Sixteen years after his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, Creepy Clarence Thomas is back in the news stalking and harassing Anita Hill with an autobiography and associated media appearances.
Thomas comes across in these appearances as seething with anger and indignation. Ruth Marcus, who has read his book, says in her Washington Post Op-ed this morning that Thomas remains angry "at Democrats; at liberal interest groups; at the media; at, of course, Anita Hill."
(Is there anything quite so refreshing to see in a Supreme Court Justice as a vengeful spirit fueled with naked partisan rage? Bush v. Gore wasn't enough, Justice Thomas -- tell us what you really think!)
Before she proceeds to whack the Thomas v. Hill softball out of the park with a catalog of evidence corroborating Hill's charges against Thomas (which you should go and read for yourself, it's very satisfying), Marcus frames the issue of Thomas's sexual harassment of Hill in its absurdly partisan context:
Thomas v. Hill is one of those questions destined to remain disputed -- Did Al Gore actually win the presidency? Was the intelligence manipulated to mislead us into Iraq?These are three questions with obvious answers that aren't disputed so much as they're mired in political tugs-of-war; the miring in all three cases is done by Republicans to favor the Republican Party. In answering the first question so firmly, Marcus is either making an obvious implication or she's a complete dope.
Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear go in the woods? Is NiP sometimes crabby? Highly paid columnists ask; you decide!
Update: The Marcus column explains my title.