that not everything in America is about race, despite his extraordinary efforts to link a controversy that involves only the well-heeled white-bread on both sides with all sorts of racially biased incidents. This controversy also bears little real similarity to the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill confrontation. One was a charge of repeated behavior of a sober adult with another sober adult, while the other is of a single claimed incident of a wildly drunken 17-year-old and a 15-year-old victim. 35 years ago.
26
@Richard Luettgen
Well, it seems pretty apparent that being drunk was sort of the normal condition for young Kavanaugh. And this alleged debauchery might not be a one-off.
I really don't think the general public wants goody two shoes on the SC, but OTOH, if these allegations are true, they go way past indiscretions that one should find acceptable for the position. You don't believe we can't do better?
19
@Richard Luettgen. “I can’t imagine what she was thinking when she sent that letter circuitously to Feinstein,”
No, you can’t. But that’s hardly a reason to dismiss her allegations so cavalierly.
What she may have been thinking was that a man who assaults women, even 35 years ago, shouldn’t be in a position to tell the rest of us how we must live our lives under law as a member of the highest court in the land. That makes perfect sense to me.
365
I have found it hard to imagine that anyone gives the modern Supreme Court any credibility or respect at all. I recall the election of 2000, stolen by the partisanship of 5 Supreme Court judges, who with their actions, demonstrated their utter contempt for democracy and the will of the American people. As I recall, at least 2 of those 5 judges were in a position of conflict of interest and should have recused themselves but did not. Scalia had a son who was working for the law firm representing the Bushes in Bush v Gore, and Thomas’ wife was working for the Heritage Foundation, vetting applicants seeking jobs in the Bush administration. Despite the fact that Al Gore was leading in the popular vote, and that the efforts by Jeb Bush to suppress black and brown votes in Florida were a national scandal, they voted to end the counting of the ballots at a point where Bush was leading in Florida by 59 votes. Even the Supreme Court itself recognized the absurdity of its decision and made it a point to say that the decision should not in any way be considered to be a precedent. Since then it has sunk to ever new lows in its decisions.
311
@Jack Shultz
Review your history, please. The ultimate ruling in 2000 by the Supreme Court halted counting of QUESTIONABLE ballots after the date the Florida legislature (that had the actual power to do so) set as the drop-dead date for the counting of ballots. The Florida State Supreme Court, dominated by Democratic jurists, ruled UNnconstitutionally (according to the FLORIDA state constitution) to continue counting those ballots in defiance of the legislature's lawful will, which was upheld as constitutional.
And the Supremes delivered a two-part ruling. The first part ruled 7-2 that the Florida State Supreme Court had indeed acted unconstitutionally in overruling the state legislature's will -- which means that two of the four NON-conservatives on the Court accepted that the Florida court was attempting to cook the books. The second part was the 5-4 ruling that halted the illegal counting of ballots. Apparently, those two liberal justices could see the illegality but disagreed on the obvious cure if it resulted in an outcome that favored a Republican. They might have served on the Florida State Supreme Court.
At no time in the counting of those questionable ballots did Gore lead the count.
13
@Richard Luettgen
The Florida Supreme Court ordered a full count statewide. If that occurred, Gore would have won.
Meanwhile, the Bush Justice Department failed to investigate the accusation that Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Kathleen Harris committed fraud (which was obvious) in striking potential Democratic voters. At a minimum, they had conflicts, but if guilty, they would have had top wear matching orange jump suits.
BTW Scalia had two sons, Gino and John, working for two separate firms representing Bush and the Republican Party and Thomas' wife was on the Bush transition team. Also, prior to the case, O'Connor told many people that she would not retire unless Bush won. All should have recused.
10
@DFS
You guys lost, in an election that easily and legitimately could have gone the other way. For instance, if Gore's own state of Tennessee had gone for him, he would have been elected president. You should try to get beyond it. I was a child when Teddy and Joe Kennedy, and LBJ and Richard J. Daley of Chicago stole the 1960 presidential election from Richard Nixon for JFK. But I became politically aware just a few years later and I got over THAT.
The 2000 Bush v. Gore decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court represented one of the few instances when a Democratic machine, having lost by the rules both candidates agreed to going in, didn't succeed with excuses based on their own ideologically-interested arguments, and turned the tables in their favor by changing the rules after the fact to benefit them.
Deal with this exception. You'll save a lot of stomach-lining. Better yet, become a moderate Republican, like me, and save your American soul.
