Pass the Popcorn!!!
Teabag Gin-ni (mrs uncle clarence thomas)
has more DRUNK DIALING TO DO!!!

I believe this is where the apoplectic right wing would be calling for the impeachment of Justice Thomas and full investigations into what actually happened during the confirmation hearings – what did Thomas know and when, ya know? Oh, gee. But Thomas is an activist conservative judge who votes in lockstep with Scalia… so… I guess we won’t be hearing any of that… I guess. ;-)

This is an outrage!

Justice Thomas’ poor moral character makes him a perfect fit for the conservative caucus of the supreme court.

Paul Westlake said:
I believe this is where the apoplectic right wing would be calling for the impeachment of Justice Thomas and full investigations into what actually happened during the confirmation hearings – what did Thomas know and when, ya know? Oh, gee. But Thomas is an activist conservative judge who votes in lockstep with Scalia… so… I guess we won’t be hearing any of that… I guess. ;-)

Ummm . . . doesn’t this mean that Anita Hill was lying? Didn’t she testify that they never had a sexual relationship and his sexual advances were unwelcome? If discussed pornography with her (as she claims) and she was nothing but an employee in his office, that’s a problem. If they did while they were sleeping together, it’s not sexual harassment.

Fox News: We gladly gin up anger and fear for ratings. said:
Justice Thomas’ poor moral character makes him a perfect fit for the conservative caucus of the supreme court.

just like bill clinton’s high moral character made him a perfect fit for…..what????

Paul Westlake said:
I believe this is where the apoplectic right wing would be calling for the impeachment of Justice Thomas and full investigations into what actually happened during the confirmation hearings – what did Thomas know and when, ya know? Oh, gee. But Thomas is an activist conservative judge who votes in lockstep with Scalia… so… I guess we won’t be hearing any of that… I guess. ;-)

Besides, we all know that perjury isn’t an impeachable offense, right? ESPECIALLY when you’re lying about sex and a co-worker. Everybody does it! Right?

I hope Mrs. Thomas is happy now.

Libs cant stand him because he doesn’t fit what they think a black man should be.

If he perjured himself in Congress, that would indeed be a serious offense.

Perjury (distinct from general lying) from ANY of the leaders in any of the 3 branches of government should be considered a serious offense. Yes, this includes Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton.

Of course, if fully enforced, the tea party would likely get their wish of a much smaller government…

Lillian… Just another skank trolling for her 15 minutes!
See Megan McCain.
Yawn.

JimBob said:
Lillian… Just another skank trolling for her 15 minutes!
See Megan McCain.
Yawn.

Misogyny much?

I wonder if Mrs. Thomas regrets making that call yet?

CosmosDan said:
I hope Mrs. Thomas is happy now.

yeah… If she’s not a walking advertisement for psychotrophics, no one is.

I’m really shocked that it’s taken so long for Mediaite to pick up on this story and when you do you get it ass backwards. Clarence Thomas is probably one of the worst justices to sit on the Supreme Court. He was pushed onto the court by Bush I and Sen John Danforth as the best qualified black jurist in the country!Remember, he was the replacement for a truly great justice, Thurgood Marshall. This was, yet again, one of those cynical Republican jokes and a gross insult not only to Blacks, but to the country at large.The other day, out of the blue, Thomas’ wife Ginny called Anita Hill asking her to apologize for what she did to her husband many years ago at his confirmation hearings. This is so off the wall it defies all belief, especially as Ginny Thomas has become a Tea Party activist. It was clear at the hearings that Hill told the truth about Thomas constantly harrassed her with sexual and pornographic innuendos and worse. Whether Anita Hill had an affair withThomas is doubtful, but Ms McEwen has a book to sell. There was also ample proof at that time that Thomas was a sexually perverse character and Ms. McEwen was not allowed to testify as a character witness. Nevertheless, thanks to Bush, Danforth and the spineless Democrats at that time led by Sen Biden, Thomas was given a pass. Another gift from the Republicans which we’ll have to deal with for many years to come. Thomas is the most reactionary Justices on a court filled with reactionaries and Thomas was the main culprit behind the Citizen’s United case which is such an egregious decision that it will have to be changed at some time when we’ve regained our sanity.

ganymede said:
It was clear at the hearings that Hill told the truth about Thomas constantly harrassed her with sexual and pornographic innuendos and worse.

Well, that settles it then…

There’s no doubt that the phenomenon of sexual harassment exists, but sometimes I wonder about some of the thinking behind it.

When I was in college, I worked for extra money in a campus office with a lot of other students.

If anyone happened to wear a dress, all of us would routinely chase them around the office, and pull their dress up. It happened to me several times.

Same thing with guys– we’d de-pant them if they said or did something stupid.

A good time was had by all.

ganymede said:
It was clear at the hearings that Hill told the truth about Thomas constantly harrassed her with sexual and pornographic innuendos and worse.

This is what I love about the Thomas-Hill hearings. I’m glad we’re revisiting them after all these years because they are the ultimate political Rorschach test. Anyone who is intellectually honest, on either side of the political spectrum, should admit that this is a pure he said/she said. There is absolutely no extrinsic evidence on either side to definitively verify or impeach either side’s story. You can either: (1) admit that we’ll never know the truth of what happened between them; or, (2) choose a side based on nothing more than your own ideology and pound the table that the other side is “clearly” wrong.

(As a lawyer, I learned a long time ago that whenever anyone uses the phrase “it is clear that . . .” what they really mean is that it is not at all clear and they have no extrinsic evidence to prove their point. You don’t say, “It is clear that the sky is blue.” You say, “The sky is blue.” The latter is a far stronger and more definitive statement than the former.)

Frankly, to engage in pure speculation, I always thought (just a hunch, an instinct) that both Thomas and Hill were lying. In that sense, what McEwen is saying here has some plausibility to me. It would mean that both sides lied, and would explain a lot of the inconsistencies on both sides. Again, just a hunch.

JimBob said:
Lillian… Just another skank trolling for her 15 minutes!
See Megan McCain.
Yawn.

That is so classy. I’ll be looking forward to other insightful posts from you. You just have this knack for clarifying things in just a few words.

Cecelia said:
There’s no doubt that the phenomenon of sexual harassment exists, but sometimes I wonder about some of the thinking behind it.

When I was in college, I worked for extra money in a campus office with a lot of other students.

If anyone happened to wear a dress, all of us would routinely chase them around the office, and pull their dress up. It happened to me several times.

Same thing with guys– we’d de-pant them if they said or did something stupid.

A good time was had by all.

Did you all enjoy a Diet Coke after the physical exertion?

The Real Royal King said:
Did you all enjoy a Diet Coke after the physical exertion?

No, just some Jack from my purse flask.

