I really hope she replaces him someday. That would be cosmic justice.

After Clarence Thomas' new book came out, CNN and ABC quickly found it necessary to interview his accuser from the past, Anita Hill. Funny, after Bill Clinton's book came out, I don't remember CNN or ABC quickly finding it necessary to call in Clinton's rape accuser, Juanita Broderick, for an interview. (Maybe that was because Broderick's claim had more credibility than Hill's?)

Almost twenty years later, it is clear that Anita Hill is a still hero, and Clarence Thomas still is an incompetent louse. His writing is asinine and incomprehensible, and his entire existence is a hypocritical contradiction: an unqualified anti-affirmative action judge whose only qualification is that he was black.

If Thomas had an ounce of integrity. he'd resign, but leave it to conservatives to flout all decency with such blatant hypocrisy.

Since 1991, Anita Hill has had a distinguished and respected career as a legal scholar, thinker, and commentator…while Clarence Thomas has distinguished himself as the worst jurist in the history of the Supreme Court. What else do you expect from a man who thinks he has the mystical power divine the intentions of the Constitution's framers, as if he were some kind of legal clairvoyant?

Nothing Thomas says is taken seriously by anyone.

I hope Thomas keeps opening his moronic mouth, to remind the American people that electing forward-thinking, strong, progressive candidates in the next six Presidential election cycles is crucial in keeping underqualified people like ZThomas off the court.

On ABC, it said that Anita Hill passed a lie detector test which Judge Thomas would not take. I always believed her, not him. She was always the credible one.

Who in the Congress contacted you Anita?? Why is CNN trying to push this as political NEWS of today? Oh…, that right. This is the way things are done now that the liberal hatemonger’s control the media. Anita was nothing more than a willing partisan participant in a political witch hunt. That’s what’s been proven by the independent studies..

Professor Hill's rebuttal is in today's NYT at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?th&emc=th

On balance, she remains more credible than Justice Thomas, considering the three corroborating witnesses for her Senate testimony. Thomas remains a poor excuse for a Justice, who declines to engage in the all-important oral arguments by questioning the advocates. I don't think he can handle that part of the job, which requires an inquisitive mind and quick verbal wit, not the kind of softball stuff we saw on 60 Minutes with Steve Croft.

Hill had no evidence, no witnesses, and absolutely no proof that Thomas did anything, but she's still called a hero?

Why did she never file suit against Thomas?

It's like Jim Crow days: a woman accuses a black man of a crime, and he's automatically guilty.

Shame on Hill and her supporters!

To David from LA: How exactly has Clarence Thomas "distinguished himself as the worst jurist in the history of the Supreme Court." Can you provide some specific examples, or are you going to be content simply referencing someones "moronic mouth," as constructive as that is? Keep that keen criticism coming. Folks, we have a genius on our hands here, right of the depths of lovely LA.

Justice (uncle)Thomas is jealous, Anita Hill is the far more credible person and for that matter, better qualified.

He has not distinquished himself in anyway since he placed on the court. In fact, he is an embarresment. If he remains this bitter and angry after all these years perhaps it will lead to his early demise for which we should all be truly thankful. But let's hope that does not happen until Bush is out of office.

It seems like she's still apt to overreact to slights. Her reaction was pretty darn quick.

The only thing that has ever disturbed me in this whole affair is that somebody is lying. Either Hill or Thomas. I don't know which one is telling the truth and I don't know which one is lying and that scares me.

I remember it all very well. It was the most embarrassing display of a political attack I think I'd ever witnessed (up to that time). Critics did everything they could to destroy Thomas' reputation over something that couldn't be proved if the hearings went on for a year……My heart has gone out to Clarence Thomas ever since, and I'm a frigging Democrat.

I watched the Clarence Thomas interview on Anderson Cooper. I hope that others saw what I did when he used the same tired cliches that many abusers use when describing their victims. It is disgusting that this man could potentially have the power to set legal precedent in the very areas that he violated the law.

I have always believed in the integrity of Anita Hill, and I still do. It takes an enormous amount of courage to come forth with accusations of sexual harassment. As with Prof. Hill, women are often ridiculed and labeled as "overreacting" when they shun men's inappropriate behavior. Please, Prof. Hill, it's time for your own autobiography.

When someone is insulted via a top rated news magazine and a nationwide book release along with the requisite PR machine that encompasses them both, it is hard not to think that they would hear about quick and react just as quickly. They do read newspapers at Brandeis University unlike 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Anita Hill was the biggest idiot of the 90s, and thats saying A LOT. "I have nothing to gain…." but all the money for speaking tours, lectures, and other forms of spreading my stupidity.

When someone claims they have nothing to gain, remember their 15 minutes of fame is buying them more than just air time, it's got all the potential for more and more, just depends on how long they can keep the train rolling.

Feminists will always believe the 'woman done wrong' b.s., all you gotta do is say it anymore… proof is an option, and can be made up by the media to suit your needs.

Mark,

No witness? There were three State Dept. employees, all of whom validated Ms. Hill's claim. Thomas admitted this himself in the interview.

Do note that Clarence Thomas is still trying to justify his behavior towards Anita Hill even after he got what he wanted. Obviously, the one with class is Ms. Hill. (Why hasn't someone told Thomas he needs to wash his ears? I remember noticing how shiny they were twenty years ago, and he stll has the same problem, for crying out loud!)

Ms.Hill was played by the liberal left like a fittle

Methinks the Justice doth protest too much. Why bring this all up again? The answer is one word: revenge.

He would be much respected and revered, very distinguished, if he didn't open his mouth and set his eyes and spew forth years of pent up anger and resentment. So much better if a person who has achieved what he has would chill out and count his blessings and be gracious. White people aren't out to get you, Justice Thomas. You're out to get yourself. Someone with this much defensiveness and baggage should not be involved in decisions that require balance and perspective. He has the credentials - what he is lacking is the wisdom.

Anita Hill is the Omarosa (from The Apprentice) of Capitol Hill.

She had her 15 minutes of fame - which was 14 minutes too long. After this momentary flare-up from her, she will slink back into the shadows and Judge Thomas will continue hearing cases on the Supreme Court.

NEXT topic?

