
Talk about being a day late and a dollar short!
Nearly 20 years after it would have mattered, the ex-girlfriend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Thomas was "obsessed" with pornography and loved big-breasted women so much he asked one particularly busty colleague her bra size.
At first blush, these "bombshell" revelations from Lillian McEwen, 63, disclosed in the Washington Post seem like nothing more than tawdry bits of insignificant gossip about one of the nation's most powerful lawmakers.
But to people like me recalling Thomas' wrenching 1991 confirmation hearings and opposed to the conservative justice's appointment, McEwen's disclosure leaves a sick feeling in the pit of the stomach.
Had McEwen told the world what she knew and backed up the testimony of Anita Hill, an aide who accused Thomas of sexual harassment which he denied, Thomas might not be on the high court today.
For the official record, McEwen was never asked to testify by then-Senator Joe Biden. But as Thomas' former girlfriend, she or her handlers could have called a press conference to tell the world that Thomas did have loose lips when the ladies at work were involved.
To be fair, should Thomas' affinity for porno and big breast obsession alone have been enough to keep him off the Supreme Court? Of course not. The Supreme Court has been the home to racists like Roger B. Taney and other scoundrels.
But during the confirmation hearing and after his vehement denial of Hill's allegation, Thomas set himself up as a man of complete virtue. He even said at one point that he never discussed the controversial Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
At the time, Thomas' nomination was far from a sure thing. And if McEwen had told the world that Thomas did, in fact, have a thing for women at work, it likely would have turned the tables against his nomination.
In the 20 years since the hearing, Thomas has grown to be exactly what progressives feared - a consistent, reliable vote for conservatives.
I was curious as to why McEwen would break her silence after all these years.
Turns out that the former prosecutor and law professor has written a memoir and is shopping it to publishers. Sounds like a pretty sleazy reason to me to finally get your tongue wagging.
I don't really care what McEwen has to say now in her quest to sell some books. I would have paid serious attention back in 1991, however, when it would have mattered.


Comments: (77)
Add a comment
By: Tom Truth on 10/22/2010 6:33PM
"I don't really care what McEwen has to say now in her quest to sell some books. I would have paid serious attention back in 1991, however, when it would have mattered."
Why would it have mattered in 1991? It would be another case of "he said, she said", with Thomas denying it. Why is her word any better than Thomas's? Just because you don't like Thomas's legal opinions?
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: ARNEADER on 10/23/2010 10:26AM
@Tom Truth...freedom of speech baby.
Report This
By: geesh on 10/22/2010 9:45PM
stop defending that creep!
Report This
By: KT89 on 10/23/2010 4:36PM
That is weird coming out nearly 30 after the fact and promoting a book. We have real issues to deal with. This crap is not a story.
Report This
By: David on 10/24/2010 7:05AM
"Why would it have mattered in 1991? It would be another case of "he said, she said", with Thomas denying it. Why is her word any better than Thomas's?"
@ Tom Truth
Where there's smoke there's fire. 20 years ago there was a lot for fear of women coming forth to complain about sexual harassment. If she had come forth the way Anita Hill who IMO was crucified for speaking out, the flood gates might have open with other women coming out. Look at all the women who spoke out about Bill Cosby sexually molesting women. I think it was like 13 women who he had to pay off to go away quietly. It started with just one woman.
Usually when guys do this sort of thing they do it to more than just one woman. True it can be looked at as a "he said she said" situation and there are cases of women lying about these things. But keep in mind more than 20 years ago for a woman to speak out about sexual harassment she would have more to lose than the man. Anita Hill had a lot of courage to speak out seeing that society at the time would judge the accuser more harshly than the accused. Because of this I'm less incline to judge Thomas' ex-Girlfriend for not speaking out more than 20 years ago.
Report This
By: Mimi on 10/25/2010 12:31PM
I HAVE NEVER LIKED CLARENCE THOMAS HOWEVER I WOULD NOT PURCHASE A BOOK BY THIS MCEWEN WOMAN.
20 YEARS LATER THIS WOMAN COMES UP WITH THIS CRAP?
NOT BUYING IT.
I THINK CLARENCE THOMAS IS A SLEEZE THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. BUT THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT I WOULD BUY A BOOK FROM THIS WOMAN. THIS STORY IS OVER 20 YEARS OLD. WHERE IN THE HELL WAS THIS MCEWEN WOMAN WHEN THE $HIT WAS HITTING THE FAN 20 YEARS AGO?
Report This
By: John on 10/26/2010 6:56AM
By: geesh on 10/22/2010 9:45PMHighest Ranked stop defending that creep!
>>> look at how many people defended Mary J. Blige when she bloodied up her husband last Christmas over her jealousy. The dog wasn't even arrested for domestic violence. So, please refrain from calling this man a creep, you don't have to like him, but remember the attacks many years back could have been the attacks against your father, brother, uncle, son, etc.
Report This
By: gee on 10/22/2010 7:52PM
There were other women who did come forward in 1991, however, the Senate only allowed Hill to testify, and even that required a subpoena. According to other documented sources, the Senate had their own adjenda, and in spite of other corroborating evidence from their own investigation, they wanted to attack Hill. As another blogger noted: "Clarence Thomas falsely claimed under oath before the Senate that he never viewed the specific porn flicks that Hill testified he talked about while he was her boss at the EEOC. Not only had Thomas seen the specific porn flicks that Hill said Thomas talked about, the video store he rented the porn flicks at still had records showing he rented the flicks, and charged them on his credit card." The Senate had their evidence of purjury, as well as those who could give weight to Hill's claims. They just had another ajenda and chose to ignore it.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: clarke on 10/24/2010 7:13AM
YEAH. SO. A LOT OF PEOPLE "LOVE" PORN.THE POINT IS? WHAT?
Report This
By: David on 10/25/2010 11:31AM
@ clarke
The point is he perjured himself under oath. HE LIED. Which should have disqualified him to sit on the supreme court.
Report This