Wow. Such a coincidence that this woman would surface now, right on the heels of the Virginia Thomas/Anita Hill thing.

She must have had a sudden epiphany about her supposed relationship with Thomas. i mean, if great wrong had been done at the time she would have come forward with it at, oh, say, Thomas’ confirmation hearings. Wouldn’t she?

Must have been terrible, sitting there all those years, not knowing where to turn when -voila!!! I know! Larry King! That’s it! I’ll go on Larry King to air twenty-odd year old laundry.

Good grief, people.

People can figure out what’s going on in this campaign season. All you need to do is see which side of the political spectrum

runs smear stories and character attacks every day of the week
walks off the stage to avoid dialogue,
fires a commentator who expresses an opinion with which they disagree
runs campaigns focusing on witchcraft and masturbation
meanwhile avoids discussion of key issues such as unemployment, the border, foreign policy, etc.
turns to Comedy Central to hear their leading spokesmen
tries to institute “speech codes” that silence those who dare express disagreement
turn to George Soros for funding for their disinformation campaigns
etc.

As I say, people can easily judge who they can believe is this environment. And if you doubt it, see who defends the above behavior in the comments section here, and make your own evaluation of their credibility.

Who, except liberal trolls and MediaLITE could possibly give a flying rat’s ass about any speculation from some hate-filled liberal who wants to have her five seconds of fame by trying to tear down one of the most admirable men in our nation–a man whom every black American should hold as an icon and role model.

Ginny Thomas “extended an olive branch” ???? Hardly. If anything, she did the opposite by asking Anita HIll to apologize for something she did not do simply to salve Ms. Thomas’ feelings. Think of what a nut case she must be to be married to Justice Thomas.

When did TEABAGGER DRUNK DIALING
become extending an olive branch!!!???

felix brings up a good point – it’s interesting that the barometer and spokesperson of a group is a comedian on Comedy Central. When you give that just one second’s worth of rational thought it speaks volumes.

I saw Ms. McKewen’s interview. One of the very first things she said was that the episode doesn’t make her look good either. I don’t see a grudge here. I don’t see any campaign motive. I see a person who has reached a stage in her life that she needs to set a few things straight.

Another nutbag wanting to get hers. Where do you morons dig up these media whores? Leave it to ‘we print anything if it’s bad for the right’ Mediaite. And I had such high hopes for you all.

The Real Royal King said:
I saw Ms. McKewen’s interview. One of the very first things she said was that the episode doesn’t make her look good either. I don’t see a grudge here. I don’t see any campaign motive. I see a person who has reached a stage in her life that she needs to set a few things straight.

Of course you do, now lie down.

Jeeze Phoci2 even I didn’t call
uncle clarence thomas’ wife a nutbag!

Harry Flashman said:
felix brings up a good point – it’s interesting that the barometer and spokesperson of a group is a comedian on Comedy Central. When you give that just one second’s worth of rational thought it speaks volumes.

Cause that’s so different from a self-described “rodeo clown” being a barometer and spokesperson how?

Harry Flashman said:
Wow. Such a coincidence that this woman would surface now, right on the heels of the Virginia Thomas/Anita Hill thing.

Who has made this an issue again? That would be Mrs. Thomas. This woman resurfaced because Ginny decided to make this an issue again, nearly 20 years later.

Well, lets see. If Anita Hill did have some sort of relationship with Thomas (or thought she did – oh, oh… a Glenn Close vision?), would her sexual harassment complaints about him then be the vengeful revenge of a spurned woman? How would that make the whole thing look…. if looked at in that light?
He would be like Bill Clinton, getting some at the office with a fellow worker, so he is off the hook for that.
She would be a liar, and a vengeful spiteful woman who was dumped for another woman and then made a sexual harassment case into a huge public spectacle. Hmmmm.

Cecelia said:
There’s no doubt that the phenomenon of sexual harassment exists, but sometimes I wonder about some of the thinking behind it.

When I was in college, I worked for extra money in a campus office with a lot of other students.

If anyone happened to wear a dress, all of us would routinely chase them around the office, and pull their dress up. It happened to me several times.

Same thing with guys– we’d de-pant them if they said or did something stupid.

A good time was had by all.

CLUE: Sexual Harassment is not fun, does not feel good, is unwanted and that’s how you tell it apart from a “good time.”

Have you ever worked anywhere with an HR department? Geez. Ask a grown-up if you need another clue.

justanotherconservative said:
just like bill clinton’s high moral character made him a perfect fit for…..what????

definitely not a lifetime appointment like Thomas got

Cece, maybe your daughter could explain it to you
or your grandaughter unless of course you think
it would be “FUN” for them too

felixw said:
People can figure out what’s going on in this campaign season. All you need to do is see which side of the political spectrum runs smear stories and character attacks every day of the weekwalks off the stage to avoid dialogue,fires a commentator who expresses an opinion with which they disagreeruns campaigns focusing on witchcraft and masturbationmeanwhile avoids discussion of key issues such as unemployment, the border, foreign policy, etc.turns to Comedy Central to hear their leading spokesmentries to institute “speech codes” that silence those who dare express disagreementturn to George Soros for funding for their disinformation campaignsetc. As I say, people can easily judge who they can believe is this environment. And if you doubt it, see who defends the above behavior in the comments section here, and make your own evaluation of their credibility.

O’Reilly: Scary Muslims, scary Muslims, Muslim problem

Angle: Scary Mexicans, scary mexicans, but they could be asian

Beck: The cataclysm is coming, be prepared for what might not happen!!

O’Donnell: What is the first amendment? Whatever it is I’m here to protect it, unless I don’t like what it says.

Felixw: George Soros, George Soros, he’s the anti-christ…he’s responsible for Juan Williams (my favorite pundit of all time!) getting fired from NPR (my favorite listener-sponsored new show..or is it only on radio? of all time /sarc)

Sorry, but YOU are the one with ZERO credibility…one more week!! one more week!! and you will by crying all up and down the boards!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

SpineCrusher said:
O’Reilly: Scary Muslims, scary Muslims, Muslim problem

Angle: Scary Mexicans, scary mexicans, but they could be asian

Beck: The cataclysm is coming, be prepared for what might not happen!!

O’Donnell: What is the first amendment? Whatever it is I’m here to protect it, unless I don’t like what it says.

Felixw: George Soros, George Soros, he’s the anti-christ…he’s responsible for Juan Williams (my favorite pundit of all time!) getting fired from NPR (my favorite listener-sponsored new show..or is it only on radio? of all time /sarc)

Sorry, but YOU are the one with ZERO credibility…one more week!! one more week!! and you will by crying all up and down the boards!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

Royal King, you can change your alias, but your stupidity rings out so loudly from your posts, that it’s pointless to try to hide your identity. Although I can well understand why you would want to disown your own past work here at Mediaite. It is, we both agree, an embarrassment, and I don’t blame you for wanting to hide your connection with it.