It simply boggles the mind that Justice Thomas is still harping on this matter in his book more than a decade later. Of course, he harassed her and is simply still "bent out of shape" because she rebeuffed his advances. If anything, he is the "mediocre" Justice on the bench. A Thurgood Marshall he will never be!!!

If anyone goes back and looks at the testimony you will see that it is Hill who's other witnesses are suspect.

One was a Judge who can remember cases and dates off the top of her head but couldn't even remember what city she lived in when she had the dinner discussion with Hill about this issue. Or even what year it was, then shortly after is when Hill decided to drop her issue. If she was so right why did she quit, ….

I discount both Thomas and Hill and look to the others who testified and this Judge (can't remember her name but she one of 4 that testified on Hill's behalf) and this Judge couldn't remember any specifics whatsoever. To me that speaks volumes toward Hill's B.S.

And then I look at the rants by Metzenbaum and Kennedy vehemently denying they were the leaks. Well, usually when someone makes a statement like that they are trying to hide something. Maybe Hill didn't know how she was being used, but that doesn't mean it wasn't politically motivated.

Hill is no hero!

And well Ted Kennedy's past (excluding Chappaquidick) speaks for itself.

As I watched Judge Thomas speak on 60 Minutes this past Sunday, I started thinking how familiar he looked and sounded. And it hit me. He sounded and postured just like OJ Simpson,,it was uncanny.
Not only should he not be on the Supreme Court, he should be in jail. Anita Hill was another casualty of the Right Wing propagandists. Bravo Anita. We believe you and always have.

Anita Hill was sexually harassed by Judge Thomas. He can deny all he wants, but one day when he is faced with death, he will confess his sin. Judge Thomas used the same wording that the individual that sexually harassed me used. When I heard (then) Attorney Thomas state "I emphatically deny…", I knew then he was guilty.

Sad that African Americans align themselves with clowns like Al Sharpton, instead of distiguished Americans like Judge Thomas. Judge Thomas is a heroic figure that has succeeded through hard work and determination and not from government programs or affirmative action. He has his job because he is the best man, not because he is a black man. Wish everyone could be as color blind as him.

UNREAL - can you say it again. UNREAL - no wonder after 16 years we haven't moved a freaking inch forward on sexual harassment. DENIAL IS A GREAT THING PEOPLE - and, of course it was her fault - she was a mediocre worker and took offense to the "slightest"….that's always the claim when they get CAUGHT! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anita Hill was sexually harassed by Judge Thomas. As I listened to the hearings, I was forced to relive my experience. Being discharged from the U.S. Army for filing sexual harassment charges against my supervisor. When I heard (then) Attorney Thomas state "I emphatically deny…" I knew then he was guilty. That was the exact same statement used by the person that harassed me. Based on the recent interview of Judge Thomas, I believe that he will take his lie to his grave.

Funny - Anita Hill was so outraged with Clarence Thomas - that she used him several times as a job reference…I really think that lends to a credibility problem - one too many Anita supporters here….sometimes you need to look at the facts….

Do you think that Thomas would submit to an MRI to prove that he's not braindead? I doubt it,so we must assume that his socially radical views are a direct result of his disability. Doesn't mental illness disqualify someone from serving on our highest court? We could put this all to rest with a simple test. Who would be against that? Conservatives maybe? I wonder why.

The person who gave Hill the lie detector test, said BEFORE the test that he was sure Hill was lieing. But AFTER the test he was sure that she was telling the truth.

After watching Hill and Thomas talked then in court and now, I beleive her.

Thomas is a scumb, a disgrace to the judicial system.

I wish the Anonymous people would sign there names, more left wing nuts talk crap

Since 1991, Anita Hill has had a distinguished and respected career as a legal scholar, thinker, and commentator…while Clarence Thomas has distinguished himself as the worst jurist in the history of the Supreme Court. So for the last 16 years she has studied, thought and spoken. You're absolutely right David. Truly she is more qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Perhaps she might actually be capable of doing something then. The funny part is if he were liberal his detractors would become his supporters and his supporters would hate him.

Don,
You have a point only if Bill Clinton's book brought up the accusations and called Broderick a liar. If the book did, then I agree, someone should have interviewed her.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW HOW THESE INVESTIGATIONS ARE DONE…REMEMBER THAT MS. HILL "NEVER EVER" OFFERED UP THE INFO ON THE HONORABLE DURING THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE INVESTIGATORS PICKED UP ON INFO FROM HER CO-WORKERS THEY CAME "BACK" TO HER TO VERIFY THE INFO THEY HAD. THAT IS WHEN SHE SPOKE UP. YOU PEOPLE NEED TO CHECK THE TRANSCRIPTS OUT.

Did Justice Thomas make sexually harrassing comments? He probably did. I am a liberal and don't like his Supreme Court rulings/writings but I have a problem with other liberals who say he is a Supremem Court justice because of one reason, that he is black. Sounds a bit racist to me.

This man …. Clarence Thomas …. should never have been named to the Supreme Court. This latest outburst
(from him) proves that he was and is a sullen, vengeful individual with deep-seated resentments. He's hardly an unbiased, objective, reflective man…. He's just another angry black man…who has engaged in inappropriate behavior…and doesn't get it.

He should be removed.

Like everything from the far right, Clarence Thomas is a bad justice, a liar with a persecution complex who's viewed as one of the least Court memmbers anywhere.

He keeps lying about Hill. Hill told it like it was, despite revisionist bloggers like "Don," and further, there was another woman ready to testify about other Thomas harassment who wasn't even allowed to testify because, by golly, it was past the time limit.

Thomas is the worst kind of Oreo: received affirmative action, hates it because it makes him admit he's BLACK, then craps on every other black with that opportunity.

I'm surprised Thomas doesn't sit on the Court in whiteface.

Anita Hill says that there was "no connection between me and someone who was politically motivated" and at the same time says "the Senate contacted me."

It's clear that someone who was politically motivated did indeed contact her. They were members of the US Senate who were politically motivated to smear Clarence Thomas.

They'll still out there too. The high-tech lynching against Thomas is still at work today.

To Don F., Mount Prospect, IL:
I would bet a $100 bill that Bill Clinton never "raped" anyone. Juanita Broderick was, no doubt, a willing participant.

I think the FACT that SHE PASSED A LIE DETECTOR TEST, speaks VOLUMES for her,and Judge Thomas REFUSING to take a lie detector test speaks for itself.

While I disagree with Judge Thomas views on many issues, he is entitled to his view, no matter how off they are.

Lastly, I think 98% of women and men have seen or heard inappropriate comments or seen inappropriate behavior in the workplace, we can't ALL afford to quit our job, or ruin our career path to make a point. I wish people would stop being so self-righteous about that.

I believed her then & I beleive her now…same for Thomas I did not believe him then & I don't trust his decisions now…if anyone is politically influenced it is Thomas he speaks for neo-conservatives I wonder how many other things are hidden in his closet..look at some of the other neo's Cheney, Rmusfield, Craig, Vitter, Gingrich, HYPOCRITES

"Hill had no evidence, no witnesses, and absolutely no proof that Thomas did anything, but she's still called a hero?"

Dear Doesn't Know What Happened: There were a total of three witnesses. Some weren't allowed to testify. Maybe you should wonder about that.

"It's like Jim Crow days: a woman accuses a black man of a crime, and he's automatically guilty."

You're a stupid man. Anita Hill was black. All indications from Clarence the Clown are, he's white. Just ask him.

Shame on Hill and her supporters!

All of you who are supporting Thomas are just Right Wing kool-aid drinkers. 3 state department employees backed Anita Hill. Hill took a lie detector test and passed. Thomas refused to take one. The man who wrote the book defaming Hill now says he lied and was put up to it by the republican party. You right wingers are the same people who bash Move On and then support Rush Limbaugh's comments. I know it's hard to take the truth staring you in the face, but the interview on 60 minutes should have made it very clear that Thomas is lying and has no business on the supreme court.

I remember watching all of this as a college student. They televised the hearings and I watched history being made. Then as now, I was appalled at the treatment Clarence Thomas received. There was absolutely no evidence that Anita Hill was telling the truth and I waited until the middle of the night to hear the witnesses that supported Clarence Thomas. It's amazing to me that one person can ruin a person's reputation and the media, who is supposed to be about finding the truth, gives her the credibility to do it. What is more disturbing is that a black man has to prove he is not guilty while Bill Clinton has women all over the place with more credibility saying the same thing about Bill Clinton and he doesn’t have to defend himself. Looks like racism to me, but I guess it’s ok as long as you are a black republican and a catholic.

Because of this case I can never talk to women I work with. I can joke with one woman, but there is always another woman around the corner who is looking for a sexual harassment witch hunt. I can’t say hi anymore. People are now too easily ready to sue for sexual harassment because of this case. The world is a lot meaner.

You were and are still a hero, Anita Hill!

Nick Mann - you don't have to align with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to DISAGREE & NOT ALIGN WITH JUDGE THOMAS.

All blacks don't agree, just like all whites don't agree. The idea that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speak for all blacks is the MEDIA HYPE not African Americans. Somethings we agree with and some we don't. Just like I'm postive that all whites don't agree with President Bush, Rush Limbaugh and others that the are either elected officials or are given media credibility or HYPE.

During Thomas'conformation hearing he stated that he never discussed Roe vs Wade. Either he's telling the truth or his lying. If he's telling the truth, then what does that say about his intellect. The most contraversal Supreme Court decision of our time, and he discussed it with no one. Which to me at least shows that he does not have the intellect that you would want any Supreme Court Justice to have. And if he did indeed discuss the Roe vs. Wade decision then he lied and should not sit on the Supreme Court.

Lady get a life. You've had your fifteen minutes of fame.

It is clearly necessary to point out to the right-wingers here that Thomas is the one with an agenda. Even after 16 years, getting the Court gig and attendant fame, he writes a sadly vicious book in which he continues his whines of unfair treatment.

Let's remember that it was the GOP that was able to get this guy approved, despite clear evidence that he committed sexual harassment, and is just a plain unpleasant person to boot.

We are a poorer country for having this man, who continues to believe "everyone" is out to get him, on our Supreme Court.

He makes Scalia look like a moderate.

Anita Hill was and is an attractive woman and Thomas had the hots for her. She rebuffed his crude advances. Now he writes a book slamming her. The man has no decency at all. He owes her an apology.

One looks at the faces of both Thomas's in the news programs, Isiah and Clarence and their advesaries and one can see the Thomases are blatant liars who were exposed……

CHRIS, MIDDLETOWN CT. BOY YOU NEED TO GO GET A SHRINK BAD, OR BETTER YET GO TO FAUX NEWS. every thing that you post here is flat out wrong. you need to get your facts right. remember it is better to keep silent and be thought stupid, than to speak up and remove all doubt.

While watching the confirmation hearings I became convinced that both Thomas and Hill were both lying. They obviously hate each other. I suspect that only the two of them will ever know what the real issue is between them. I would like to give the pair of them a lie detector test.

I am so pleased to see that Anita Hill remains unbowed in the face of a system's failure to right a wrong doing. As always, she is a strong, well-spoken woman, continuing to defend an individual's right to speak out against injustice in the workplace. GO ANITA.

What a waste of DNA Anita Hill is. What is she doing these days? Working at McDonalds? Wait, I don't give a rat's a*ss.

Where was the physical evidence that she she was harassed? No tape recording, no documentation of her displeasure? And this from one of the leading authorities at the Justice Department.

Mr. Thomas was against Abortion and conservative. The Senate was desperate to derail his nomination. A majority of Americans believe HIM at the time, even though 10 years later, due to the overactive media, they tended to believe her.

If there was any credibility to Anita Hill's claims she would have pursued the matter in criminal or civil court. The woman is a bold faced liar without a shred of proof for her claims

Quite simply, I believe Justice Thomas. As for those who question why he wrote about it in his book. It's an autobiography for god's sake. How on earth could he leave it out?

I have always believed Anita Hill.

Hey David from LA

You say:

"Since 1991, Anita Hill has had a distinguished and respected career as a legal scholar, thinker, and commentator…while Clarence Thomas has distinguished himself as the worst jurist in the history of the Supreme Court. What else do you expect from a man who thinks he has the mystical power divine the intentions of the Constitution's framers, as if he were some kind of legal clairvoyant?

