Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [114]
“It seems to me like people in your position ought to have a personal view of whether or not Judge Thomas ought to be on the Supreme Court and that you would welcome an opportunity to express it, and that you would think that, for a non-lawyer like me, it would be important for me to know it to determine whether or not you have got any bias.”
The senator’s lecture to Joel Paul and the rest of the panel assumed that they would allow any questions they had about Thomas’ qualifications for the Supreme Court to control their recollection about what they had been told. This was a decidedly Washington insider perspective—politics controls over any moral or ethical sense of right or wrong.
Clearly, both Senators Grassley and Simpson were trying to put the panel members in a no-win position. It was impossible to explain to professional politicians that one may have a political difference with someone and not act on it. And lawyers, in particular, often have substantive differences, yet choose not to act on them to oppose a court appointment. Moreover, I know of no lawyer who would risk disbarment by fabricating a story to prevent a presidential appointment. If any of the witnesses said that they were against the nomination, then the senators would claim it was that bias that led to their testimony. If they said that they favored the nomination, the senators could use that to undermine the seriousness of Thomas’ behavior. The witnesses were right to keep their opinions out of it.
Grassley and the others had the benefit of many legal scholars, who in the first round of the hearing had talked about Thomas’ qualifications to be on the Court. In the end, Professor Paul got the better of the exchange with Grassley and provided perhaps some comic relief at the senator’s expense. In response to Grassley’s remark about the importance of forming an opinion about Judge Thomas’ qualifications, Professor Paul shot back in a professorial form designed to put an end to questioning. “Senator, I didn’t have the opportunity during the original round of hearings to review the record, but if you would like me to review the record, I will be happy to come back and present you with my opinion.”
Immediately following Professor Paul’s retort, Senator Leahy reminded Grassley that only members of the Senate had taken an oath requiring them to vote on the nomination of Judge Thomas. Referring to himself and his Senate colleagues, Senator Leahy asserted, “We are the only ones who must state an opinion.”
Finally, the questions turned to the substantive issues of the hearing. Both Susan Hoerchner and Ellen Wells testified that they had discussed the behavior I described in my testimony with me when it occurred in 1982. Neither had a political or personal axe to grind with Clarence Thomas or any of the senators. And both had undertaken to testify at considerable risk. Hoerchner held a job that was a highly public, appointed position. Wells lived and worked in Washington in jobs that constantly interfaced with the federal government.
Having failed at efforts to attack their credibility, instead of accepting the testimony as credible, members of the committee now sought to shame them for not originally encouraging me to file a complaint. Senator Simpson, in his questioning of Judge Hoerchner, expressed disbelief that Hoerchner, acting as “a counsel or friend,” hadn’t advised me to “do something” about the harassment I experienced. Senator Grassley echoed Simpson’s assessment and offered his own that it confirmed nothing about “any sexual harassment by Judge Thomas of Professor Hill.” Ironically, individuals who had taken great risk to offer testimony were now being admonished for irresponsibility in not