Anita Hill on Sotomayor: Tough, tenacious

Did you expect Anita Hill to not support a racist woman like Sotomayor?

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...

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 care what Anita Hill has to say. What makes her view about Ms. Sotomayor any more pertinent than any other attorneys view?

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 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?????

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.)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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??

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.

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!

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.

[...] to the U.S. Supreme Court. She spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s American Morning Tuesday."  Continue reading... addthis_pub = [...]

And we're supposed to care what Anita Hil thinks, because..........?

And why is Anita Hill's opinion of a Supreme Court nominee newsworthy? This is issue advocacy, disguised as news. What a joke.

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

[...] to serve on the highest court in the land, infintiely qualified assessor of legal talent Anita Hill had this to say... Well, if you look at her outstanding record on the bench, you can look at [...]

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.

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?

She hopes it doesn't become a witch hunt? She's the one who started the witch hunt regarding Clarence Thomas.

"I don’t know if we want to talk about what is the most qualified person in the country."

And why not Ms. Hill?

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 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.

"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?

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.

What makes Anita Hill qualified to evaluate a Supreme Court Justice?

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 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

"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.

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.

I wonder if Anita Hill would be Obama's next nominee to the US Supreme Court

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'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?

Wow. The ultimate rebuke to the naysayers who voted for Clarence Thomas in spite of his clear personality problems and lack of judicial experience.

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.

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.

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 WHO? Why are they digging up this old tired hack and who cares WHAT she thinks

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.

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.

anita hill who? she looks old

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.

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?

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.,

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.

Thanks for the interview with Professor Anita Hill. She is a courageous, insightful and brilliant woman.

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 !

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.

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.

And what did Clarence Thomas bring to the bench? What has he done since he got there?

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.

Good to see Anita Hill still drives the vicious right wing hatemongers crazy.

Retract "out wait" and replace with "oh wait"

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!

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.

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.

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 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

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!!!!

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

How is Anita Hill relevant to this topic?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe we can find Twana Brawley or Borat as political commentators. Come on CNN, I thought you claim to be responsible journalists???

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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!

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 .

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.

What does Anita Hill have to do with anything... hey...wait a minute... there's a pube in my Coke...

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.

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 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.

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 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.

How uninformed can people be? Sotomayor has ruled in over 3000 cases. ONLY 8 were overturned.

Why is it that only men are speaking out against Anita Hill? Who cares what you MEN think about her.

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!

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!

Why don't you all go back to reading Fox news for the "real" stories...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

Now boys, your anti-female roots are showing ... grow-up already.

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.

Quite simply this is typical of CNN's reporting style. Why would anyone be surprised?

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.

[...] with  CNN news anchor John Roberts: Anita Hill on Sotomayor: Tough, tenacious Anita Hill tells [...]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

CNN, WHY HER?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955

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.

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.

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.

Paulina

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.

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

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!

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.

Ken,

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.

I READ THE FIRST 6 OR 8 RESPONSE AND IT SOUND LIKE HATE RADIO. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO CIVIL DISCOURSE.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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!

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!)

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 world...it 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 fair...be careful how you judge because the same judgement will determine your fate.

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.