Nothing Thomas says is taken seriously by anyone."

Explain why Clarence Thomas is the worst jurist in American History. I just gave you a lay up. Take it or expose yourself for the baffoon that you truly are.

Nobody listens to Clarence Thomas? You . . . buffoon. The relaity is he is one of the most important people in this world. Period. I hate to tell you, but, EVERYONE listens to him. Maybe in your little "crazy" world he is ignored, but, eventually you will have to wake up, and realize much to your dismay, he is more powerful than you and all of your "progressives".

Finally, I blame the "progressives" for the open border, for the town of Danbury CT being sued (look it up if you don't know), for the inability for this country to enforce the borders. For the inability of the Congress to pass a law making the english language the primary language in this country, and many of the ridiculous things going on in this country. I did not blame Dems, just you "progressives".

You are so concerned with giving rights to non citizens, that you are taking them from citizens. You should all be ashamed of yourselves!!!!!

By the way, before any of you RWers come back with "Oh, yeah> Well, Bush has appointed a lot more blacks to significant administration positions than Clinton did",in reference to my earlier post, that isn't true either. According to the study conducted by Newsday, "(And)Bush's overall record of diversity pales when compared to the standard set by his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, for filling the roughly 2,800 political posts that form a presidential administration."Blacks held 7 percent of administration jobs under Bush, less than half of the 16 percent they held under Clinton, the snapshot shows". Just thought I'd beat you to the punch before you embarrass yourselves further.

Thats cause Thomas is a liar, I hope he dies or resigns soon.

I have always thought Thomas'claim that the charges were racially motivated were absolutely rediculous. I believed Ms. Hill then and I believe her now and the fact that we have this man on our Supreme Court is a traversty!

I still remember the "I believe you Anita" bumper stickers.

She had her 15 minutes of fame and the liberal press gave her free reign to spout from her soap box.

She was used by the left and the whole episode was just a political ploy to try and keep Justice Thomas off the court.

Thankfully justice prevailed.

Oh she spoke out enough many years ago when she intentionally set out to personally destroy another human being. Thanks, but no thanks. You've said enough, Anita.

He's a republican. Therefore he is lying.

I believed Anita Hill in 1991 and I still believe her today.
I believe Mr Thomas was lying then and I believe he is lying now

I believed her then and I believe her now. She handled herself well in each interview I've seen and read.

I always thought this was a he said she said issue. I really don't know what happened and nobody else does except for those two. If it did happened, she should've filed a harrassment suit against him years ago. Again…I really don't know who the guilty party is.

hey Sheldon, you state "Blacks held 7 percent of administration jobs under Bush, less than half of the 16 percent they held under Clinton, the snapshot shows;" Clinton's top posts were not held by blacks, however he may have had more blacks in lower, non-management positions. You have to dig a little further into those "statistics" to have them mean anything.

Funny….

Those crying (again) about Clarence Thomas supposed "harrassing" Anita Hill - are the SAME ones that defend Bill Clinton (accused of sexual harrassment, rape, etc)

Your crocodile tears are duly noted.

Anita Hill is as much of a hero as any other scumbag ambulance chasing lawyer.

Riding on the coattails of somone, trying to yell and scream like a 3 year old for attention. "Look at me, I want to be somebody too! Let me say ANYTHING to get your attention."

I'm sure that if she didn't get the attention from this, she would have gone on to be a stripper or something, loving the attention (and obvious & shameless selling of herself like she did with this event), then if she wanted to she could always try to re-hash this event by claiming "He led me to do this!! Waaaaaaah!!!" … and I'm sure you'd all believe her, idolize her and cannonize her for that too.

Stop being easily fooled sheep folks.

No matter who is telling the truth here, it was not smart for Thomas to write this now. This opens the door for a libel suit, which, regardless of how you feel about these two people, Hill would be a fool to not file.

Even if you love Clarence Thomas and think he's the greatest American ever, this was not smart for him to do at this time.

Anita has witnesses. Does Clarence? Nope.

Go for it, Anita.

And I don't even know who's telling the truth here; I only know that the one who has the most to lose has left himself extremely vulnerable. Not a wise move.

Umm, Frederick….did you actually read what I wrote (and cited)? "(And)Bush's overall record of diversity pales when compared to the standard set by his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, for filling the roughly 2,800 political posts that form a presidential administration". You claim that Clinton had no blacks in top management posts but, rather, in lower, non-management positions. Please cite any source at all you have for that. And, by the way, I didn't "state it", I was citing a study that "stated it". Beyond that, it's a little silly to believe that someone who appointed seven blacks to cabinet positions, had no blacks in "top management positions". Please quit embarrassing yourself.

I sat next to Anita Hill once in first class on a flight from Dallas. All she did was complain about everything and anything to the flight attendents. She was rude and aggrevated that no one was catering to her.

I don't believe one word of anything she claimed. She is not a nice person

Well,well. Here we go again after all this time. The results will be the same. He'll get away with it.

The Democratic party wants to do whatever it can to tarnish Clarence Thomas again. Was he the most qualified candidate for the job. NO. Not by a long shot. The Democrats were so terrified about Roe V Wade being overturned that they had Hill make up absurd lies about Thomas and ruin his reputation. Typical Democrat dirty trick that we will see much, much more of when Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

I am baffled by all this. To begin with, using Ms. Hill as she was used was inappropriate to begin with at Thomas's confirmation hearings. If that were done with every nominee to the courts, how many women (and men) might come forward with stories of boorish, crude behavior? And why would Thomas resurrect the entire episode in his book only to recreate the acrimonious charges and counter-charges of the past? What is wrong with these people and with the confirmation process that treats such information as important to the task???

Known sexual harrasser Clarence Thomas was a liar, is a liar, and will always be a liar. Where are the impeachment proceedings to remove this toad from the Court?

Injustice Thomas, you have no credibility. Good riddance to you, the sooner the better.

I would be curious to know who the people believe today. I personally believed Anita Hill then and I still believe her now. It is just another case of the rich and politically connected coming out on top despiite all of their moral shortcomings. I look forward, with little hope, to the day this country will governed by honest and respectable individuals.

