In his book and a series of interviews, Clarence Thomas is going around calling Anita Hill a liar.
Do you think there’s any chance she might sue?
She’d never win, of course. But it could make for an ugly set of depositions — and unlike interviews, it may not be so easy to refuse to discuss specifics.
Just ask Bill Clinton.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Powered by WordPress.
As I recall, that strategy got Alger Hiss in a mess o’ trouble.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (d55cc7) — 10/1/2007 @ 5:36 amNaw…if she’s heard from at all, she’ll do a John Kerry.
Darleen (187edc) — 10/1/2007 @ 6:00 amOf course ANITA HILL is a liar why else did the liberal left-wing news media pay so much attention to her
krazy kagu (fbcc60) — 10/1/2007 @ 6:24 amWill she sue? Possibly. Did it make any sense for Justice Thomas to do this? No, not really. the lefty nuts will coninue to believe her, while sensible people on the right will not. This was a sleeping dog who should have been left alone.
Dana (3e4784) — 10/1/2007 @ 6:30 amShe could sue but except for monetary gain it wouldn’t do much good. Thomas is not an elected official. Civil cases can be drug out for years if one has a good lawyer.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/1/2007 @ 6:41 amDana, he couldn’t have written a memoir without dealing with it, could he?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (d55cc7) — 10/1/2007 @ 6:42 amI can see how Thomas might feel that he was never vindicated and possibly even let down by his own supporters at the time. My poor memory recalls fragments of an interview given by Alan Simpson, his sponsor before the Judiciary Committee, that strongly implied that Thomas was told “t’s up to you to make your case” — if not “you’re on your own” — which led to the “high-tech lynching” speech.
On our host’s question, if Anita Hill is half the lawyer she is reputed to be she will not sue. But “[w]ho can mark the limits of night … or the moods of a woman”?
nk (7d4710) — 10/1/2007 @ 6:53 amThomas said on “60 Minutes” last night that his grandfather told him never to look a white woman in the eye. So he looked at a black woman — and look at the trouble it got him into.
Now he’s married to a white woman.
Thomas presided over Rush Limbaugh’s last failed marriage.
David Ehrenstein (b35c9c) — 10/1/2007 @ 7:20 amonly ms. hill knows what her future litigation plans are.
she’d never win, of course.
it’s an uphill row, of course, but i don’t like to say never or always about court things. 9/12 makes a civil jury verdict in california, and in san francisco and los angeles you can find nine men (or women) good and true who will buy any proposition whatsoever you care to sell to them.
i disagree with voice of reason “but except for monetary gain, it wouldn’t do much good.” paula jones v. bill clinton wasn’t about monetary gain so much as flinging so much poo at a hated defendant that he would eventually drown in it. paula’s lawyers were allowed to ask clinton about all his sex partners going back to before he was governor of arkansas. there are patient, calculating liberal organizations analagous to paula’s shadowy backers who could engineer a suit against thomas just to hear what might come out of those ugly depositions and to tarnish thomas’s image and moral authority. i’m cool with the politics of personal destruction as long as it’s someone i disagree with being destroyed.
assistant devil's advocate (81859b) — 10/1/2007 @ 7:46 amWith a Maryland or D. C. jury, she very easily could win. You are naive if you don’t think so.
PrestoPundit (a2369b) — 10/1/2007 @ 8:30 amADC,
She could tarnish his reputation through innuendo as you mentioned but his lifetime appointment makes him a sort of useless target for his detractors.
voiceofreason (7df17c) — 10/1/2007 @ 8:50 amI don’t like those kind of suits, regardless of who the defendant is but think Thomas is plenty strong enough to withstand the publicity.
I remember watching much of the hearings. My thoughts at the time: if she wasn’t lying, she was a woman scorned and then used by the opposition to Justice Thomas’ confirmation.
PatAZ (56a0a8) — 10/1/2007 @ 9:00 amOh no!
A Ms. Hill lawsuit just might prevent Supreme Court Justice Thomas from any further advancement.
jim2 (6482d8) — 10/1/2007 @ 9:34 amI am currently listening to Justice Thomas being interviewed by Rush and am inclined to believe that whether or not Hill sues, he is and will remain a man of dignity and strength and and would be able to weather yet another storm from Hill. But hopefully she’s satisfied with her pound of flesh and moved on.
Dana (b4a26c) — 10/1/2007 @ 9:53 amMaybe he wants her to sue.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 10/1/2007 @ 10:00 amTHere’s not much more Hill could say at this point to harm Thomas. As for Thomas, he called her a liar back then, too. Or does “That didn’t happen” and “I don’t know why she’s making this up” mean something else than “she’s lying.”
She won’t sue, just like Metzenbaum and Kennedy didn’t sue after being called a lynch mob.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 10/1/2007 @ 10:03 amSpin out the scenario, folks. Thomas is deposed. He says something that Hill’s team proves is a lie — or even, finds evidence that partisans can use to *argue* he lied. Impeachment proceedings are initiated. Democrats who said it was OK for Clinton to lie about sex, vote to impeach Thomas. Hillary Clinton appoints his replacement.
Patterico (e09e0c) — 10/1/2007 @ 11:06 amPatterico,
Thanks. Hadn’t thought of that. Heaven forbid it would come to pass. The country has already politicized the SC far too much in the last twenty years.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/1/2007 @ 11:11 amThe scenario you described would take it to a new level of lows.
If Hillary’s President and there are 67 Democrats on the Senate, Thomas’s impeachment would be the least of our worries.
nk (7d4710) — 10/1/2007 @ 11:16 amPatterico #17,
Everything you say could occur because Justice Thomas has reopened these issues in his book and interviews. Is that your point, that Justice Thomas has reopened old wounds that could cause him problems?
DRJ (ec59b5) — 10/1/2007 @ 11:32 am#17. But of course you are correct – and we would be utter fools to not expect this.
“Democrats who said it was OK for Clinton to lie about sex, vote to impeach Thomas.”
Dana (b4a26c) — 10/1/2007 @ 11:43 am#17 Scary scenario.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 10/1/2007 @ 12:52 pmBut why do the Dems need Anita Hill to impeach Thomas? Note that Media Matters recently lied, and the MSM has dutifully repeated, lies about Rush’s and O’Reilly’s recorded conversations. Consequently, Media Matters can easily spin a few lies out of the 15-17 year old events as a basis for Dems impeaching Thomas.
The only saving grace about the impeachment process is that it requires 2/3 of the senate to vote to impeach, unless I’m misreading the explanations. Pretty tall order to fill at this point in time.
voiceofreason (41831e) — 10/1/2007 @ 2:20 pm‘Democrats who said its ok to lie about sex.’
No they just thought a multi year and multi million dollar investigation concerning everything Clinton ending up being about lies over a blow job was a bit much.
What did Gingrich say? ‘He stole all our ideas!’
You run a class act Pat. Such nice people.so respectful towards women.
blah (db3598) — 10/1/2007 @ 3:14 pmNo mention of the pentagon fraud investigation yet I see.
No mention of the pentagon fraud investigation yet I see.
Blah?
There’s a thing called a blog.
Ever hear of them?
You can get your own personal one, and enjoy complete freedom to discuss anything you want.
Including any Pentagon fraud investigations.
Paul (e4a0a7) — 10/1/2007 @ 3:24 pmJustice Thomas disputed Hill’s allegations when they were made. There was nothing new in the “60 Minutes” interview. Defamation claims are subject to short statutes of limitations, typically one year in most jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia). They’re also subject to equitable defenses like laches (sitting on one’s rights). Most of what he’s said about her falls under the heading of “opinion” rather than “fact,” and thus is not actionable under most states’ defamation laws even if timely claims had been brought.
So no, I don’t think she’s going to sue. Nor should she.
Beldar (b3518e) — 10/1/2007 @ 3:31 pmBeldar, I thought you could start the statute of limitations clock ticking again by repeating the allegedly defamatory remark. No?