The hilarious thing is that this is all Ginny’s fault for leaving that stupid voice message, now they have to endure it again

AnonymousFinch said:
Ummm . . . doesn’t this mean that Anita Hill was lying? Didn’t she testify that they never had a sexual relationship and his sexual advances were unwelcome? If discussed pornography with her (as she claims) and she was nothing but an employee in his office, that’s a problem. If they did while they were sleeping together, it’s not sexual harassment.

I loved that… However, it would also probably impeach Thomas’s testimony and thereby open the door for perjury charges. Fortunately, the former Thomas girlfriend said only that she “assumed” a sexual relationship.

Pinko said:
The hilarious thing is that this is all Ginny’s fault for leaving that stupid voice message, now they have to endure it again

You know every time I have gotten drunk and left a voice mail message with someone to apologize to me planting a shrub so close to the sidewalk that my car ran into it or not taking the last donut before I got it, I have lived to regret it.

valkyrie101 said:
I loved that… However, it would also probably impeach Thomas’s testimony and thereby open the door for perjury charges. Fortunately, the former Thomas girlfriend said only that she “assumed” a sexual relationship.

I agree. My guess–purely a guess–is that they both lied. As for an actual perjury charge, it could never be proved (even if the former girlfriend had said more than “assumed”, and its long, long past the statute of limitations.

AnonymousFinch said:
and its long, long past the statute of limitations.

True, but not necessarily in the court of public opinion.

I can understand spur of the moment drunk dialing King,
but did you ever wait 20 years to complain about the shrub?
See, thats the problem with right wing asshats they can’t move on
they are always living in the past as everyone else moves forward
and they hate the rest of us for moving on.

People actually believe Anita Hill? Holy Crap…..

valkyrie101 said:
True, but not necessarily in the court of public opinion.

Fair enough. If there were real extrinsic proof that he committed perjury, I’d be the first to denounce him and call for his impeachment. But this isn’t exactly DNA on a blue dress, if you know what I mean.

Yeah well, my ex said to a friend of mine while I sat at her elbow that I was “walking” the street to make money….she turned to me and said…”if you weren’t sitting right in front of me, I would believe this jerk!”
So, this broad can say what she wants, the racism is coming because he married a beautiful white
woman a complete no-no in African American circles. Now, who is racist? Again, who is bigoted?
The truth is coming through…no more hiding it?

This article belongs on Gossip Cop and Larry needs to be retired. Nothing like just throwing out crap, is it any wonder CNN ratings are in the toilet. Larry needs to be flushed.

Sue said:
So, this broad can say what she wants, the racism is coming because he married a beautiful white
woman a complete no-no in African American circles. Now, who is racist? Again, who is bigoted?
The truth is coming through…no more hiding it?

Huh? People are being racist because he married a white woman? One of the dimmer comments posted here.

ImRubberYoureGlue said:
Geez. Ask a grown-up if you need another clue.

Okay, then go get your mother.

Iris said:
Cece, maybe your daughter could explain it to you
or your grandaughter unless of course you think
it would be “FUN” for them too

Iris, the only way I’d involve my daughter with something you wrote, is by prefacing it with “this is your brain on drugs”.

Cecelia said:
Okay, then go get your mother.

I am embarrassed for you–not because you like to show your panties at work, but because you’re an idiot and you’re definitely not funny.

Hey Iris, as one asshat to another, your side does so much bad, ugly, filthy, untrue sh#t, you can’t forget it! I mean, lying through your teeth to get what you and your side want? Well, Iris, if that’s the way you live your
life don’t bitch about it!

ImRubberYoureGlue said:
I am embarrassed for you–not because you like to show your panties at work, but because you’re an idiot and you’re definitely not funny.

Well, I’m merely sorry for you.

Obviously, you must be bordering on suicidal with self-remorse…

No, paulmdoro, …I didn’t say it was racist I said that marrying a white woman was a NO NO….the racism comes from minorities attributing anything negative to whiles as racist or bigoted, when its them that are! From one dimmer to another…get it?

AnonymousFinch said:
Ummm . . . doesn’t this mean that Anita Hill was lying? Didn’t she testify that they never had a sexual relationship and his sexual advances were unwelcome?

I’m under no illusion that anything this woman says is true. Merely pointing out that any speculation that fits the conservative anti-liberal narrative would be seized upon and exploited for all its worth by the right, for instance, if Thomas was perceived as a liberal Justice. And the fact that you’re still beating the long-dead horse of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair belies your self-delusional sense of immunity from the very judgmentalism you decry in this statement:

AnonymousFinch said:
There is absolutely no extrinsic evidence on either side to definitively verify or impeach either side’s story. You can either: (1) admit that we’ll never know the truth of what happened between them; or, (2) choose a side based on nothing more than your own ideology and pound the table that the other side is “clearly” wrong.

If the point in all this is to reveal the underlying character of each of these men – Thomas and Clinton – then isn’t it clear that both men have similar weaknesses with regard to the opposite sex? Is that not enough? No, you have to spout off about extrinsic evidence while waving blue dresses in the air. You know how many sexual perverts there are on the right, from Craig to Haggert, who have built careers on a mountain of “family-values” lies? Vitter is going to win re-election! Aren’t you just a little embarrassed by the rampant hypocrisy of conservatives who repeatedly fail to practice what they preach? Liberals DON’T preach about abstinence-only sex ed and allegedly promiscuous gays in the classroom, conservatives DO, and then they get caught with their traveling cabana boys. Enough with the false outrage. I know you can go on and on about perjury and a whole lot of other quasi-legal bullshit, but liberals don’t prosecute conservatives for sex. THAT’S the difference. Liberals don’t sell themselves as “family-values” candidates, conservatives do, and then they lie and cover-up for their own anyway. John Ensign? The Family? Perverts, every last one them. Your heroes. Pfe!

Why is Clarance Thomas relevant now?

Good, this guy sucks as a Supreme Court Jurist.

Paul Westlake said:
I’m under no illusion that anything this woman says is true.

I was ashamed way back when…it wasn’t the issue of what Anita Hill was saying…it was how Clarence Thomas was being portrayed.

If you can’t prove the act didnt’ happen…prove legal authority.

He couldn’t answer the question…why should he be a judge?

I got very dis-illusioned after Clarence Thomas was elected to the Supreme Court.

