American Morning
Anita Hill on Sotomayor: Tough, tenacious
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/16/intv.anita.hill.art.jpg 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.
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
Wow...just scan down through all these posts and note how many make the claim that 50% of Sotomayer's cases have been over turned.
That's a complete falsehood.
Sounds to me that a lot of you are just parroting whatever some talking head claimed. Don't you people have brains, or are you so lazy that you allow some idiot on Talk Radio or FOX news to do your thinking for you? And yet you are so convinced that you're the ones with all the answers. You're lazy. Get off your rear, turn off the propaganda and use your brain to find out for yourself what the facts are.
Quite simply this is typical of CNN's reporting style. Why would anyone be surprised?
Concerned 2 said that "50% of her decisions have been overruled by higher courts"
That is not the case in fact. The vast majority of her rulings have not been overturned by any court. Don't make up facts that are easily refuted.
The Supreme Court has overturned three of her decisions. If indeed that were 50% of her decisions then she would have only made six decisions in her career. Far to many imaginary facts in these comments.
Now boys, your anti-female roots are showing ... grow-up already.
OMG!!! WHERE DID ALL OF YOU HATERS COME FROM!!? I would guess your mothers would hate to admit she gave birth to you. Anita Hill has the right to express her opinion about a possible supreme court justice just like you and I. That's all it is...an opinion. The vile and hatred coming from you people (yeah, i said it) is just ridiculous! Grow up and get a life. Learn how to appreciate someone's opinion even if its not your own!!
It was very common in the years that Anita Hill worked with Clarence Thomas, that women were constantly being hit upon by their 'superiors'. I was, and I know a lot of other women who said they were, too.
First of all, most of the 'bosses' or principals of schools were men.Secondly, they knew they could get away with it. Who would believe a woman?
Of course, I see today, that many of those who wrote in still believe that Anita Hill was lying. I think she was definitely telling the truth.
It is remarkable the ugly tone of the majorities of these replies.
The fact that Anita Hill is a law professor and in law school with Samtomayor at Yale certainly qualifies her to comment on the potential justices qualifications.
I don't really understand where all this scorn and vitriol come from but it certainly is ugly. Focus on the issue rather than trying to assasinate the personality.
What do any of the people commenting here know about what it takes to be a judge? You simple-minded lemmings don't know the first thing about the law, or judicial temperament. So quit regurgitating what Rush and your pastor tell you, and let the intelligent grown ups make the decisions.
And for the record, before you start accusing me of being a dem or liberal, I'M A CONSERVATIVE!!! But I'm an old-fashioned conservative like WFB, I think and understand that supreme court justices are chosen not because of political slants, but because of intellect and temperament. Agree or disagree with her, Sotoamayor has both. (And, if you don't know who WFB is, you should immediately STOP calling yourselves conservatives)
What you culture war neo-cons have done to an intellectual movement is pathetic and scary.
I see that many of my male bros here are seething that an Hispanic women has been asked to serve her country.
The times are a-changin' and my bros here sound like grumpy old men.
Why don't you all go back to reading Fox news for the "real" stories...
Anita Hill, went to school with Judge Sonia Sotomayer, that's why she's being interviewed. Judge Sonia doesn't appear to be "racist", she appears to be outspoken, which is a quality characteristic of her culture. It's refreshing! It's Welcomed! That's how change happens. Oh Yeah, this White Racism, is played out! People overcome it....and that makes you feel uneasy, simply because it illustrates that you're not superior because of white skin color. Everybody else has been experiencing your crap for centuries! Don't Go Away Mad, just Go Away!
Sotomayor is not a racist. She simply stated the truth. Things aren't fair in the U.S. for people of color and there are countless studies that prove that there is systematic racism in society.
White people and people of higher economic status have way more opportunities and social mobility then the lower class and people of color. This is a fact and it is unfair!
Maybe she should have known that her statement would be taken the wrong way, but I agree with her statement completely and I know both white and people of color who would agree. Her statement was an observation not an attack!
If you want to believe that there is such a thing as reverse racism or that stating the obvious is more harmful then allowing our society to continue to be unjust and not saying a word, then you are the real racist!
Why is it that only men are speaking out against Anita Hill? Who cares what you MEN think about her.
How uninformed can people be? Sotomayor has ruled in over 3000 cases. ONLY 8 were overturned.
