Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

Guy Incognito said:

That doesn't change the fact that he ought to be impeached.

I wonder if you'd be so complacent if this were Sotomayor instead of Thomas...

Click to expand...

Wrong-you want him impeached because you are a far lefty. You use this non issue to try to smear a man whose legal opinions you don't like

Guy Incognito said:

:roll: Yeah, right. I suppose "they" made Virginia Thomas call up Anita Hill demanding an apology? The fact is Clarence Thomas brought this on himself, and he's lucky he has right-wing support to mindlessly defend him.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen in this thread, it's Thomas's "defenders" on the left and right who are making cogent and reasonable points while Thomas's attackers on the left are acting frantic.

Guy Incognito said:

See what I mean about the mindless support? You don't need a crime to impeach a SCOTUS Justice, they serve during "good behavior." I'd say this qualifies as bad behavior.

Click to expand...

....under what cobbled together layman's interpretation of a legal standard?

This woman's claims could be summarized as follows: "He liked porn and talked about how he liked chicks with big tits. In light of that, I think that maybe he did hit on Anita Hill."

PSA: That's not "evidence of bad behavior.

I'm just taking McEwen at her word that she was motivated by the phone.

Click to expand...

And that wouldn't make much sense, considering that she already has a manuscript written that she's been shopping to publishers. Unless you think she wrote the book in the two days between the phone call and this story, she obviously wasn't motivated by the phone call.

I've made up my mind, but not unshakably.

Click to expand...

Yea, it's those of us on the right who are just seeing what we want to see.

Those rose colored glasses are cool. I bet they feel real good. Clarence Thomas is a scumbag asshole who demonstrably hit on the women within his organization. We're well past allegation, this piece of **** victimized every woman within his control.

Chappy said:

Those rose colored glasses are cool. I bet they feel real good.

Click to expand...

Thus spake the objective and entirely unbiased chappy.

Clarence Thomas is a scumbag asshole who demonstrably hit on the women within his organization.

Click to expand...

I don't think "demonstrably" is the word you're looking for.

We're well past allegation, this piece of **** victimized every woman within his control.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're convinced that that's true.

Chappy said:

Those rose colored glasses are cool. I bet they feel real good. Clarence Thomas is a scumbag asshole who demonstrably hit on the women within his organization. We're well past allegation, this piece of **** victimized every woman within his control.

Click to expand...

wow this is some serious racist psychoboabble and close to being slander.

RightinNYC said:

....under what cobbled together layman's interpretation of a legal standard?

This woman's claims could be summarized as follows: "He liked porn and talked about how he liked chicks with big tits. In light of that, I think that maybe he did hit on Anita Hill."

Click to expand...

Is that a serious question? The "good behavior" standard has been held by the courts to be identical to the "high crimes and misdemeanors standard." Therefore if Clarence Thomas lied under oath during his confirmation hearings (And McEwen, whatever her motivation, is new evidence that Thomas did lie) then there is precisely as much to move against him for an impeachment as there was against Bill Clinton, whom I also supported impeaching. If you supported one you must support the other. Unless you're a hypocrite, that is.

Guy Incognito said:

Is that a serious question? The "good behavior" standard has been held by the courts to be identical to the "high crimes and misdemeanors standard."

Click to expand...

The "layman's standard" line is referring to your description of what constitutes evidence.

Therefore if Clarence Thomas lied under oath during his confirmation hearings (And McEwen, whatever her motivation, is new evidence that Thomas did lie)

Click to expand...

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any less false. Even if we pretend that McEwen is 100% credible, that doesn't do anything to prove that he harassed Hill.

then there is precisely as much to move against him for an impeachment as there was against Bill Clinton, whom I also supported impeaching. If you supported one you must support the other. Unless you're a hypocrite, that is.

Click to expand...

You really don't see a difference between someone who admitted perjuring himself and someone who you claim (without evidence) perjured himself 19 years ago?

It's really quite easy to distinguish between the two.

RightinNYC said:

The "layman's standard" line is referring to your description of what constitutes evidence.



You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any less false. Even if we pretend that McEwen is 100% credible, that doesn't do anything to prove that he harassed Hill.



You really don't see a difference between someone who admitted perjuring himself and someone who you claim (without evidence) perjured himself 19 years ago?

It's really quite easy to distinguish between the two.

Click to expand...

The Thomas haters have no clue about "material fact" or statute of limitations or "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

And I thought Goldline commercials sucked.....