“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 sometime 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 hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”
Lord only knows why Ginny Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas's Tea Bagger wife, would call up Anita Hill
at her office in Brandeis University here in Massachusetts and demand an apology for telling the truth about her husband nearly 20 years ago.
If it was intended to cover the Republican Party with glory, then rehashing one of the most sordid confirmation hearings of all time, one that involved a right wing judge, is certainly no way to go about it. Or perhaps Ginny Thomas is a pathetically deluded person who honestly believes that Prof. Anita Hill will suddenly have a change of heart after having gotten on with her life and career and apologize because of an out-of-the-blue phone call.
Either way, people like Ginny Thomas is the gift just keeps on giving, the ghost of porno films past, a transparently disingenuous Tea Bagging zombie who thinks we're all, starting with Prof. Hill, so stupid as to believe her story that she was extending an olive branch.
As Prof. Hill stated, there is no way she can ask for an apology, which would also have to come with a retraction of her 19 year-old testimony, without accusing her of outright lying. It shows that Ginny Thomas, who openly works for a Tea Bagger organization funded by private donors while being married to a sitting Supreme Court Justice and who alone and could've and should've immediately gotten Thomas recused from ruling on Bush v Gore in 2000, is deluded as to what her husband really is: A purveyor of pornography, a sexual harasser in the workplace and a whiny beneficiary of Affirmative Action who whips out the race card as fast as his "larger-than-usual" cock complaining about his "high tech lynching."
Because in light of Prof. Hill's sordid testimony, Robert Bork looks like a better-qualified candidate for the Supreme Court than was Clarence Thomas. It brings to mind the, at best, questionable moral rectitude and even the sanity of the conservatives on the court, starting with racist and antisemitic
former Chief Justice Rehnquist's drug addiction and ludicrous behavior during his detox
, Antonin Scalia advocating sex orgies
, current Chief Justice Roberts upholdinng the strip search of a 12 year-old girl
over one french fry and Justice Sam Alito belonging to a Princeton organization called CAP
, one that advocated barring women and minorities from the New Jersey Ivy League university.
So, are you sure
you really want to revisit this, Ginny?