Anita. The movie about Anita Hill.

[sportage]

I've never seen this until lately. Pretty disturbing. Disturbing that Clarence Thomas sits on the US supreme court. And the decisions he makes that affect peoples lives.
Sure, maybe if Clarence Thomas was in some other position, even as president which is a short-termed job, what happened to Anita Hill wouldn't matter.
But considering this guy sits on the highest court in the land, and makes the final decisions concerning all sorts of matters, Clarence Thomas is a pretty sick puppy.
Very disturbing, considering the influence this justice has on women rights, abortion rights, social rights, and civil rights.

A sad sobering reminder that all is not well in the land of American justice. No it is not.
And the people?
The people, that will forever more suffer great personally harm by the decisions from Clarence Thomas.

 

[Naer]

I like to stay away from horror flicks. I've had enough after seeing a few minutes of the human centipede 2

 

[Printer Bandit]

http://time.com/3743023/kerry-washington-anita-hill-hbo-movie/

 

[mikeford]

Anita Hill is a strange creepy person with little credibility.

 

[pcgeek11]

The title of your post gives it away:

The movie about Anita Hill.

Probably 65% BS and Drama to make money.

 

[NesuD]

Is this the Anita Hill that could never provide any corroborating evidence to support her accusations and was never able to produce any other women claiming he sexually harassed them? Sexual harassers are not one night acts. Harassment is a way of life for them. They will always have a history of this behavior. There is zero evidence that Clarence Thomas ever behaved in this manner either before or after Anita Hill's specious and unsupported accusations. The entire Anita Hill episode was nothing more than a DNC and NOW hit job and everyone knew it.

 

[Linflas]

Is this the Anita Hill that could never provide any corroborating evidence to support her accusations and was never able to produce any other women claiming he sexually harassed them? Sexual harassers are not one night acts. Harassment is a way of life for them. They will always have a history of this behavior. There is zero evidence that Clarence Thomas ever behaved in this manner either before or after Anita Hill's specious and unsupported accusations. The entire Anita Hill episode was nothing more than a DNC and NOW hit job and everyone knew it.

But he saw an entertainment program about it so he knows what really happened, facts be damned.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Is this the Anita Hill that could never provide any corroborating evidence to support her accusations and was never able to produce any other women claiming he sexually harassed them? Sexual harassers are not one night acts. Harassment is a way of life for them. They will always have a history of this behavior. There is zero evidence that Clarence Thomas ever behaved in this manner either before or after Anita Hill's specious and unsupported accusations. The entire Anita Hill episode was nothing more than a DNC and NOW hit job and everyone knew it.

This is not true. There were a number of other witnesses, who the Senate Judiciary Committee elected not to call, who would have made allegations similar to Hill's. There was corroboration for their accounts of harassment by Thomas. The fact that you are implying Anita Hill was somehow obligated to offer corroboration for her own account reflects your apparent misunderstanding of how the process works. She was called to testify before the Judiciary Committee. She would not have been permitted to offer her own corroborating evidence - the Committee would have had to request it and subpoena the witnesses in question. This article contains a fairly detailed account of the evidence against Thomas - http://www.salon.com/2010/10/27/anita_hill_clarence_thomas/

Clarence Thomas was certainly the least well-qualified Supreme Court nominee in my lifetime, and one of the least well-qualified, ever. He probably should not have been nominated, much less confirmed, based on his lack of relevant credentials. That being said, I see no reason why Anita Hill would have voluntarily inserted herself in his confirmation process to make false allegations against him. What would she get out of that, particularly given her full knowledge that she would be subjected to cross-examination on national television? That, combined with the other various people alleging generally similar conduct are enough to convince me that Thomas probably did engage in sexually harassing behavior toward Anita Hill. The people who glibly call her a liar are, in my view, generally ignorant of the facts of the case, whether willfully or otherwise.

Whether or not Thomas' alleged sexual harassment is even relevant to the question of whether he should sit on the Court, and whether the severity of the conduct was sufficient to be a show-stopper, is up to each individual. Personally I don't think he should have been nominated in the first place based on his credentials, and since his appointment he has shown himself to be a churl and an intellectual lightweight by Supreme Court standards (which are admittedly among the most rigorous intellectual standards for any job, anywhere).

 

[andylawcc]

well, according to wiki (ya),

"Hill agreed to take a polygraph test. The results supported the veracity of her statements;[15] Thomas declined the test."

but how come it took her so long (what, 10 years) to come forward about the accusation? She even worked with him and maintain contact AFTER the harassment. Sure, she claims she needed a job in the civil rights movement field, but her timing to come forward seem kinda fishy.

 

[Elixer]

Why isn't this in P&N?

 

[Printer Bandit]

dude is butt hurt after all these years

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-disgraceful-silence

 

[Drako]

"Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"

 

[moonbogg]

I've never seen this until lately. Pretty disturbing. Disturbing that Clarence Thomas sits on the US supreme court. And the decisions he makes that affect peoples lives.
Sure, maybe if Clarence Thomas was in some other position, even as president which is a short-termed job, what happened to Anita Hill wouldn't matter.
But considering this guy sits on the highest court in the land, and makes the final decisions concerning all sorts of matters, Clarence Thomas is a pretty sick puppy.
Very disturbing, considering the influence this justice has on women rights, abortion rights, social rights, and civil rights.

A sad sobering reminder that all is not well in the land of American justice. No it is not.
And the people?
The people, that will forever more suffer great personally harm by the decisions from Clarence Thomas.

Never seen this one before. Sounds interesting.

 

[Drako]

Clarence Thomas was certainly the least well-qualified Supreme Court nominee in my lifetime, and one of the least well-qualified, ever. He probably should not have been nominated, much less confirmed, based on his lack of relevant credentials.

I think you meant Elena Kagan is the least qualified, but Clarence ranks right up there.

 

[BoberFett]

Why isn't this in P&N?

Because sportage.