This lady is far more believeable than Clarence Thomas.

And to make matters worse, Thomas has proved to be unfit for the position.

I hope she finds justice in this matter before much longer.

For Nick Mann: 'Judge Thomas is a heroic figure that has succeeded through hard work and determination and not from government programs or affirmative action.'

Excuse me, he benfited greatly from those programs. When he was nominated for the court I remember all the discussion about how he was against affirmative action even though that is how he got into college and law school. The man is filled with hatred for himself and his race.

I think its absolutely hilarious that these politicians who are supposed to uphold justice and honesty are the very ones who betray us time and time again. To deny so vehemently that the charges posed by Anita Hill are untrue in itself tells that there may be some truth behind it. It is sad that are country is run by people such as that, who feel they have to lie and cheat to reach and stay at the top. In the end though, they have to answer to themselves.

Anita Hill has addressed the country with calm clarity once again. She does not appear to have "strings attached" to what she is saying. I for one, believe her as much now as I did in 1991. And while she seems at peace with herself and the truths she has told, Thomas on the other hand, appears angry and fettered by a mistake he made in the past and is making once again.

I think that our nation owes a large debt to Professor Hill for her intellectual honesty, her courage, and her forebearance.

As a former sexual harassment counselor, I am struck by Clarence Thomas' unwillingness to "let go," coupled with the uncompromising harshness of his continuing protestations. In my experience, that is the behavior of a perpetrator who is bent on covering up his actions.

When I learned that Thomas had had the gall to reassert his unsubstantiated accusations against Professor Hill in his new book and, then, watched him on 60 Minutes, I realized how painful it was to remember the shameful events of 16 years ago. It positively breaks my heart that the Senate entrusted this country's fortunes to a man who is as emotionally damaged and intellectually challenged as Clarence Thomas.

In my opinion, this national and the Supreme Court have been sullied by Thomas. Moreover, I find it disgusting that he was selected to fill the seat of Justice Marshall, a man who, color aside, couldn't have been more different than Thomas. As far as I'm concerned, the decision of the Senate to confirm him will remain a permanent stain on that august body.

I am so ashamed that I previously supported Clarence Thomas and not Anita Hill. Justice Thomas's voting record speaks for itself. I hope Anita Hill will someday get justice.

The fact that this man is releasing a hate filled treatise at the outset of the Supreme Court's docket of cases, and is using his position as an official of our government for his own monetary gain, is disgraceful.

We really need to clean house, our elected officials (and unelected in this case), are abusing us to no end.
They have nothing but contempt for those that they in fact serve.

When will you have enough?

[This supersedes previous comment by the same writer.]

I think that our nation owes a large debt to Professor Hill for her intellectual honesty, her courage, and her forebearance.

As a former sexual harassment counselor, I am struck by Clarence Thomas' unwillingness to "let go," coupled with the uncompromising harshness of his continuing protestations. In my experience, that is the behavior of a perpetrator who is bent on covering up his actions.

When I learned that Thomas had had the gall to reassert his unsubstantiated accusations against Professor Hill in his new book and then watched him on 60 Minutes, I realized how painful it was to remember the shameful events of 16 years ago. It positively breaks my heart that the Senate entrusted this country's fortunes to a man who is as emotionally damaged and intellectually challenged as Clarence Thomas.

In my opinion, this nation and the Supreme Court have been sullied by Thomas. Moreover, I find it disgusting that he was selected to fill the seat of Justice Marshall, a man who, color aside, couldn't have been more different than he is. As far as I'm concerned, the decision of the Senate to confirm Thomas will remain a permanent stain on that august body.

Anita Hill was totally believable in 1991 and she remains so today.

Can't Anita Hill see that this is pushed by the media? How blinded and ignorant can one be to not see what's going on now days. Specifically in regards to the media.

I don't believe her and most people didn't either:

In 1981, Hill met Clarence Thomas, becoming his assistant at the U.S. Department of Education. It was during this period, according to Hill's later testimony, that the alleged sexually provocative statements were uttered by Thomas. After Thomas became Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Hill joined the Commission's legal staff.

When Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by George Bush in 1991, Hill was drawn into the national limelight when she was subpoenaed regarding her accusations. Her statements to the FBI that Thomas had used sexually vulgar and offensive language with her were leaked to the media by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In 1991, public opinion polls showed that 47% of those polled believed Thomas, while 24% believed Hill.

I've always believed in Anita Hill from back in 1991. Shes still right and Clarence Thomas is still fighting because he knows all this time hes wrong. Trying to justify his bad behaviour. Hummmmm! maybe he better be talking to the Lord…

Anita Hill had no reason to lie then and she has no reason to lie today! I still believe her. In all these years, Thomas has NEVER offered any evidence to prove his case!

"The relaity is he is one of the most important people in this world. Period. I hate to tell you, but, EVERYONE listens to him."

Thank you, Captain Obvious, but you don't have to inform us that the world is full of important fools. For example, Dubya is the world's most important person. That doesn't make him any less a well-known failure. Ditto Clarence Thomas.

Conservatives continue to reveal their utter transparency with their shrill and wholly unconvincing defenses of a judge who is the laughingstock of the legal world, who continues to baffle with his incompetence and inelegance. They need proof of the weakness of Clarence Thomas's legal writings? Do they need proof that the sky is blue? Can they read?

Anybody who adheres to the invented and impossible precept of originalism is in the first place already most assuredly working with a set of loose screws. Clarence Thomas is clearly a man without a positive legacy and with a guilty conscience since he's still picking on on Anita Hill (can't one of the most "important" people in the world find something productive to do with his time?)

The last dying gasps of what's left of the dregs of the Reagan revolution are on full display here and in Washington. They blame progressive for open borders and porous immigration when it is their own party who did NOTHING about the problem while though from 2000-2006 they controlled ALL THREE branches of government.

The entire psuedo-conservative movement was a phony based on selfishness, deceit, and wildly divisive generalizations about liberals. They had nothing to offer and consequently accomplished nothing.

And the more they talk, the more crazy they sound. Thank goodness America is finally waking up!

Anita, you're the winner here and I strongly believe Thomas did sexually harrass you. He is now seeing "the chickens coming home to roost". And the audacity of Thomas' wife wanting an apology from you only proves his guilt even though the justice system found him not guilty. Please write a book entitled "THE MISINFORMATION OF AN APOLOGY".

why bother posting to cnn when your posts are removed.

Something happened between them whether or not any of the embarrassing details are fully believed or part of an embellishment.

slow news day …

Anyone who who puts themselves out there making those type of accussations, trust me is telling the truth. It is an extremely stressful situation. What keeps you strong is knowing you are telling the truth. Anita Hill is strong. Ask yourself why would Clarence Thomas brings all that drama back to the forefront. The man is a Supreme Court Justice. Married to a white woman. He doesn't say I want to clear my name'. He says 'The are out to get me'.

Matt, Manchester, CT

If you have ever had to read any of his opinions…the few that are noteworthy you will know that this man was and is unqaulified for the position.

He has never once written a landmark ruling. He has never not once voted on the opposite side of scalia. Everyone as disagreed with that nut atleast once… but not Thomas. He was and is and will always be a pawn.

Yes he sexually harrassed her, and he clearly does not believe what he did was wrong. This is not the kind of person that should have the kind of power that has been bestowed upon him.

Thank you to Anita Hill for not letting him get away with calling her a liar after all this time.

Not everyman in a great position is a great man. And not everyman accused of being dispicable is wrongly accused.

If Anita Hill had been harrassed by Thomas, then why did she follow him to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the alleged harrassment had occurred at U.S. Department of Education.

The answer is because the was a fabrication by a second-rate worker who was likely to overreact to "slights." and bounced on by partisan Democratic Senators.

Thomas was fortunately confirmed and has served well on the court. He still gets bigoted criticism to this day.

Mark above said "it's like the Jim Crow days when a woman could accuse a black man." Wow, I don't recall any history of Jim Crow where a Black woman's accusations against a black man was on par with a white woman's. Black men AND women were in the same boat, and marched in the same lines, and witnessed the same degradation to their female and male family and friends so please don't try to make Jim Crow the domain of the Black man.
For the person who wrote " I flew on a plane with Anita Hill and now think she's a mean person". WHAT! So you're capable of summing up a human being and able to judge the merits of a he said she said battle, based on sitting next to her on a plane. How do we know you assesed the situation on the plane correctly. Maybe the flight attendants were being rude to her, maybe you were being rude to her, maybe her dog just died that morning. Get a grip, you know nothing based on that single interaction. We know a lot about you based on your willingness to judge another person on such scant evidence, hate to have you on my jury if I were ever on trial.

Let it go lady, you've done your bit, that was over 16 yrs ago, no one cares anymore.

Female Chemical Engineer, 25 years working in Industrial America:

1. Shown porno magazines several times by co workers, looking to get a rise out of me.
2. Told I would recieve a lower rating, compared to my coworkers, if I took my 6 weeks of maternity leave.
3. Assaulted in vehicle by coworker - he tried to get on top of me.
4. Assaulted by co worker - repeatedly put his hand in my crotch at a company dinner.
5. Had someone offer to be my Dutch Uncle, and would I sit on his lap.
6. Had to listen to my co-workers day after day drool over the pretty secretaries who wore party dresses and FM shoes to work.

And a lot more, folks.

Get the picture. This leaves out all the inappropriate statements, subjects talked about at work, etc.

I wasn't in a position where I could trade my career for the personal satisfaction of filing for harassment, and that is most certainly what would have happened.

20 years later I did contact my company's legal department over a case of slander impacting my professional reputation- 9 months later my job "went away". So, I'm pretty glad I kept my mouth shut about the other stuff for so long.

Why is this dude bringing up stuff from the past? Does he want to look like an ass? I understand writing your memoirs, but to put out false information and speak harshly of someone isn't going to get you foundly remembered.

I have no problem believing Anita Hill. As a legal secretary at the age of 19 I was sexually harrased by two hot shot, young attorneys. I told them not to approach me again or I would submit claims to the head of the company. Luckily, that worked for me.

Since Anita Hill took a lie detector test, Clarence Thomas should have been forced to take a lie detector test!

Were there any women on the Senate panel?

He should never have become a judge of this great country!

I thought he got what he wanted. So why is he bringing this up again? Because , he didn't get her! It's been 20 years and he's still bitter. It may be a man's world, but he doesn't always get what he wants.

I have a question,
Did the Senate contract every women Mr. Thomas ever worked with up to that time, and then when they got to Ms. Hill they found what they where looking for, or did Ms. Hill feel it was her dudy to come forward to help the Senate in there confirmation?

Good for her!

It both sickens and frightens me when I see how far conservatives will go to maintain a status quo that only serves to preserve their power, keep everyone else down at heal, and make sure there is only a place at the table for rich, white, protestant, heterosexual men.

Does anyone find it interesting that this is being hauled up when the Republican Fascists are at an all time low? I thought the limit was colored alerts and terrorist threats when the numbers were down?

Pigs. Every one of them.

Can someone tell us what the definition of "SEXUAL HARASSMENT" is, expecially in the work environment. I think many folks do not think that their behavior constitutes sexual harassment and that is why they do not believe Ms. Hill and most of all they try to shift attention from this disgusting behavior to making it a political thing. So much denial…

The burden of proof is on the ACCUSER, not the accused.

Hill never sued Thomas. Why not? She didn't have the proof. He so-called witnesses never said they saw Thomas harass Hill.

If this case had gone to court with the "evidence" given to the Senate, it would have been thrown out.

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Thomas has never been proven guilty.

Shame on anyone who puts the burden of proof on the accused.

As a black woman I find Anita Hill repugnant. Clarence Thomas, whose political views are diametrically opposed to mine was subjected to a true witchhunt by Ms. Hill. She was interested in him and he had no interest in her and she waited until she could get him back and the Democrats were elated. Hell hath no fury like woman scorned.

To deny charges against you is not implying or admitting that you did it, no matter what the "court of public opinion" says. If that were true, then anyone could say someone murdered someone else (even if that person were still alive or never existed) and that person would instantly be guilty.

Hill was nothing worth note then, is still nothing worth note now, it's just the hype that can be generated about her that makes this story continue. You could replace her with a plush toy, bowl of gravy, or whatever, and using the same hype, generate the same attention to the object in question.

The media made the indiocy that is "the Anita Hill story". But just think about it being the "Bowl of Gravy story", or "Thomas and the Plush Toy-gate" and you'll see how easy it is for the media to generate hype about absolutely NOTHING.

ps. These supposed 'witnesses' are just 'he said/she said' third hand and later information. They couldn't testify because they did not have direct hand knowledge. They were more well, she said that he said, that she said that he said, kind of garbage. oh, but lets believe them because we know that kind of gossip…er… extremely poignent 'information'…. is held back by the government conspiracies. HA! Even the tabloids would laugh at that kind of 'witness'.

regurtating,rewriting history will not change the facts that the senate did not substantiate her comments, censure him or deny him the position. he is a supreme court judge and a very good one.That is all folks!

Let me get this straight.Thomas hated racism.Affirmative action helped him go to college and attain his dream.Thomas hates affirmative action because it's racist.

Affirmative action IS racist…against whites.I graduated high achool in 1969 and lived near the brand new Livingston campus.I graduated in the top 10% of my class and applied to Livingston.The application had a space for a wallet-sized picture which was mandatory to include.An enterprising young black that I went to school with offered to sell me one of his high school pictures but I tuned him down.He went on to sell all 40 to white guys at the bottom of the class.I didn't get in but every single guy he sold his picture to did!All the college wanted to see was a black face looking back at them,even if it was the same black face 40 times!

Thomas is a fruitcake but now he's a rich fruitcake.I suppose he'll start calling all that money they gave him racist too!CASE CLOSED!

I believe it was Justice Thomas who aligned this incident with politics not necessarily CNN. Oh and by the way, who has the longest running record with using "politically motivated hate mongering" as a smoke screen when faced with the ugly task of personal resposibility? Oh yeah, according to the Cartoon Network also known as Fox news, it's the Liberals. Right, I just keep forgetting that.

This woman has had her 15 minutes of fame and was not believed by members of congress. Tell her to hush!

The saddest thing about this entire sordid affair is the truth and that is that the liberals and those who have made protesting their life's work (Jackson & Sharpton) find nothing more evil than a Black conservative. Clarence Thomas was worse than a falsely accused sexual predator to these people. He was a Black Republican and they were determined to bring him down any way they could. To the liberals you are somehow not human if you are Black and conservative and you are considered a sellout. How very, very sad.

Are people still listening to this crazy woman? I wonder why is this woman having trouble finding employment?

Anita Hill is pathetic.

If Thomas did anything illegal she should have pressed charges at the time of any "offense".

It is so sad to read these comments from these liberal democrats and realize that such hateful, partisan, and dishonest people live in this country. Reading or hearing what a lib has to say is reason enough for every decent person to vote against democrats for the rest of their lives. These are horrible people who have no remorse for lying or attacking an innocent man. Thomas was subjected to worse racism anyone has endured after 1965. It is expected that it comes from the party/ideology of Robert Byrd, a true liberal democrat hero.

If Clarence Thomas was not on Supreme Court then, Al Gore could have been our president. Bush and his father failed in most of the policy matters. But, succeded in filling all the conservative judges. Wish this Thomas would have never risen to that position. US would have looked better and prosperous today.

I'm an American who see's Anita Hill as a genuine heroine in this vastly self-inflated society. Cheap shots by Clarence Thomas in his new book has not made me one bit less respectful; it has made Clarence Thomas appear even more guilty than he had previously. Vindictive statements by Clarence Thomas is not only a break in his armour, but his character. If it wasn't true he wouldn't be so abusive still. If I was Anita Hill I'd take him to court for character defamation.

Justice Thomas is a republican idiot, like all the republicans in power he is a hypocrite. The only thing positive that he could do at this time is to step down and go into hiding. This guy is as socially blind as the majority of the right wing.

Both President Bushs' are guilty of using their great wisdom to make terrible appointments.The current Bushs' greatest hits are Bremer,Brownie and Gonzo.The former chose Danny Q. for vice pres. Did anybody anywhere think that was a good choice? So I think it's safe to say that Clarence Thomas also was not a wise choice.Thomas was picked only because he was and is a black ultra conservative.Unfortunately for Thomas he could stand on a ladder but in the black community he will still be only half the man Thurgood Marshall was. I will always believe Anita was telling the truth and had no reason to lie and never wanted center stage.I am very proud of her for speaking truth to power,something the news media is not very good at.

I remember listening to Anita Hill's testimony during a long car ride. As one who had been subjected to the same type of workplace filth, I found the similarities in the details that she gave to be remarkable. Same type of low-life pig-mentality boss. I can't prove it either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I believe Anita. The fact that Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice is a disgrace to our country.

so, let me get this straight…..

no one takes anything c thomas says as serious……but, he is a member of the highest court in the land….

what doesn't make sense here?

The jury also did not find OJ guilty in 1994. Big deal what the Senate voted.
Nothing was proved or disproved to a certainty.
You can believe what you want, but strangely, people are believing what they want based on their politics.
I'm pretty certain something happened but whether the exact details are all as alleged we will never know for sure.

I caught a few moments of a recent Thomas interview on TV this morning. He was speaking on the Anita Hill matter. It reminded me of watching him speak at his confirmation hearings. Then as now, there is something about the way the man speaks that makes me doubt his authenticity. His strikes me as a person who is not honest with himself or is at least internally conflicted. Maybe it's me but I just don't trust people who answer 'Did you do it?' with 'They were out to get me.' That is an emotional response. Regardless of whether or not Anita Hill's accusations were true, I expect a nominee for Supreme Court Justice to demonstrate more candor under fire than he did. I mean, how levelheaded is someone who uses an emotionally charged phrase like "high tech lynching" at his confirmation hearing? That phrase didn’t even make contextual sense.

