...if the tables were turned, Republicans in Congress would be proceeding with an impeachment.

it was a he said, she said situation.
That said, Thomas is still a RW asshole.

Who weren't allowed to testify.

I don't know if he did or didn't, but he's still a RW lazy asshole and I can't wait until he retires.

Next question: Is Clarence Thomas utterly incompetent and ill-suited for the position he currently holds?

Next poll: Are Scalia and Thomas assholes?

Clarence Thomas refused to take such a test and ended up going into full hysterics, playing his "High-Tech Lynching" card for the committee. He's as guilty as hell.

Green river killer did the same but DNA proved his guilt.

I don't know what it is the truth when it comes to allegations against Clarence Thomas but lie detector test proves nothing to me.

Where do you get your "news," from Rush Limbaugh? He savaged Ms. Hill in every way possible, and not one ugly thing he said was remotely true. There were other witnesses willing to confirm Ms. Hill's testimony about Thomas's twisted behavior, but the committee hearings were so poorly handled that they never got an opportunity to speak. You have reservations about Thomas's guilt? That's fine and dandy---I don't.

Whether Anita Hill is a sociopath is or not. Anyone can beat a lie detector test, sociopaths are better at it.

My point was someone willing or unwilling, passing or failing is irrelevant to someone who is guilty. I'm not sure what you mean by "news" or reservations. That took place way before I had a interest in politics so I have little knowledge as to the evidence presented during that time so I'm actually the last person you'd want to make a guilt or innocence judgment here.

As far as news, what do you mean? It is an easy to prove fact that the Green River Killer passed it. The guy who later became sheriff -- Dave Reichart was a lead investigator to the case and he says even in his own book that in the 80's he was put on the back burner as far as suspects were concerned at the time. Also notable double agents have passed them.

There is plenty of evidence out there that shows known liars passing lie detector test. Also people telling the truth were known to fail them. There was this guy who was suspected of killing his wife (turns out DNA proved it was the BTK Killer), he failed the police lie detector so he hired an independent to do one and he failed that one too.

My only point is it proves nothing.

To declare a lie detector test has no value is to declare all people who take them sociopaths.

If anything, it makes him guilty in the eyes of most Americans - yeah, even Teabaggers.

Had Confused-Clarence taken one, it would have put the onus on doubters and erase all doubt for a large segment of the populace that he really didn't sexually harass Ms. Hill. The fact that he refused tells us that we know he did.

As a prosecutor he'd understand the unreliability of lie detector tests which could explain his refusal to take one. Whether he is guilty or not is a different story.

and if I did, I don't have any logically evidence to suggest she is.

In my opinion, Ms. Hill's testimony was extremely powerful, clearly true, and proved that Clarence did not belong in any position of power -- certainly not on the Supreme Court. And he has provided ample evidence, over the years since, that he lacks both the intellectual and ethical capacity to be on the bench.

Or is it the missus who gives partisan speeches for hire while wearing that funny Statue of Liberty hat?

but I am as close to a definitely as someone who wasn't there can be.

"poorly handled"?
perfectly executed.
a fairly famous and accomplished woman my mother is close to has friends in WDC.
As I recall they owned a chain of porn shops.
straight up called Clarence their "number one customer"
which mostly corroborates his source material for stupid comments and his
appetite for degrading women.

all of this pales compared to the EOC implications of replacing Thurgood Marshall with
CT.
WHITE POWER!

women.

Confused-Clarence had deep disdain for his own ethnicity because Ms. Hill wasn't the only one he sexually harassed. She was the only one with enough strength of character to call him on it. I deeply admire the woman for it. She was a helluva lot more courageous than Senatorial Democrats, that's for sure!

Democrats were spineless during his confirmation hearings. They should've gone after him full speed ahead. And I don't understand how any Democrat outside of the "red" States would vote for this unqualified, purely-pro-GOP joke to sit on our U.S. Supreme Court. It just baffles me to no end.

and why wouldnt you confirm a SCOTUS who claimed under oath to never have discussed or considered
Roe v Wade?
thats good enough for US?
this was a dark, dark moment made possible only by sequestering the corroborating witnesses.
Thanks Joe!

And the testimony at the hearings are open for public viewing

http://mith.umd.edu/WomensStudies/GenderIssues/SexualHarassment/hill-thomas-testimony

who would have testified. (maybe more) The Dems had no balls and didn't want to make sex an offense (even though this was not about sex). Six years later the Repukes had no such qualms. (See Ken Starr).

Dems, always bringing a knife to a gun fight.

sadly, I don't think much has changed in regard to most of them.

rather than called to testify as they were expecting.
only one Senator held the keys to that decision.

but don't really know. Only Clarence and Anita do.

I do know he seems to be the stupidest Supreme Court justice I've ever heard of, though.

Brock pretty much knew that he was guilty, he penned the the Real Anita Hill as a slander hit piece... The repigs played the race card and the coward dem's capitulated.