2
Thank you Mr. Blow for staying true to form, column after column.
It's all about "identity politics."
You truly do see the world in black and white.
One refreshing difference between the late Justice Thurgood Marshall and yourself is that he was able to discern the "grays" between the extremes. Indeed, Justice Marshall was often in the majority on various social and economic controversies before the Court.
Truly great persons in human history are not ideological in essence but inspirational by their openness to new ideas and change.
Still waiting for this column to move forward from November 9, 2016.
24
@Jubilee133@ Jubilee, not only Charles Blow but the strange Newsletter called Race/Related is firmly committed to a belief that there are "races" and that even religion is a quasi race.
I have written countless times directly to Charles Blow and Race/Related suggesting that we humans do not fit in boxes. True, especially in America where the one-drop rule is faithfully followed, even by the USCB people must be put in boxes.
This is not to say that individuals the world over do not make instant judgments based on skin color, religion, language, nativity but that is plain old racism in all its many forms.
The Times recently had two interviews with Adrian Piper who is in exile in Germany, self chosen, in which she made clear that she had to leave America since for all too many of her fellow Americans, her intellectual brilliance and artistic accomlishments are not how they want to see her. They want to ask her "What is your race anyway?"
She is working on her own continuous gray scale, find her interviews and read them. Brilliant.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
@Jubilee133 This is a very odd comment on a column that criticizes black people for supporting Thomas based on identity politics.
We can all sit here and decide, based on our worldview, that either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh is telling the truth. It is unfortunately the case that we will likely never have evidence to verify or falsify the allegation. That means that justice may simply not be done. It is hard to accept that fact, but we should realize that sometimes we just don't know enough to proclaim "guilty" or "innocent." We should have evidence to convict a person in court or in the court of public opinion. My memory of the Hill testimony is that there was corroborating evidence. I certainly believed her. I will probably believe Dr. Ford when she testifies, given my views on the world. The whole thing depresses me on many levels. I can't feel the outrage many others feel because I can't honestly say I have an inkling of what did or did not happen.
12
@TvdV. This is not a court of law. Now, if Dr. Ford and the women who says she was assaulted by Kavanaugh at the college party and the women who Michael Avenatti is representing file charges against Kavanaugh, then we’ll know what legal proof can be found. Not one of these women has a thing to gain by coming forward, that is proof enough for me.
3
@TvdV Why would she lie? Why would she put herself through the incredible trauma of a Senate committee hearing for political purposes??? I am not surprised she does not recall date, time, and place of the event but has full recall of the event. I think we all have similar lack of memory post traumatic events. We remember much more often than we want to the incident itself: the fear, the loss of control, the horror of 'this can't be happening to me'. Many women have had similar experiences and never hare them even 25,30 or even 50 years later. The fact she is willing to share them under the spotlight of hostility and psychological and spiritual trauma leads me to the conclusion 'This event did take place; it is neither fabrication nor poor memory.'
2
Kavanuagh is comprised, lying goods without the sexual allegations. He needs to withdraw before he is voted down.
2
Blacks circled the wagon around the wrong black- Thomas not Hill, a black man not a black woman.
138
@PeterC
And old generals fight the last war. I wonder what war will be fought this week?
@PeterC
As the author recognises.
@PeterC Thanks peter, I tried to capture that at the end of a comment awaiting review. Odd that Blow did not see this.
Only-NeverINSweden.blogspot.com
Thomas Vs Hill, held the typical attitudes of politics, race and male privilege as dominant themes. But procedurally, that hearing displayed and followed a formal set of accepted rules and order. And thereby could be understood, accounted for and addressed from a viewpoint of public transparency and discussion. Our GOP government officials over decades have brazenly altered formal open public governance by favoring partisanship.
They’ve shown no respect for established law and order or reaching consensus, they’re radicals, thus there is no law and order. Like traveling down a highway at 100mph but the posted signs clearly read 70mph. Now imagine the same scenario but traffic enforcement officers are publicly known to be off-duty. But the rule is clearly known, so like Kavanaugh Vs Ford what we are witnessing makes no sense procedurally but it is also unnerving and frustrating. So what to do--Vote & Hope!
35
Mr. Blow’s points taken, I will note that Ms. Hill is also black.
So, as often been the case, the women (I greatly respect Ms. Hill, both as a individual and a person willing to risk making testimony) are forgotten, ignored, minimized. The language used by republicans devaluing Ms. Ford shows this pattern hasn’t changed.