I am sorry, but when did Anita Hill become an expert on Supreme Court nominees? Just because you have sullied the name of one nominee in the past, does not make you an expert or even a voice of respectable opinion.
fringe white wing
Anita took on the hipocrite white men who found one willing black stooge, Thomas
..." David Brock, in his book The Real Anita Hill. Brock, later describing the book as "character assassination", disavowed it and apologized to Hill; he also suggests that he used information provided by an intermediary of Thomas to threaten another witness, Kaye Savage, into backing down, which Savage confirms.[8] His recantation was published in the July 1997 issue of Esquire Magazine, in a piece titled "I was a Conservative Hit Man." [8] and, in his subsequent book, Blinded by the Right, he accuses himself of being "a witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine."
In 1998, Anita Hill penned her autobiography, Speaking Truth To Power.
I echo the many many views of "who cares what Anita Hill thinks." I call this form of journalism "Amusing Ourselves to Death" – with full credit to Neil Postman.
who gives a flying you know what what anita hill thinks about this issue?
beside being a lying, conniving, vindictive shrew who was a useful tool for the democrats when they attempted to torpedo the brilliant clarence thomas, what has she ever done to merit being interviewed about potential supreme court nominees? the answer...nothing. this interview is an embarrassment for cnn.
I find it telling that ,although Hill acknowledges Sotomayor has been called a racist, Hill doesn't pointedly refute the remarks. She may well be adequately credentialed but I have a REAL problem with a woman so thoroughly preoccupied with racial issues being appointed for life to the Court that interprets our Constitution. Surely there must be other Hispanic candidates who are more balanced.
What does Anita Hill have to do with anything... hey...wait a minute... there's a pube in my Coke...
Yes, Anita Hill would never want a candidate of her choice to be attacked as she attacked Thomas. Liberals love to dish it out, but they have a hard time taking it. Too bad we just can't examine the records, talk about the philosophies, and then vote–letting each side have its say without vindictive speech.
A near-illiterate tells us that Anita Hill "pretends to wear sheep's clothing". Wow. I guess that (if true !!) might make her look a bit ridiculous (like the person who wrote those words), but I don't quite see why it would make us discount her opinion about Judge Sotomayor.
We are really hearing from the people that great Republican General Colin Powell called the "[ adjective deleted ] crazies"
It is not at all encouraging, where the future of America is concerned, to read so read so many hysterical, far-right ravings against Anita Hill and Sonia Sotomayor, both decent and capable people.
Another nut case claims that Anita Hill is a "confessed liar and stooge for the Democratic Party "... I wonder what imaginary "facts" that delusion is based on.
Enough of this childish nonsense. Sotomayor is a highly qualified candidate to serve on the Supreme Court. I am sure she will do, and do so with great distinction. And she is not a racist - unlike Congressman Tom Tancredo and similar wild extremists who have accused her of it .
"Roberts: Much has been made of the fact that she’s a Hispanic woman."
The left has made much of this.Conservatives don't like her position on matters of race and find her rulings questionable. WE HAVE NOT MADE MUCH OF HER BEING A HISPANIC WOMAN!
I have a problem with giving jobs, especially public safety jobs, to people who do not qualify for those jobs. Knocking yourself out to pass a test shows that you are motivated, realize you must know the facts in order to be ready for on the job situations, and that you don't expect something for nothing. Black people deserve to have an even playing field, meaning that if they are the best qualified, they should get the job, based on merit, not color. The same is true of whites. Testing is the best way to assure that the person best able to do the job gets the job. I don't think Sotomayer understands this basic tenet of fairness and common sense. It's appalling that a dyslexic man got tutors and studied for weeks to understand the meaning of the questions, passed the test, and was disqualified because he was white. He didn't need for anyone to dummy down the test, so how is it logical or fair to prevail against him with that argument? I've heard the culturally descriminating argument for years, but have never seen any example of a question that descriminates, or that can't be learned by anyone but whites.
For all you attacking Anita Hill (the same losers who attacked her during the Clarence Thomas hearings)- time has shown that Clarence Thomas was a stunt nomination and the darkest day for the justice system. He wasn't qualified ethically or intellectually. His tenure on the Court has proven (like the legal scholar who evaluated his nomination unanimously predicted) that he doesn't have the ability to be a Supreme Court Justice. His record shows that he has written and spoken literally 1/10th the number of words of the next "least productive" justice. I guess he thinks if he keeps his mouth shut most times that people will forget he's an idiot. I still want to know what blackmail the GOP has on him so that he keeps his mouth shut and votes the way his GOP handlers want him to. There's a John Grisham novel in there somewhere.