Take yourself back to 1991 - Sexual Harrassment was still being defined and Anita Hill was not getting the support from the female politicos that she should have. Unfortunately, people were still learning what actions define sexual harrassment in 1991. The question is this: was Thomas the best man for the job? A known CAD, yet considered to be the only man in this country that deserved the honor of the Supreme Court? I doubt it. Did Anita ever register a formal complaint in the EEOC? I doubt it. Sexual Harrassment occurs on college campuses every day, despite the fact that students are protected by Title IX Laws. How do I know? Because I filed a complaint and have waited nearly 4 years for the DEA to take action. We as a society do not understand Sexual Harrassment and always prefer to follow the path of least resistance by choosing to blame the victim for causing the harrassment, for not taking action about the harrassment earlier, for speaking out about the harrassment irresponsibly, for questioning the victim's motivation to affect the lifestyle and opportunity of the accused. How can we as a society fix this problem when we don't even acknowledge it exists?
for more info, visit http://www.uvavictimsofrape.com

What a liar,,,If you believe that you are a fool,,,The left tried and failed in trying to destroy Judge Thomas

Watching Clarence Thomas on tv this weeks makes me think that he is still angry and wants to continue to try to hurt Anita Hill. I will never forget having watched her testify and how she handled herself with dignity and class. I have no respect for him. He deserves none.

Thank God! Thank God! a black man who gets it. I am a black person who have felt the way Thomas have all my life and have become a loner for it; for not going along to get along, for having my opinions different from the masses, but I'm not stupid. I know it is not safe to identify myself and advertise I vote republican. The BLACK KLAN WILL LYNCH ME. Since so many think the same, 80% of them are obsolete because one person is doing the thinking for the rest. I wonder what God thinks of the wasted brains he gave out? By the way each and everyone of you will be responsible for your OWN SOUL according to GOD. It is stupid, silly, hypocritical, boring, unjust, and rediculous for all blacks to feel, think, hate, love, or like, the same. SOMETHING IS REALLY WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE WHO FEEL THOMAS HAS THE PROBLEM. And I stay as far away from them as I can. SLAVERY is over and TOO many are begging to be slaves like their ancestors. They don't want to take responsibility for nothing, they accuse others of the same things they are guilty of, they don't have the courage to use their own brains as individuals for fear they will be called not black. WHO CARES? Who Needs the black label? It is the blacks who have been detrimental to my life and health all my life anyway. Every single solitary mishap bad luck heartache I've had was caused by blacks. So it is not safe living amongst them no more than a red neck or a Klan. It is a burden off my shoulders to feel free to think for myself. I'd rather be a loner than be living a lie to get along with some of these people. The myth of a life they have created for themselves. Their same old tired old boring conversations of complaining about everything all day and night is a waste of energy to respond to, no wonder Thomas paid them no mind all these years I don't blame him. There are TOO many REAL issues blacks need to fix about themselves and community than nitpicking all the time over NONSENSE. But I guess you have to keep nitpicking to keep from focusing on themselves who really needs fixing. WHO DIED AND MADE THEM GOD? WHO FEEL THEY GET TO CLASSIFY HOW A BLACK PERSON, God's child I might add, SHOULD FEEL OR THINK? Go take care of your own kids who you probably can't control anyway. Look at your communities; think and feel about them for a change. It will keep you real busy for decades to come from now on.

I wan to clarify the last sentence of my comment above. Why did he say, “high tech lynching” instead of “modern day lynching” for example? What part of the proceedings caused him to use "high tech" in his alliteration? His prose appeared convulsive. It looked as if his emotions were getting the better of him. Not what I want to see in a Supreme Court Justice nominee.

Clarence Thomas was there at the beginning of the end of the US Supreme Court as a viable legal and ethical body. He has helped pull it down to its current level of right-wing political tool.

Hasn't it long since been established that Clarence Thomas did not tell the whole truth during his confirmation hearing? Arlen Spector wanted to pursue perjury charges against Ms. Hill, but he was whipping the wrong horse — He should have gone after Thomas. And, by the way, who thinks a judge with one year of experience on the bench, any bench, is worthy of being elevated to the Supreme Court, anyway? The guy had "GOP Lackey" written across his forehead from the git-go, for cryin' out loud.

Ms. Hill spoke out years ago when she lied during the hearings. Seems like it's a habit with her.

Misogyny and ignorance is alive and well in the CNN comments.

Funny how Thomas rails against using the race card then uses it in his "memoirs".

Thomas' had LESS than an year of judicial experience when he was appointed to SCOTUS. Thomas would NOT be on SCOTUS if he wasn't a minority.

Does the name OJ ring a bell? Justice Thomas did what nearly every man who uses power to serve his baser instincts- he won. He is a bitter and angry man-he knows deep down he was in no way qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and he owes Bush The First for his seat; and our misogynistic society in general for his confirmation. Too many independent witnesses confirmed Ms.Hills' allegations. At least two other factual accounts have been written- supporting her story. Other women that he harrassed came forward. None were validated. He is a disgrace. His grandparents must be in Heaven wringing their hands in shame. I'm sure they never intended for all his efforts to improve himself and have a rewarding and moral life to be wasted by such disgusting behavior. He is so full of himself- thinking he is above everyone and everything- not subject to the laws of the land or bound by morals. Like so many who feed on power- he crushes anyone in his path and if someone should not bend to his will- he deflects criticism and accountability to his victim. Ms. Hill is a shining example of grace under pressure. He's just an angry, overbearing brute with a good education.

It amazes me that this issue still comes down to Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas. Why does no one mention the numerous other women that claimed the exact same thing? Had these other women been called to testify (and they were waiting and willing), perhaps Mr. Thomas would not be on the highest court in the land for life. He not only did not deserve the position, he was also unqualified for the position. His self-hatred is exhibited in the Miller-El case where he was the sole dissenter. He should stop bellyaching and be satisfied with the fact that he undeservingly got a seat on the Supreme Court despite his bad behavior.

This is the worst judge we have ever had on the Supreme Court. He and Scalia have ripped the constitution, spit on it, and have tried to re-write one of their own. We need more judges that will UPHOLD THE LAW…..not make laws as they go along.

And look who he was nominated by….none other than a BUSH! Go, figure!

Hawk
I watched the 60 minutes piece - and Judge Thomas stated that Anita Hill has asked for several references for jobs she was applying for from him…now whether he did or didn't harass her - we don't know….yet watch the left in action…its the same on every blog…starts as a "guess" then slo