PHILANDO CASTILE'S SENSELESS MURDER SPURRED BY JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS

PHILANDO CASTILE'S SENSELESS MURDER SPURRED BY JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS:

 PHILANDO'S MURDER SHOULD SPUR BLACK VOTERS TO THE POLLS IN NOV.

PHILANDO HAD A GUN (LEGALLY) BUT POSED NO THREAT TO THE FIVE COPS WHO SHOT HIM.

HOWEVER I STILL DON'T CONDONE KILLING COPS OUT OF VENGEANCE.

Sources:  Slate,  Boyce Watkins, NY Times, CNN, Five Thirty Eight, YouTube

The week of June 20, 2016 SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas (Black man) wrote a Concurring opinion which states that going forward, Police Officers are now legally permitted to seize evidence obtained during ILLEGAL STOPS, which includes TRAFFIC STOPS.

Good-bye FOURTH AMENDMENT!

Wednesday, July 5, 2016 Philando Castile, 33, (another Black man) was murdered by White Cops during a TRAFFIC STOP in Minnesota.

Although Philando was legally carrying a Concealed Weapon when stopped by Police Wednesday, he posed absolutely no threat to the five Police Officers who brutally murdered him in cold blood.

And yes.....

The Officers who murdered him should be prosecuted!

I don't care if Philando did have a criminal record, he did NOT deserve to DIE like an animal if he posed NO threat to a Police Officer or any other human being.

However It's not fair nor reasonable to Hate the POLICE, nor blame all Cops because not all Cops are Racist.

In fact there are many good Cops still serving in our communities.

Thus I DON'T condone Killing Cops out of Vengeance for any reason.

So what can Black citizens in America expect now?

What ACTION do we take for RESOLUTION?

Demonstrations or Riots appear to be Futile and outdated.

Instead Black voters should express their anger at the Polls this November.

POLICY Changes occur on the Federal level and nominating SCOTUS Justices who have not become NUMB to the plights of regular people are the best SOLUTIONS to curbing Police Brutality.

Voting for a new President is not the panacea for curbing Police Brutality, but if Black voters forsake the system, they indeed forsake their future.

Especially the futures of Black men in America.

It's time to hold our Elected Officials accountable!

To the family of Philando Castile I send my prayers and condolences for his senseless murder.

**** Are Black People at Risk When They Carry a Concealed Weapon?

Here’s what three Minnesota gun instructors think.

TThe story of how Philando Castile died, as told by his girlfriend Diamond Reynolds, is one of a man who did everything he could to comply with the police officer who pulled him over. 

As Reynolds recounted in a harrowing press conference Thursday, Castile told the officer he was armed with a gun after being asked for his license and registration; 

Reynolds says she then told the officer the gun was legal and that her boyfriend had a permit allowing him to carry it. Moments later, the officer shot Castile multiple times, causing injuries that soon proved fatal.

It’s important to note that we don’t know exactly why the officer decided to shoot Castile—there’s no footage of the shooting itself and the St. Anthony Police Department has yet to release its version of events. 

The actions that Reynolds describes, though, sound perfectly reasonable—it’s hard to imagine what Castile, a 32-year-old black man, could have done differently. 

It’s also reasonable to wonder, given the horrific litany of cases in which police officers have used deadly force against black men and women, whether Castile ever had a chance at surviving the encounter.

Thursday, I spoke with three men who don’t agree with that assessment: a trio of white firearms instructors in Minnesota who provide formal training to people applying for concealed-carry permits like the one Reynolds says her boyfriend had. 

In spite of what seems to have happened to Castile, all three instructors told me they firmly believe there are steps people with concealed firearms can take to ensure their safety when dealing with law enforcement. 

Underlying their conviction on this point is a deeply felt optimism about the reasonableness of police. 

Their thoughts, which have been lightly edited for clarity, are below.

~  MIKE BRIGGS,  instructor and owner at Minnesota Fire Arms Training

Advice to students: “Here’s the first thing we say: If you get pulled over and you’re friendly and you don’t lie, and when they ask for ID, if you voluntarily hand up your permit to carry, our experience is you’ve got a huge chance of getting out of your ticket. Cops in Minnesota appreciate you volunteering it up. 

A lot of police in Minnesota teach this class, and most police officers are in favor of permit to carry. And they appreciate you being forthcoming.

“By putting your permit to carry right underneath your license and just giving it to them, you’ve told them without saying a word, I’m a good guy or I wouldn’t have a license to walk around with a gun. 

The sheriff has checked me out. I don’t have to volunteer this up but here you go. You don’t have to worry about me.

 And then if they start asking questions, you answer them truthfully. And that’s what we tell all of our students.”

~ JON KAUTZ,  director of operations and instructor at Gun Permit Center

Personal experience: “I myself have gotten out of several tickets by law enforcement officers by being friendly and completely honest when I got pulled over. When they ask for ID, I don’t say a word—I just put my permit right with my ID and give it to them. And then most of them will say, ‘Are you carrying a firearm?’ And then I’ll say, ‘Yeah, it’s in my center console, or it’s in my backpack, or under my seat, or whatever. What would you like me to do next?’ A lot of them have even been sort of funny with it. I had one state trooper say, ‘You keep your gun in your holster, I’ll keep mine in mine.’ ”

On whether black people can safely follow the same protocol as whites: Absolutely. For sure. It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white. The instructions and the advice are the same.

