The Corner

Law & the Courts

Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Crucial Differences

I’ve been listening to a lot — too much, really — media analysis of the latest in the Kavanaugh saga. Within the last 72 hours, it has become almost de rigueur to note the “amazing similarities” and “remarkable parallels” — or some such treacle — between the Anita Hill episode and the upcoming Ford testimony (if that happens). The similarities are pretty obvious at this point: a cheap, unprovable, last-minute she-said/he-said charge (according to many on the right) by a heroic female whistle-blower and truth-teller bravely standing up to the Senate to tell her story (according to many on the left), etc., etc.

But, perhaps because it’s become a cliché already, many commentators and analysts also feel compelled to point out “crucial differences” between back then and now. The two most prominent of which are the existence of the “Me Too” movement and the fact that there are now 22 female senators.

Those are important differences. But you know what? There is another “crucial difference” between the Clarence Thomas story and this one: Clarence Thomas was never accused of attempted rape.

I am not saying that I believe Dr. Ford’s allegation. If anything, I’m increasingly skeptical of it, but I’d like to hear from her before making up my mind.

But whether you believe her version of events or not, the simple fact remains that Clarence Thomas was accused of boorish behavior that Anita Hill interpreted as sexual harassment, not sexual assault.

If I were Clarence Thomas, I would consider that a pretty crucial difference. But for many in the media, it’s apparently a trivial detail not worth mentioning.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More