John Oliver offers to pay Clarence Thomas $1m a year if he resigns from supreme court
John Oliver offers to pay Clarence Thomas $1m a year if he resigns from supreme court
The late-night talkshow host John Oliver has offered to pay Clarence Thomas $1m annually – as well as give him a $2m tour bus – if the Republican judge resigns from the US supreme court. Oliver made the proposal on Sunday’s episode of his HBO show Last Week Tonight, saying the supreme court justice ...
The late-night talkshow host John Oliver has offered to pay Clarence Thomas $1m annually – as well as give him a $2m tour bus – if the Republican judge resigns from the US supreme court.
Oliver made the proposal on Sunday’s episode of his HBO show Last Week Tonight, saying the supreme court justice had 30 days to accept or it would expire.
The British-born, progressive comedian’s offer came after a steady drumbeat of media investigations in the previous several months established that Thomas failed to disclose that political benefactors bought him lavish vacation travel and real estate for his mother. Thomas also failed to disclose – as required – that he allowed school fees for a family member to be paid off and had been provided a loan to buy a luxury motor coach, all after openly complaining about the need to raise supreme court justices’ salaries.
As a result, Thomas’s impartiality came into question after he sided with the contentious ruling that eliminated the federal abortion rights once provided by the Roe v Wade case.
He also recently listened to arguments over whether Donald Trump can be removed from states’ ballots in the presidential election after the former president’s supporters – whom he told to “fight like hell” – staged the January 6 attack at the US Capitol in Washington DC. Thomas resisted pressure to recuse himself from matters pertaining to the Capitol attack, even though his wife, Ginni Thomas, is a conservative political activist who has endorsed false claims from Trump and his supporters that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen from him – which in turn fueled January 6.
Oliver alluded to all of those circumstances as he extended his lucrative offer to Thomas, saying: “Lot on your plate right now, from stripping away women’s rights to hearing January 6 cases … and you deserve a break, you know, away from the meanness of Washington. So you can be surrounded by the regular folks whose lives you made demonstrably worse for decades.”
The host suggested that Thomas could upgrade his “favorite mode of travel” by signing a contract requiring him to step down from the supreme court in exchange for $1m annually from Oliver along with the tour bus, which is outfitted with a king-sized bed, a fireplace and four televisions.
Oliver joked that Thomas possibly feared that making such a trade might attract negative judgment from one of his top benefactors: the Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow, who was reported to have maintained a private collection of Nazi memorabilia that included a pair of paintings by Adolf Hitler.
But Oliver said: “That’s the beauty of friendship, Clarence. If they’re real friends, they’ll love you no matter what your job is. So I guess this might be the perfect way to find out who your real friends actually are.
“So that’s the offer – $1m a year, Clarence. And a brand new condo on wheels. And all you have to do … is sign the contract and get the fuck off the supreme court,” Oliver remarked. “The clock starts now – 30 days, Clarence. Let’s do this!”
The yearly salary for supreme court justices – whose appointments are for life – is $298,500.
Neither Thomas nor the supreme court immediately commented publicly on Oliver’s offer. Oliver acknowledged he could end up going on “standup tours … for years” to be able to afford paying Thomas’s retirement if the justice accepts the proposal.
The arch-conservative is the longest-serving member of a supreme court dominated 6-3 by rightwingers. Thomas has been there since his 1991 confirmation, which was marked by testimony from Anita Hill, who accused him of sexual harassment while he supervised her in two separate jobs, at the US Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
I don’t know, I can see the value in paying them more, give the gravity of what they deal with….
Otherwise they might be open to bribery 😝
Or we could legislate checks and balances, so that we can hold powerful people accountable for corruption.
As we have recently discovered with Donald Trump, the checks and balances are only as good as the people willing to enforce them.
A government is made of regular people, though notably ungoverned
and who exactly would pass legislation holding themselves to account for crimes they have definitely committed?
Congress could pass the legislation, but they're just as corrupt
Like they say about religions: If higher wages is the only thing that keeps you from being bribed, you aren't a good judge to begin with.
There should be one of IRS's ninja vampire breathing in their back at all times.
It’s not that simple. Better people can just know that they’re more valuable elsewhere and leave. Then the only people you have left are the dirt at the bottom of the bag that are willing to sell out.
And that's a competitive salary in that field. And I find that reasoning is a right way to define their and many other public servants' wage. My comment was against the idea of 'we pay extra to ensure they won't fall for bribes'.
It should be better than the industry average by a fair margin due to the gravity, personal risk and other such things that come with the job.
Just out of curiosity, because your mention of the concept is not the first I've read in this thread: what is the industry average for a private sector supreme court justice?
Well the profession is “lawyer” regardless of judge or not.
In the private sector, the average for a well seasoned lawyer can get up to $200k, but for the top few it can easily hit 500k.
I would assume that “supreme court justices” you would want among the “best” so I’d target that.
Yeah I get that. I suppose a clearer statement would be “pay extra so that we attract the quality of person that doesn’t accept bribes”
I mean, why not both?
IDK, I can see the value in seizing the means of production and creating a anarcho-syndicalist commune, in which the economic system based on the exchange of commodities, such as money or goods, is abolished in favor of a fair and universal welfare through equal division of labor and thus the resulting production.
So TLDR: You want to pay the judges even more, creating an even greater divide between the judges and the people which lives their rulings affect, I want torches, pitchforks and guillotines.
By now I realize that I will never be able to travel to the US anyway, so I might as well just go all in...
Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We’ll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.
He also receives gifts worth literally millions of dollars per year. We're talking super yacht cruises, travelling via private jets, drinking $1000 bottles of wine. And he claims all those gifts don't affect his impartiality in any way, even when he's ruling over cases that directly affect his billionaire "friends".
Unfortunately pennies for any comparable positions in the private sector. These people could be owners/partners at law firms easily exceeding half a million plus a year.
It's almost as if money shouldn't be the only motivating factor to accepting this kind of position...