On Philando Castile: To be honest with you, it sounds to me like he did everything you’re supposed to do. That’s what I’m assuming so far. It sounds like he handled it the way you should. And it sounds like the officer had a short-circuit. That’s what it’s sounding like, but I don’t know what happened before the video.

Advice to students: “In Minnesota there’s no standard protocol for a traffic stop like this, where you have someone who’s carrying. Each police department sets their own policy for how to handle it. Minneapolis might do one thing; in Falcon Heights they might do another. So we always instruct our customers in our training to do whatever the officer says, to always keep their hands visible at all times, and to always ask, ‘How would you like me to proceed?’ and leave it up to the police officer to offer directions on how they want to handle it.”

Personal experience: “If I’m pulled over and an officer asks for my credentials, the next thing I would say is, ‘Officer, I am a permit-to-carry holder. I am carrying at this time. The pistol, or whatever, is located in X spot.’ I’d keep my hands visible on the steering heel or on the dashboard, and I’d say, ‘How would you like me to proceed?’ ”

Thoughts on concealed carry: “If you’re a concealed-carry permit holder and you’re carrying, you assume some risk, you know? Things happen. Whether it’s on accident or intentional—you’re carrying a firearm. You’re assuming some risk in carrying a firearm. You have to assume some risk—it’s just like when you drive a car.”

How the Philando Castile situation will affect his work: “Will we change the way we do the training? No, because we believe we’re teaching it correctly. Will we emphasize this part of the training more? Yes. Will it come up for discussion? Guaranteed.”

~ JOE PENAZ, instructor at Plane Cents Self Defense

Advice to students: “Be totally compliant. If they ask if you have a gun, tell them you have a gun, and make sure you ask them what to do next.

“I also say that if you have a gun on you and it’s on the same side as your wallet, and going for your wallet is going to expose the weapon, it would behoove you to tell the officer at that time, even though you don’t necessarily have to, ‘I have a weapon on me and it’s on the same side as my wallet.’ ”

Personal experience: “I usually start out by asking, ‘Are you having a good night, sir?’ I do. So few people ever say anything like that to a police officer. I’ve ridden with police many, many, many times. And all they ever do is get yelled at, spit on, cussed out. ‘Why aren’t you out arresting real criminals?’ and stuff like that. What does it hurt to ask, ‘Are you having a nice day?’ Wouldn’t you say that to someone at a Home Depot or a Dairy Queen? The only reason you’re not saying that is you’re getting pulled over and generally you don’t get pulled over unless you’ve done something wrong.”

On whether it’s dangerous for black people to take his advice: “Absolutely not. I have quite a few black people in my classes. I just don’t see that as a problem.”

SCALIA WAS MURDERED TO PREVENT ANOTHER BUSH v GORE ELECTION

SCALIA WAS MURDERED TO PREVENT ANOTHER BUSH v GORE ELECTION:

"GET OVER IT"??

HOW CAN WE GET OVER THE PREMEDITATED MURDER OF A HIGH COURT JUSTICE??

WE NEED TO PRAY & VOTE.

So do I believe several theories floating around about SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia being MURDERED to prevent another Bush v Gore election?

Yes!

Scalia's death was designed to Intimidate and Terrorize 2016 election voters.

American citizens need to Pray and  Vote!

Sources: ABC News, CBS News, 60 Minutes, CNN, World Net Daily, Youtube

*** Justice Scalia On The Record

This 60 Minutes segment was originally broadcast on April 27, 2008. It was updated on Sept. 12, 2008. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Ruth Streeter, producer.

Not many Supreme Court justices become famous, but Antonin Scalia is one of the few. Known as "Nino" to his friends and colleagues, he is one of the most brilliant and combative justices ever to sit on the court and one of the most prominent legal thinkers of his generation.

He first agreed to talk to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl last spring about a new book he's written on how lawyers should address the court. But over the course of several conversations, our story grew into a full-fledged profile - his first major television interview - including discussions about abortion and Bush v. Gore.

At 72, Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as "orginalism," which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago.

Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution - like a right to abortion - by interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that adapts to changing values. 

---

Asked what's wrong with the living Constitution, Scalia tells Stahl, "What's wrong with it is, it's wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution."

"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.

"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.

"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.

"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.

"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.

"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.

He's been on a mission as an evangelist for originalism, at home and around the world.

For example, he visited the Oxford Union in England.

"Sometimes people come up to me and inquire, 'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?' As though it's some weird affliction, you know, 'When did you start eating human flesh?'" Scalia told students, who replied with laughter.

They may be laughing, but in the U.S. Scalia is a polarizing figure who invites protestors and picketers. There haven't been many Supreme Court justices who become this much of a lightening rod.

"I'm surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we've been told: 'He's evil.' 'He's a Neanderthal.' 'He's going to drag us back to 1789.' They're threatened by what you represent and what you believe in," Stahl remarks.

"These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically," Scalia says.

Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can...I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use... A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."

But his critics argue that originalism is a cover for what they see as Scalia's realintention: to turn back some pivotal court decisions of the 1960s and 70s.

He's been labeled a "counterrevolutionary."

"A counterrevolutionary!" Scalia reacts. "Sounds exciting."

The critics say his aim is to undo Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, and to allow more religion in public life.

"The public sense of you is that [you] make your decisions based on your social beliefs," Stahl says, with Scalia shaking his head. "That is the perception."

"I'm a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess I'm a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," Scalia says."

His philosophy has occasionally led him to decisions he deplores, like his upholding the constitutionality of flag burning, as he told a group of students in Missouri.

"If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal-wearing flag burner into jail, but it was not up to me," Scalia told the students.

To Scalia, flag burning was protected by the founding fathers in the First Amendment, which is his only criterion, he says, under originalism.

"But do you respect that there is another way to look at this?" Stahl asks.

"You know the story of the Baptist preacher who was asked if he believed in total-immersion baptism? And he said, 'Believe in it? Why I've seen it done!' I have to say the same thing about your question. There must be other views because I've seen them," Scalia says.

"Yeah, but do you respect them? You don't, do you?" Stahl asks.

"I respect the people who have them, but I think those views are just flat out wrong," Scalia says.

He's talking about some of his fellow justices, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who is - and this never ceases to surprise people - one of Scalia's best friends, both on and off the court.

To Ginsburg, the Constitution evolves and should reflect changes in society; that going back to what was meant originally when they wrote, for instance, "We the People," makes little sense.

"Who were 'We the People' in 1787? You would not be among 'We the People.' African Americans would not be among the people," Ginsburg tells Stahl.

"Justice Ginsburg and you disagree...on lots of things. And yet you're such good friends," Stahl remarks.

"I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas," Scalia says. "And if you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day job. You don't want to be a judge. At least not a judge on a multi-member panel."

He's one of the best writers on the panel, known for a bold and colorful style. He told Stahl he has to work at it - that it doesn't come easy.

He some times quotes Cole Porter, and references Greek tragedies. Scalia says he does it because, "It makes the opinion interesting, which might induce somebody to read it."

But he can also use his pen as a sword to attack the writings of his colleagues. For instance, he once called a Breyer decision "sheer applesauce."

Ginsburg has also been the target of some of Scalia's zingers: he called one of her opinions "absurd," another "implausible speculation," and another "self-righteous."

"How about, 'This opinion is not to be taken seriously.' He wrote that about Justice O'Connor," Ginsburg points out. "He's rather mild I think in the adjectives that he uses for me. But you can take every one of those words, run his opinions and you'll see that he, all of us are implausible when we disagree with him."

Asked if she ever takes it personally, Ginsburg says, "No, I take it as a challenge. How am I going to answer this in a way that's a real put down?"

"I'm trying to figure out if there was ever real anger," Stahl says.

"I would say exasperation is the word," Ginsburg replies.

"As annoyed as you might be about his zinging dissent, he's so utterly charming, so amusing, so sometimes outrageous, you can't help but say 'I'm glad that he's my friend' or he's my colleague,'" she adds.

"What's interesting is the difference between how you appear in person and the image that you have. Because the writings are so often combative, and your friends say that you're charming and fun," Stahl tells Scalia.

"I can be charming and combative at the same time," Scalia replies. "What's contradictory between the two? I love to argue. I've always loved to argue. And I love to point out the weaknesses of the opposing arguments. It may well be that I'm something of a shin kicker. It may well be that I'm something of a contrarian."

Of all the cases that have come before him on the court, Bush v. Gore may have been the most controversial. It has been reported that he played a pivotal role in urging the other justices to end the Florida recount, thereby handing the 2000 election to George Bush. The subject came up at the Oxford Union.

"Supposing yourself as a Supreme Court justice were granted the power to appoint the next president of the United States. Who would you pick and why? And would he or she be better than your last choice?" a student asked Scalia.

"You wanna talk about Bush versus Gore. I perceive that," he replied. "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there!"

"People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks.

"I say nonsense," Scalia says.

Was it political?

"Gee, I really don't wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.

Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.

"It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn't go looking for trouble. It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts.' What are we supposed to say? 'Oh, not important enough,'" Scalia jokes.

"It ended up being a political decision" Stahl points out.

"Well you say that. I don't say that," Scalia replies.

"You don't think it handed the election to George Bush?" Stahl asks.

"Well how does that make it a political decision?" Scalia asks.

"It decided the election," Stahl says.

"If that's all you mean by it, yes," Scalia says.

"That's all I mean by it," Stahl says.

"Oh, ok. I suppose it did. Although you should add to that that it would have come out the same way, no matter what," Scalia says.

"Obamacare"/ Affordable Health Care Act vs SCOTUS Arguments: 10 Key Areas To Watch For Discussion

10 Things to Watch During the Health Care Arguments

Welcome to America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, on the eve of the big Supreme Court arguments over the Affordable Care Act, where you cannot swing a reply brief without hitting a lawyer or a lobbyist or a medical "expert" willing (for some free publicity) to share with you his or her ponderous view of how it's all going to come out. I have received hundreds upon hundreds of emails pitching such knowledge and prescience-- and one of the best parts about the looming end of this case will be the end of these emails.