170
@Tom Clifford
Dr. Ford has not been "devalued" in anything I have seen or read. Rather, her proposed evidence has been realistically evaluated. Unless the quality of Dr. Ford's evidence improves greatly at the hearing, it is still 36-year old recollections, full of missing detail, and lacking in corroboration. The picture of Judge Kavanaugh painted by Dr. Ford is at odds with a large body of character evidence showing Judge Kavanaugh's character to be overwhelmingly above reproach. A fair and objective evaluation of that evidence does not somehow devalue Dr. Ford as a person, it just leads to the conclusion that her narrative may not be sufficiently persuasive to undermine the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.
4
@Tom Clifford might I add, "and abused by again and again by Republican men".
1
I watched those hearings. I didn't remember the opinion poll numbers. Thomas used fiery language to push some buttons. I recently watched Sen. Robert Byrd's speech on the Senate floor at that time again. He was one of the few senators who saw through Thomas's theatrics and supported Anita Hill and voted against Thomas. He asked a simple question: "I believe Anita Hill....Why should I give the benefit of doubt to the nominee? I will give the benefit of doubt to the Court and the country.". He explained at length how a confirmation hearing is not a court case. No one has a right to a Supreme Court seat. By denying him a seat, the Senate was not taking away his current job. I hope that clarity of thought prevails now.
430
@Chandra Varanasi
Thanks so much for the reminder that The Law was something the Judiciary Committee at least tried to hold above person and party. Remember the agony House Judiciary Committee members of both parties publicly went through as they deliberated about Nixon in 1974?
I believe Sen. Byrd was one of the few people serving in either house (maybe the only one) who attended law school after being elected.
22
@Chandra Varanasi, (a) Hooray for Sen. Byrd, and (b) he did recover from being a Klan member.
1
I hope when Dr. Ford testifies she tells her story with honest feeling and emotion. The Dems always like to sound reasonable and moderate, and if that's the advice she gets I'm afraid it will water down the power of her story. Let her tell it the way she feels it and she will be able to reach people's hearts. If she speaks in the preferred flat, bland, reasonable Democratic tone as if she's speaking about the weather, or some other mundane topic, she will forfeit the significance of what happened to her. It was monumental and traumatic, let her tell it so. Not hysterically, but with everything she feels about it.
33
I'm beginning to wonder at this point if the Democrats really care about the truth? Is that the real issue? If the FBI were to find strong evidence implicating Kavanaugh in a crime, Democrats would oppose him. If there were a muddled mix of accusations Democrats would oppose him. If Kavanaugh were completely vindicated, Democrats would oppose him. Lets be honest. Everyone's mind...Republicans too... was made up long before these proceedings began. The coming testimony will not matter except as political theater. Because of the passage of time, it will be a he said she said dispute. We will never know the whole truth. It's not possible. We all know that. Isn't this at the end of the day about keeping a conservative jurist off SCOTUS by any means necessary?
14
@Bill Brown, at least you're right that many Senators have already made up their minds. It's odd that you mostly target the Democrats as not caring about the truth, given that the Republicans are in charge of the Judiciary Committee, the ones who worked to keep information about Judge Kavanaugh's work secret -- and it's the Republicans who say that Professor Ford's request to call other witnesses is a "nonstarter." This unwillingness to allow testimony from any additional witness(es) indicates that there is no interest in searching for the truth. I recognize that it's not likely that we will know the absolute truth about the alleged incident even after the hearing, but the Republicans in charge of these Senate Judiciary Committee decisions on this aren't even pretending that they want to learn the truth.
7
@Bill Brown: I'm a democrat and I would not oppose a principled conservative. But I think Kavannaugh is a liar. I think he did assault Ford and I think he had emails illegally hacked from democratic senators and used them to further his party's agenda. We should really try to keep such people off the highest court in the land.
@Bill Brown They could always nominate someone else, someone better qualified for the position, a less extreme conservative - someone like Merrick Garland for instance. Remember him?
7
Let's no forget the role of Mitch McConnell.
First he held off hearings for Merrick Garland. Unheard of.
Then as soon as Trump took office, he changed the threshold need to be confirmed from 60 to 51.
Without that neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh would be on the Supreme Court.
History will not remember McConnell kindly.
