Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court October 13, 1991. Commitee hearing after the Anita Hill charges of sexual harassment. Panel in support of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas from the second panel of witnesses on the third day of his reopened Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Witnesses on the second panel testified against the charges of University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill, who claimed Judge Thomas sexually harassed her when she worked for him in the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissino in the early 1980's. Panel includes JC Alvarez, Dr. Nancy Fitch, Diane Holt, and Phyllis Berry-Meyers.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Well, let me ask you - does anybody else want to ask a question? Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). I just would like to note something for the record, not a question, if I might, Mr. Chairman. And that is that Senator Hatch had referred in just the last few minutes to Anita Hill's handlers somehow, Svengali-like - my term, not his - sending her out to take a polygraph. I would just note for the record, according to her sworn testimony, the first suggestion of a polygraph came when the administration sent the FBI to talk to her. According to what she stated here, she told us that the FBI asked her if she would be willing to take a polygraph and she said, again according to her testimony here, that indeed she would. I have no idea of the qualifications of whoever took it or anything else. I have just heard about it. I don't know whether - it would not be admissible in a court of law. Nobody is required to take a polygraph, but I just wanted to note for the record, the first suggestion of that came not from somebody advising Professor Hill but came from, according to her testimony, from the people the administration sent out on the investigation that was requested by the White House and this committee. Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah). If the Senator would yield on that point, as the co-author along with Senator Kennedy of the Polygraph Protection Act, we did a lot of study of this, and there is no question that polygraphs should only be given under certain circumstances, with the approval of both sides, and not unilaterally by one side that may be very biased. You can find a polygraph operator to do anything you want them to do, just like you can find a pollster. Some pollsters in this country, not many, but some will do anything. They will find any conclusion you want, just by changing the questions. Then again, polygraph operators, there are circumstances where people really believe what they are doing. They really believe it. It is totally false, but they believe it. She may very well be in that category, and might even pass a real polygraph examination. So to throw that in the middle of a Supreme Court nomination as though it is real, legitimate evidence is highly offensive, that is my only point, and highly political, and again, too pat, too slick, exactly what a two-bit slick lawyer would try to do in the middle of something as important as this. Now that is the point I was raising. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). Mr. Chairman, the point to be made, it was the FBI, sent by the White House, who first suggested the polygraph. Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah). No, that is not true. That is not true. It was this committee, not the White House. It was this committee. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). Is that why the report first goes to the White House? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Will the Senator withhold? The FBI was asked by the Majority and the Minority to investigate. The White House, the administration, has to authorize that when we request it. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). That's right. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). It was in the FBI - Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). Now here I go. What am I doing? I am referring to the sworn testimony here. Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah). It's a terrible thing, I'll tell you. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). The sworn testimony-- Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah). You only use it when it benefits her. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). The sworn testimony of Professor Hill was that she said that she was prepared to take an FBI polygraph.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Mr. Chairman, might I be heard for one minute? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Yes, you may. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). I think on this subject it ought to be said that lie detector tests are not generally admissible in court - Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). That is correct. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). - because they do not have the requisite reliability, and that I have extensive experience, being the Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission, which I was present when Jack Ruby's lie detector test was taken, and that is a very different circumstance. But notwithstanding the fact that Jack Ruby passed it all without any indication of deception, when J. Edgar Hoover forwarded the report to the Warren Commission, it was his statement that the polygraph ought not to be accepted because it wasn't sufficiently reliable. And while we talk about it, it is generally accepted, a general principle of law, that a polygraph lie detector test is not admissible in court because of the lack of requisite reliability. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). The Senator is correct, and this is one Senator, and I think most believe that lie detector tests are not - are not - the appropriate way to get to the truth. That wasn't the issue I thought that was being raised here. The issue I thought being raised here was whether or not some slick lawyer cajoled or coerced this particular individual into taking a lie detector test. Now let me - Yes? Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D - Ohio). I don't know anything at all about polygraphs or lie detectors, but as I understand it there is a reference paper indicating the credentials of the company or the man who took the polygraph test. I think it would be appropriate - I think the CIA does use polygraph tests, I don't know that for sure, but I think they do - and I would just suggest that whatever the credentials are of the individual or company that took the test, that that be included in the record at this point. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). I would object to that. I believe that the admission in the record of a lie detector test this committee had nothing to do with ordering, and cannot vouch for the credentials. And even if they could vouch for the credentials of the person issuing the lie detector test, if we get to the point in this country where lie detector tests are the basis upon which we make judgments and insist upon people having them, and by inference of those who don't have them that they did something wrong, we have reached a sad day for the civil liberties of this country. That does not go to the issue of whether the individual is entitled to, on their own, ask for a lie detector test. People can make of it what they wish. Now let me - Senator Strom Thurmond (R - South Carolina). Mr. Chairman, I commend you for that stand. Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah). So do I, Mr. Chairman. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). I happen to agree with it too, Mr. Chairman, while we are passing out kudos here. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Well, I am flattered. Let's move on. Thank you very much. Now let's move on. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). Anything to move along.