Judge Clarence Thomas in an interview with 60 Minutes, slated for Sunday, Sept. 30, at 7:30 p.m. ET, 7 p.m. PT. , suggested that the “elephant in the room” during his confirmation hearings was not Anita Hill and the Sexual harassment charges she brought against him (remember the coke can?), but rather his views on Abortion.

He said:

“That was the elephant in the room … That was the issue. That is the issue that people are apparently so upset about,” he tells Kroft. “[That is the issue] that you determine the composition of your Supreme Court and your entire federal judiciary, it seems now,” says Thomas.

He says the hearings harmed the accuser, Anita Hill, himself, and ultimately the country by setting a precedent manifested in other highly charged, media-infused events such as the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. “The process harmed her. It harmed me and we see sort of the precedent of this kind of thing begin to harm even people like President Clinton,” Thomas says. “Things are out of control. That’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the court. What are we going to look like years from now if we can’t get people confirmed because everybody gets to attack them. They get to draw and quarter them.”

He has a point.  The smear politics of the 90’s was more than over the top.  It was hideous,  and bad for our democracy.   It’s amusing to poke fun, but accusations are NOT proof.  And when we are making decisions about who is and is not qualified for preeminent positions, then we must be sure not to bring down the sledge hammer on someone who could make our country a better place, based on the merits they’ve shown on the job, simply because they were accused of something that is unrelated directly to that job.

clearly if the facts support an accusation that’s one thing, but without facts, we have nothing fact-less accusation.  We should leave fact-less accusation to the tabloids (and bloggers).

Over at Balkinization:

After taking the bench Justice Thomas quickly disproved any doubts about his abilities as a jurist; he has proved himself to be one of the theoretically interesting Justices on the Supreme Court. But his later decisions did nothing to undercut the very strong evidence that what he said before the committee that day was deliberately misleading and possibly perjury.

here’s the transcript from that fateful day (hat tip Balkinization):

SEN. LEAHY:
Judge, you were in law school at the time Roe versus Wade was decided. That was 18 years — 17-18 years ago. I would assume — well back up this way. You would accept, would you not, that in the last generation Roe versus Wade is certainly one of the more important cases to be decided by the US Supreme Court?

JUDGE THOMAS:
I would accept that it’s certainly been one of the more important, as well as one that has been one of the more highly publicized and debated cases.

SEN. LEAHY:
So I would assume that it would be safe to assume that, when that came down you’re in law school where recent case laws are discussed, the Roe versus Wade would have been discussed in the law school while you were there.

JUDGE THOMAS:
The case that I remember being discussed most during my early part of law school was I believe in small group with Thomas Emerson may have been Griswold since he argued that. And we may have touched on Roe v. Wade at some point and debated that, but let me add one point to that, because I was a married student and I worked, I did not spend a lot of time around the law school doing what the other students enjoyed so much, and that’s debating all the current cases and all of the slip opinions. My schedule was such that I went to classes and generally went to work and went home.

SEN. LEAHY:
Well, Judge Thomas, I was a married law student who also worked, but I also found that at least between classes we did discuss some of the law, and I’m sure you’re not suggesting that there wasn’t any discussion at any time of Roe versus Wade?

JUDGE THOMAS:
I cannot — I — Senator, I cannot remember personally engaging in those discussions. The groups that I met with at that time during my years in law school were small study groups.

SEN. LEAHY:
Have you ever had discussion of Roe versus Wade other than in this room? (Laughter.) In the 17 or 18 years it’s been there?

JUDGE THOMAS:
Only, I guess, Senator, in the fact that, in the most general sense, that other individuals express concerns one way or the other and you listen and you try to be thoughtful. If you’re asking me whether or not I’ve ever debated the contents of it, the answer to that is no, Senator.

SEN. LEAHY:
Have you ever, private gathering or otherwise, stated whether you felt that it was properly decided or not?

JUDGE THOMAS:
Senator, in trying to recall and reflect on that, I don’t recollect commenting one way or the other. There were, again, debates about it in various places, but I generally did not participate. I don’t remember or recall participating, Senator.

SEN. LEAHY:
So you don’t ever recall stating whether you thought it was properly decided or not?

JUDGE THOMAS:
I can’t recall saying one way or the other, Senator.

SEN. LEAHY:
Well, was it properly decided or not?

JUDGE THOMAS:
Senator, I think that that’s where I just have to say what I’ve said before, that to comment on the holding in that case would compromise my ability to rule –

SEN. LEAHY:
May I ask you this — have you made any decision in your mind whether you feel Roe versus Wade was properly decided, now without stating what that decision is?

JUDGE THOMAS:
I have not made, Senator, a decision one way or the other with respect to that important decision.

SEN. LEAHY:
When you came up for confirmation last time for the circuit court of appeals, did you consider your feelings on Roe versus Wade should you have been asked?

JUDGE THOMAS:
I have been not — would I have considered, Senator, or did I consider?

SEN. LEAHY:
Did you consider?

JUDGE THOMAS:
No, Senator.

SEN. LEAHY:
So you have not — you cannot recollect ever making — taking a position, whether it’s properly decided or not properly decided, and you do not have one here that you would share with us today?

JUDGE THOMAS:
I do not have a position to share with you here today on the proper — whether or not that case was properly decided. And, Senator, I think that it’s appropriate to just simply state that to — that it is — for a judge, that it’s late in the day as a judge to begin to decide whether cases are rightly or wrongly decided when one’s on the bench. I truly believe that doing that undermines your ability to rule on those cases.

SEN. LEAHY:
Well, with all due respect, Judge, I have some difficulty with your answer, that somehow this has been so far removed from your discussions or feelings during the years since it was decided while you were in law school. You’ve participated in a working group that criticized Roe. You cited Roe in a footnote to your article on the privileges or immunity clause. You’ve referred to Lewis Lehrman’s article on the meaning of the right to life. You specifically referred to abortion in a column in the Chicago Defender. I cannot believe that all of this was done in a vacuum absent some very clear considerations of Roe versus Wade, and in fact, twice specifically citing Roe versus Wade.

JUDGE THOMAS:
Senator, your question to me was, did I debate the contents of Roe versus Wade, the outcome in Roe versus Wade, do I have this day an opinion, a personal opinion, on the outcome in Roe versus Wade, and my answer to you is that I do not.