What would you expect Anita Hill to say? And what would you expect CNN to report? I hope Sotomayor is faced with the same questions that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Bork faced so many years ago. Ginsberg was not asked the same questions as the conservative judges were asked. Wouldn't it be great if Sotomayor went back to her upbringing and showed herself to be pro-life? The liberals wouldn't like her so much, then. And wouldn't it be neat to see people promoted based on their qualifications? Sotomayor ruled against the firemen who had justly earned their promotions. Affirmative action must end! We are competing on a worldwide basis, and the rest of the world is laughing at us, as we give more and more to people who not produced a drop of sweat.
I am very surprised at the lack of understanding about the news process displayed by many participants. Firstly, the fact that so many of us have written comments about Hill necessarily means that CNN made a good decision, by posing a provocative issue. This is one crucial role of any competent newsperson.
Next, experts define an important factor for intelligence as the ability to find relationships, and many participants claim being unable to find any relationship between Ms. Hill's case and Sotomayor's.
Let's consider two previous similar examples, both related to president Clinton's affair:
(1) John Kennedy Jr. was interviewed and he said: "I have been under that desk, and there is little space".
(2) Gary Hart was promptly resurrected by the press, as soon as Pres. Clinton was declared not guilty. The pertinence will be left as an exercise.
There are relationships, it is not CNN's fault if some of you cannot find them. Also: our opinions about Anita Hill is absolutely irrelevant. Should CNN stop covering some people because a segment of us readers/viewers don't like them?
Kudos to CNN!! This piece is completely relevant and germane.
-Ramon
EriK S./ Erik/ Sagemodee/ John/ Dimslie/ Todd/ Scott/ SG/ Bert Steinmetz/ Kahn/ PJ McGowan, etc.
You either (a) ONE person with diferent IDs, posting these similar negative comments about a woman who was a law professor at OU or (b) the racism has gone into your conservative bones so bad that you are completely out of any residual intellect.
There are many others here who have made their point eloquently. But not you; Go chew something to calm down.
Ms Hill has a PHD in Law,
Teach Law
She has research cases and ruling
Can get her student to research Judge Sonia Sotomayor ruling
You may not like her as a personal but she has a good education from Yale law school
She can have more information than 95 percent of us
We don’t have to like her but respect her as a teach of law and a lady with PHD in law
Now I know why CNN's ratings are in the toilet.
The fact that someone at CNN thought it would be a good idea to contact Anita Hill regarding Sotomayor (or anything for that matter) shows how out of touch CNN and the majority of the news media has become.
This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
Maybe we can find Twana Brawley or Borat as political commentators. Come on CNN, I thought you claim to be responsible journalists???
Wow, this is unbelievable! Is it possible that this comment site has been hijacked by the radical right underground, as suggested by the uniformity and consistency of the comments? These comments sound like pure propaganda, and no random group of yahoos could be so closed-minded and misinformed. If by chance any of you are real, you seem to know only what has been spoon-fed to you by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. What qualifies Anita Hill to comment is that she is a brilliant professor of law who has actually been through the process and had her character assassinated by the mad dogs of the ultra-right for daring to raise the spectre of sexual harassment. When you have contributed toward jurisprudence and the intellectual life of this country even a fraction of what Anita Hill has (let alone Sonia Sotomayor), you might be qualified to disagree. Until then, please crawl back under your rocks.
All of you need to be ashamed of yourselves. Read your comments again and examine your own hearts and tell me you are not a bunch of RACISTS. Sit down and truly read for yourself Judge Sotomayor cases and case history and RULINGS and don't go by what you have heard other RACISTS rant and rave on about.
I read the comments on this website about Anita Hill's opinion of Judge Sotomayor's qualifications.They seem to be all male and,Iwould guess,all white.I'm not surprised and the anger they spew.There are many confiused and scared men out there who are afraid they are going to lose their genitals.
Anita Hill is a law professor, an attorney, plus she has the educational attainment unlike most of the idiots who are making dumb founded comments about her and she also had the recent experience of participating in a history-making Senate confirmation hearing. This doesn't happen too often. Clarence Thomas is not the issue here, that was dealt with accordingly when VP Biden ripped his fraudulent image to shredds:) It is because of her stand against Mr. Anti-Affirmative Action – I paved my own way with out the "help" of Thurgood Marshall and MLK that "Sexual Harassment in the work place" was brought forth. I work in Human Resources and it's very common.
How is Anita Hill relevant to this topic?
I'm amused at all the angry assumedly white men on the comments section here. She's been through the process herself, had an extremely rough and horrible time of it, and has a ton of legal experience. How exactly is she unqualified to offer an OPINION on the matter? It's not like she's voting on the nomination. They asked her for her opinion, and she gave it. Stop having heart attacks, everybody 😉
Hey all you HATERS! I care what Anita Hill has to say and I think she was a brave woman to stand up and tell the TRUTH about a Judge who NEVER deserved to sit on the highest court of the land. You pathetic people kill me siding with that pathetic, Scalia clone. He has no words of his own but simply concurs with Scalia most of the time. Anita Hill is a reputable, brave, accomplished Law Professor at a fine and upstanding university. Most of you smucks on here probably never went to graduate school. I say speak your mind Anita Hill. Forget these biased, sexist, lame brains who think they have the right to speak about your character, intellect and integrity. Do they know you? Were they ever victims of sexual harrassment? Of course not! I believed you when you testified those many years ago and I believe you now. Bigots: GET A LIFE!!!!
Why do nearly 90% of the comments here start out with "who cares?"
It's almost dizzying, and makes me think they are all fabricated – wtf
I am amazed at the lack of due diligence portrayed by the audience. The comments here feature a number of errors, either due to poor memory, or lack of knowledge of the situation nearly twenty years ago.
For instance, Anita Hill was, at the time, a professor of law; some twenty years ago; she was not "rewarded" with a professorship, she was a tenured law professor, and had been for some time.
Secondly, she did not volunteer the information. Recall that everyone connected to each justice is interviewed by attorneys and investigators as part of the consultation process, prior to the Senate hearings. In her interview, Professor Hill supported Justice Thomas' appointment to the court, never mentioning the other circumstances. It was only when Rep. Dan Burton's team interviewed another intern from the same time period that they discovered Hill's treatment; the other intern responded to a question: "do you know of any behavior which may impact Justice Thomas' candidacy?", that the former intern replied, "you should ask Anita Hill." The investigators then returned to Oklahoma, and confronted Hill; they had to subpoena her to get her to testify before the committee directly. The questions posed came from information supplied by the other former intern.
I was, at the time, an intern on Capitol Hill, present at the hearings, and privy to the details. We are all, of course, entitled to our opinions. However, please base them upon fact rather than ideology, else realize your opinions rendered moot. I would suspect the media will contact anyone who has been connected to SCOTUS hearings, especially women and minorities, and past unsuccessful candidates. They are seeking commentary, nothing more, to continue the discussion.
Why is there so much hate for our fellow human beings? Why such negative comments? Are lives that empty that the only satis faction we can find is to trash other people? What have we come to as a society. No matter how you like it or not, we are all in this together and the one thing you can count on, is we are all leaving the same way, just at differnet times. We can disagree without being disagreeable, mean and nasty. Stop the hating! There is too much in our society already. I for one pray everyday for our Nation. We are in deep trouble and we don't even know it.
Great job CNN (*insert sarcasm). Who honestly cares what this person has to say? 50% of Sotomayor's cases have been overturned. Anita Hill, think again.
Wow:
Is it the time of day, or is there some other phenomenon going on here? Seems like EVERY response here is from some right wing misogynistic Republican. "Who cares about Anita Hill"? Well, I for one do. Last time I checked she's a law professor...could be wrong but that most likely makes her more intelligent than 95% of the above respondents. Clarence Thomas has been an unmitigated disaster as a Supreme Court judge. Not to mention the fact he has a history of sexual harassment. Gee, maybe we should get a real expert on the topic, like Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, or "Scotter" Libby. Now there's a group of liars! She'll get confirmed, thank god!
Retract "out wait" and replace with "oh wait"
Good to see Anita Hill still drives the vicious right wing hatemongers crazy.
Has Clarence Thomas even bothered to write an assenting or dissenting opinion in his time at the Supreme Court. He's the stooge for the right and best yet he ain't even white. Anita Hill did what she had to do trying to prove what the creep was really like. She never would have tried to ruin her own reputation if she didn't have to.
