Print

Intr o duct i o n 9 upon those of similar background and experience to their own, as the principle of homophily attests.50 In their shared experience of the prover- bial “old boys’ network,” so-called locker-room talk can be the norm. As Senator Arlen Specter expressed during his questioning of Anita Hill in a hearing on Clarence Thomas’s nomination process for the Supreme Court in 1991, discussion of “women’s large breasts,” about which Hill reported with some discomfort, was language that “we use all the time.”51 At a time before the term sexual harassment had any currency, the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee was not inclined to give credence to Hill’s protesta- tion that such language was not appropriate in the workplace and could be off-putting to women rising through the ranks. Brett Kavanaugh, for his part, had completed a prestigious clerkship for Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court, who had resigned after allegations of sexual harass- ment by more than a dozen of his former staff members came to light in 2017.52 Kavanaugh personally knew Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who had served as senator and member of the Judiciary Committee for the decades spanning the Thomas and Hill nominations, and with whom he spoke directly before the vote to confirm him on the court.53 Thomas, teed up for a Supreme Court seat by President Bush, who had appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990, had also had an inside line to Hatch during his confirmation process. As with Kavanaugh, Hatch both voted for Thomas’s confirmation and suggested that his accuser was either lying or confused when bringing forth allegations of sexual misconduct. In our chapter “Who’s Holding Court? A Tale of Two Justices,” we offer a model of judge’s roles in women’s underrepresentation in the context of testimonial injustice, considering both the ideological persuasion and individual experiences of members of the judiciary. We include an exam- ination of the circumstances of both Justices Thomas and Hill’s ascension to the Supreme Court and an analysis of Thomas’s rulings and opinions on cases impacting sexual harassment law. Other categories identified as influencing women’s autonomy and capacity to achieve positions of pub- lic authority include reproductive rights, violence against women, and workplace equity in pay and treatment. Such policies represent the rules that make workplaces and other public spaces more or less inclusive or exclusionary for women. When then senator Biden asserted that he had not treated Anita Hill badly during the Thomas confirmation process, he demurred that he had only been playing by the rules.54 Left unsaid was the fact that, as chair of the body presiding over the proceedings, he held substantial responsibility for making the rules, including how long any