Comments about ‘Letters: Sen. Hatch was unduly harsh to Anita Hill’

Amen!!

Why did Anita Hill wait until the confirmation to bring the accusations up? And was she telling the truth? Hill was probably more brutal to Clarence Thomas than anything.

What is the purpose of "questioning" someone, whether it is in a Senate hearing or in the courtroom? Isn't it to find the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Clarence Thomas was the one vilified, not Anita Hill. Thomas was the one that Ted Kennedy and other Democrats mocked and belittled, not Anita Hill. Anita Hill was just one of the Democrat's willing pawns to keep Clarence Thomas off the court. Thomas did not fit into the Democrat plan to disassociate law from the Constitution; to change the foundation of our law from what it had always been to "legislation from the bench".

Look at history. The Democrats could not get their legislation through Congress, so they relied on Federal Judges to "make law" instead of ruling on law.

Hatch would have none of the Democrat nonsense. I remember very clearly that he told Kennedy, "If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Massachusetts."

Now, Anita Hill has a film to "prove" that she's innocent. I wonder if she's in the market for a "bridge"?

"I wonder if she's in the market for a "bridge"?"

Is that the same bridge that you hawk daily on this board?

There is only one thing Senator Hatch has ever been interested in.

The next re-election of Senator Hatch.

If Anita was telling the truth, Senator Hatch's line of questioning was harsh. If she was lying, his line of questioning was soft but more importantly, if she did lie, she is a horrible, horrible person. We'll never know for sure who was telling the truth but if I had to place a bet on it, I'd say she was either lying outright or grossly embellished her story because her account just doesn't ring true to me - mainly because she waited several years to bring it up AND she followed him from employment to employment. Who does that if what you're supposedly experiencing is so horrible?

"...Who does that if what you're supposedly experiencing is so horrible?...".

So as the days, weeks, months, years go by, whatever a perp did/does to a victim, is really not so horrible after all?

Why did she wait all those days, weeks, months and years to bring it up? It was to keep him off Supreme Court or she would of brought them up sooner.

Some of you don't seem to be aware of the fact that when a person is vetted for the supreme court a questionare is sent out and solicitations are made to anyone who is or was in a position to comment of their fitness to serve. Anita Hill was simply responding to that solicitation, and she had personal knowlege of his unwanted advances. she was doing her duty and not "A woman scorned" as Hatch charged. And he knows it. He also knows there were other women ready to come forward with similar charges if called.

The initial FBI report was that ALL of Anita's corroborating witnesses had steadfastly denied her allegations. She was not popular with the women she worked with at the EEOC and the Education Department. She became angry when she was not chosen to be an office manager. Five of Thomas's women workers testified at the hearing that Thomas would not have talked to Anita in that way - they had nothing but praise and respect for their former boss. Anita's work record is interesting as there is not much longevity to any place she had gained employment.

Many jobs have toothcomb checks. I doubt telling your 6th grade teacher off or getting t'd up in High School will hurt you. Is Anita to be questioned. Of course things come out. why not talk about incident at time. Way to keep him off court and he is one of better judges.

I watched the ENTIRE hearing, in fact took vacation time to do it. The reason it was such high drama was the immediately obvious fact that SOMEONE was lying in a HUGE way. As one who actually watched the whole thing, it was my considered opinion then and still is that Anita Hill was the one lying.

Hatch acted like a thug and a bully. His questioning and attitude were shameful.

The character assassination of Clarence Thomas was more brutal. Anita Hill was/is not interested in the truth, just political gains. She brought it on herself.

Clarence Thomas was not "vilified." Thomas was not the victim of "character assassination". Unless, of course, people think that telling the truth about him did that.

Anita Hill was not alone in her accusations. Four women travelled to Washington D.C. to testify about how Thomas treated them and to corroborate Hill's account. Two of them, Angela Wright and Rose Jourdain, made statements to Senate staffers in support of Hill. Ultimately, however, Wright and Jourdain were dismissed by the Judiciary Committee without testifying. Republican Senators wanted to avoid the prospect of a second woman describing inappropriate behavior by Thomas, while Democratic Senators were concerned about Wright's credibility (Thomas had fired her from a job) and Wright herself was reluctant to testify after seeing the Committee's treatment of Hill. Another former Thomas assistant, Sukari Hardnett, did not accuse Thomas of sexual harassment, but told the Judiciary Committee staff that "if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."

After study, I believe Hill.

Those people defending Anita Hill and saying Thomas was the bad guy are any of them defending Paula Jones, Monica Lewinksky, Jaunita Broadback and other Women who Clinton had affairs with or harrased? I am sure tootcomb checks comes well before Supreme Court nomination as many employers ask for references and find things out. I see hypocrisy there.

I would think Anita wasn't totally truthful and the feminists did what they did to keep a noble man of the Supreme Court. He made the better descisions on most rulings.

To higv 2:41 p.m. Jan. 27, 2013

You are arguing based on your perception of various people, and not the facts in the case.

If you wish to condemn Ms. Hill, then you must also condemn Ms. Jones, Ms. Broadback, et al., (Ms. Lewinsky was a participnt and instigator and not a victim; her condemnation rests on that fact). Ms. Broadback's continuing interaction with President Clinton was identical to Ms. Hill's continuing interaction with Justice Thomas. In fact, there were more people ready and willing to corroborate Ms. Hill's testimany than there were for the others you named.

If you want to excuse Thomas then you also need to excuse Clinton; with one exception, there is no real difference between them. Both are rotten human beings, and there is nothin noble about either of them. The difference between them? Clinton is a rotten human being, but he was a competent and excellent President. Thomas is a rotten human being, but there is nothing competent about him and he is mediocre at best in his job. The country was well-served with Clinton as President, the same is not true with Thomas as Justice.

Furry - you seem to forget that Joe Biden was the chair of that committee, not Orrin Hatch. If the four women were "dismissed" then it was because Biden dismissed them not the Republicans. The controlling party, the Democrats at the time, didn't want to call them because they already had mud on their face because they had released the Thomas information and then didn't want to let any rebuttal testimony into the record. They wanted to put the accusations out there and then didn't want to allow any testimony or assertions to the contrary. If Biden wanted the "four women" to testify he most certainly could have called them and compelled their testimpony. The fact that he didn't call them and compel their testimony speaks volumnes to how he viewed their testimony and the veracity thereof.