I'm glad she spoke out in favor of Sotomayer. Too bad that her opinion may only cancel that bum Clarence Thomas.
And what did Clarence Thomas bring to the bench? What has he done since he got there?
Why is someone with a complete lack of credibility allowed to speak to the issue..out wait, that is everyone in the liberal media, never mind.
Isn't it funn that most of the negative comments made here about Anita Hill are made by men and most ot the comments made about Sonia Sotomayer that she is a racist are also made by men. That says a lot to me.
She's as qualified as LIMBAUGH , BILL BENNET, OREILLY HANNITY ,BECK and the other M&M'S they trot out for opinons .David Gergin is the only sane one in the bunch !
Thanks for the interview with Professor Anita Hill. She is a courageous, insightful and brilliant woman.
If Fox an trot out Sarah Palin as if she had anything relevant to say then CNN can trot out a college professor. I'll take Anita Hill's opinion any day.
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.,
From the comments that Sotomayor has made, it appears that she feels that her background makes her more qualified than a white man. Why does she need to compare herself to a white man.
I would also like to know why she calls herself "wise" – that is arrogance. She is also full of her ethnic pride – which is arrogance.
She has also stated that she is the perfect affirmative action candidate and I am sure that she thinks this also is because of her ethncity.
So far I am getting from her that she feel that she is perfect possibly because she is Hispanic, deemed herself wise and therefore, who can dispute that except someone else possibly who thinks that they are a "god".
The best to the country if she is selected. She has already tripped over her words, then her feet, so what is next?
DOPES! Sotomayor doesn't only get 50% of her decisions right – of the very very few that were appealed up to the Supreme Court, half may have been overturned, but many thousands of "correct" decisions never got that far. Do the math.
anita hill who? she looks old
I am not overly impressed by nominating a person from any particular ethnic group to any government position.
But to deny a person with all the experience as Judge Sotomayor is nothing more than the republicans going on a witch hunt because she is being nominated by a democrat president.
Thomas said his background would make him better to rule on a civil rights case. Alito said his Italian background would make him better to rule on immigration cases. I did not see one word of this called being a person who make laws instead of upholding the law especially from the republican and not even from the democrats.
I hope the republicans go ahead and filibuster Sotomayor, that will finish the party of division and hate and is owned by the oil companies and military/industrial complex along with the richest of the land.
Sotomayor is a horrible choice! Her biggest desire, which she stated herself, is to "create" policy not uphold the law. A very dangerous person to put in such a high position if you ask me. I'm sure, if given the opportunity, she would love to rewrite the Constitution. But then again what politician wouldn't. 🙂
Anita WHO? Why are they digging up this old tired hack and who cares WHAT she thinks
Her credibility and revelance is based upon her education and current role as a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University – certainly better qualifications and experience than many of the other partisan bloggers to this article.
Anita Hill's interview was excellent! I really enjoyed reading the article.
We really want to see what Judge Sonia Sotomayor will bring to the Supreme Court rather discussing her comments made back in 2001; lets look at her record as a Judge. The American people are really tired of the clashing between republicans and democrats and the first step would be to confirm Judge Sotomayor.
Have everyone been paying attetion at wats been happening in this world after a high ranking human visited a place in south america. Take a look at the the situation from all the sides not just wat is presented in front of you.
Wow. The ultimate rebuke to the naysayers who voted for Clarence Thomas in spite of his clear personality problems and lack of judicial experience.
I'm sorry, but who cares what Anita Hill thinks? Hey Look, I'm only relevant because I accused a Justice of something that was never proven, why use this woman for ANYTHING?
Why does this liars opinion of Sotomayor matter? She followed Clarence Thomas to several jobs and only accussed him of sexual harrassment when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
Sotomayor is an excellent choice because she is a liberal. Anita HIll is pure garbage.
I wonder if Anita Hill would be Obama's next nominee to the US Supreme Court
I'm not concerned about her "racist comments" or her "agressiveness. What worries me about Judge Sotomayor is that she only gets 1/2 of her rulings correct! 50% of her decisions have been overruled by higher courts. Now we're going to give her the final say? We can do better.
"Outstanding record on the bench"? Interesting perspective. Would that explain why such a high percentage of her rulings that have gone on to the supreme court for review have been overturned?