898
@Independent
It is interesting that we make much of the change in Senate practice from 60 to 51 votes to confirm, but ..... Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate by a vote of 52 to 48. How did that happen if McConnell only recently changed the policy ? Seems like that part of the Senate rules must change back and forth from time to time.
6
@patrick The answer is simple. There was a 60-vote threshold to end debate. Aka the filibuster. McConnell took that away for judicial nominees. It was around in 1992. The difference is that Democrats were willing to end debate and vote.
10
Patrick - It has to do with the filibuster rule. If Dems had wanted badly enough to block Thomas, they could have initiated a filibuster, a process of endless debate that blocks a vote. It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. That’s the key to that number. Clearly Dems had no stomach to filibuster a black nominee, so the simply didn’t arise. McConnell has changed it to simple majority, so there’s no filibuster rule in play. Doing this has been euphemistically referred to as “the nuclear option.” Not to defend it at all, but if memory serves, the Dems used it to get Obamacare passed, adding to the intensity of Republicans’ resentment of that law.
14
If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the real price will be paid by us with 35 years of a conservative Kavanaugh voting to reduce women's rights, reduce minority voting rights, and to increase the advantages begun by Citizens United.
272
Thank you, Charles.
Decades later I am still appalled by the miscarriage of justice at the hearings for Justice Thomas. Other women wanted to testify that Thomas had sexually harassed or groped them. But the Senate committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, all men, did not permit them to do so. His Yale law school classmates wanted to testify that Thomas had been obsessed with pornography when he was a student there. But the committee did not permit them to testify. Professor Hill's eloquent and fair-minded editorial that appeared earlier this week in this paper speaks to her courage and brilliance. Thomas's performance on the Supreme Court speaks for itself.
532
@Robert
Nobody caught the fact that when Thomas was the Chair of the EEOC, he let age discrimination cases die due to the lapse of the statute of limitations as a matter of policy. In his confirmation testimony, he lied about it.
His position is that the ADEA is not enumerated by the 14th Amendment and therefore age is not entitled to constitutional protection.
As a justice, he has ruled accordingly.
11
@DFS
Thank you for your reply. I was not aware that Thomas had taken those actions vis-à-vis age discrimination, or had lied about it during the hearings.
@DFS
Thanks for your reply. I was not aware of that.
Back in October 1991, I was riveted to the TV when Anita Hill testified at the Clarence Thomas hearings. In fact, the day after he was confirmed I had a dream, in which Justice Thomas served on the Supreme Court for nearly 30 years and retired. More importantly, in his retirement letter, he apologized to Anita Hill and finally admitted that she had told the truth. I am waiting to see if my dream comes true in the 2019-21 timeframe.
Nonetheless, I am not sure this week’s hearings when Christine Blasey Ford testifies at the Brett Kavanaugh hearings will be as riveting. Republican senators will ensure that they don’t become a circus, as Majority Leader McConnell has guaranteed that he will “plow right through” to get Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. The question is will I have to wait another 30 years for Kavanaugh to fess up or will he just withdraw before Thursday?
38
@Jack Nargundkar
Never mind Clarence Thomas apologizing to anyone; that is never going to happen. But what about Joe Biden? He owes a direct and personal apology to Anita Hill and has never had the courage to do this. So what makes him think wh has the wherewithal to lead our country as president?
3
@Katy J
I could be wrong but I am fairly certain that I've seen interviews recently with both Hill and Biden in which both have acknowledged that he has apologized to her directly for the treatment she received before the committee. I can't recall where I saw it, but I do believe that has happened already. And justifiably so, as Biden has also acknowledged Ms. Hill's unfair treatment.
However much public sympathy and support Dr. Ford has, the deck is still stacked against her.
Republicans, right up to Trump, have already publicly discredited her.
Her testimony will be heard, but she is going through the motions. The questioners she will face are no more interested in what she has to say than Donald Trump ever really was.
Kavanaugh, incidentally, seems to believe he can exonerate himself by submitting a 1982 calendar (supposedly authentic) in which the party in question is not listed. Seriously? As if he might not have wanted his parents to get wind of this? Or as if the gathering might not have been planned out much in advance? But it's not going to be scrutinized anyway.
That he will be found innocent is a forgone conclusion. If Republicans were so determined to put a conservative justice on the High Court that they would brazenly steal one, they're not just about to let Dr. Ford stand in their way.