Paul Westlake said:
’m under no illusion that anything this woman says is true. Merely pointing out that any speculation that fits the conservative anti-liberal narrative would be seized upon and exploited for all its worth by the right, for instance, if Thomas was perceived as a liberal Justice. And the fact that you’re still beating the long-dead horse of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair belies your self-delusional sense of immunity from the very judgmentalism you decry in this statement:

Clinton lied under oath. Had his secretary (Betty Currie) come to WH on a Saturday, so HE could coach her in a lie for her upcoming deposition,. Got his lover to file a false affidavit in order to thwart the discovery process of a sexual harassment case (that had been green-lighted by the Supreme Court). Had his surrogates (Sidney Blumenthal, Jame Carville) appear on all the talk shows impugning his female critics as being trash and defending him with lies. Had his wife wife do the same.

It’s not surprising that since you started out with a false comparison between the Lewinsky Scandal and the Thomas confirmation, that you now have to argue that the details and even the cases themselves are irrelevant, even as you used them to point out what you claim is relevant– hypocrisy by Republicans.

You could have saved yourself a whole lot of effort if you had merely stated that it’s safer to not preach against things that are harmful, because that way you’re not on the hook if you indulge in them.

That’s a point that you have so clearly made for yourself and your party.

Paul Westlake said:
I’m under no illusion that anything this woman says is true. Merely pointing out that any speculation that fits the conservative anti-liberal narrative would be seized upon and exploited for all its worth by the right, for instance, if Thomas was perceived as a liberal Justice. And the fact that you’re still beating the long-dead horse of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair belies your self-delusional sense of immunity from the very judgmentalism you decry in this statement:

I could stop this point of thought at any time.

Fundamentally, there were a lot of political changes to the Supreme Court via appointments.

It was brutal and what I think most voters are wondering is “what is in it for me?”

It is a generational surge, the elders are fighting/voting back and the kids are learning.

Sue said:
From one dimmer to another…get it?

No. I don’t get it.

Nobody pays attention…so, a Party call to rally sounds desparate.

To little to late!

AnonymousFinch said:
Fair enough. If there were real extrinsic proof that he committed perjury, I’d be the first to denounce him and call for his impeachment. But this isn’t exactly DNA on a blue dress, if you know what I mean.

Sure, this is nothing. And Thomas got a raw deal, IMHO, though not as raw a deal as Bork.

Clinton lied under oath. Had his secretary (Betty Currie) come to WH on a Saturday, so HE could coach her in a lie for her upcoming deposition,. Got his lover to file a false affidavit in order to thwart the discovery process of a sexual harassment case (that had been green-lighted by the Supreme Court). Had his surrogates (Sidney Blumenthal, Jame Carville) appear on all the talk shows impugning his female critics as being trash and defending him with lies. Had his wife wife do the same.

It’s all OK as long as you keep on denying.

I had forgotten about that style.

Clinton lied under oath.

He did.

Seriously, do you think i’m going to recomend a politician or a style of politics to children based on their previous behavior?

Apparently Sue has been busy having Happy Hour!
How about coming back when your coherence returns Sue

Paul Westlake said:
But Thomas is an activist conservative judge who votes in lockstep with Scalia… so… I guess we won’t be hearing any of that… I guess. ;-)

Really? What law has Justice Thomas created out of smoke and mirrors? Or is activist simply your word for jurists who don’t see the Constitution as a “living breathing document”?

paulmdoro said:
Who has made this an issue again? That would be Mrs. Thomas. This woman resurfaced because Ginny decided to make this an issue again, nearly 20 years later.

Exactly how was McEwen who didnt come forward 20 years ago when it could have meant something dragged into this matter today?

paulmdoro said:
Huh? People are being racist because he married a white woman? One of the dimmer comments posted here.

Seriously who is the dim one here? Conservative blacks are apparently fair game for any racist slam no one would dare make against a “correct” black person. Put that conservative black with a white woman and all bets are truly off. Look at this recent revelation that the woman calling Andrew Breitbart “gay” at the rally was an official for the Democrat party. (Story also posted here on Mediaite) No one on the Left apparently concerned with her use of the term as an epithet.

Lets face it Democrats will gladly break their own rules of political correctness when its in the service of torpedoing someone on the Right. They are so utterly convinced of the unassailable moral sacredness of their own opinion that any means used to forward it is justified.

Cecelia said:
Clinton lied under oath.

This is correct, and this is the beginning and end of the analysis for me. I could not give a damn less who he had sex with how many times in which room of the White House . . .

[But let me digress for a second. My favorite part of the Starr Report was the story from Monica's grand jury testimony about how one of the times that she blew Clinton was on the day that the first soldier died in Kosovo. He was feeling tense and depressed because he felt all the weight of being commander in chief on his shoulders. The postscript to the story, however, which Monica did not know at the time, is that the soldier in question was not even killed in combat. He had a heart attack or a brain aneurism or some other freakish, unexpected, natural death that would have happened if he was sitting at home on his couch. I always thought that scene was the saddest profile of Clinton I've ever heard. Brilliant man, very good looking, uber charismatic, President of the United States, yet he felt the need to seduce a girl half his age with a bullshit story like some high school kid. It actually always reminded me of the scene in Grease 2 (yeah, I know, I'm not proud of it) when one of the guys tries to sleep with a girl by luring her into a fall out shelter and then faking a nuclear attack to make her think they are the last man and woman on earth. But I do digress . . .]

The point is that the President of the United States can’t be permitted to commit perjury with impunity. Perjury is a crime that goes to the heart of our system of justice. Most people get away with it because it’s very hard to prove, but when you’ve got the proof (i.e., the blue dress) you can’t just shrug your shoulders and say “Oh, well.”

Anonymous Finch said:

…….”There is absolutely no extrinsic evidence on either side to definitively verify or impeach either side’s story. You can either: (1) admit that we’ll never know the truth of what happened between them; or, (2) choose a side based on nothing more than your own ideology and pound the table that the other side is “clearly” wrong.”

You’re right Anonymous, there is no evidence on either side to truly verify or impeach either side. I don’t remember anyone coming forward to corroborate that Anita Hill had an affair with Thomas. And that includes Ms. McEwan. She said she “thought” that they had a sexual affair, but gave no proof, other than what Clarence Thomas led her to believe. In actuality, his actions with McEwan corroborate the very behavior that Anita Hill described in her testimony. What kind of mature, thoughtful, logical man would entice another woman into his office and flaunt his relationship with her in order to make another woman jealous, or……..what??? The man is obviously a sociopath, and while this relationship with both of these women is troubling, what bothers me more is the obvious conflict of interest by his current wife’s involvement with the Tea Party, and the PAC she is heading. Justices are prohibited from participating in anything political. This is the bigger issue.

bluangel said:
The man is obviously a sociopath, and while this relationship with both of these women is troubling, what bothers me more is the obvious conflict of interest by his current wife’s involvement with the Tea Party, and the PAC she is heading. Justices are prohibited from participating in anything political. This is the bigger issue.

