After almost a decade on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation, according to friends. He had recently started raising his young grandnephew, and Thomas’ wife was soliciting advice on how to handle the new expenses. The month before, the justice had borrowed $267,000 from a friend to buy a high-end RV.
At the resort, Thomas gave a speech at an off-the-record conservative conference. He found himself seated next to a Republican member of Congress on the flight home. The two men talked, and the lawmaker left the conversation worried that Thomas might resign.
Congress should give Supreme Court justices a pay raise, Thomas told him. If lawmakers didn’t act, “one or more justices will leave soon” — maybe in the next year.
At the time, Thomas’ salary was $173,600, equivalent to over $300,000 today. But he was one of the least wealthy members of the court, and on multiple occasions in that period, he pushed for ways to make more money. In other private conversations, Thomas repeatedly talked about removing a ban on justices giving paid speeches.
Chief Justice is one of the highest offices in US government and can hugely affect the lives and future of all citizens. We need to find some way to encourage appointment on merit rather than political hacks, and paying more would mean it’s not as much a sacrifice for the appointee
On the one hand I found data showing $285k pay for an associate justice, which is significantly higher than posted here, but in the other hand I know a bunch of software engineers who earn that much without leading the country. It may come down to where you live. I live in a high cost of living area where this really doesn’t seem like all that much: high income sure but not national leadership high. Then it comes down to us expecting someone to serve this role for life, while being able to live a life commensurate with national leadership in the DC area. Yes we should pay more
However in this case everything I read about Clarence Thomas shows he wouldn’t be happy with anything short of true wealth. He’s not appropriate for the job no matter what we could pay, since he’d always be corruptible by money (and yes I’m annoyed that I have to go to bribery training and sign that I will lose my job if I accept more than $60 value yet this clown claims that there’s no reason he can’t accept hundreds of thousands of dollars? Did we make the mistake of assuming ethical behavior rather than writing it down again)