Getting Anita Hill's opinion about a supreme court justice candidate, is like going to Timothy Geithner for tax advice.
What all and especially the media seem to forget...The judges are not there to legislate from the bench, they are not there to change our constitution! They are there to insure our constitution is followed to the letter and nothing more. In as far as Sotomayor, based on remarks she has made, I beleive she is a bit racist. Is this because of her past growing up and experiencing the same...maybe. She did work for what she has and where she is at but this does not mean she is qualified for the supreme bench. What we don't want or need is a poltical yes man or women there! No matter what the party.
We need a "we the people" person!
Thank You
Rick
There's no doubt in my mind after viewing her record that she is more than qualified to be the selected chosen one for Supreme Judge.
I would be happy when the Senate stops trying to make a big issue out of it just because she is of female gendar.. if it continues like this we may have to start asking ourselves the question "is it annoying to the fact she is yes, indeed a woman"???
What makes Anita Hill qualified to evaluate a Supreme Court Justice?
What on earth does Anita Hill's opinion have to do with Sotomayor's nomination? So what? If it were not for the Clarence Thomas hearings almost 20 years ago, almost nobody would have any idea who she was. She's a lawyer who to my knowledge has never argued a case, instead spending all but 6 months of her whole 28 year career serving in government administration and then teaching. It's not like she is a judicial powerhouse here.
BTW…my cousin Vinny DOESN'T support her nomination. That should have the same level of importance as this drivel…none.
Don't be confused...longevity doesn't necessarily equate to quality, especially when somebody is appointed for a life-long term. Sotomayor's record is really not very good when you look at what the current Supreme Court Justices have thought of the reasoning behind her decisions. Even in her two decisions that were upheld, the current Justices cumulatively panned her reasoning 5-12.
"Well, if you look at her outstanding record on the bench, you can look at her outstanding academic record."
Am I to believe this clown actually has a job where she routinely speaks in front of a crowd? Whose idea was it to ask her for an opinion?
I think it is amazingly paradoxical that the last question posed here is concerning Anita Hill's being grilled during the Clarence Thomas hearings. It is my view, she was the one who doing the grilling of Clarence Thomas's character in those hearings. Why would a reporter use a leading question to defend her and make her participation then seem equivilant of Judge Sotomayor's present hearing? To me that is molding and setting up an answer. I do not see any connection between the two in respectability or qualification.
Why the heck do I care about Anita Hill's opinion?
Much more – why the heck does CNN???
Oooh, wow! Anita Hill supports Sotomayor... STOP THE PRESSES!!
Dang CNN – is it a slow news day or what?
"I don’t know if we want to talk about what is the most qualified person in the country."
And why not Ms. Hill?
She hopes it doesn't become a witch hunt? She's the one who started the witch hunt regarding Clarence Thomas.
Wow, let us bring yet another liberal activist to the forefront to be interviewed on whether Sotomayor will be a good choice for the highest court and keep regurgitating the same rhetoric over and over. it is obvious this woman is a poor choice and a complete reverse racist. Her so called "Record" is proof of that 100x over. Case after case she has pushed her sexism ahead of the real purpose of the case. Had someone of a non-color made even a close remark like she did they would not even have a hearing let alone an actual chance of getting the nomination to the Supreme Court. Since she is a latino, it is okay to make racist comments and move right along like it was just a typical okay speech.
Why can't we get some real people in to be interviewed who will put her record to the test and show how unqualified she is? How about that CNN? How about asking people in the know and not people that support your liberal agendas?
Anita Hill? really... Find someone who went to school with Sotomayer that has a different view to balance this out. Interview Harriet Meir to get her opinion. I believe Sotomayer is a good choice, but, review of her has to be critical and quit drinking the kool-aid!!! I am sure many of the current justices have a good, inspiring life story to tell. Get real.
Anita Hills is a pathetic woman who tried to ruin a honorable man's reputation with her hate filled lies. Typical that the news media's best it to drag up another liberal, who pretends to wear sheep's clothing.. Judicial conservatism is the only answer. it is congress and the president's job to make policy not theirs.. get that right.. Sotomayor
And why is Anita Hill's opinion of a Supreme Court nominee newsworthy? This is issue advocacy, disguised as news. What a joke.
And we're supposed to care what Anita Hil thinks, because..........?