No, this is not an issue!!!

The wives and family members of federal judges can to anything political that they want. Don”t believe me? Just ask federal Circuit Court Judge Marjorie Rendell, who is also the life of PA Governor Ed Rendell. Judge Rendell (who, by the way, is a great Judge) was on the federal bench WHEN HER HUSBAND WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE!!! To be clear, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals where Judge Rendell sits is one step below the Supreme Court. ALL federal judges (including CIrcuit Court and Supreme Court) are governed by the same the ethical rules and standards for recusal.

No one has ever made an issue of Judge Rendell sitting on the federal bench despite her husband’s political activities, and no one should. This latest attack on Justice Thomas and his wife is just the latest example of the double standard.

Tis argument is bullshit. It needs to stop, or be applied evenly.

bluangel said:
The man is obviously a sociopath

Well, that settles it.

justanotherconservative said:
just like bill clinton’s high moral character made him a perfect fit for…..what????

Let’s see, you folks decided that impeachment was necessary for Clinton. Etu, Mr. Justice Thomas?

M Colins said:
Really? What law has Justice Thomas created out of smoke and mirrors? Or is activist simply your word for jurists who don’t see the Constitution as a “living breathing document”?

I think you are missing the sarcasm here. The whole concept of so-called activist judges was promulgated by the right wing, whenever they did not like what a judge said. Remember Terri Schaivo? The judge who ordered the tubes to be taken out was butchered by the right wing as an activist. It was one of the more disgusting moments of the far right.

AnonymousFinch said:
No, this is not an issue!!! The wives and family members of federal judges can to anything political that they want. Don”t believe me? Just ask federal Circuit Court Judge Marjorie Rendell, who is also the life of PA Governor Ed Rendell. Judge Rendell (who, by the way, is a great Judge) was on the federal bench WHEN HER HUSBAND WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE!!! To be clear, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals where Judge Rendell sits is one step below the Supreme Court. ALL federal judges (including CIrcuit Court and Supreme Court) are governed by the same the ethical rules and standards for recusal. No one has ever made an issue of Judge Rendell sitting on the federal bench despite her husband’s political activities, and no one should. This latest attack on Justice Thomas and his wife is just the latest example of the double standard. Tis argument is bullshit. It needs to stop, or be applied evenly.

Goes under the heading of avoiding the “appearance of impropriety”, and that is mostly a voluntary ethical obligation under the CPR. So yes, there is no issue, and no violation of ethics. The Thomas’s certainly have the right to engage in something that appears to be improper, but should Clarence do that? Is that a good standard? No way.

AnonymousFinch said:
Tis argument is bullshit. It needs to stop, or be applied evenly.

Well, what can you say.

So if we can’t quite justify calls for impeachment, we’re at least supposed to be “very concerned” about Justice Thomas.

And that based upon the testimony of woman who has come forth with her opinions, 20 years later, after hearing the testimony of all sides, for any sort of motives imaginable.

The man is “obviously a sociopath”. He’s obviously a womanizer…

I think you can pretty well put away the notion of anything being “applied evenly” here, AF. We’re off to chasing dandelion pollen and nebulous concerns.

I think we’ve

valkyrie101 said:
The Thomas’s certainly have the right to engage in something that appears to be improper, but should Clarence do that? Is that a good standard? No way.

Should Mrs. Thomas call old enemies in the middle of night to demand apologies….not unless she wants to stir up a hornet’s nest.

She she be able to participate in the political process as actively as she or anyone else might wish. Absolutely.

valkyrie101 said:
Goes under the heading of avoiding the “appearance of impropriety”, and that is mostly a voluntary ethical obligation under the CPR. So yes, there is no issue, and no violation of ethics. The Thomas’s certainly have the right to engage in something that appears to be improper, but should Clarence do that? Is that a good standard? No way.

Fair point. And I agree to an extent. If I ever became a federal judge and I ever married again, I would not allow my spouse to do anything overtly political because I don’t like the appearance. (Fortunately, the chances of my ever becoming a federal judge are 0, and the chances of my ever getting married again are much lower than that.)

But there are lots of fine judges who do things I wouldn’t do. Scalia and Breyer have both written (very good) books about constituional interpretation. I think that’s wholly improper. By comparison, I have no problem with the books that Rehnquist wrote while he was on the bench because they were history, not judicial philosophy. So reasonable people can disagree about where the line should be drawn.

I really admire the courage of black conservatives. The level of hatred from the left that is leveled at them is truly vicious.

I think they all should get together and have a Coke and a smile.

It’s always fun to see the lib racists go after Thomas.

The courage of black conservatives!!???
Like how uncle clarence thomas has
the courage to always say…yes sir mister scalia ,
whatever you say or when asked his opinion he says ..
whatever mr. scalia said is what my opinion is
yeah , thats really, really , really, really, really curageous

The best thing uncle clarence ever did was
marry that batshit crazy teabagging wife of his
so we could have somes laughs at her drunk dialing!

Iris, you are atruly disgusting human being. And you using the word bat**shit crazy is highly ironic, considering you’ve never made a sane comment..

Iris said:
The courage of black conservatives!!???
Like how uncle clarence thomas has
the courage to always say…yes sir mister scalia ,
whatever you say or when asked his opinion he says ..
whatever mr. scalia said is what my opinion is
yeah , thats really, really , really, really, really curageous

This isn’t racist. At all. Seriously.

Iris said:
The courage of black conservatives!!???
Like how uncle clarence thomas has
the courage to always say…yes sir mister scalia ,
whatever you say or when asked his opinion he says ..
whatever mr. scalia said is what my opinion is
yeah , thats really, really , really, really, really curageous

By the way, Iris, who do think was statistically more likely to vote the same way:

A. Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia

or

B. Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan

Also, which member of the Supreme Court was known for watching soap operas every afternoon in his Chambers?

Iris said:
Like how uncle clarence thomas has
the courage to always say…yes sir mister scalia ,
whatever you say or when asked his opinion he says ..
whatever mr. scalia said is what my opinion is
yeah , thats really, really , really, really, really curageous

Even more pathetic than usual, Iris. Racist.

Iris said:
The courage of black conservatives!!???
Like how uncle clarence thomas has
the courage to always say…yes sir mister scalia ,
whatever you say or when asked his opinion he says ..
whatever mr. scalia said is what my opinion is
yeah , thats really, really , really, really, really curageous

Out of curiosity, is the following racist?

Like how uncle thurgood marshall has
the courage to always say . . . yes sir mister brennan,
whatever you say or when asked his opinion he says . .
whatever mr. brennan said is what my opinion is
yeah, thats really, really, really, really, really courageous

If she’s right, my estimation of Clarence Thomas just soared. Anita Hill is smokin’ !

