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.

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.

  • planetaryprotection@midwest.socialEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    I like this sentiment, but giving the US intelligence apparatus what amounts to a veto for elected/appointed officials feels like a recipe for disaster.

    The only way I see that being workable is if the clearance grantors are transparently beholden to elected officials or the people directly. Which are essentially what elections and the congressional confirmation process are supposed to be. But both of those processes feel like they’ve been subverted. (Elections by the two-party system and the fact that half the population seems intent on electing a dictator, and the other by the senators/representatives that come out of that electoral system).

    • neanderthal@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 year ago

      The US intelligence apparatus doesn’t do this. The OPM does.

      As per your second paragraph and many other comments. I agree. It is hard to avoid it being politicized at any step of the process. Everything interview would have to be recorded. Copies of all reviewed records would need to be kept. Adjudicators would need heavily redacted transcripts of the records and interviews.