68
I remember watching the Clarence Thomas hearing. I was in highschool and just starting to pay attention to politics. The only person who tried to make it about race was Clarence Thomas. He needed a defense that would guilt the American people into supporting him rather than taking Anita Hill's accusations seriously and racism has always been our Achilles heel.
What I remember most about the hearing was the parade of women who testified on Clarence Thomas's behalf. I didn't know until later that there were other accusers who could have backed up Anita Hill and given her testimony more credence. Professor Hill showed incredible dignity despite the truly appalling questions that the all male panel asked her.
The Clarence Thomas hearing was always about patriarchy. The women's rights movement was still working on ensuring that women were treated equally. The Senate went out of their way to make it clear that men would always be in charge and if it came down to he said/she said the man would always win.
Then as now they will fight dirty if they need to in order to ensure that women remember their place is always second to men. We're about to find out if the #metoo movement has really changed anything. Or if we're still living in a boy's will be boys world.
242
@Ami-Agreed. The Clarence Thomas hearing made me physically ill. In a just world, Anita Hill would be a sitting Justice, and Thomas would be footnote.
78
@Ami Speak for yourself Smi. Just because men think women are 2ndvplace does not make it true!
"Credible" is in the eye of the beholder. It is quite a coincidence that both Anita Hill and Ms. Ford have found their professional niche in Academia. It is common knowledge that most universities are bastions of liberal thought. It is not too hard to imagine that rewards in that milieu can flow to those who are poster persons.
6
@James Schwarzwalder Your causal analysis is backwards. You may as well claim that Wall Street is a "bastion of conservative thought".
It's not that universities only hire people with liberal views; it's that scepticism, enlightenment values and iconoclasm tend to flow to academia than, for example, to business.
To generalize, right-wingers tend to build companies and amass wealth, and left-wingers tend to build theories and write books.
As for credibility, I prefer those that recognize and value such things as facts, truth and the scientific method. People who deny proven realities for the sake of a bottom line or re-election are not to be trusted.
214
@James Schwarzwalder Anita Hill was a Republican! I have no idea if she still is, but she was when she worked with Thomas and i think she still was when she testified.
9
@James Schwarzwalder Perhaps you don't know what a coincidence is, but people with Dr. Hill's and Dr. Ford excel in fields of study where most employment is in academia.
7
There's another, rather important, difference between the Clarence Thomas case and the current one. Thomas was accused of having made offensive comments commensurate with sexual harassment while he was an adult- and during a period nearly contemporaneous with his Supreme Court hearing. He was also apparently sober at the time that his alleged behavior was manifested. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, was a drunken minor at the time he did or didn't attempt to force himself on Ms. Ford. I'm not suggesting that such conduct should be excused. Assuming that the incident did occur, Judge Kavanaugh should have acknowledged it and apologized to the young woman- preferably then and certainly now. On the other hand, how many of us could pass with flying colors the test posed by Jesus' admonishment: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"? Kavanaugh's nomination should be defeated on the basis of the judicial record he's compiled as an adult on such issues as reproductive rights, corporate law and union activity. His misbehavior as an inebriated kid (even assuming that Ms. Ford is entirely accurate in her stated recollections) should hardly be considered a comparable disqualifying factor.
20
@stu freeman. Are you kidding? Here is a man who was old enough to know better at age 17 and chose to abuse women. And you think he should get a pass because he was young and drunk? For a position on the highest court for a lifetime. And he will be making decisions impacting women who he has shown in the past not to respect? Good grief.
339
@Janice Badger Nelson: "Old enough to know better at age 17"? Who determines that? I did lots of stupid things at that age, albeit not of the same variety- as did most of the rest of us. If Kavanaugh's misdeed was part of a pattern, or was something he repeated as an adult, I'd certainly agree with you. In any case, I'm averse to this nomination on other grounds and, hence, I'm not going to argue militantly or otherwise that his youthful misconduct should be disregarded. If this is what gets senators like Collins and Flake to vote in opposition, that's good enough for me.
2
@stu freeman
There really is a split here, where it almost seems that to find ford believavle, you have to have either gone through a similar experience or been close to some one who has. Drinking too much, pressuring girls to go further, perhaps regretting having gone too far -- typical. An older guy holding a girl down, while he grinds on top of her, with a friend egging him on - that's not normal exploration. Or just one of those things. If he did do this - living his life without any remorse, and not having the guts to admit being less than perfect: that troubles me greatly.
