American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
June 16th, 2009
09:46 AM ET

Anita Hill on Sotomayor: Tough, tenacious

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption="Anita Hill tells CNN's John Roberts that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an 'excellent' choice for the Supreme Court."]

The Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing for a history-making confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Another woman who once found herself before that same committee is sharing her views of the president's nominee.

Anita Hill testified in 1991 in front of the Senate confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas that he made harassing sexual statements to her as her supervisor. She is currently a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University.

Hill attended law school at the same time as Judge Sonia Sotomayor and supports her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. She spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning” Tuesday.

John Roberts: You were a year behind Judge Sotomayor at Yale University Law School. What qualifies her to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court?

Anita Hill: Well, if you look at her outstanding record on the bench, you can look at her outstanding academic record. She has a wide variety of professional experience before she got on to the bench. I think she's infinitely-qualified to be the nominee and we will see during the confirmation process how well she's qualified to actually receive the vote of the Senate.

Roberts: Much has been made of the fact that she's a Hispanic woman. How much do you think that plays in to the nomination, her choice, and her eventual confirmation? Is she the most qualified Hispanic judge to sit on the Supreme Court? Or is she the most qualified judge who happens to be Hispanic?

Hill: I think she's very well-qualified. You know…if you look at her record, if you look at all of the credentials she brings, including all of her background, her incredible life story, I think all of those add to her qualifications. I don't know if we want to talk about what is the most qualified person in the country. There are a lot of very talented people out there. But certainly no one could question that this woman is not highly-qualified.

Roberts: A lot has been made about temperament as well. And Judge Guido Calebresi, one of her colleagues on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, said when Judge Sotomayor first joined that court, he heard she was overly-aggressive. He started to keep track of her writings, comparing the substance and tone with questions of his own. He said the following, “I must say I found no difference at all…It was sexism in its most obvious form.” Your thoughts on that?

Hill: Well, it's amazing, isn't it? That we would be talking about a circuit court judge being too aggressive. After all, she's representing our best interests and we want to know what parties have to offer when they come before the court. I would actually think that an attorney coming before her would want to get questions and get hard questions about their case. I think they would give them a better indication of their chances of moving forward and prevailing in a lawsuit than a judge who asks them nothing.

Roberts: Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio took a different tactic when examining the question “Is Judge Sotomayor mean?” She said, “If Sonia Sotomayor sometimes dominates oral arguments at her court – if she is feisty, even pushy – then she should fit right in at the U.S. Supreme Court.” Do you think she could go toe-to-toe with justices like Scalia and Thomas?

Hill: Of course she can. This is a woman who has an amazing story. I think that's one of the reasons she's so qualified to be the nominee. She has not had an easy time in her life. And she carries that same kind of - well, maybe you would call it aggressiveness. But certainly I think it's probably served her well. I mean, she has had to be tough. She's had to be tenacious. And that will be what we'll want from her on the bench. We've got some tough questions coming up before the court. And we want someone who is going to be able to ask the attorneys the hard questions that everybody wants to know the answers to.

Roberts: We did a lot of looking around, professor, in the last couple of days, on opinions being voiced on the Internet. And there are a lot of liberals who think Judge Sotomayor is going to get the same kind of grilling that you got during the Clarence Thomas hearings. Do you think that will happen?

Hill: I hope it doesn't happen. This is what I hope we can avoid … A lot has been made about her being a racist. Names have been called. There's a lot that's been made about her being too aggressive. What I hope that the Judiciary Committee will do is focus on her record and not take this as an opportunity to have a witch hunt, looking for evidence that doesn't exist about her purported racism, you know to support these allegations. I think the people deserve more. You've got a large body of work out there that she has been involved in as a court of appeals judge. The people really want to know about her jurisprudence, her judicial philosophy, her work. And I think that’s what they deserve.

Filed under: Supreme Court
soundoff (152 Responses)
  1. Drew

    Ahhh, nice comments, Lawanna. Assume much? I happen to be half African-American, but it's obvious from your comment that your entire life's ambition is "stick it to whitey." You and Sotomayor have a lot in common in that respect.

    I hope you get over your bitterness, and stop blaming other people for your failures.

