5 ms·

Justice Thomas said (in 2001) that for the pay they receive no one would take the job if not for the gifts.

_dujt 3y ago
I imagine by the time a lawyer is experienced enough to be given a seat at the Supreme Court that they’re well past the point of needing an income. With that being said, I’m not surprised in the slightest someone as corrupt as Thomas would have this opinion. Ginni Thomas and Clarence’s defense of her has forever tarnished the reputation of the Supreme Court and I don’t want to hear another word from his office. His replacement honestly cannot come soon enough.
callmeal 3y ago
> Justice Thomas said (in 2001) that for the pay they receive no one would take the job if not for the gifts^H^H^H^H^H bribes. FTFY. As of 2022, the salary of a US Supreme Court Justice is $274,200 per year. The Chief Justice of the United States, who is the head of the Supreme Court, receives a slightly higher salary of $286,700 per year. Of course no one will take that job. How much does a banana cost again? $10?
- kelipso 3y ago
  Yeah, how many millions of government employees and contractors who have to be under very strict gift policies and much lower salaries. Somehow they stay in their jobs without taking bribes.
  - scrubs 3y ago
    Bingo. Once again rules are different for the powerful. I don't buy it for a minute.
  - selectodude 3y ago
    Frankly it's unreasonable that a supreme court justice should be expected to only have two modest homes instead of three enormous ones.
    - mc32 3y ago
      I agree it’s unreasonable that avowed socialists should maintain multiple homes as well, but here we are. How do freshman Congress people suddenly have millions in assets to their names?
      - OO000oo 3y ago
        This is a bad joke, right? Would you hold the politicians that you support to the same standards? Of course not, and none of Bernie’s supporters could possibly care less if he has a home in Vermont and a home in DC just like literally every single senator. You can't possibly even know what socialism is if making such an airheaded comment.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        It's because it's a tu quoque. Normally when confronted with an argument that ties ones argument with ones behavior, we would say that the argument stands independent from the person saying it. But for what ever season, that seems not to be an assumption with this topic - which is itself a case of special pleading. I'm curious, why though? Isn't it just a case of letting emotions control logic?
        OO000oo 3y ago
        I don't know what you think you're onto but it's giving far too much credit to what is nothing more than another toothless, idiotic utterance of the absolutely depraved American bourgeoise mind mush.
        lucubratory 3y ago
        Thank you for the incredible verbiage in this comment, I will be stealing it for reference from now on.
      - nocoolnametom 3y ago
        I know, right? It's like, I don't even want to HEAR about your ideas on how to fix a broken system unless you've taken the personal responsibility to try and reorient your personal life to adhere to your proposed ideas while continuing to try living in the still-broken system even if that personal transition, without any systemic changes to the surrounding culture and community, make your new life impossible to live. That's the way we _always_ implement change in America! *Also, do you not like that the socialist merely _has_ two homes, or do you not agree with the reasoning behind _why_ they have two homes?
- retrac 3y ago
  How much could a good lawyer with a long and distinguished career make in the private market? That's how much we should be paying our judges. If you want the best you have to at least be moderately competitive with what's on offer. I have a similar opinion about legislators -- we probably want top tier doctors and executives and lawyers as our legislators. Being elected to office should not be a step down in their lifestyle. I see private compensation for elite talent being completely out of whack -- the prices the public service must compete with -- as basically a separate issue. Historically, a generous salary for legislators and various other high offices was part of the progressive/left platform in both the UK and France. They weren't paid before the 19th century, ensuring only the independently wealthy could hold those offices.
  - ilovetux 3y ago
    > How much could a good lawyer with a long and distinguished career make in the private market? That's how much we should be paying our judges. That would maybe make sense if we were able to reign in their conflicts of interest. The private market would set a fiduciary duty on many lawyers in a number of capacities, but nothing like that exists for the SCOTUS. As it stands now, there is no way to hold the justices (or really any elected or appointed official) accountable.
  - scrubs 3y ago
    I'd support this (higher pay mabe 5x to 10x) provided: - no security trading - recuse if conflicted - cleanup of political fund raising - criminal penalties on violation You want control and just compensation? Can do. But not without commensurate accountability.
  - johndhi 3y ago
    To answer your question, lawyers of the capacity of the SCOTUS justices could expect to make about 4 million a year.
    - Kye 3y ago
      What's the value of a lifetime appointment?