The truth is, dear reader, that the people who know how the case is going to turn out aren't talking. And the people who are talking about how the case is going to turn out don't really know. Since the justices alone are in the first group I happily acknowledge that I am squarely in the second group. After Bush v. Gore, after Citizens United a decade later, I have learned on this beat never to be too sure about anything. Instead, all I offer here are a few tips that I believe will help reasonably guide you through the three momentous days ahead.


1) Be prepared.

If you have somehow managed to avoid the ceaseless legal and political chatter over the Affordable Care Act, both before and after it's enactment almost exactly two years ago today, then congratulations! If you want to get caught up, however, start here, at the official website of the United States Supreme Court, for basic legal briefs and other material. From there, go to Scotusblog's indispensable coverage of the cases, the lawyers, and the issues. Then read this memorably candid piece by Dahlia Lithwick.

2) Be prepared for disappointment.

The justices will have plenty of many different ways to resolve these cases without giving a complete victory to either side in the fight. For example, the Court could declare that the Care Act contemplates a "tax" and not a "penalty"-- even though it doesn't say so-- and that would mean that the challenges are premature. Can you imagine the political furor if that's the result here? I can. It would mean a whole new generation of lawsuits in two years-- if the statute itself isn't amended or repealed first.


3) Action/inaction.

Opponents of the health care law say that Congress may not constitutionally regulate "inaction"-- the voluntary choice not to buy health insurance. In response, the Obama Administration and other Care Act supporters say there is no such thing as "inaction." Notably, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of George W. Bush and a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote last year that "inaction is action." If the Court agrees with that formulation, the law likely will survive.


4) Drinking games!

If, like hundreds of millions of your fellow citizens, you cannot see the arguments live, then consider having an "audio release" party. Invite your friends over to listen to the justices and lawyers cogitate. And you can play drinking games. For example, everyone can take a shot if someone in court mentions the phrase "broccoli mandate" to connote overreaching federal power. Or, if you are a heavier drinker, you can just take a shot every time someone mentions Wickard v. Filburn, the 1942 case so vital to both sides.


5) The mind of Justice Clarence Thomas.

He hasn't asked a question at oral argument in more than six years. Starting on Monday, he'll likely sit in court in total silence for six hours over three days on a subject, the Affordable Care Act, which we know is so near and dear to his wife Ginny's heart. What will he be thinking during those long public hours? What good questions will be raised in his mind that he won't ask aloud? And what will the Thomases' dinner table conversation be like early next week? Maybe that's where we need the cameras!


6) The words of Justice Elena Kagan.

Speaking of justices whose participation in these health care cases has been marked by political controversy, there is the former Solicitor General of the United States. In her brief tenure on the Court, less than two full Terms, she already has distinguished herself for her writing and her cogent questions during argument. Unlike Justice Thomas, she likely will speak in court. What does she think of the Commerce Clause and the aforementioned "broccoli mandate"? Watch this from her 2010 confirmation hearing.


7) Everything old is new again.

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act say it represents an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power. Supporters of the law say the political and legal assault upon the measure is "unprecedented." Baloney. Folks, we've been here before. If you want some context and perspective on the arguments, read Jeff Shesol's masterful "Supreme Power," about the Court and Franklin Roosevelt. If you really want to go old-school, and make your grandparents proud,. read the classic The 168 Days by Joe Alsop and Turner Catledge.


8) Watch Breyer.

Justices often delight in torturing at oral argument even those attorneys whose positions they ultimately endorse. So all eyes his coming week will be on Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. But it might also make sense to keep an eye on Justice Stephen Breyer to see where his eyes are. Justice Breyer frequently asks questions of the lawyers while looking directly at one of his colleagues on the bench as if to say: "Lawyer, please answer my question so I can convince my fellow justice of a particular point."


9) Ahead? A full season of waiting.

By my calculations, we'll have to wait three full months before we will likely get some answers to the questions raised by the oral arguments. I reckon it's 93 days from Wednesday, March 28 at noon, when the oral arguments finally end, to Thursday, June 28th at 10 a.m., when the Court is expected to release its final opinions of the current Term. Of course, the justices could issue their ruling sooner-- a few days earlier, perhaps-- but don't bet on it.


10) Behave in court.

Because the great public interest in the issues surrounding the new law, the courtroom will be packed-- and there are likely to be plenty of first-time viewers of a High Court oral argument. Here are some helpful rules: 1) don't start the "Wave" after an attorney finishes an argument; 2) don't try to sneak in a flask of whiskey to brace yourself for the tedium of the Anti-Injunction Act; 3) don't fist-pump when a justice asks a good question or when an attorney offers a good answer, and; 4) whatever you do, don't do this.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Emory University, Newsbusters, The Atlantic, Youtube

Clarence Thomas vs Lillian McEwen: She Comes Forth Years Later: Supports Hill

Lillian McEwen Breaks Her 19-Year Silence About Justice Clarence Thomas



For nearly two decades, Lillian McEwen has been silent -- a part of history, yet absent from it.

When Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his explosive 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Thomas vehemently denied the allegations and his handlers cited his steady relationship with another woman in an effort to deflect Hill's allegations.

Lillian McEwen was that woman.

At the time, she was on good terms with Thomas.

The former assistant U.S. attorney and Senate Judiciary Committee counsel had dated him for years, even attending a March 1985 White House state dinner as his guest.

She had worked on the Hill and was wary of entering the political cauldron of the hearings. She was never asked to testify, as then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who headed the committee, limited witnesses to women who had a "professional relationship" with Thomas.

Now, she says that Thomas often said inappropriate things about women he met at work -- and that she could have added her voice to the others, but didn't.

Over the years, reporters and biographers approached her eager to know more about Thomas from women who knew him well. But McEwen remained mum. She said she saw "nothing good" coming out of talking to reporters about Thomas, whom she said she still occasionally met. She did not want to do anything to harm her career, she added. Plus, she realized, "I don't look good in this."

Today, McEwen is 65 and retired from a successful career as a prosecutor, law professor and administrative law judge for federal agencies. She has been twice married and twice divorced, and has a 32-year-old daughter. She lives in a comfortable townhouse in Southwest Washington.

And she is silent no more.

She has written a memoir, which she is now shopping to publishers. News broke that the justice's wife, Virginia Thomas, left a voice mail on Hill's office phone at Brandeis University, seeking an apology -- a request that Hill declined in a statement. After that, McEwen changed her mind and decided to talk about her relationship with Thomas.



"I have nothing to be afraid of," she said, adding that she hopes the attention stokes interest in her manuscript.

To McEwen, Hill's allegations that Thomas had pressed her for dates and made lurid sexual references rang familiar.

"He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners," McEwen said matter-of-factly. "It was a hobby of his."

McEwen's connection to Thomas was strictly personal. She had even disclosed that relationship to Biden, who had been her boss years earlier.

In her Senate testimony, Hill, who worked with Thomas at two federal agencies, said that Thomas would make sexual comments to her at work, including references to scenes in hard-core pornographic films.

"If I used that kind of grotesque language with one person, it would seem to me that there would be traces of it throughout the employees who worked closely with me, or the other individuals who heard bits and pieces of it or various levels of it," Thomas responded to the committee.

McEwen scoffs softly when asked about Thomas's indignation, which has barely cooled in the 19 years since the hearings. In his vivid 2007 memoir, the justice calls Hill a tool of liberal activists outraged because he did not fit their idea of what an African American should believe.

McEwen's memoir describes her own "dysfunctional" family in the District and, ultimately, a long legal career. She charts how she developed an "inner self" to escape the chaos of her childhood. Her story also includes explicit details of her relationship with Thomas, which she said included a freewheeling sex life.

Given that history, she said Hill's long-ago description of Thomas's behavior resonated with her.

"He was obsessed with porn," she said of Thomas, who is now 63. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting."

McEwen added that she had no problem with Thomas's interests, although she found pornography to be "boring."

According to McEwen, Thomas would also tell her about women he encountered at work. He was partial to women with large breasts, she said. In an instance at work, Thomas was so impressed that he asked one woman her bra size, McEwen recalled him telling her.

Presented with some of McEwen's assertions, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Thomas was unavailable for comment.

However bizarre they may seem, McEwen's recollections resemble accounts shared by other women that swirled around the Thomas confirmation.

Angela Wright, who in 1984 worked as public affairs director at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- which polices sexual harassment claims -- during Thomas's long tenure as chairman, shared similar accounts with Senate investigators.

Once, when walking into an EEOC seminar with Thomas, he asked her, "What size are your breasts?" according to the transcript of her Senate interview.

Her story was corroborated by a former EEOC speechwriter, who told investigators that Wright had become increasingly uneasy around Thomas because of his comments about her appearance.

But Wright also had problems that made committee Democrats nervous. She had been fired by Thomas, and previously by a member of Congress. She also had quit a third job in government, accusing her boss of incompetence and racism.

Concerned about Wright's credibility, Biden lifted a subpoena for her to testify at the hearing. Instead, transcripts of the interviews with Wright and her corroborator were simply entered into the record, drawing only modest press attention.

Another woman, Sukari Hardnett, who worked as a special assistant to Thomas in 1985 and 1986, wrote in a letter to the Judiciary Committee that "If you were young, black, female and reasonably attractive, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female" by Thomas.

For his part, a parade of women who worked with Thomas defended him before the Judiciary Committee, calling it impossible that he would engage in the type of inappropriate behavior described by his accusers.

McEwen recalls writing Thomas a short note before the confirmation hearings, curious about what she should say if she were quizzed about their relationship. She said Thomas preferred that she would take "the same attitude of his first wife," who never talked publicly about their relationship.

In 2007, the Howard University Law School graduate retired and grew reflective on her life. Her career had included stints as an administrative law judge for both the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. She also had turns as a law professor and a private attorney -- all after her work as a federal prosecutor and Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer.

She spends her days in her Southwest townhouse. She frequently meets up with friends for movies, golf and other outings. Regularly, she stops by the National Museum of the American Indian for lunch.