    August 5, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  2. Lawanna

    From the comments listed, it's apparent that you are as biased as the allegations you make against Anita. Whether you agree or disagree with Anita's testimony against Clarence Thomas; you weren't present so how can you cast the first stone? Furthermore, your approval of Clarence Thomas and your disapproval of Anita stem from your beliefs. Which is the sole reason you white men don't like Juge Sotomayor. For as long as I remember you have been in control. As long as you get your way, the rules justify your beliefs and you can manipulate, distort and swindle to your benefit your selfish desires; life is A okay. Now that the pendulum is out of your control you are running scared. Wake up and smell the aroma of the is global and you ARE NOT in control. Whe you decided to sell the U.S. to the highest bidder and for greed you exported jobs and exposed your evil heart to other countries your stock spiraled downward and now you are definitely viewed as fork tongued. Jeff Sessions is the prime example of the good ole boy system running amuck. That's why he opposed Sotomayor's appointment...because she had the fortitude to say a Latino women is better at this time than a white man!
    Jeff Session is the last person to contest any action when he deceitfully became a senator under false pretense of the Democratic party and swithced. There should be law to alter his actions which were not careful how you judge because the same judgement will determine your fate.

    August 5, 2009 at 11:38 am |
  3. OldFirefighter

    I have nothing personally against either woman. As a mater of fact I have a very high respect for all women. The only thing I question is will she rule on the written content of the Constitution & its Amendments. it is alleged at one time she said the Second Amendment is not an individual right. It is also alleged she also also said it doesn't apply to the individual States. This is totally incorrect according to the SCOTUS verdict in the Heller case. The wording has been studied by various English Scholars & they are in agreement that it is an individual right not a collective right. I just want a Judge that will rule on the law as written, not on what he or she would like it to to mean. Justices are not supposed to legislate from the bench. They are supposed to rule on the law as the law is written. Congress & the Citizens are the only recourse to change or make new laws. How will she Judge? Your guess is as good as mine. That is what the vetting will attempt to find out. Gender should not have any influence in the choice.

    June 18, 2009 at 12:01 am |
  4. Bree

    It is so very amazing to read all these negative comments about Anita Hill. As a society, we have not change much at all. So many people remark that racial harmony is better. News flash! It is not. To see how vindictive, wicked, harsh these comments are towards Anita makes me weep because the world is so full of so many unkind and wicked people. Roberts asked her opinion because they attended the same university. I can only pray for these heartless people for there is definately no God in their lives, but it is never too late. With whatever time we have left here on earth, we all can have a change of heart and amend our attitudes and ways.

    June 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  5. Jim

    Anita Hill's position is no surprise - she's a liberal lawyer and supports those positions. She has now become a Democratic-party annointed expert on supreme court judge qualifications since she was a Democratic-party selected witness in the Clarence Thomas' approval debate and they liked what she said.

    June 17, 2009 at 9:30 am |
  6. Bernice

    See?? No change from the last admin., is there? No! I am sorry!! There is! This president has spent more of the Americans money so far than all of the president combind! The largest deficit ever known! Stealing our constitutional rights! Non stop vacations! I could go on here people! You are right LIN. Why invest one ounce of your time on anything that goes on in Washington! They lie and decieve. They do any kind of damage to our country that they want to do. I remember the good ole day when actions like this would have been up to review by the American people, and emmpeached. This president lies to us while smiing in our faces. Sweet talker! Have you really ever met one of those?? In Obama, He is the best, and most maliputave that I have ever seen in all of my days! People beware! We are about to lose our free country. Anita Hill should have nothing to say here! They actually could not get ANYONE to say good words for Sotamayor. What I have heard by the people who have worked with her is ...she is a nasty, mouthy woman. The lawyers hated to have to do a case in front of her. She is a mean nasty lady, and I only have to wonder what his objective is in putting this mean obnoxious lady in a high court seat! She seems to not have no respect in the US American white man and should have no place in a high justice seat!

    June 17, 2009 at 8:33 am |
  7. LIN

    And again, I am amazed at CNN for thinking this is newsworthy! The country and its so called leaders are nothing more than pawns to their own greed and need for power so why should anyone be surprised at ANYTHING that goes on in Washington these days?

    June 17, 2009 at 7:58 am |
  8. Ryden

    I agree. Who cares what she thinks. Come on CNN. Can't you find a better choice of people.
    (I praise CNN so don't take it wrong!)

    June 17, 2009 at 7:42 am |
  9. Clint L, Vanc, BC

    People like Ken, Gary, and Brad W to mention a few ppl in this post.... need to grow up and read more! The news can only give you so much of the story. It's your responsiblity to get the "Whole" story for yourself, before you come out spewing reckless comments that don't build anything but division! Another thing with that is.....DO YOU REALIZE THAT YOUR LISTENING TO RICH AND WEALTHY PPL THAT HAVE NO IDEA HOW THE MIDDLE TO LOWER CLASS PPL GO ABOUT THEIR DAILY LIVES???!!!
    Most ppl take the advice from their favorite repub, dem or independent, and refuse to see all sides of a situation. You may not agree with it, but at least your being objective and letting ppl know that you have come to conclusions with an intelligent weighing of the issues. Democrats, Republicans and Independents all whine about one issue or another. The problem with us non-politicians is that a lot of us are to "Bull headed" to even try and find a common ground with someone that disagrees with you! That's a form of arrogance, and it is part of the reason a good portion of the world don't like us!

    June 17, 2009 at 12:35 am |
  10. Think tank

    I dont understand either why Anita Hill's opinion would count toward Sotomayor unless she knows her personally.

    I think that her opinion about Sotomayor would be much more accurate if Sotomayer had been the accused as in the case of Clarence Thomas.

    There is no reason for Anita to display any negatives about Sotomayor because there is possibly no personal connection, however, when someone is wronged by another person, do they confess the truths.

    June 16, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  11. jeff

    Sounds like a lot of "LONE WOLF" types on this blog. Don't be mad, if you hate America so much right now, go put yourselves out of your own misery!

    June 16, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  12. Jennifer

    Who cares what this woman thinks? She's only been in the news ever for trying to slander a man who's belief system is different from hers (I mean values, not harrassment, people). Otherwise, she has never done anything newsworthy. Does Judge Sotomayer have colleagues from school who have accomplishe something other than trying to tear others down to speak to her accomplishments?

    June 16, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  13. John

    Its nice to hear Hispanics speak out, that they can care less
    what the white mans opinion is. I think that's what a lot of
    white people are so upset about.

    AKA Sotomayor: Hispanics can make a better decision.

    June 16, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  14. Claude

    It appears that the republican goon squad jumped on this article to have negative comments appear about Anita Hill. It would be refreshing if they could ever offer anything of value.

    June 16, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  15. ROBERT


    June 16, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
  16. Jim


    Racist? Maybe you should look in the mirror...
    Think Tank, just because she calls herself "wise" and thinks she is more qualified than a white man she is arrogant? What does that make a person who claims to speak with God when he makes national policy decisions and tries to figure out whether to go to War? Oh, that's right, he was our President for 8 years. That's arrogance.

    June 16, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
  17. Chasman

    Anita Hill seemed perfectly happy to disparage (with no corroboration or other people who were subject to any of the same behavior she says she was) Clarence Thomas who's "amazing story" included growing up in poverty and having no home for part of his childhood. I guess great stories only matter when youre a liberal.

    Also, the question about her going toe-to-toe with Scalia and Thomas in oral arguments shows how ill-informed the interviewer is. Thomas is known for not speaking at all during arguments.

    All that said, I hope we get more fair hearings for this nominee than we did for Bork, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Hearing Dems cry and whine after what they have done to the process starting with Ted Kennedy's treatment of Robert Bork is really disingenuous. I love how now its all about someones "qualifications" rather than idealogy when it comes to Sotomayor.

    I think Sotomayor is qualified, but I really get sick of liberals complaining about the process that they created with Ted Kennedy's work in 1987.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  18. Jane

    Sexism and racism are indeed alive in the 21st Century. How sad that the male audience chooses to crucify Anita Hill for confronting a man who harassed her (and sexual harassment was common in those days...). Does this negate her right to have an opinion on Judge Sotomator? I think not even if the good old boys in Congress chose to ignore Ms. Hill's experience. Thank God the youngt women of today jhave learned to fight back!

