It’s time for conservatives to pony up one of their own in the war on sexual harassment, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should be the guy, according to a piece Wednesday in the Washington Post.
The “sickening tales” of misdeeds about Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K., Roy Moore, Kevin Spacey and others have “emboldened survivors of assault and harassment to come forward,” the piece states. Men are being held accountable, and “new norms are developing.”
Democrats are turning against their own, according to the piece. Several said that 20 years after the fact, Bill Clinton should have resigned in the face of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and that the Clintons should be shunned for his actions and Hillary’s efforts to cover them up.
“It’s an important and healthy reckoning to have, and I admire them for it,” wrote Jay Kaganoff, a contributor to the Post as well as conservative outlets such as National Review. “As one liberal friend of mine said, this isn’t about apologizing to Republicans” This is about Democrats being honest to themselves and being better.”
Kaganoff said he thinks it’s time for Republicans to be honest with themselves and drive Thomas from office.
“Those of us on the right could use a reckoning, too,” Kaganoff said. “But I’ve been thinking about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, and I think it’s time conservatives seriously reconsider our continued support for Thomas in light of his past.”
Kaganoff said Thomas was one of his role models and that he’s a fan of the Thomas’ judicial philosophy and his rising from a “Geechee-dialect speaking black kid in Georgia, to Yale and the Supreme Court, was inspiring to me.”
Kaganoff said Thomas had called the Hill accusations a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks, and, “having seen how other minority conservatives were treated by the left, I found it convincing that the opposition was motivated by race and ideological nonconformance.”
But recent events – actions by others for which Thomas bears no responsibility and the fact Kaganoff “looked up the case again” – suggested it was time to “reconsider my knee-jerk defense.”
Hill accused Thomas of repeatedly asking her out on dates and making lewd and graphic sexual comments to her when she worked for him in the 1980s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Thomas furiously denied the accusations. Sen. Orrin Hatch, (R.-Utah), said Hill’s “story just doesn’t add up.”
Sen. Alan Simpson (R.-Wyo.) “spoke of … getting stuff over the transom about Professor Hill. I’ve got letters hanging out of my pockets. I’ve got faxes. I’ve got statements from Tulsa saying, ‘Watch out for this woman.’”
David Brock, then on the conservative side, called Hill “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.”
Joe Biden, then-senator from Delaware and head of the committee considering Thomas’ nomination, declined to call at least two witnesses to testify in support of Hill’s allegations, and Thomas was approved by a narrow vote of a Senate controlled by Democrats.
Biden was “part of the problem,” Hill said at a recent symposium put on the by the Post. And even though he has offered something of an apology recently, “I still don’t think it takes ownership in his role in what happened.”
Kaganoff also wonders why the Washington Post never wrote about information it had that “confirmed that Thomas’ involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe.” Perhaps it was because corroboration proved difficult.
Kaganoff then goes on to undermine his entire argument. He said the matter came down to he said/she said, but Hill had the witnesses Biden never called and an indication Thomas might have a large porn collection.
“Hill, meanwhile, had no reason to lie and had supporting evidence,” Kaganoff wrote. “Is it enough to stand up in the court of law? Maybe not. But the question was if Thomas was fit to sit on the Supreme Court, not if he should be prosecuted.”