Cecelia said:
Should Mrs. Thomas call old enemies in the middle of night to demand apologies….not unless she wants to stir up a hornet’s nest. She she be able to participate in the political process as actively as she or anyone else might wish. Absolutely.

The problem is that Clarence is an attorney who should in the performance of his duties as a Judge avoid the appearance of impropriety. Here his wife is an advocate for several heated social causes that may be adjudged by the Supreme Court and since it is not disputed that Clarence has been palling around with his wife, I think that is an appearance of impropriety. Properly Thomas should consider recusing himself from court matters that involve the issues that Mrs. Thomas is stumping for. Again, no ethics violation by Thomas and he is not required to recuse, but the highest standard of ethics under the code of professional responsibility that lawyers are required to submit to I think calls for recusal.

Come now Anonymous, you can do better than that tired canard about perjury, esp. as you have made a point about what a good lawyer you are.:

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 79 § 1621 Perjury generally

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury

Since it wasn’t a material fact in the case, it wasn’t perjury.

It’s not even clear, because of the terms stipulated in the deposition, if it was lying.

So, yes, I can with a clear conscience castigate (and perhaps call for impeachment to be imposed on) those who commit perjury; and still say Clinton was hounded unjustly.

Which I do.

Nahu Tuk said:
Who, except liberal trolls and MediaLITE could possibly give a flying rat’s ass about any speculation from some hate-filled liberal who wants to have her five seconds of fame by trying to tear down one of the most admirable men in our nation–a man whom every black American should hold as an icon and role model.

Anyone who has ever read Clarence Thomas’ bio knows that to be correct. I also noted that on another post you seem to admire Charles Payne. Me, too.

AnonymousFinch said:
The point is that the President of the United States can’t be permitted to commit perjury with impunity. Perjury is a crime that goes to the heart of our system of justice. Most people get away with it because it’s very hard to prove, but when you’ve got the proof (i.e., the blue dress) you can’t just shrug your shoulders and say “Oh, well.”

And your views on Scooter Libby?

valkyrie101 said:
Again, no ethics violation by Thomas and he is not required to recuse, but the highest standard of ethics under the code of professional responsibility that lawyers are required to submit to I think calls for recusal.

Justices aren’t required to recluse in such scenarios for a reason, Valkyrie.

It’s because we don’t require justices to live in such a bubble that they are considered to be compromised by the mere fact that they or one their family members may have or have had a position on a philosophical matter.

If that were the case, you couldn’t get anyone confirmed unless they had been completely apolitical and not only that, a justice would certainly have to recluse himself for no greater reason than he/she was ruling upon a issue that had direct bearing upon the president who had appointed them to the court.

Confirmation committees are certainly aware that Justice Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, etc. had a certain philosophy about the Constitution as well as views about the nature, size, and appropriate scope of govt. BEFORE they were confirmed.

Justices are expected and assumed to be able to put aside particular political alliances in order to rule upon the constitutionality of matters before the court, but the default mode was never to assume that they had no internal guiding principles or philosophies.

That would be an unreasonable and inhumane requirement and fortunately we have never exacted it.

More to the point, those who keep prating about Clinton’s “perjury” can’t then turn about and say other peoples lies don’t matter.

I keep hearing that the soul of conservatism is all about bedrock moral issues, and then seeing that it’s not the same when the feet which need to be held to the fire belong to a conservative.

Which makes it look as if the real issue isn’t the “moral value” but the political capital to be gained from the appearance of moral value. Which is to say, it’s a sham. Fine, I can understand the desire for political power to pursue one’s agenda, but don’t expect me to sit here and pretend the hypocrisy isn’t happening.

If Clinton was so bad, for telling a non-material lie that impeachment was mandated, then simple consistency requires that when someone else (say a Vitter) engages in crimes, admits to them (e.g. Bush, and wiretaps), then the same people who were baying after Clinton should be baying after them.

But they aren’t, which means I can (and do) discount there moral outrage as posturing. Which means I can, and do, assume they are posturing on other things as well.

They made a bed, they have to lie in it.

Cecelia said:
Clinton lied under oath. Had his secretary (Betty Currie) come to WH on a Saturday, so HE could coach her in a lie for her upcoming deposition,. Got his lover to file a false affidavit in order to thwart the discovery process of a sexual harassment case (that had been green-lighted by the Supreme Court). Had his surrogates (Sidney Blumenthal, Jame Carville) appear on all the talk shows impugning his female critics as being trash and defending him with lies. Had his wife wife do the same.

Yes, that’s right, Clinton invented tough politics. It was right wing operatives who brought those women out of the woodwork and exploited them to get at Clinton in the first place. It’s awful that they got abused by the process the way they did, but they chose the spotlight. Don’t pretend Republicans don’t smear their opponents – just ask McCain. Also, when I said “this woman,” I meant McEwan, not Anita Hill.

Cecelia said:
It’s not surprising that since you started out with a false comparison between the Lewinsky Scandal and the Thomas confirmation, that you now have to argue that the details and even the cases themselves are irrelevant, even as you used them to point out what you claim is relevant– hypocrisy by Republicans.

I didn’t start with it, AnonymousFinch did…

AnonymousFinch said:
Besides, we all know that perjury isn’t an impeachable offense, right? ESPECIALLY when you’re lying about sex and a co-worker. Everybody does it! Right?

…which is why my comment included this line in the first paragraph…

Paul Westlake said:
And the fact that you’re still beating the long-dead horse of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair belies your self-delusional sense of immunity from the very judgmentalism you decry…

And then we get your final bit of judgmentalism…

Cecelia said:
You could have saved yourself a whole lot of effort if you had merely stated that it’s safer to not preach against things that are harmful, because that way you’re not on the hook if you indulge in them.

That’s a point that you have so clearly made for yourself and your party.

It must be nice going through life believing you’re perfect. Liberals don’t make that mistake and don’t preach about it to other people because most of us recognize that everyone goes on their own journey at their own pace. It’s conservatives who rail against human frailty for political gain and then hide behind human frailty when they’re busted. Conservatives always say they value a “straight shooter,” but obviously that doesn’t apply to liberals who honestly acknowledge that personal lives can be messy. Yes it must be nice to live is the clean, crisp air on your ideological mountaintop.

Liberals are honest about human weaknesses up front. But for the ideological purists, that’s a bunch of bullshit – there’s a “right” way and there’s everything else, and, conveniently, the “right” ways always seems to be whatever the ideological purist believes. The “right” way is not the consensus, unless the consensus agrees with the purist – it’s not the bold minority opinion, unless the purist is in the minority. To the purist, senseless violence committed on behalf of an ideology the purist disagrees with is terrorism, an act of war, but senseless violence committed on behalf of a cause the purist agrees with is retribution, vigilante justice, and freedom fighting. The purist believes all things in conformity with purist ideology are noble and good, and all things in opposition are immoral and evil. Are you an ideological purist, Cecilia?

