[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry
>
>Just wondered where you got your information that Thomas was a
>perjuror. I am really curious??
>
>jackief
Really, Jackie? It is obvious to any unbiased observer, which I am not. I
have never had anything but contempt for the toady that was put in charge of
EEO by Reagan essentially to dismantle its operation nor for the
intellectual flyweight who was unable to express the slightest defense of
his "natural law" philosophy.
But that has nothing whatever to do with his guilt in the matter.
When two people tell directly opposing stories, when the normal human
frailties of forgetfulness and imagination are not a factor, one must choose
which to believe if there is to be any judgment of truth at all. It is
rather easy to choose which one is most likely telling the truth when one is
willing to take a polygraph and the other is not even independent of the
results.
But that is only a small part of the story. Anita Hill had told her story
to others long before she was called upon to tell her story in public. She
testified unwillingly. Anita Hill had to undergo the withering attack all
women who have suffered from the sexual libido of men who cannot control
their urges. She was called a sexually-repressed man-hungry lesbian all at
once by the mentally-challenged Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.
(No, Jackie, not in those words. There was that stuff coming in over the
transom as the good senator from Wyoming liked to say.) David Brock, the
recently canonized convert from his former rightwing hatchetman status, says
everything is still all true. That even includes the silly story of the
pubic hair on the homework paper of a student, though the student now says
it was a hoax.
Justice Thomas let his supporters do their work and remained silent. He
refused to discuss anything, screaming only of another half-vast conspiracy.
His silence speaks volumes just as it does these days in his robes on his
throne in his kingdom. It is an obscenity this caricature sits in the seat
of the magnificent Thurgood Marshall.
Let me give you some homework, Jackie. You can do it silently. The test
has only two questions and I will bet you or anyone else can get the answers.
1. A special prosecutor was appointed to find out which miscreants leaked
the news of Anita Hill that led to the Thomas-Hill hearings. Did the
honorable Democratic senators offer to take a polygraph as proposed by the
special prosecutor so he could complete his investigation? Why or why not?
2. A coal miner in Virginia (Roger Coleman, I think) was convicted of the
rape and murder of his sister-in-law and condemned to death. He is often
cited as one of those most likely to be innocent. He steadfastly refused a
lie detector test until the eve of his execution. What was the result of
his polygraph?
See how easy the test was. Bet you got all the right answers.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
