PBS. featured a program called "Makers" about women in American politics. I will watch it again. A particular piece focussed on the Committee hearings to appoint Clarence Thomas Associate Justice to the Supreme Court.
The committee decided not to hear Anita Hill's testimony in opposition to the appointment.
The Women compelled the decision to be changed.
Subsequent treatment of Anita Hill by male committee members was hard to watch.
The appointment went through.
A news report after the program had Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair urging complainants against Jian Ghomeshi to come forward.
"They will be treated right" he said.
It was interesting the Chief felt the need to provide that assurance.
Ghomeshi has publicly stated the sex was "consensual".Never mind the interns may have been subject to his approval.
But the real question is ......How will Chief Blair protect the victims from becoming victims again in a court room ?
Anita Hill was a lawyer, an academic and a professional in her own right, when she testified against
Thomas before the Committee.
There was no protection from character ssssination by committee members.
Clarence Thomas was appointed Associate Justice of the U.S. Suoreme Court
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I watched Anita Hill's testimony & cringed at her treatment by the committee members. It was impossible to understand why Senator Davenport wrecked his reputation which had been stellar until then.
There is no end in sight, Evelyn, although social media is making a difference. For the most part, it is all about power.
For your information listed below are the names of the women who are CEO's of the ten highest ranking Fortune 500 companies headed by woman:
Mary Barra General Motors
Meg Whitman Hewlett-Packard
Virginia Rometty IBM
Patricia A. Woertz Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)
Indra K. Nooyi Pepsico Inc.
Marillyn Hewson Lockheed Martin
Safra A. Catz Oracle
Ellen J. Kullman Dupont
Irene B. Rosenfeld Mondelez International
Phebe Novakovic General Dynamics
I will quote from one of the many witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee on Thomas's nomination:
Professor Edley:
"In taking the measure of the nominee, you should look to the whole record and recognize that good character and unimpeached integrity did not prevent Dred Scott or PLessy or Lochner.
In the final analysis, it is not the character of this man that must be at issue, but the character of his record. Yet the heart of the administration's affirmative case is Judge Thomas's personal story and character, in hopes, perhaps, that this strategy will undergird his credibility and present an image strikingly more attractive than the piles of speeches and abstractions.
The nominee comments:
'Although what I said may sound extreme, I was really trying to make a far less controversial point.' But repeated so often, this seems to me to lack credibility.
'That was a position I took as a policy official in the executive branch; as a judge, I do not make policy.' This argument is wrong. It misconceives the role of the Supreme Court and the process of judging."
You ask WHERE DOES IT END?
It never ends. Each day is a new adventure, a new experience, a new battle.
In the end there will be more people on one side than there ever used to be in the past, and they will deserve the right to occupy that space.
Evil and ignorance will never be vanquished, but they must be fought.
Judge Thomas might almost have not gotten that job. One never read or hears of him preparing a decision. As a decision-maker, he is a bust.
In my day, we took care of these problems on our own. No media, police, lawyers or judges. Just family or friends. Re-offending was extremely low if at all.
Post a Comment