Pecunium said:
If Clinton was so bad, for telling a non-material lie that impeachment was mandated, then simple consistency requires that when someone else (say a Vitter) engages in crimes, admits to them (e.g. Bush, and wiretaps), then the same people who were baying after Clinton should be baying after them.

Well, since Vitter was never elected president, perhaps you need to address that to the people of Louisiana, the Louisiana Republican Party, and to D.C. justice system that prosecuted the D.C. madam.

Paul Westlake said:
Cecilia

Sorry for the typo, Cecelia. Unintentional.

Paul Westlake said:
es, that’s right, Clinton invented tough politics. It was right wing operatives who brought those women out of the woodwork and exploited them to get at Clinton in the first place. It’s awful that they got abused by the process the way they did, but they chose the spotlight. Don’t pretend Republicans don’t smear their opponents – just ask McCain. Also, when I said “this woman,” I meant McEwan, not Anita Hill.

Actually, Paula Jones STILL maintains she was sexually harassed by Clinton. It doesn’t matter who encouraged her to go through with a suit, the fact is that she had legal right to do so. THAT was decided by the Supreme Court, after Clinton’s own lawyers argued that you can’t sue a sitting president.

It wasn’t “tough politics” or “smearing opponents” for Clinton to get Lewinsky to sign a false affidavit and to coach his secretary in false testimony. It was subornation of perjury.

It wasn’t merely “smearing a political opponent” for Clinton to tell Blumenthal, Carville, and his wife, that Lewinsky had been stalking him, so that they’d tell that story on to a national audience. It was using his powers of office to impugn anyone who got in his way.

Paul Westlake said:
It must be nice going through life believing you’re perfect. Liberals don’t make that mistake and don’t preach about it to other people because most of us recognize that everyone goes on their own journey at their own pace. It’s conservatives who rail against human frailty for political gain and then hide behind human frailty when they’re busted. Conservatives always say they value a “straight shooter,” but obviously that doesn’t apply to liberals who honestly acknowledge that personal lives can be messy. Yes it must be nice to live is the clean, crisp air on your ideological mountaintop.

Well, fine, let’s see liberals live out that same principle not only to a national audience, but to their own children.

Since one shouldn’t take moral stand, because human being are prone to err, let’s here them campaign on THAT issue.

Hey, Thomas will send a bitch to cut this chick, or at least call her as if all these things never happened! His wacko wife has lowered the honor of his post!

Paul Westlake said:
but obviously that doesn’t apply to liberals who honestly acknowledge that personal lives can be messy. Yes it must be nice to live is the clean, crisp air on your ideological mountaintop.

I’m sorry but it’s a hell of a lot easier to say, “Oh, well, mistakes are made”…. than to take a decided stand that certain things are wrong, have consequences and should be condemned, human frailties or not.

That’s not an environment of an “ideological mountaintop”. It’s the been the ordinary air of generations.

Cecelia said:
Actually, Paula Jones STILL maintains she was sexually harassed by Clinton. It doesn’t matter who encouraged her to go through with a suit, the fact is that she had legal right to do so. THAT was decided by the Supreme Court, after Clinton’s own lawyers argued that you can’t sue a sitting president.

It wasn’t “tough politics” or “smearing opponents” for Clinton to get Lewinsky to sign a false affidavit and to coach his secretary in false testimony. It was subornation of perjury.

It wasn’t merely “smearing a political opponent” for Clinton to tell Blumenthal, Carville, and his wife, that Lewinsky had been stalking him, so that they’d tell that story on to a national audience. It was using his powers of office to impugn anyone who got in his way.

Ken Starr. Nuff said.

Cecelia said:
Well, fine, let’s see liberals live out that same principle not only to a national audience, but to their own children.

Since one shouldn’t take moral stand, because human being are prone to err, let’s here them campaign on THAT issue.

Do you know how many broken families there are in America? Do you realize that red states have higher rates of teen pregnancy and single motherhood than blue states? Every study on abstinence-only education I’ve seen, except one, shows it to be an utter failure. The divorce rate in America is over 50%. These are the facts of our society. Pretending America is entirely comprised of families that resembles the Cleavers isn’t helping anyone. It just destroys any credibility conservatives ope to gain on the subject. It’s just silly.

Cecelia said:
I’m sorry but it’s a hell of a lot easier to say, “Oh, well, mistakes are made”…. than to take a decided stand that certain things are wrong, have consequences and should be condemned, human frailties or not.

That’s not what we’re talking about and you know it. We’re talking about personal behavior that isn’t the business of anybody but the people affected by the personal issues to begin with. Even the freaking church has been caught with its hands in little boys pants! Who the hell do you think you’re kidding with that crap? I’ve never even cheated on a casual girlfriend in my life, but I don’t roll around condemning adultery every chance I get. It’s none of my business – and it’s none of yours.

Paul Westlake said:
Ken Starr. Nuff said.

No, that’s only “nuff said” in the eyes of someone who justify ANY behavior as long as he could pin the cause on some political foe.

It’s highly ironic that in the course of topic about a man who accused of sexual harassment because he talked about the contents of pornographic movies, that tactics to thwart Paula Jones’ case are dismissed.

Afterall, she only maintains that in the course of her work, she was escorted to a back room by Clinton security, and there Clinton complimented her appearance, unzipped his pants, pulled out his penis and asked her to “kiss it”

Paul Westlake said:
Do you know how many broken families there are in America? Do you realize that red states have higher rates of teen pregnancy and single motherhood than blue states? Every study on abstinence-only education I’ve seen, except one, shows it to be an utter failure. The divorce rate in America is over 50%. These are the facts of our society. Pretending America is entirely comprised of families that resembles the Cleavers isn’t helping anyone. It just destroys any credibility conservatives ope to gain on the subject. It’s just silly.

Wouldn’t that only go to suggest that the people who are the midst of experiencing that sort of cultural change, are the first to cry help and to condemn it?

Do you think that those stats (as well as stats on violent and white collar crime) suddenly appeared in a vacuum? Do you think that the lower socio-economic groups (in the south and elsewhere) are not ALWAYS the first to exhibit the consequences of attitudinal changes?

You may think that arguing that such things are only the natural course human frailty, to be overlooked or compensated for in a way that simply makes the consequences less acute in the short run, is the pragmatic, less judgmental approach, but you aren’t helping these people, really, you’re only adding to your own statistics.

That sort of political expediency is nothing short of cowardly.

Paul Westlake said:
I’ve never even cheated on a casual girlfriend in my life, but I don’t roll around condemning adultery every chance I get. It’s none of my business – and it’s none of yours.

Well, I’ve never broken a contract, stolen property, or cheated on a test, but yes, I think the condemnation of such crimes/infractions is very the business of a civilized society.

Cecelia said:
No, that’s only “nuff said” in the eyes of someone who justify ANY behavior as long as he could pin the cause on some political foe.

I’m not justifying anything, I’m backing up my assertion that neither side is clean with a fact. Deal with it.

And besides, I didn’t bring up Clinton in the first place, Finch did! Good grief!

Cecelia said:
Wouldn’t that only go to suggest that the people who are the midst of experiencing that sort of cultural change, are the first to cry help and to condemn it?

No, it goes to suggest that decades of puritanical policy has been a failure, as you ackowledge with your understanding that these things didn’t suddenly appear on Obama’s watch…

Cecelia said:
Do you think that those stats (as well as stats on violent and white collar crime) suddenly appeared in a vacuum?

But then you go waaay off the deep end…

Cecelia said:
You may think that arguing that such things are only the natural course human frailty, to be overlooked or compensated for in a way that simply makes the consequences less acute in the short run, is the pragmatic, less judgmental approach, but you aren’t helping these people, really, you’re only adding to your own statistics.

Ah, the old “legislate morality” approach. Decades of failure across the Bible Belt makes no difference to the ideologue, let’s just do more of the same, even more, double down, whatever. More of the same ideological purity that created the problem in the first place is always the cure for the ideologue.

Cecelia said:
That sort of political expediency is nothing short of cowardly.

Perfect, when the right campaigns on practical limits to government power, it’s righteous ideological purity, but when the left acknowledges the practical limits of government power, it’s “political expediency” that “is nothing short of cowardly.” You’re a hypocrite, just like your ultra-conservative purist heroes.

Cecelia said:
Well, I’ve never broken a contract, stolen property, or cheated on a test, but yes, I think the condemnation of such crimes/infractions is very the business of a civilized society.

And finally the false equivalency of actual criminal behavior and infractions of the heart. You have to be an even bigger fool than you seem if you think I’ll buy into such simplistic bullshit. I’m tired of your sophistry now. Continue all you like, maybe I’ll check back tomorrow.

Paul Westlake said:
I’m not justifying anything, I’m backing up my assertion that neither side is clean with a fact. Deal with it.

Saying that “neither side is clean” isn’t an argument. it’s like saying that though you are so well behaved to have not cheated and lied to someone who trusts you, you aren’t prig enough to condemn someone else for doing just that.

It’s contradictory, meaningless, and relativistic.

The fact is that YOU made an issue of conservatives being hypocritical for not condemning a man on the basis of nothing but the testimony of one woman. When confronted with the REAL details of the only past incidence of conservatives impeaching anyone, your argument changes to “both sides are guilty”…

Well, then you tell me how Justice Thomas was guilty of doing what Clinton did.

Paul Westlake said:
o, it goes to suggest that decades of puritanical policy has been a failure, as you ackowledge with your understanding that these things didn’t suddenly appear on Obama’s watch…

This this just goes to show you that you have no inkling of the very concept you defend as being so natural, that societal attempts to stigmatize it are little more than personal intrusions.

Human frailty is such that we ALWAYS take the easiest road, if given the leeway. Humans WILL always obey your siren song that breaking a vow (whether in matters of business or “the heart”) is merely a matter of personal discretion (i.e. FEELING)

If everything in our culture tell us that the path of least resistance is the one that is only natural (and none of society’s business) to take. Then we SURELY WILL, starting with the under-class, who can least afford such compromises.

Paul Westlake said:
Ah, the old “legislate morality” approach. Decades of failure across the Bible Belt makes no difference to the ideologue, let’s just do more of the same, even more, double down, whatever. More of the same ideological purity that created the problem in the first place is always the cure for the ideologue.

Of course, decades of Bible Belt mentality kept your stats down for generations. It was only when we started to denounce such things as being inherently restrictive to human freedom and to betray a different ethos in our popular culture, that things changed.

Paul Westlake said:
Perfect, when the right campaigns on practical limits to government power, it’s righteous ideological purity, but when the left acknowledges the practical limits of government power, it’s “political expediency” that “is nothing short of cowardly.” You’re a hypocrite, just like your ultra-conservative purist heroes.

Your problem lies with your understanding of the difference between the acknowledging the limits of govt. and condemning particular behavior. “Family values” is only a legal or governmental impediment, if you wish to change CURRENT law. THAT has been the activist position.

I don’t even protest the notion of the changing of certain prohibitions, against certain behaviors… such as sodomy. How much less should YOU feel encumbered by the notion of continuing the nature of some institutions that have been traditionally codified, or of continuing to BOLSTER SOME behaviors (chastity, faithful in marriage, etc) that are supported solely by a matter of societal peer pressure.

alamo2 said:
I think you are missing the sarcasm here. The whole concept of so-called activist judges was promulgated by the right wing, whenever they did not like what a judge said. Remember Terri Schaivo? The judge who ordered the tubes to be taken out was butchered by the right wing as an activist. It was one of the more disgusting moments of the far right.

Incorrect. It is the job of the legislature to write laws, of the judiciary to enforce them. An “activist judge” is one who takes onto themselves powers not set out by the Constitution, namely writing new law by judicial fiat. Ultimately the power to write law comes directly from the people acting through their elected legislatures. Activist judges usurp that power. More often than not they are liberal judges.

Cecelia said:
Justices aren’t required to recluse in such scenarios for a reason, Valkyrie. It’s because we don’t require justices to live in such a bubble that they are considered to be compromised by the mere fact that they or one their family members may have or have had a position on a philosophical matter. If that were the case, you couldn’t get anyone confirmed unless they had been completely apolitical and not only that, a justice would certainly have to recluse himself for no greater reason than he/she was ruling upon a issue that had direct bearing upon the president who had appointed them to the court. Confirmation committees are certainly aware that Justice Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, etc. had a certain philosophy about the Constitution as well as views about the nature, size, and appropriate scope of govt. BEFORE they were confirmed. Justices are expected and assumed to be able to put aside particular political alliances in order to rule upon the constitutionality of matters before the court, but the default mode was never to assume that they had no internal guiding principles or philosophies. That would be an unreasonable and inhumane requirement and fortunately we have never exacted it.

I didn’t say that he must recuse himself, only that he should.

Cecelia said:
Justices aren’t required to recluse in such scenarios for a reason, Valkyrie.

You’re drunk right now eh?

*facepalm* You’re easily the stupidest woman on the internet.

MichelleF is #1 Cecelia can be second