Is Anita Hill a permanent campaign lead for Sotomayor? Seems this is about her 6th biased interview for Sotomayor. I hope she is getting paid for so much campaign time.
Sotomayor's case history prove her comments were not anomalies, no matter how hard Anita campaigns for her.
Who cares what this woman says? The media loves to create their own little stage play bringing together the foil and fem fatale'. Hill has no creds whatever!
I'm wondering why Ms. Hill's comments are considered news? To my knowledge, the only newsworthy event in her life was her testimony during Justice Thomas' confirmation hearings. Yes, she was very courageous in coming forward and testifying about what she had been subjected to, but her experiences with Justice Thomas does not make her a better judge of any other potential Justice's merits or character.
If she has personal knowledge of Judge Sotomayor's qualifications or character, or if she has spent a significant amount of time researching the qualifications of potential Supreme Court nominees, by all means I'd like to see her commentary. But if Ms. Hill's only qualification for being sought out for commentary is her past with Clarence Thomas or the fact that she attended the same law school (unless she personally knew Judge Sotomayor while at school), then it is time to stop posting her comments as news.
Note, none of this is intended as a disparagement of Ms. Hill. Rather it is an indictment of CNN and other news agencies habit of regularly asking for comments from people whose sole qualification is public notariety over an event (in this case very negative and traumatic) that is completely unrelated to the subject they are being asked to comment upon. I'd much prefer that comments about Judge Sotomayor's qualifications come from people that know the judge or have worked with her or have extensively studied the process of appointing new Justices, not from people that have very little knowledge to actually offer. Those are the comments that should be considered during this nomination process.
To be supported by a woman like Anita Hill is a drawback for a decent and capable woman as Sonia Sotomayor. Hill was a poor instrument of Liberals trying to avoid a non-liberal black judge, and it seems somebody rewarded her with a professorship. Teaching what?? Manipulated testimony??
Why should anyone care/believe what this confessed liar and stooge for the Democratic Party has to say? Giving her a voice in your reporting is a new low for CNN.
I think that she should be grilled to the same extent any other nominee has been by the judicial committee. If there are skeletons in the closet bring them out. If her jurisprudence is consistent and she can pass the litmus test of impartiality in her decision process then she should be found admissible to the court.
every justice regardless of the President who places the nomination, should be thoroughly scrutinized and should be rejected if they are found to have either political or personal agendas. If the record is clean then approve and move on to the major issues confronting our country!
Really?!?
Who cares what Anita Hill has to say on this or anything else?!?
Morrow is turning over in his grave at just how far from news reporting news outlets have strayed.
We need more diversity on the Supreme Court. Every company talks about the great benefits of "diversity in the workplace." Let that carry over to the Court. What do we want – all old white guys on the Supreme Court? I don't think so.
Exactly how does Anita Hill become an expert on why Sotomayor might become a good justice? Perhaps you should take a poll of everyone that was a year behind Sotomayor in Yale University Law School? (If that is somehow the qualifier to give an "unbiased" opinion on her merits.)
Who cares what anita hill thinks?? she and jimmy carter ought to go on a date and ride off into the sunset.........how can we miss you both if you won't go away?????
Hill has no credibility and as such is hardly a person whose opinion should be sought or count for that matter. One should rememer that in trying to support her allegations against Justice Thomas she had brought with her some family law judge who she had even been in trouble with the legal Bar for improper conduct. These people, the offsprings of affirmative action should never be measured by the positions they so and could only so attain by affirmative action. I still rememer Hill's racial streek when she proposed that the nation should be best served if power and representation were divided and allocated in racial lines. If blacks were 25% of the population then should have 25% of the representation and so on and so one. Imagine! She left out the hispanics and other racial minorities to swirl in the wind.
Who care what Anita Hill has to say. What makes her view about Ms. Sotomayor any more pertinent than any other attorneys view?
Who in God's name cares what she thinks about an incoming Supreme Court Justice? When I think of her and her hijacking of a confirmation hearing several years ago, I can only think of four words....Hell hath no fury!
Go away you scorned lover wannabe! Clarence Thomas wouldn't have dated you anyway!
Who really cares what she thinks? Maybe CNN should get Kato Kaelin or Nancy Kerrigan to offer their thoughts as irrelevant pop culture figures from the 90's on this pick for the court...
Did you expect Anita Hill to not support a racist woman like Sotomayor?