In her short leather jacket, ankle-high boots and leather cap, she looks younger than her age. And when she talks about Thomas, her tone is devoid of rancor. She sees him mainly as someone who occupied a chapter of her life.

Still, McEwen, a Democrat, acknowledges growing increasingly irritated with Thomas's conservative jurisprudence and his penchant for casting himself as a victim in the Hill controversy.

Thomas himself has obliquely referred to the McEwen both in his 2007 memoir and during his confirmation hearing.

In an exchange with Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who was then a Republican, he said there appeared to be tension between Hill and him "as a result of the complexion of the woman I dated and the woman I chose as my chief of staff." Both are light-skinned.

McEwen met Thomas in 1979, when both were among a tiny handful of young, black Capitol Hill staffers. A group of them would hold monthly meetings at neighborhood watering holes, and soon enough McEwen and Thomas had struck up a close friendship.

At the time, Thomas was married to his first wife and working for then-Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.). McEwen, meanwhile, had recently separated from her first husband.

Over time, she said, Thomas would come by her place for drinks. She said the relationship grew intimate after Thomas left his wife in 1981. She said they broke off their relationship in about 1986.

Through the years, McEwen said, she has remained reasonably friendly with Thomas. On two or three occasions, she said, she brought friends to his Supreme Court chambers where they sat for long conversations.

But now, she says, "I know Clarence would not be happy with me."

"I have no hostility toward him," McEwen said. "It is just that he has manufactured a different reality over time. That's the problem that he has."



Sources: CNN, Washington Post

Anita Hill vs Virginia Thomas "Catfight": No Apology More Vengeance

Anita Hill: No Apology Coming For Thomas Testimony


Anita Hill, whose accusations of sexual harassment almost derailed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' high court nomination, has no plans to apologize for the charges she made nearly two decades ago.

The response from Hill, now a law professor at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, comes following a voice-mail message left for her by Thomas' wife, Virginia, over the weekend, requesting an apology.

Charles Radin, the Brandeis director of news and communications, said Hill received the voice mail and turned it over to the campus Department of Public Safety, which then turned it over to the FBI.

Special Agent Jason Pack, an FBI spokesman in Washington, declined to comment late Tuesday.

"I certainly thought the call was inappropriate," Hill said in a statement to CNN issued by Brandeis. "I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."

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 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."

According to a source at Brandeis, who spoke on condition of not being identified, the message left over the weekend 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."

Virginia Thomas is a conservative activist who founded the organization Liberty Central.

Hill declined comment to CNN affiliate WCVB outside her Waltham home on Wednesday, saying, "Please, let me go teach my class."

Then-President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas -- a then-43-year-old conservative from Pinpoint, Georgia -- to the Supreme Court in 1991.

The nomination was "instantly controversial," according to an outline of the incident posted on the website for the Center for History and New Media, part of a history class syllabus.

African-American organizations, including the NAACP and the Urban League, opposed it, fearing that Thomas' conservative stance on issues such as affirmative action would reverse gains his predecessor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, had helped achieve, the outline said.

However, the nomination proceeded to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the first few days of his confirmation hearings were uneventful, according to the historical account. "When asked about his stance on legal abortion, [Clarence] Thomas claimed that he had not formulated an opinion and the issue was dropped."

The nomination went before the full Senate, but a media frenzy developed when Hill -- then a law professor at the University of Oklahoma -- came forward and alleged that Thomas had sexually harassed her years earlier, when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and she worked for him, the outline said. The Senate Judiciary Committee launched an investigation.

Hill actually had made the allegations during interviews with the FBI, but they were leaked to the press just before the final Senate vote on Clarence Thomas, according to the Museum of Broadcast Communications' website. The Senate delayed the vote in order to hear more about Hill's allegations.

In three days of televised hearings that transfixed Americans, Hill testified that Thomas repeatedly requested dates with her and engaged in inappropriate discussions including references to pornographic material.

In his testimony, Clarence Thomas denied the allegations and called the hearings "a national disgrace ... a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves," according to the museum.

Two days later, Clarence Thomas was confirmed on a 52-48 vote.

"Although the hearings themselves had no legal significance, to many observers they symbolized a public referendum on sexual harassment and other gender inequities in late twentieth-century America," according to the broadcast museum. The incident has been credited with increasing public awareness regarding gender discrimination and motivating female voters in the 1992 elections, which saw a record 29 women elected to Congress.

"Many feminist groups refer to Anita Hill as the mother of a new wave of awareness of gender discrimination, particularly given the attacks on her credibility that she withstood from the white male senators," the museum said.

Harriett Woods, then-president of the National Women's Political Caucus, was quoted by the museum as saying, "Anita Hill focused attention on the fact that there were no women in that Senate panel making decisions about people's lives."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Kagan & Sotomayor Are The New "Black" SCOTUS Justices

Yesterday when Pres. Obama nominated Elena Kagan for his next SCOTUS pick many Leaders within America's Black community were extremely riled.

They were angry and questioning why he chose a Hispanic and White woman versus an African-American woman?

Here's my take on why he took this path.

You don't have to agree but hopefully it will cause you to ponder.

