General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Clarence Thomas says marriage equality ruling should be overturned [View all]emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)We do not vet Supreme Court nominees with even the same thoroughness an FBI or Fed Marshall applicant, or even, in the case of many PDs, a police candidate would be background checked.
And in the case of sex abuse or harassment (Ms. Hill complained of verbal sex harassment) which can not go forward as a criminal charge, we should never have open hearings in a non-trial setting pitting accuser against accused in what can only become a partisan circus, another source of trauma for alleged victim.
So Biden, who admittedly negotiated a hearingotherwise there would have been nonehad this tremendous leeway in format, could cut off Republicans, force the Dems to hard questioning? Decide a time line allowing for him to subpoena a reluctant witness?
No!
The one thing Biden wont say, but I will, is that Thomas, complicit with his craven sponsors, played the race card. He will also not say that Hills case was not a slam dunk. And she could not explain her ongoing contact with Thomas unless she admitted what she should never have been ashamed about: she needed his recommendation. She needed to network with him.
A woman of color in that day was far more expendable than the nominee who represented the many, many Black males excluded from power by guys who looked just like the men on the
hearing committee, on both sides. And no, Black women, their aspirations, their representation, their activism was not, on behalf of their agency, a thing then,
Get yourself a transcript or a video and then get back to me. A whole transcript.