And why it is so "impossible" to do any investigation? I simply don't believe it would be impossible to find anyone who had known them back then. We have some reportage from people who describe her behavior as changing radically. And rumors that his "friend" was a teenage alcoholic who can;t remember anything -- this being off record. A gathering of circumstantial material might not provide clear and convincing evidence - but how can anyone assume that without searching? It's funny, but I remember tha people who wanted to join the Peace Corps were subject to background checks which would have picked up things like this . .
I am repeating others and myself: a 30 year or so, lifetime appointment to the country's highest court should not be done until the vetting is complete. And the question is: is Kavanaugh an honest man?
119
I completely agree with Blow's assessment.
Whether or not Kavanaugh is confirmed, the Republicans will and should pay a political price for their behavior in this matter. Among women, all but the most "tribal" whites are likely to be upset by it.
The situation with Thomas was indeed complicated by race in a truly ironic way. His nomination to replace Marshall was the height of cynicism.
But, as I recall, the elder Bush and the G.O.P. paid a price for it when he failed to get reelected. His putting Thomas on the Supreme Court was one of the main reasons why my support went to Clinton in 1992.
134
There's also one distinct similarity between the two. In both cases, (some) women were more interested in protecting a perpetrator they identified with than in supporting the dignity and humanity of female victims.
111
I watched that grilling of Anita Hill. I didn't see race, however. I just saw another woman who was trying to explain how some men of power can mistreat us over and over. And no one cares.
When I was sexually harassed at a job, my boss actually told me I should be "flattered". Seriously? I am so done with entitled men thinking they can get away with this crap.
937
@Janice Badger Nelson
I watched too. I heard and felt the pain of being treated like an object and being made to feel dirty for having to listen and then fend off.
But what I heard in those hearings was the unmistakable language that white men reserve for intelligent and accomplished Black women. It was the kind of language that, had Dr. Hill been white, none of them would have dared use.
There is a compilation of some of the worst statements that were made to Dr. Hill's face during the Thomas hearing. It's really hard to watch.
https://www.rimaregas.com/2018/09/22/rapists-have-tiger-mothers-too-kava...
30
@Janice Badger Nelson I was a single mother supporting two small girls in the early 1980s. When I spoke to my boss about being passed over for promotion several times at work by less qualified male candidates, he told me to "just get married again."
4
@Janice Badger Nelson. My vivid memory of watching the grilling of Anita Hill was a real life horror show. I see it on par w/ the OJ Simpson circus trial in which he walked away a free man for a brutal double murder following a lifelong history of abusing women, note they were women of all colors....in both cases it was not an issue of racism, not at all, it was pure sexism concerned only with protecting a famous/celebrated/powerful misogynistic man. Not race based at all. I am disgusted every time I see Clarence Thomas sulky face and the actions of his radical far right enabling wife...he should not be a Justice. Let's not allow yet another forced choice and let's stand w/ the women who come forward to speak their truth, the same truth that most women experience and apparently is considered normal....it is not normal but it is common and we need to stop tolerating abuse by males against females in our culture. Since women make up more the 50% of the population that should be reflected on our SCOTUS, so we need a highly qualified woman like the incredible Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the bench, not yet another lying abusive sexist guy w/ big ambitions who poses as a decent honest upstanding man when the reality is far from that carefully constructed false image. Kavanaugh is not fit for public service or living on the public's dime.
2
While this piece correctly sets the national context for the Thomas hearings, it should also be mentioned that at least the FBI investigated Anita Hill's charges and interviewed other witnesses - from that vantage point, it is again thrown into high relief just how radical are the current Rightist GOP'er Senators on the Judiciary Committee, and Leader McConnell.
Sometimes radicals wear suits and ties.
" If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy. " - David Frum, former Dubya speechwriter
" The state of our union is lawless " - Eric Swalwell (D-Ca), Jan. 30 2018
408
@R. Law: I can remember the treatment of Anita Hill and I can remember the beating of Mr. King. Where I live now the problem still exists. No police officer in Seattle has been convicted of murder in more than 40 years. I would never be able to be a police officer nor would I want to be. I respect the police but I am white and have never had a problem with the police where I live. What interests me is that my wife was charged with speeding in a column of traffic and the officer said "I picked you out because you were driving a red car that I could follow thru the traffic."
Incidentally, we do not have a gun of any sort in our house or anywhere else. As amateur astronomers we carry bear spray for whatever good that might do on a mountain side in our area.