I'm not really too enthusiastic about Obama's choice in Kagan especially considering her hiring record at Harvard Law school.

(For more info. check out this link from Duke Law Professor Guy-Uriel Charles (a Brother) over at "Colored Demos" Blog entitled: Why Elena Kagan's Hiring at Harvard matters".)
http://coloreddemos.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-elena-kagans-hiring-at-harvard.html


However....

I must say I'm glad Pres. Obama did NOT select another African-American.

Why?

Please tell me what the H_ll has Justice Clarence Thomas done for his race?

I mean really!

While I will admit Justice Thurgood Marshall was extremely effective during his tenure on the bench, this could be more attributed to a different time in American History.

A time when Black Leaders were ALIVE and ACTIVE.

A time when Black Leaders REALLY cared about helping to pull up their Brothers & Sisters, (education, jobs, etc.,) because there is STRENGTH in numbers.

A time when Black Leaders were NOT SELFISH, WILLIE LYNCH MINDED, SELL-OUTS!

In today's society....

When most pseudo Black "Leaders" rise up they totally forget about the Black Voters who put them where they arrived.

Afterwards they don't do a D_mn thing to help eliminate Racism in Education, Employment, Housing, Student Aid, Business Opportunities UNLESS.....

You run in their little circles (Fraternities, Sororities, etc.,).

Am I jealous or bitter?

No but I'm deeply concerned because I see our Youth struggling with NO one to help them find their way.

(Rev. Al Sharpton can't do it all by himself.)

Case in point I cannot tell you the number of Black College graduates (in North Carolina) I've come across who couldn't find jobs, much less a good job.

I'm speaking of graduates with high GPA's.

They had to either settle for low paying jobs in North Carolina Call Centers or relocate to a different state.

This is still going on today.

What are North Carolina's Black "Leaders" doing about it?

NOTHING!

Because they are SCARED and ONLY care about themselves or friends.

Thus I don't care if another Black Attorney (no offense) or Judge is EVER nominated to sit in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing.

Its better for a White, Hispanic or Asian Judge to rule effectively on my behalf, than a Black SCARED-A_ S Justice sitting on the bench for symbolic purposes.

America's Black Community needs to wake up!

In case they haven't noticed the struggle is far from over.

The day of appointing, electing and nominating Blacks for representative, symbolic purposes are over!

We don't need any more TOKEN Black Leaders!

We need REAL Black Leaders who are actually going to DO SOMETHING once they arrive.

Black Leaders who are NOT afraid of being labeled "Radical", although Radical isn't really a negative thing.

In fact Radical isn't equivalent to Militant but it most certainly isn't equivalent to LAME SITTING DUCK either.

So.....

Whether African-Americans are willing to accept it or not...

Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor represent the new "Black" U.S. Supreme Justice.

I hope Ms. Kagan is confirmed quickly and without unnecessary delay.




View Larger Map


Sources: Colored Demos, CNN, Duke Law School, McClatchy Newspapers, MSNBC, The Root, Yahoo News, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Virginia Thomas Attacked By Liberals For Tea Party Affiliation

Conservatives Defend Virginia Thomas' Tea Party Group


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife Virginia Thomas is starting a nonprofit lobbying group to promote activism and conservative principles, the Los Angeles Times reported, setting off a debate about whether it is fair to question Virginia Thomas' influence on her husband's court decisions.

The group Liberty Central Inc. will fully launch in May, Virginia Thomas (who goes by Ginni) told the Times. It will issue score cards for members of Congress and be involved in the November midterm elections. The group will also accept donations from various sources, including corporations.

Virginia Thomas' work does not violate any ethical rules, but New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics, told the Times that Clarence Thomas should be wary of any conflicts of interest that may arise.

"There is opportunity for mischief if a company with a case before the court, or which it wants the court to accept, makes a substantial contribution to Liberty Central in the interim," he said.

The new nonprofit can raise unlimited amounts in corporate donations and can largely avoid publicly disclosing its donors, the Times reported. Additionally, it can also freely spend corporate money to campaign for or against a candidate for office because of the Citizens United Supreme Court case in which Clarence Thomas ruled with the 5-4 majority.

Some Conservative Bloggers said linking Virginia Thomas' activism to Clarence Thomas' court rulings held a double standards against both women in politics as well as Conservatives.

"According to a piece in the Los Angeles Times today, being married to Clarence Thomas should really prohibit a woman from being involved in politics," writes Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review. "They even include a shocking photo of Clarence and Ginni in public together at a conservative event. 'How can this happen in America?!,' it seems to ask."

Thomas herself asked the Times' reporter whether Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and his wife Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, come under the same scrutiny.

The newspaper points out that Marjorie Rendell has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania.

Ed Morrissey at the Conservative Blog Hot Air also defends Virginia Thomas' activities, comparing questions of the unfair conflict of interest her role may pose to the criticism aimed at former First Lady Hillary Clinton in the 1990's.

"Counter-critics called it a form of gender discrimination, and Hillary famously responded to it by defiantly noting that 'I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas,' but decided to have her own career in law and politics," Morrissey notes.

Thomas' new endeavor is no different, he says.