I imagine by the time a lawyer is experienced enough to be given a seat at the Supreme Court that they’re well past the point of needing an income. With that being said, I’m not surprised in the slightest someone as corrupt as Thomas would have this opinion. Ginni Thomas and Clarence’s defense of her has forever tarnished the reputation of the Supreme Court and I don’t want to hear another word from his office. His replacement honestly cannot come soon enough.

callmeal 3y ago

> Justice Thomas said (in 2001) that for the pay they receive no one would take the job if not for the gifts^H^H^H^H^H bribes. FTFY. As of 2022, the salary of a US Supreme Court Justice is $274,200 per year. The Chief Justice of the United States, who is the head of the Supreme Court, receives a slightly higher salary of $286,700 per year. Of course no one will take that job. How much does a banana cost again? $10?

kelipso 3y ago
Yeah, how many millions of government employees and contractors who have to be under very strict gift policies and much lower salaries. Somehow they stay in their jobs without taking bribes.
- scrubs 3y ago
  Bingo. Once again rules are different for the powerful. I don't buy it for a minute.
- selectodude 3y ago
  Frankly it's unreasonable that a supreme court justice should be expected to only have two modest homes instead of three enormous ones.
  - mc32 3y ago
    I agree it’s unreasonable that avowed socialists should maintain multiple homes as well, but here we are. How do freshman Congress people suddenly have millions in assets to their names?
    - OO000oo 3y ago
      This is a bad joke, right? Would you hold the politicians that you support to the same standards? Of course not, and none of Bernie’s supporters could possibly care less if he has a home in Vermont and a home in DC just like literally every single senator. You can't possibly even know what socialism is if making such an airheaded comment.
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        It's because it's a tu quoque. Normally when confronted with an argument that ties ones argument with ones behavior, we would say that the argument stands independent from the person saying it. But for what ever season, that seems not to be an assumption with this topic - which is itself a case of special pleading. I'm curious, why though? Isn't it just a case of letting emotions control logic?
        OO000oo 3y ago
        I don't know what you think you're onto but it's giving far too much credit to what is nothing more than another toothless, idiotic utterance of the absolutely depraved American bourgeoise mind mush.
        lucubratory 3y ago
        Thank you for the incredible verbiage in this comment, I will be stealing it for reference from now on.
    - nocoolnametom 3y ago
      I know, right? It's like, I don't even want to HEAR about your ideas on how to fix a broken system unless you've taken the personal responsibility to try and reorient your personal life to adhere to your proposed ideas while continuing to try living in the still-broken system even if that personal transition, without any systemic changes to the surrounding culture and community, make your new life impossible to live. That's the way we _always_ implement change in America! *Also, do you not like that the socialist merely _has_ two homes, or do you not agree with the reasoning behind _why_ they have two homes?
retrac 3y ago
How much could a good lawyer with a long and distinguished career make in the private market? That's how much we should be paying our judges. If you want the best you have to at least be moderately competitive with what's on offer. I have a similar opinion about legislators -- we probably want top tier doctors and executives and lawyers as our legislators. Being elected to office should not be a step down in their lifestyle. I see private compensation for elite talent being completely out of whack -- the prices the public service must compete with -- as basically a separate issue. Historically, a generous salary for legislators and various other high offices was part of the progressive/left platform in both the UK and France. They weren't paid before the 19th century, ensuring only the independently wealthy could hold those offices.
- ilovetux 3y ago
  > How much could a good lawyer with a long and distinguished career make in the private market? That's how much we should be paying our judges. That would maybe make sense if we were able to reign in their conflicts of interest. The private market would set a fiduciary duty on many lawyers in a number of capacities, but nothing like that exists for the SCOTUS. As it stands now, there is no way to hold the justices (or really any elected or appointed official) accountable.
- scrubs 3y ago
  I'd support this (higher pay mabe 5x to 10x) provided: - no security trading - recuse if conflicted - cleanup of political fund raising - criminal penalties on violation You want control and just compensation? Can do. But not without commensurate accountability.
- johndhi 3y ago
  To answer your question, lawyers of the capacity of the SCOTUS justices could expect to make about 4 million a year.
  - Kye 3y ago
    What's the value of a lifetime appointment?