From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:52:19 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
-eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
-> jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
-> ?Question for the conservorrhoids: Why has Clarence Thomas hidden from the
-> ?public since his confirmation? Could it be that he finds it painful to
-> ?keep telling the same lie? Could it be for the same reason he could not
-> ?bring himself to call Hill a liar, even though he was prompted in that
-> ?direction by the Senators many times?
-> 
-> Point one: wasn't that covered in some issue of _Newsweek_ a few weeks
-> ago?
-I don't know.
-> Point two: why doesn't Teddy Kennedy address Chappaquidick?
-Similar situation. He was guilty and he doesn't want to answer the tough
-questions.
-
-> Point three: would you have enough time to act beneath your position as
-> a judge or a Supreme Court Justice going around calling someone who
-> testified against you a liar?
-None of the other justices have had their character called into question.
-Thomas' character has been quite seriously called into question. If he is
-innocent, he owes it to the American public to forcefully defend himnself
-and restore the public's confidence in the Court. If he can't do that he
-should resign.

What is the evidence that Justice Thomas is of unsound character?

Similarly, why does character matter to a Supreme Court Justice whereas
it doesn't matter if a Democrat is running for President?

-> I don't know too many SCJs who do
-> interviews. That is until they retire. [Only Thurgood Marshall
-> interviewed, but he didn't go about it every single week on the talk
-> show circuit.]
-I saw Sandra Day O'Connor in the Sunday color section recently--Parade,
-I think.
-
-> Point four: If Justice Thomas goes on the attack against Anita Hill, how
-> would you respond? "Oh, he's trying to kick that poor, innocent soul
-> even more!" <<<Outpour of sympathy on the part of liberals and the news
-> media while the rest of the country wonders in amazement how trivial we
-> can all get about things now.>>>
-
-That's ridiculous. You should have stopped at point three.

Is it really that ridiculous? Why are Carol Moseley Braun and Lynn
Yeakel basing their candidacies on how there should be more women in the
Senate since they disapproved of the way Anita Hill got treated? There
was an outpouring of "sympathy" from liberals and the feminist
leadership that Anita was treated "unfairly" by a bunch of cocky white
guys (they'll say Republicans despite the fact that there were more
Democrats on that panel). I don't think it's as silly as you think.

Point four was made partially in humor and partially in a serious
manner. A man's character was destroyed one year ago and it will take a
long time to recover from that, just as William Kennedy Smith will not
recover from being accused as a rapist; that cloud of doubt will sit
over their names for quite a long time. I doubt anything Justice Thomas
would say could completely eliminate doubts in people who would think
Justice Thomas is unfit to be a member of the Supreme Court.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion