Glenn's discussion of Clarence Thomas taking millions from his wealthy conservative patrons was incomplete and one-sided.
It is absolutely true that, relative to the importance of their work, Supreme Court justices are paid a pittance. But so what? Each and every one of them, including Thomas, knew what the salary was and what the work was when they signed on. And each and every one of them is free to leave. If Thomas, or any other justice, is no longer willing to do the work for the amount that they are paid, and would rather get out and cash in on their status, they are all free to do so.
There is strong evidence to support the proposition that Thomas himself knew what he was doing was inappropriate - namely, he chose to break the law requiring disclosure of gifts. Why do that if it is all above board?
The vast majority of the millions of dollars in gifts Thomas has collected come from wealthy individuals who are like minded and are invovled enough with the conservative legal movement to be funding efforts to get certain cases before the court. There isn't a direct enough association to require recual under the court's current standards, but the billionaires funding Thomas are the same billionaires funding conservative legal organizations that are bringing tests cases to the court.
I think about 95% of the people who defend Thomas for taking so much money would not extend the same defense to any of the liberal justices if it turned out that they had accepted even a ten th of the $4 million we know Clarence Thomas got. (My guess is that Glenn would fall in the 5% who would be OK with it.) Justice Jackson got some flak from conservatives for accepting - and disclosing - 4 tickets to a Beyconce concert valued at under $4,000.
Anyway, if Thomas or any other justice would prefer to cash in rather than live on a salary that, though very low relative to what they do, still dwarfs mine, they can resign.
Your accusations and innuendos about one of SCOTUS's greatest justices, Clarence Thomas, is in my opinion defamation and worthy of punative damages. On the other hand, by your comments you are not worth the effort. No wonder the US is in decline.
Glenn's discussion of Clarence Thomas taking millions from his wealthy conservative patrons was incomplete and one-sided.
It is absolutely true that, relative to the importance of their work, Supreme Court justices are paid a pittance. But so what? Each and every one of them, including Thomas, knew what the salary was and what the work was when they signed on. And each and every one of them is free to leave. If Thomas, or any other justice, is no longer willing to do the work for the amount that they are paid, and would rather get out and cash in on their status, they are all free to do so.
There is strong evidence to support the proposition that Thomas himself knew what he was doing was inappropriate - namely, he chose to break the law requiring disclosure of gifts. Why do that if it is all above board?
The vast majority of the millions of dollars in gifts Thomas has collected come from wealthy individuals who are like minded and are invovled enough with the conservative legal movement to be funding efforts to get certain cases before the court. There isn't a direct enough association to require recual under the court's current standards, but the billionaires funding Thomas are the same billionaires funding conservative legal organizations that are bringing tests cases to the court.
I think about 95% of the people who defend Thomas for taking so much money would not extend the same defense to any of the liberal justices if it turned out that they had accepted even a ten th of the $4 million we know Clarence Thomas got. (My guess is that Glenn would fall in the 5% who would be OK with it.) Justice Jackson got some flak from conservatives for accepting - and disclosing - 4 tickets to a Beyconce concert valued at under $4,000.
Anyway, if Thomas or any other justice would prefer to cash in rather than live on a salary that, though very low relative to what they do, still dwarfs mine, they can resign.
Your accusations and innuendos about one of SCOTUS's greatest justices, Clarence Thomas, is in my opinion defamation and worthy of punative damages. On the other hand, by your comments you are not worth the effort. No wonder the US is in decline.
A true fact cannot be defamatory. Neither can an opinion. That’s why you make a vague accusation rather than a specific one.