Here we go again.
Liberals are digging up anything and everything from the political past, to try and score a “victory.”
Case in point, SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas, who was dragged through the mud during his confirmation hearing, by liar Anita Hill, who, out of nowhere, accused the conservative Justice of “sexual harassment.”
From Washington Examiner
Political pundits have savaged a New York magazine article re-litigating the case for Supreme Court associate justice Clarence Thomas’ impeachment, which purportedly cites new evidence Thomas lied under oath about Anita Hill during his confirmation hearing.
The series, written by Carrie Severino, breaks down Abramson’s so-called proof that Hill, an ex-employee of Thomas, was telling the truth when she detailed sexual harassment accusations against Thomas before the controversial Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991.
“Her obsessive quest to try and destroy Clarence Thomas [and pull her career out of free fall] has resulted in another 4,200 words of warmed-over, long-ago debunked, and perjurious allegations,” Severino writes of Abramson.
Abramson’s main argument is that Thomas, a George H. W. Bush nominee, perjured himself by lying about the nature of his relationship with Hill, whom he supervised at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the 1980s.
Although Supreme Court judges have life tenure, they may be removed by the Senate for questionable conduct.
But even in the wake of the #MeToo movement liberal commentators like Vox’s Matthew Yglesias believe impeaching Thomas “is arguably a sucker’s move at this point.”
“Given his age, it’d be in conservatives’ interests for him to step down now rather than risk President Warren appointing his replacement in her second term,” Yglesias wrote on Twitter Monday.
“At any rate, I don’t really disagree with anything @JillAbramson says, but I think the strategic reality is progressives are better off with Thomas staying put if Trump is in the White House,” he added.