Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ obnoxious, over-privileged, tea bagger wife might have stepped in it this time. In a move that can only be explained by years of having the matter eat away at her most personal world view, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas reached out to Anita Hill. That’s “reached out” in the sense of left an out-of-the-blue vaguely malevolent message on her phone.
In a statement to CNN, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas said: “I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed [sic] what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”
Gosh, that sounds nice, doesn’t it? Ginni was just sitting around, musing on how she could set things right with anyone with whom she might be at odds, and the name “Anita Hill” came to mind. So Ginni, being the peaceable person that she is, hit the stalker speed dial for Dr. Hill’s office, and showed who was the better woman.
And it isn’t her. Here’s what she really said.
“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day.”
So Thomas wants Hill, who was clearly the injured party in Thomas’ husband’s borderline criminal harassment, to apologize that she mentioned it during those confirmation hearings, and give a “full explanation” of what Hill did “WITH” her husband, using the phrase, “why you did what you did” not once, but twice.
Thomas is, for those who don’t know, the notorious founder of the tea bagger group, “Liberty Central.” The 501(c)(4) was one of the first to arise from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case, which not only allows corporate and other interests to provide unlimited financial backing for election cycle ads, but to do so in complete anonymity. Justice Thomas voted with the slim majority in the 5-4 decision.
As always, Hill is the class act and didn’t hesitate about how to respond to Thomas’ “offer.”
Hill, a law professor at Brandeis University, turned the message over to campus security, a university spokesman said.
STALKED?????? now i know who writes vall those sleazy political ads
Robert, imagine yourself for a minute to be Anita Hill receiving this call. I completely understand why she reached out to campus security. I could also understand if she hired private help to make sure her home was secure. And I would further understand if she called a friend and had them walk her to her car. What Thomas did was creepy and unhinged and the fact that her version of what she said is so different from what she actually said shows she’s not operating in reality.
Stalking is the perfect description of Thomas’ behavior.
“Ginni” deserves whatever negative blow back she receives for making this move on Dr. Hill. The issue was largely forgotten by the public until “Ginni” decided to resurrect it. Whatever happens, she brought it upon herself. She should have left it alone if she didn’t want the public scrutiny as to what she was trying to accomplish by calling Dr. Hill after so many years. Dr. Hill owes neither her nor Clarence Thomas a response.
Simply classless. Is this woman nuts? I am thinking perhaps Clarence put her up to it. Can you imagine if the situation is reverse with Anita Hill calling Thomas’ office and demanding an apology. The right-wing media would be all over it. This woman is unhinged. Does she not trust her husband to believe whatever his side of the story is but she wants validation from Anita. This is crazy.
Yes, Ginni is nuts. She is nuts with power as the wife of a Supreme Court judge. She is breaking the law with her Tea Baggers site…something a wife of a SCJudge should not do. She is just another wing-nut and I hope in the end her actions backfire and get her right-wing, porn-loving husband off the Supreme Court. As someone pointed out to me, Justice Clarence never asks questions about any lawsuit that comes before the court. He might be too stupid to know any questions to ask. Obviously, he has no control over his home life. Then, Ginni could be following his instructions.
Another Nut Bag Teabagger as if theres another kind!
If you ask me, it has all the earmarks of a drunken call from a pay phone in a bar.
Great title, and exactly what I thought when I read the text of the voice mail on the NYT last night. Calling your spouse’s victim 20 years after the fact is creepy to say the least. These teabaggers are scary people, and I wouldn’t put anything past them as far as carrying out the veiled threats they’ve been making against the “libruls” for the last decade, and especially the last 2 years. Someone said the other day that if the teabag candidates win, it’s only going to embolden them. If they lose, it’s going to enrage them and I fear it’s going to be even worse for us peace loving “libruls”.
Many explanations for Ginny Thomas’s wacked-out phone call.
Remember — this phone call took place at 7:30 AM, Saturday.
With that in mind, take your pick as to why Ginny Thomas called Anita Hill.
1. She was still stoked from an evening of coke.
2. She had just finished breakfast from a shot glass.
3. She went to give ol’ Clarence a BJ and noted a few pubic hairs missing.
4. It’s a Karl Rove-Fox plan to turn Anita Hill into the Scary Black Person of the Week in hopes of getting more Teahadist voters to the polls.
5. She found Clarence’s stash of Big Black Booty DVD’s and she set out to make a spectacle of him.
I would choose number 2.
I agree with A Nuffe…it’s typical alcoholic (or Xanax-or Valium-addictive) behavior. As an Adult (very!) Child of and Alcoholic, I am very familiar with such embarassments, and in this woman’s case I hope the fit hits the biggest shan in DC.
Anita Hill is the person who should be on the Supreme Court.