Clarence Thomas's wife leaves Anita Hill a voicemail asking her to apologize; Hill refuses
By Peter SmithOctober 20th, 2010, 11:00 amComments (5)
This weekend, apparently hitting a breaking point after years of agitation, Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, left a voicemail for Brandeis professor Anita Hill, asking Hill to apologize for her 1991 allegations of sexual harassment during Thomas's confirmation hearings. Hill, an attorney who worked with Thomas at the Department of Education in the '80s, notoriously alleged that Thomas had talked endlessly about pornography and had once asked loudly, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"
The charges nearly prevented Thomas's confirmation. The right worked overtime to discredit Hill; journalist/hit-man David Brock wrote a book called The Real Anita Hill, famously describing the attorney (pictured above in a 1991 photo) as "a bit nutty and a bit slutty." (After a crisis of conscience in the late '90s, Brock recanted, referring to the book as "character assassination.")
According to CNN, Virginia Thomas's voicemail said the following:
"Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay, have a good day."
("With my husband" is an interesting construction; it almost seems to imply collusion on Clarence Thomas's part.) Hill's response was to turn the voicemail over to Brandeis campus security, who forwarded it to the FBI. She also issued a statement through the university, describing the call as "inappropriate" and confirming that she would not apologize: "I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony." More on this psychodrama is certain to follow.
- Sex Advice From Topher Grace
- Ranked: R.E.M. Albums from Worst to Best
- Ten Illustrated Stories About First-Time Sex
- Fifteen Ineffective Pick-up Attempts
- Five Albums You Should Be Listening to Right Now: Elliot Aronow
- Sex Advice From Twins
- Tools of Attraction: Turn-Ons
- This Week In Sex: Sexual Healing
- The One Movie You Should See This Week
- Lady Gaga suing Baby Gaga, the ice cream made from human breast milk
- "Whoa, spring fever! Looks like I got my solo libido back. For a while there it was gone and I was worried I'd never get it back."
- "Just because I'm cheating on you doesn't mean I don't love you. I do, more than I ever have."
- "It's been two months since our break-up and now I really need to have sex, but I can't stand the thought of some other guy touching me."
Comments ( 5 )
Twenty years, and Thomas' wife is still on the rag about this? I would not want to be a fly on the wall in that household.
I would like to be a fly on the wall...of their bedroom. Clarence watching porn, drinking coke, rubbing the can on his pubes while his wife furiously masturbates to a picture of Anita Hill while she cries her eyes out...now that's fucking HOT!!
Although this is an interesting freak/side show, the more interesting thing about the article is Mrs. Thomas's affiliation with foundations that accept anonymous money to fund a right-wing political agenda. Justice Thomas voted to allow that sort of thing. Did she influence his vote? Does she get more money now? This smells like a Really Bad conflict of interest -- Thomas ruling on a matter that directly affects the economic value of his wife's business. Will Congress investigate? One can only hope.
correct, profrobert.
Not to mention that Thomas is widely considered the biggest moron on the court, even compared to Scalia. You've got to be amazed when a justice's ideology so trumps their dedication to their duty that they don't ask even ONE QUESTION from the bench for over four years. What an ignorant sack.
@M: I appreciate the support, and I agree Thomas was and is intellectually unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court, but I do have a couple of quibbles. First, Scalia is actually brilliant. He's evil as all get-out, but he has a first-class intellect. A good way to think of it is that Scalia is to Thomas as Cheney was to Bush. Second, not asking questions just means Thomas doesn't find doing so at oral argument useful. I clerked at the Circuit level many years ago and saw maybe 100 or so oral arguments. In not one did it change the panel's mind about which way to rule, though in one the Court did force a settlement on the parties and in another, a lawyer flat-out misrepresented the record and hoodwinked the panel until we discovered the error and corrected it. So feeling that oral argument is a waste is not inherently a sign of judicial moroncy.
Add a Comment