Now that would be change, and boy would those court rulings be discussed in chambers. Wow!
Anita F. Hill was born in Lone Tree, Oklahoma, Hill received her undergraduate degree from Oklahoma State University in 1977 and her Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School in 1980.
A professor of social policy, law, and women's studies, Hill was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1980. Hill began her law career as an associate with the Washington, D.C., firm of Wald, Harkrader & Ross. In 1981 she served as counsel to the assistant secretary of the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. From 1982 to 1983, she moved on to serve as assistant to the chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Clarence Thomas (see below). Hill became a professor at Oral Roberts University, where she actively taught from 1983 to 1986. In 1986, she joined the faculty at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.
Source: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill
So what do you think about that?
20 comments:
Besides I would really really really like to see our new Democrat Senator Spector have to vote for her to get his Democrat endorsement in the next election. I love symmetry!
"Revenge is a Dish Best Served Cold" --- Old Klingon proverb
A very undistinguished career. My sense of humor only stretches so far. This would be a Nixon-level USSC nomination.
No Coke cans allowed in chambers! LOL
Not even if they were carefully depilated first?
'undistinguished career" ..about as undistinguished as Clarence Thomoas, IMO...
Vanity Fair
Let's Make Clarence Thomas's Worst Nightmare Come True
by Nell Scovell May 1, 2009, 10:35 AM
Hey I beat the big boys by 18 minutes, Woohoo!
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/05/the-case-for-appointing-anita-hill-to-the-supreme-court.html
TS: "A very undistinguished career."
By what standard? Being an Okie and oh,teaching for ten years at the OU law school doesn't count I guess as distinguished.
Actually who in the general public has ever heard of any of the SCOTUS nominees for the last 30 years before they showed up on the front page? Qualified? We need another woman and a black on SCOTUS. No, CT doesn't count, for much of anything.
Some say that there must be congeniality on SCOTUS. Bull shit, mixed it up.
Thomas had a senate confirmed position and he served as a judge at the appellate level. Not a good justice, but not a joke as Hill would be,
TS: "Thomas...not a joke as Hill would be."
Anita is far from being a joke. Clarence, is not a joke either.
He is a crime.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/05/01/anita_hill/index.html
Another story on it.
TStockman should read the book Strange Justice which details the Clarence Thomas appointment, the hearings, Hill's reluctance to testify, and the confirmation of many of the worst accusations against Thomas (as well as multiple proofs that he lied under oath on any number of matters, not the least of them being his fascination with and frequent watching of pornographic videos).
It would most definitely be fun; it would also mean a new vacancy on the Court because Thomas would, I believe, head for the hills.
"...Thomas would, I believe, head for the hills."
Was that a pun?
Well so Anita doesn't want the gig with Clarence still there. I understand that. So the next best thing is to ask for divine providence to allow Clarence to be replaced sometime within Obama's two terms and then have Hill go into his SCOTUS slot. That would be just as sweet. It would send an unmistakable message down the line of history.
Guys -
Your Thomas-hatred is blinding you to my point, which is that Anita Hill has no qualifications for the bench - she is neither a distinguished scholar, nor a great litigator, nor an experienced judge. She would literally be a joke - on Thomas, if nothing else. i would concede that Thomas was unqualified, that he's the weakest of the justices on the bench, that his nomination was a cynical way to get a very conservative appointment and short-circuit the opposition with the race card; that his hearing were a farce, including lying and evading under oath. Yeah, all of that. What does that have to do with Hill?
For the record, I don't believe Anita will be nominated or would ever accept such. But her draw backs are not all that negative. The Common and pundit wisdom is that we need another woman and a Hispanic on the bench. that translates into a Hispanic woman (not a necessarily a Latina mind you).
But the Court needs more than that. It needs diversity of not only ethnics and culture but Geography. We don't need Xerox copies of the qualifications that are already there. Why not someone from Oregon, Nevada, Montana, or Oklahoma. Some one from academia. Someone from a public institution, a state college or state university law school. How about an ACLU type or a Public Defender?
Put some of the "other America" on the Bench for a change.
An Aside Tirade:
I was the only person in the committee of 5o convened in D.C.to consider this and other changes for the 2000 census and OCR reports that voted against using Latino as a designation. One lone white guy voting against it mind you.
"The term "Latino" was officially adopted in 1997 by the United States Government in the ethnonym "Hispanic or Latino", which replaced the single term "Hispanic": "Because regional usage of the terms differs -- Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western portion.""
In fact the are wrong. Hispanic as a self designating term has been used in the upper Rio Grande Valley of Texas and New Mexico for 400 years.
Latino is a modern term that specifically denotes people from "Latin America" and is used mainly in Southern California. My Cuban friends cringe at its use.
So I'm sticking to my guns on this even though defeated. Remember these are the same guys that for 20 years gave us "Spanish Surnamed" thus you couldn't count a 5th generation O'Brien from Mexico City as being "Spanish Surnamed" and they ended up being conglomerated with the Anglos.
grump grump grump
I agree with drlobojo.
It would be fun, though.
TStockman, you are correct, of course. Rather than make the points you made, why didn't you say what you said later up front?
Hell, TS is the vice-president of the John Spruce Society. He was expressing his right to be in the radical middle of the road. He probably thought I was too far left for a Society member.
I guess I think I didn't need to credential myself by pointing out Thomas's defects in order to complain about Hill. The reference to Nixon's Haysworth and Carswell nomination should have made it clear I wasn't being partisan. Just, as the Dr says, radically middle of the road (aka a plague on both their houses.)
A plague on both their houses....damn straight bro.
Wait wait, let's get the Health system built first though. I mean 92,000 death per year due to Doctor or Hospital induced infection need to stop, not to mention the estimated 300,000 who die from lack of health care all together.
OK, after that...a plague!
By the way as I type this the Republicans are say on TV that "Empathy" is a liberal code word for "Activist" for the SCOTUS nomination that has not yet been made. Empathy=Activist? They must have a strange thesaurus.
Shit if they are going to screw with it anyway, APPOINT ANITA!
Post a Comment