Memo from David Brock11:15 PM, Aug 31, 2015 • By SHOSHANA WEISSMANN
Hillary Clinton's recently released emails includes a memo sent by David Brock titled, "Memo on Impeaching Clarence Thomas."
The purpose of the document might suggest Clinton, or at least those closest to her and in her circle, are interested in impeaching Justice Thomas.
The document contains information from Brock about his book, The Real Anita Hill, and other similar points on Justice Thomas's personal life.
The document contains details of Brock himself potentially intimidating women close to Justice Thomas. These details were from a 2001 New York Times article, in which the author reached out to a colleague of Thomas, Kaye Savage.
"Reached at home in Washington last night, Ms. Savage said that Mr. Brock had tried to intimidate her but that he had not told her the source of the negative information."
In the memo found in Clinton's email, Brock notes his use of "journalistic sleight-of-hand involving a written statement Savage had given me under duress":
(Personal note: Though I confronted Savage with the information in an effort to get her to recant, she never did, although I made it appear otherwise by journalistic sleight-of-hand involving a written statement Savage had given me under duress about her interviews with Mayer and Abramson in my Spectator review).
His memo followed this note with this New York Times passage:
Frank Rich, NYT (12-29-94): "This time Mr. Brock's partisan desperation has led him to a tactic that is beyond the pale of even tabloid journalism and that would make any citizen think twice before speaking freely to any journalist: He tried to bully a source in Strange Justice, a one-time Hill and Thomas associate named Kaye Savage, to get her to sign a statement denying her own contribution to the book."
Jamin Raskin, a law professor and associate dean at American University in Washington, received a call seeking advice from Ms. Savage after her encounter with Mr. Brock a few weeks ago: "She was distraught and said Brock was threatening to reveal damaging information about her from a divorce situation unless she agreed to retract everything she had said to the authors of Strange Justice, he said in an interview. 'I told her this is a clear violation of journalistic ethics and might be blackmail and that she shouldn't give in to it. She was beside herself because she had told the truth."
The points on women seem to be an effort to disqualify Thomas on women's issues. Brock quotes Eleanor Smeal, President of Feminist Majority Foundation, who says:
"And let's face it, the Supreme Court these are life-time appointments. We are sitting here with a Supreme Court that elected this president by a five to four decision, but a Supreme Court that could reverse Roe v Wade and many many serious things affecting women..."
2:37 PM, Aug 20, 2015 • By MICHAEL WARREN
Republican presidential candidate John Kasich told a voter in New Hampshire Wednesday that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in the United States is the "law of the land."
"I would like to ask whether you can respect the Roe versus Wade decision, and I ask because as a lifelong libertarian, I'm looking for a candidate to support who is both a fiscal conservative and not a threat to a woman's right to control her own body," said a voter at a town hall event in Salem, New Hampshire.
Priority number one for the next president? Aug 10, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 45 • By TERRY EASTLAND
Ted Cruz, who in 1996 clerked for then-chief justice William Rehnquist and is now a first-term senator and GOP presidential candidate, has assumed the leadership of conservatives aiming to rein in a Supreme Court they fault for imposing on the country rights not found in the Constitution. This is hardly a new issue for conservatives; in a past now faraway, it was also an issue for some liberals.
12:42 PM, Jul 22, 2015 • By JONATHAN V. LAST
The lone bright spot last week was the release of Ryan Anderson's much-anticipated (by me, at least) book on Obergefell and the future of marriage.
8:04 AM, Jul 20, 2015 • By ADAM J. WHITE
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made news recently, when she said—bragged, it seemed—that she and her fellow liberals on the Court were going out of their way to stifle their individual voices in high-profile cases.
The justice who stands aloneJul 20, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 42 • By DAN MCLAUGHLIN
For political observers, the story of the Supreme Court’s recently concluded term was the clash of two great colliding forces. On one side stood the Court’s always-unified liberal bloc, fortified by the apostasies of Republican-appointed Justice Anthony Kennedy and sometimes Chief Justice John Roberts, most prominently in cases involving same-sex marriage and Obamacare. On the other side stood Justice Antonin Scalia, a lion in winter, caustic and witty in his dissents.
8:09 AM, Jun 29, 2015 • By JERYL BIER
Justice Anthony Kennedy, while dictating one of the most sweeping social changes in history in his opinion in the Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex marriage across America, waxes magnanimous towards foes of the expansion of the millennia-old definition of marriage.
Hosted by Michael Graham.4:20 PM, Jun 26, 2015 • By TWS PODCAST
THE WEEKLY STANDARD podcast with executive editor Terry Eastland on the Obergefell v. Hodges decision rendered by the Supreme Court today.
10:06 AM, Jun 26, 2015 • By DANIEL HALPER
Here's the text of the Supreme Court's decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage:
Jul 6, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 41 • By TERRY EASTLAND
Ye who are disappointed in the Supreme Court this term, take heart: Its plainly wrong decision in the housing case from Texas, handed down last week, was not as bad as it might have been.
2:20 PM, Jun 25, 2015 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON and WILLIAM KRISTOL
The Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell is disappointing. But it also provides a welcome moment of clarity: We can finally dispense with the false belief that the Supreme Court will save us from Obamacare.
The status of same-sex marriage shouldn’t come down to one man’s opinion. Jun 15, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 38 • By ROBERT F. NAGEL
Later this summer the Supreme Court will decide whether the Constitution requires that every state recognize same-sex marriages. Thus, in a ritual that would seem bizarre if it had not become so ordinary, nine lawyers will issue a decision authoritatively resolving subtle and far-reaching issues that are not distinctively legal. After all, the ancient institution of marriage implicates difficult questions about history, culture, psychology, and morality.
He urged—and then forced—a conversation about religion and democracy Jun 8, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 37 • By ADAM J. WHITE
Had Jeremiah Wright’s antics not forced Barack Obama to expound famously on race in 2008, the most significant speech of his short Senate tenure would have been his 2006 remarks on religion and democracy. Appearing before Call to Renewal’s conference on “Building a Covenant for a New America,” Obama urged Christian activists and Democratic voters to reconsider the relationship between church and state. Mankind may have grappled with our dueling obligations to Caesar and