    June 16, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  19. CAROL

    why should Anita Hill have any opinion on the supreme court pick? after her disgusting mess over clarence thomas? she is a nobody

    June 16, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
  20. John

    Many of these responses make me laugh. Anita Hill is as entitled to her opinion as any. She gets no more media coverage than any of the rest of you that have posted here. The fortunate thing is, her comments are more constructive than any of those from the party of "NO". Fortunately the rest of the country has said "NO MORE" to you.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
  21. Paulina Gilbert

    Absolutely wonderful that we get an opinion from Anita Hill. I'm quite sure that Clarence Thomas DID sexually harrass her – she was telling the truth. But – enough of that old story.

    I for one want to hear from all sorts of people, people with whom I agree and those with whom I disagree on matters of importance, like a nominee for the Supreme Court.. So many people believe that when there is a disagreement, it's all over. On the contrary, among educated, mature people the disagreement should be the start of intelligent debate and new understandings perhaps.

    And the idea that Anita Hill, a University professor, and incredibly accomplished human being would be disqualified from offering her opinion, as some people have suggested, is astounding in its ignorance. God save us from such fools.


    June 16, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
  22. BigBadRick

    Who cares what Anita Hill has to say about anything. John Roberts must be hurting for guest on the show and Anita Hill might need some more money. How about interviewing a Constitutional Attorney and ask his/her opinion, John.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  23. Rick in Oregon

    Here's a link to an explanation on Sotomayor's "reversal rate." Of course, those who claim that 50% or 60% or (Limbaugh) 80% of her rulings were overturned have no clue what they're talking about.

    Nutshell, the research in this linked article found that Judge S. had written the majority opinion in 232 appellate decisions. Only 5 of those were reviewed by the SC, and 3 of the 5 were overturned. This gives her a reversal rate of 1.3%

    I say "sign her up!"

    I read somewhere else that Alito's reversal rate was 100%, BTW. Of course, that would again refer only to decisions that were actually reviewed by the Supreme Court.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
  24. sharon martin

    Well here we go again. Here is the implied threat. Vote FOR Sotamayer or we will make this into a three ring circus. Anita Hill has always been an opportunist and the years have not changed anything.

    She sets back all of us professional women every time she opens her mouth.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
  25. Scott_Houston

    June 16th, 2009 1:21 pm ET

    Isn’t it funny that most of the negative comments made here about Anita Hill are made by men and most of the comments made that she is a racist are also made by men. That says a lot to me

    are you denying the claims against Sotomayor?

    June 16, 2009 at 3:27 pm |
  26. John

    In my lifetime of 64 years, I only remember one scenario when I believed both parties completely, although one was obviously lying, other than the Hill Thomas dispute in front of the Senate......It would be so great if they were both forced to take lie detector tests............I still have no clue who was telling the truth..................

    June 16, 2009 at 3:24 pm |
  27. Daniel R.

    I actually like the article and found Anita Hill to be very articulated and well knowledged in her responses. It seems like a majority of responses of the bloggers on here had a negative comment and I find it sad that so many Americans on both sides of the isle are so full of hatred. America needs to learn to listen, get calm and allow yourself to hear the perspectives of others even if you may disagree with them. You will find yourself a broader thinking and enriched person for it.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  28. GG

    Anita Hill, pawn of the low-tech lynching the Dems, led by Teddy "killer" Kennedy, perpetrated on Clarence Thomas. I thinking referencing her is actually a good thing; it reminds people just how partisan this entire process is and makes it easy to laugh at people who think Sotomejor should get a free pass. Anita Hill, Millie Vanillie and Vanilla Ice; three loser icons of the 80's.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
  29. az

    if similar comments were made by a white man, he would have been long gone. But she's a Latino woman, therefore, she got to stay around. Either this country is overly politically correct, or double standards apply.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
  30. Stephen ( Tate )

    I can't believe these other people's comments. Obama and the new administration is emboldening the extreme elements on the right, especially the racist and anti-choice terrorist. I only pray that the secret service can protect them, the entire Obama family, from the harm these radicals represent.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  31. Simon


    June 16, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
  32. Mike

    And we care what she thinks because.............

    June 16, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
  33. David

    Man, I had to read about 1/3 of the way down before the Faux outrage of the regular CNN posters manifested themselves.
    They are so mad that people come on CNN to post negatively about a liberal when they spend all their time spewing hatefilled rants against their satan (the right-wing).
    The hate white men, the one group that can be hated and said all the bad things that are in their hearts about. Meanwhile they defend every other group. Weird. They hate the very ethnic group that put this country together?
    Well, it's good to see that the hateful left didn't leave CNN but comes to that daring, courageous woman Anita Hill. Like every liberal who gets copious amounts of airtime to bash conservatives, Anita Hill was Sooooo Courageous for "Standing up".... Like LInda Tripp was sooo courageous and who was it that won the lawsuit against BC?? Oh yeah, you same people called Linda Tripp a traitor and Jenifer Flowers a whore or harpy or some other mean and nasty name.
    Anita Hill is obviously on CNN for one reason only, to remind every liberal they hate Clarence Thomas and to revive stories about why he shouldn't be on the bench.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  34. Nia

    Interesting...for all of the posters who took the opportunity to slam Anita Hill ("who cares what Anita Hill thinks?"), NOT ONE mentioned if he thought Clarence Thomas was right or wrong.

    His confirmation was the biggest guilt-ridden slam of racial discrimination I had ever seen; he became a Supreme Court judge NOT because his record spoke for him, but because he successfully threw out a pseudo-blanket of shame and dared anyone to crawl out from under it. The confirmation of Thomas in his current role DID NOT prove Anita Hill to be a liar, and the venom spoken by the MEN who posted such statements is indicative of why it was difficult (then and now) for a woman -regardless of her position, her status- to be believed when the charges of sexual harassment are mentioned.

    Absolutely worst of all, Clarence Thomas successfully brought back the belief of the worst sexual stereotype for Black women: the Hottentot Venus -all the innuendo, the myths. It was one of the most disgusting things I ever had to watch, and the ignorance found in these simple-minded posters is only evident that those who believe they have the power and authority to punish are more afraid of losing what they think is an inherit privilege.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  35. I believe

    I believe Anita Hill. then. now. always. Clearance as a person and a Justice is something not fit to print on this site

    June 16, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  36. Peter Barkley

    I agree some of the comments here are pretty bloody awful and also just from my perspective are not views well articulated or thought through. As an odd combination of being part Canadian (with a slightly different judicial system) and also a historian I find this nomination one of the most fascinating in memory since Ms. Sotomayor brings a clear sense of jurisprudence as well as her remarkable background out of a different background that was also suffused with poverty. I am reminded how the stories of former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall influenced Sandra Day O'Connor and then wonder what effect Ms. Sotomayor will have on sitting justices who by and large have not had an experience of being underserved or disadvantaged growing up. Clearly these two qualities deeply appealed to Mr. Obama in her selection.

    Having said this there are always questions that need to be asked of anyone assuming a position of authority and especially one that is a lifetime one . My sense is that Ms. Sotomayor would have this be no other way and from what I preceive the questioning will be civil and fair. We will learn much.

    I would add that this was most certainly not present when Ms. Hill was interrogated and humiliated by the Senate nearly two decades ago. That remains a singlarly shameful episode in American history.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  37. Barry

    CNN = Biased unethical news. The news is supposed to be a check and balance on our government, but it has become apparent that CNN is squashing stories that should be told and are biased in favor of the majority in Washington. CNN is ranking up there with ABC, CBS, and NBC for biased coverage of the current administration in Washington. Americans need to wake up to this or we will end up with a country with no freedoms and a dictator as our leader. The land of the CZars comrades!!!!
    CNN expects us to take Anita Hills comments on soytamoyer as if she is an expert.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  38. Uknown author

    maybe united we stand nations' leaders should stop looking at white crushed plant and concentrate on the nation instead of talking to secret cults that control governments in the place which is described as earless or is it a places para monos. Or pay attetion to the new religious base that is developing in front of their eyes. Who am I to advice im just ME (Red Websters Dictionary). Open your eyes because they are blury its not a game for others as everyone always comes back home no matter what.