When a woman claims to have been assaulted by some man I believe her. In my opinion Dr. Ford must be taken seriously no matter how long ago she was assaulted. Mr. Kavanaugh has significant record of having abused alcohol in his early years. I am sure he has absolutely no memory of what occurred that day. I also doubt he has any meaningful record of this behavior that day.
73
@Tlaw - Not quite sure how your comment addresses what we had to say, but nothing of the way you describe Kavanaugh inspires confidence in his 'judicial temperament.'
24
I find it interesting that with Kavanaugh having had such a drinking issue that that’s not being checked out now too.
16
Strength be with Dr. Ford to keep her posture firm and head high, just like Dr. Hill; both of whom could have or could still say, “ain’t I a woman,” and this time be listened too because there’s so much more, there’s no color among Soul Sisters, and we need women to rise (not raise) men.
88
With news just breaking (9:29 Sunday night) that another woman has come forward, the issue about what unites and distinguishes Thomas and Kavanaugh may become a moot point.
What remains unified and the same: Women are fed-up with a system that bends over backwards to "protect" the accused rather than those who allege harm and wrongdoing. There has to be a way to protect the dignity of those who bring charges or no one brings charges.
552
@AhBrightWings. Looks like Kegger Kavanaugh isn't a choir boy after all. The FBI needs to investigate. Now that the rock has been turned over there are likely to be a few more snakes that slither out. And the snakes are Kegger's alleged conduct, not the women making the charges. They need to be heard.
1
Race and gender. Power and equity. Progress or regression.
The stakes could not be higher than they were in the Thomas hearings or are now. The Senate’s actions at this time have the potential to impact the trajectory of our country, for good or for ill. Hold that thought if you can, Republicans, in tension with all of your political ambitions.
36
The polygraph everyone uses,
For hiring its use none refuses,
Inaccurate? Really?
Then why use it freely?
For attempted rape? It confuses.
Ms Ford passed a polygraph test
As an expert’s ready to attest,
Will Kavanaugh volunteer?
I hear a Bronx cheer,
He’s playing it close to the vest.
196
@Larry Eisenberg
Larry, you should really publish a collection of your poems.
I am way out of date, but I worked closely as an Air Force officer in support of CIA programs in the 1970s. Back then, I believe every CIA employee required a polygraph test.
@Larry Eisenberg
A polygraph has a false positive rate approaching 50% - if you don't know what a false positive is the you really should not be opining about polygraphs in general.
1
"One of these people is lying". I would say this isn't necessarily the case. It was a long time ago and as many people who have been in terrible and assault situations can attest: memories of extreme events are often inaccurate, especially if alcohol was involved and long periods of time doesn't help. This is not to say Professor Ford is telling a made up story. It is to point out you are taking loberties to make your central point.
31
@David Major
It's interesting that no one seems to be suggesting the possibility that, under the influence of alcohol and what may have been a traumatic experience for a 17 year old boy, perhaps Kavanaugh's "memory" that this didn't happen is the one that is not accurate.
6
@David Major, there was an excellent op ed piece in the New York Times a few days ago by a psychiatrist about the phenomenon of traumatic memory. According the the author, traumatic memory is often highly accurate, and it doesn't fade over time. I think people who are assaulted by people they know don't misremember who attacked them.
It may be that Brett Kavanaugh truly doesn't remember the incident because it wasn't traumatic to him--but I doubt it. That list of 65 women attesting to his character in high school was ready to go the same day the accuser came forward. I think he knew he had a potential problem.
On the other hand, I think it's likely that Dr. Ford remembers very clearly.
15
@David Major Actually research shows that memories of extreme events are retained with a level of detail and accuracy that non-traumatic memories rarely are.
6
Christine Blasey Ford has nothing to lose by coming forward with her charge of criminal behavior 36 years earlier by a man who aspires to be the next Court justice. Even a few Republican Senators have told their leaders to slow down and listen to this woman. She just might be telling the truth.
Anita Hill had no such support among Republican Senators in 1991. Hill's accusations were a "he said-she said" issue between two black adults. If Hill's testimony won out over Thomas' denials, the GOP would simply have moved on to another nominee. Thomas had his chance. But George H. W. Bush wanted no doubts about his pick and ordered an FBI investigation that concluded in a matter of a few days.