"Liberty Central aims to give grassroots activists a broader understanding of the philosophy of conservatism rather than doing a lot of organizing themselves," writes Morrissey. "I'm not sure why that gives [L.A. Times reporter Kathleen] Hennessey such heartburn, but it hardly sets up any conflict of interest for Thomas ... unless Hennessey and the LAT want to argue that wives should do nothing but bake cookies and hold teas."

Michael Kieschnick, president and co-founder of wireless company CREDO Mobile, argues at Huffington Post that there is indeed a potential conflict of interest. CREDO donates a portion of its revenues to progressive groups.

"Justice Thomas has been a reliable right wing, pro-corporate vote since his first day on the court. He can hardly be described as a swing vote whose vote could be bought," Kieschnick writes. "But perhaps he could be rewarded for services rendered. Or, if service on the bench becomes tedious, he might be persuaded to extend his tenure if important cases are looming on the horizon."

Kieschnick offers a solution for the potential problem: "Liberty Central could simply voluntarily disclose all of its significant contributors in a manner much like, say, the Clinton Foundation. And Judge Thomas could simply recuse himself from any case involving a significant donor to his wife's (and thus his own) financial well being."



Justice Thomas' Wife to Increase Visibility, Join Tea Party Rallies


The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is jumping on the Tea Party bandwagon with the launch of a new conservative lobbying group and plans to attend some high-profile Tea Party rallies in the coming weeks.

Ginni Thomas founded the Virginia-based nonprofit Liberty Central back in January. Amy Feather, the group's director of business development and marketing, told FoxNews.com that "the hope" is that Thomas will make an appearance at a Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

That event, dubbed the "The People's Surge Against Obamacare 2.0," is expected to draw about 2,000 people. Tea Party leaders and other activists are planning to converge on Washington, flood congressional offices and press their representatives to vote against the health care reform bill.

Feather said Thomas will also speak at one of the dozens of Tea Party rallies on Tax Day April 15, likely in Atlanta. Last month, she spoke alongside other Tea Party activists at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Liberty Central, which is billed as a vehicle for "informing, motivating and activating everyday citizens around core founding principles of the U.S. Constitution," is still under construction, and Feather said Thomas was not quite ready to talk to the media about her work-in-progress group.

"We're not there yet," she said.

But reports of the new organization generated some criticism that Thomas could be setting up a conflict of interest for her husband -- should, for instance, the justice consider a case involving one of her donors.

Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein said he's not "bothered" by that scenario, but that it could create problems if her group does not disclose its donors.

"That is probably the most legitimate criticism in terms of this question of who's influencing whom," he said.

Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes said the critiques of Thomas are "absurd."

"What is Virginia Thomas supposed to do? Sit down and be quiet?" he said. "Where are the same people who for years have been saying that women live separate lives, they should have a successful career?"

According to the group's mission statement, Liberty Central is aimed at grooming and assisting conservative activists.

"LibertyCentral.org will serve the big tent of the conservative movement and assist all viable individuals and organizations with education and engagement," the statement says.

Liberty Central, which maintains a minimal Web site, is planning to launch a full-blown online site in early May.

Sources: CBS News, Fox News, LA Times, Hot Air, National Review, Huffington Post

SCOTUS Opens Corporate Campaign Financing Floodgates

Campaign Disclosure Rules Upheld


U.S. The Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance upheld these requirements:

** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements.




Court Decision Opens New Avenues For Corporate Political Spending



The Supreme Court on Thursday opened wide new avenues for big-moneyed interests to pour money into politics in a decision that could have a major influence on the 2010 midterm elections and President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

The long-awaited decision overruled a 1990 ruling by the court that allowed the government to bar corporations from spending corporate funds on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat.

The decision, handed down in a special session of the court, was in a case brought by an obscure conservative group called Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission. The court also overruled part of a 2003 decision that upheld restrictions on independent corporate expenditures. But the decision upheld disclosure requirements for groups like Citizens United.

Citizens United had alleged in its lawsuit that its free speech rights were violated when the FEC moved to block it from using corporate cash to promote and air "Hillary: The Movie," a feature-length movie harshly critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton – and current secretary of state – during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The FEC asserted that the movie expressly opposed Clinton’s election and therefore was subject to campaign laws barring the use of corporate cash to air election ads, and requiring donor disclosure. Citizens United disagreed and sued.

Lower courts sided with the FEC, and the Supreme Court first heard the case in March. But instead of coming back with a ruling, in June Chief Justice John Roberts asked the parties to return for a rare re-argument of the case – with a much broader focus.

Instead of merely arguing whether federal election laws should have applied to “Hillary: The Movie,” Roberts asked the parties to argue whether the court should reverse rulings in two prior cases upholding the government’s ability to limit corporate and union election spending.

The court divided along ideological lines on the decision with Justice Antony Kennedy casting the deciding vote and writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Roberts and fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. Another conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The dissent was written by John Paul Stevens, who was joined by liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Tom Goldstein, publisher of the influential SCOTUSBLOG, declared “today's decision is a small revolution in campaign finance law,” though he cautioned the impact of the ruling “will depend on the wording.”


Sources: AP, SCOTUS Blog, Politico, United Citizens, Youtube