    June 16, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  39. Bill Smale

    John Roberts who. Are there any real honest to goodness professional journalist in this country. Are they all just celebraties. It's all about "shock" value any more. These so called "journalist would sell out their own family to see their name in print.
    The news media has become a necessary evil. It;s gotten so bad that the National Inquire has become legitimate. It;s now every journalist dream to get a story in print by the "Inquire."
    These now-a-day journalist have no more than a AA college degree.
    Walter Cronkite has to come back to put things in perspective. It;s a national disgrace. This generation is a joke and will be the demise this country. It;s not about integrity, it;s all about "see me", I;m on camera.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  40. Barry

    It is crazy that CNN some how thinks that because Anita Hill testified before Congress about Justice Thomas that it some how qaulifies her as an expert on Sotomayor. In addition I have been waiting for CNN to tell that Obama's push for Socialist Healthcare on biased ABC new next week (being anchored out of the White House with no opposing views) is biased reporting. But "NO" I guess we can not expect this news station or any other ABC, NBC, CBS to tell stories that really mean something to America. People would be advised to listen to Obama's message on Socialized Medicine and take it with a grain of salt. This is not good for any tax payer in America nor is it good for the qaulity and qauntity of care we will recieve after the government takes over this private industry as well. We can not expect our news agency's to be a critical eye on our government because most are now in the pockets of politicians in Washington. What a sad day in America when we are being led like sheep by our government and the media into a era of Socialist/Communism in America.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  41. sean

    Anita Hill has every right to be heard...who would you rather hear from ..Dick Morris ? (if you can get him away from Sean Hannity's hip)

    June 16, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  42. Jason

    Anita Hill? What did you think she would say? And by the way when you talk about a unique experience or hard upbringing as a qualifier for Supreme Court Justice. Read C Thomas' story.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  43. Rich

    And just who would believe her? She is the person who claimed Justice Thomas "sexually harrassed" her. Judge Sotomayer also implied in a court case that the death penalty causes undue trauma on the defendants and their families. I guess it doesn't matter what the defendants did to their victims.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
  44. Ed

    Just when I think there is a chance for some reasonable discussion around here we are invaded by a bunch of children. Can't say too much here as unlike most of you I have work to do. Suffice it to say I notice that there was absolutely nothing to be gained by reading the responses. I will have to admit that a good number of them were quite funny!

    June 16, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
  45. one of these people

    but of course Rudy you got everything in life because you merited it. how wonderful it must be to be you. one question, I am Puerto Rican and an attorney, is there a presumption that I got where I am at because of affirmative action. and if so is it rebuttable?

    June 16, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  46. quinton payne

    No surprise at any of Anita Hill's comments, who would have expected anything different? Unfortunately no surprise either at CNN giving her a pulpit to espouse these views but thought John Roberts had more cujones than to drop down on all fours and take the easy way out.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
  47. Chris

    I find it funny that we constantly have to keep hearing from totally pointless individuals who really have no place commenting on this sort of thing. It is one thing when you have Fmr. President Bush commenting on his nominee, but Anita Hill is by no means credible or an authority on judicial appointments. Her five minutes of fame was up years ago.

    CNN, you always seem to ask what people think. Clearly people don't want to hear from Anita Hill and don't care what Anita Hill thinks. Why don't you report THAT when your commenting on this today! The problem is, you won't do that, you only selectively chose those comments that seem to be some what from the left and some what from the right so that it looks as though you are helping to foster discourse. I dare you to say today what people are saying here and now. Anita Hill has no place commenting on this nomination.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:42 pm |
  48. Gary

    Tell Anita Hill to get back in the kitchen & bake me a pie.And to keep her opinion to herself.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:40 pm |
  49. Joy

    Bernie at 1'3":

    Thank you for posting what you know about the circumstances of Prof. Hill's testimony. It's interesting (and a sign of how the far right has hijacked the media) that I, a very liberal progressive, had never heard that she supported Thomas's nomination and that the issue of sexual harrassment was first mentioned by another person. I guess the people with power on the far right assume that most Americans will believe a blatant lie if it's shouted loudly enough and repeated often enough - as is evidenced by the haters in this comments section.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  50. Ken H.

    KC Girl, you are right that she expressed an opinion, however, her opinion is meaningless. Do you not remember the 1991 Supreme court hearings? She lied about clarence Thomas and kept changing her story yet she stands up and defends a racist latina woman. You need to grow up and know what is happening.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
  51. Ken H.

    This is just typical CNN rubbish to fill dead space. Instead of reporting on Obama and his failed policies and failed leadership, they will print a "no news" story.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  52. Robert

    Right on, JC Girl.

    Too many hysterical haters, indeed. Far too many. Anita Hill is, as you say, perfectly entitled to express her opinion, and it's an informed one, since she studied alongside Judge Sotomayor , and is a legal scholar herself.

    June 16, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
1 2