Patterico (6de193) — 10/1/2007 @ 3:53 pmShouldn’t a supreme court judge be able to make it through a deposition safely?
Joe (8480b1) — 10/1/2007 @ 5:20 pmIf it’s held to be a “discrete, independent act,” re-publication of a defamatory statement by its original maker can constitute the commission of a new tort, triggering a new statute of limitations clock. But the plaintiff would have to trace her damages to the new publication, not to the original one. Good luck to Anita Hill in finding anyone who (1) was familiar with her reputation when they heard the “60 Minutes” broadcast but who (2) didn’t already know of the dispute between her and Justice Thomas, and whatever cloud on her reputation might exist by virtue of his having denied her allegations. There might be a tiny, theoretical way to sidestep a limitations affirmative defense, in other words, but as a practical matter that wouldn’t get her very far.
And it’s hard to imagine a better fact pattern for a non-statutory, equitable laches defense.
Beldar (b3518e) — 10/1/2007 @ 5:21 pmHe’s now his claims in writing and in a book. If call that a discrete independent act. Nonetheless she won’t sue. But the case will be reopened in the public imagination and the old allegations reaired and the old witnesses to his past behavior dug again put of obscurity.
Thomas made a mistake bringing this up. Let’s wait and see how big it was.
blah (f887f5) — 10/1/2007 @ 5:40 pmThat’s all the left was going to talk about anyway, blah. That and the affirmative action line.
Anita Hill is a public figure certainly for this context. Another of her hurdles will be proof of “actual pecuniary damages”.
But here’s some more ammunition for you lefties. This morning, on Chicago’s WLS 890, Judy Barr Topinka, former chairman of the Republican Party of Illinois and Republican candidate for governor in the last election, questioned Thomas’s ethics in accepting a $1M advance for his book while a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Her words were: “Some things make your stomach churn. … This does not pass my stomach test”.
And that’s pretty strong coming from “staunch Republican” Judy Barr Topinka. But before you adopt her, the thing she is best known for in her home town is not being chairman of the Republican Party in Illinois or State Treasurer or candidate for governor. It is for being arrested in the back seat of a car with a married man in a church parking lot. It’s a small town.
nk (7d4710) — 10/1/2007 @ 6:15 pmWouldn’t she just sue Thomas in England?
And seeing as Rupert Murdoch’s company published his book (of course), does Thomas have to recuse himself on any future cases involving Fox or NewsCorp?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/1/2007 @ 6:17 pmCheck out the Justice Thomas Appreciation Page: http://justicethomas.blogspot.com
Justice Thomas Appreciation Page (1f5081) — 10/1/2007 @ 6:18 pmSupreme Court Justices write books, and get advances all the time.
Tempest in a teapot.
gahrie (56a0a8) — 10/1/2007 @ 7:15 pmOr natterings of a RINO?
nk (7d4710) — 10/1/2007 @ 7:18 pmI remember the confirmation hearings and Anita Hills testimony clearly. Maybe we will never know the truth, but one thing stands out. Anita Hill, though an impressive witness, had absolutely no corroboration for her charges. In fact, Paula Jones had much more corroboration against Bill Clinton. Yet, the Democrats accepted Hill’s word on its face and rejected Jones’word.
fouse, gary c (3b4c3f) — 10/1/2007 @ 8:38 pmNot only that, alpo, he has to recuse himself from cases involving anyone to the right of Chomsky.
Happy now?
Pablo (99243e) — 10/1/2007 @ 9:21 pmI’m sure she’ll find some abulance chaser to take her case. But she’ll have to prove her case and that will be interesting. Sort of like OJ convincing anybody he’s innocent.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/1/2007 @ 10:12 pmThomas presided over Rush Limbaugh’s last failed marriage?
davod (5bdbd3) — 10/2/2007 @ 1:58 amTo impeach would require 2/3rd to completely disregard their oath of office. I am not quite that cynical. Close, but not quite.
buzz (e09efa) — 10/2/2007 @ 8:53 pm