Ms. Blasey Ford is already deemed as highly credible. She took and passed a polygraph exam, something Kavanaugh hasn't done yet, and she has a tremendous amount of public sympathy going for her, which wasn't the case for Ms. Hill 27 years ago.
Republicans don't want their nominee to be thwarted at the last minute but they'll grudgingly listen to Ms. Blasey Ford. They have to because the whole country is watching.
150
I think that there is an additional reason Ms. Ford may have more public support than did Ms. Hill, and that is the set of circumstances which compelled each woman to testify against Kavanaugh and Thomas, respectively. Not everyone has experienced or even witnessed workplace harassment, and so they can dismiss it. But a situation where an inebriated teenage boy forced himself on a girl, is, sadly, something that resonates for a lot of us, regardless of race, wealth or other identifiers.
29
@silver vibes, the whole world is watching, holding its collective breath. Women everywhere.
4
@silver vibes
Your counsel to slow down is especially important. The very fact that the majority of GOP men have already signaled that they have no intention of changing their minds is prima facie evidence of wrong doing...theirs.
To admit in public that you have already made up your mind BEFORE the hearings is to signal that you do not believe in due process or rule of law. They are in contempt of court, the court of public opinion but also of common procedural process.
The very fact that they want to bring in a woman to question her means they literally are not capable of executing their job. Pathetic. At every turn, these men signal that they are not fit for office. It's time they were voted out.
There are other important differences between the Thomas and Kavanaugh cases. First, we have the benefit of 27 years' hindsight, despite which the Republicans on the judiciary committee have learned nothing, which itself indicts their judgment.
Secondly, Thomas was not publicly known to have other skeletons in his cupboard other than for Anita Hill's accusation. Before Dr. Blasey Ford came forward, Kavanaugh's appoitnment was being waved through, despite serious evidence that he had perjured himself in past confirmation hearings.
In other words, he looked untrustworthy independently of Dr; Ford's allegations.
676
@mancuroc And those loans, paid off suddenly and mysteriously. Why is no one curious about those? Season tickets? Wow.
3
@mancuroc,
As we near Halloween with skeletons and ghouls, let us also remember that Mr. Clarence Thomas was in possession of a wife and he did not keep her in the attic.
The Republicans fear the possible loss of the Senate, so they want to push Kavanaugh through with minimal scrutiny. They are walking a narrow line though, since they could increase the odds of Democratic victories by being too harsh on Dr. Blasey Ford. I expect them to question her gently, question him gently, then move to a vote. The Republicans hope Trump will do something between now and the election to move the spotlight off this episode.
80
@MEM Perhaps he will withdraw from the UN?
@MEM They - and Putin - both hoped it when you wrote that, and now Look! A chicken! I mean: Look! Rod Rosenstein!
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, had Anita Hill been white, her treatment would have been more deferential, even though she would also have been blamed and Thomas would still have been seated on the court.
Conversely, had Dr. Ford been Black, we would expect to see Grassley, et al. behaving just as their predecessors did, asking the most insulting and racist questions about her motives.
Not that I don't expect them to treat Ford with kid gloves. They probably won't. These are the same men who cackle at the notion that she might have been wounded by Kavanaugh's attempt at rape. These are the same men who, like Trump, will say that if she didn't go to police, it couldn't have been that bad, knowing full well that rich people's kids don't call the cops. The girls just get to see a shrink and learns to suck it up. That's patriarchy for ya!
Then, there is the "calendar" that Kavanaugh just proffered. On the one hand, we shouldn't hold youthful behaviors against him (I guess even attempted rape), because he wasn't an adult.
Now we're asked to take the calendar of a teen who parties as writ?
What do these people take us for?
---
Rapists Have Tiger Moms, Too: Kavanaugh, Rape Culture and SCOTUS
https://www.rimaregas.com/2018/09/22/rapists-have-tiger-mothers-too-kava...
353
@Rima Regas
These entitled men, once entitled boys, are finally being given their comeuppance. The one thing that makes all of us women equal, whether we are black, white, short, tall, etc....is that we have had enough of this.
457
@Janice Badger Nelson
Amen!
10
@Janice Badger Nelson
"These entitled men, once entitled boys, are finally being given their comeuppance."
The problem is, they have not been given their comeuppance. Clarence Thomas still sits on the U.S. Supreme Court, 27 years later. And Donald Trump sits in the White House.
We can be hopeful that this time may be different. But we are not there yet. And I'm not terribly optimistic that this time will be different.
36