383
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

ProPublica reports that Thomas was in debt, frustrated with his salary, and implying he'd resign from the Supreme Court if his financial situation didn't change—just before Harlan Crow and other conservatives started lavishing him with expensive gifts and luxury vacations.

Before he began receiving expensive gifts and luxury vacations from Harlan Crow and other conservative benefactors, Clarence Thomas reportedly expressed significant concerns about his financial situation—even prompting concerns from a Republican lawmaker more than 20 years ago that he might resign from the Supreme Court if he could not boost his salary.

“One or more justices will leave soon” if justices aren’t given a raise, Thomas told then Republican Representative Cliff Stearns in 2000, as they flew home from a conservative conference at a Georgia resort, according to ProPublica.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ZeroCool@feddit.ch 118 points 10 months ago

Clarence Thomas is a disgrace. My opinion of this man could not get any lower than it already is. It disgusts me that he's openly corrupt and not a god damn thing is being done to impeach and remove him from the Supreme Court.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 49 points 10 months ago

If something tragic were to befall Justice Thomas, I would read his obituary with great enthusiasm.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 35 points 10 months ago

5 out of 9 are openly corrupt, see my recent posts about it with articles. He's just the one the media focuses on for some reason.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 29 points 10 months ago

He's been acting on personal grudges against liberals instead of justice since 1993

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[-] Darkncoldbard@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

He was bitching about 300k a year? Ffs...

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Oh wait we need the salary back in 2000. From the article

At the time of his conversation with Stearns in 2000, Thomas made $173,600 annually

*Which is apparently $309,547 adjusted for inflation.

[-] Darkncoldbard@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

How tf do you go into debt making almost 200k a year? Maybe he's not that great of a judge on how to spend...

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

How tf do you go into debt making almost 200k a year and taking bribes from whoever will pay you?

Maybe he’s not that great of a judge

DING DING DING DING!

[-] Objects@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 10 months ago

By living like he makes 600k

[-] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Suppose he’s not in it for the career or selfless civil service in support of justice.

Clearly he just wants to get paid.

[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago

how the fuck is he still there? this is such a bullshit system

[-] Unaware7013@kbin.social 32 points 10 months ago

how the fuck is he still there?

Because republicans wouldn't know ethics if it walked up and grabbed them by the crotch. All they care about is implementing their christo-fascist agenda, and ol' Uncle Clarence is more than happy to sell every poor minority to help them do it for a pretty penny.

[-] highenergyphysics@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

This is what liberals pretend to not understand.

Thomas is perfectly ethical in the eyes of conservatives. He protects his donors and fucks over the nation.

These subhumans will not stop until the Fourth Reich is established.

Good fucking luck voting them out, that has totally worked even once in the entire history of oppressed peoples struggling against fascism.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

I am really, really not looking forward to the watershed moment when we have to do something more than vote. It's going to be extremely shitty.

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 40 points 10 months ago

"I will quit if I don't start receiving more bribes."

[-] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

"The supreme court is able to police itself..."

Pfff, give me a break. They are in desperate need of oversight and here we are...thumbs up our collective asses as usual.

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Good thing we have so many 2A patriots in this country to sort this out and defend the USA from tyranny or are they too busy harassing librarians… as alpha males do.

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago

be something if a SC Justice ended up in prison

[-] Synthead@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

He wanted a raise and threatened to leave. Saved you a click.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 6 points 10 months ago

I wish he had.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

I guess we have to look at all the Supreme Court decisions since he took the position.

this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
383 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3801 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS