Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/02/19/john-oliver-offers-corrupt-clarence-thomas-a-luxury-rv-and-1-million-a-year-to-get-the-fck-off-the-supreme-court.html
…
24 Likes
Love this.
To borrow a John Oliver-ism, John Oliver is my spirit animal.
16 Likes
Law noob here: Aside from flimsy arguments of “setting precedent” (which is kind of thrown out the window by any and all BS the GOP pulls), what prevented Democrats from stacking the Supreme Court when they had a brief super majority?
3 Likes
Several Democratic Senators had repeatedly said that the idea was a non-starter for them, so there was no point in Biden trying to do that even if he wanted to.
10 Likes
I got to watch it. A million dollars a year??? Christ he is past retirement age. He may as well take the deal.
Oliver has a point which I have heard other people bring up in the past. We probably should be paying the Supreme Court MORE money, as well as people in congress, in conjunction with much much stricter rules about gifts and lobbying - and enforce it! Oh and owning and trading stocks while in office.
I heard that rookie Representatives can barely afford to live in DC, and people who have this problem are more likely to succumb to the temptation of money if they weren’t already crooked to begin with.
Of course the people who benefit from this corruption, aren’t the ones who are motivated to change things. Sure they may vote themselves raises, but not the limits on gifts etc.
Also, while we are at it, make the Supreme Court a term appointment. Make it long, like 10 years, or maybe 20. But I don’t think lifetime is needed. That’s too much unchecked power.
24 Likes
Also it creates a perverse incentive for a President to nominate the youngest SCOTUS justices that they think they can get away with in order to maximize their impact over the lifetime of the appointment instead of nominating (say) a 60-year-old judge who has a decades-long track record proving their qualifications.
26 Likes
How can we make sure “Justice” Thomas and Tammy-Fay Braun are made aware of this offer? If they don’t know about it, they can’t take advantage of it.
3 Likes
Oh, somebody has just made an offer to Clarence Thomas for a whole lot of money and a luxury RV. I assure you that he knows about it.
13 Likes
Well, for one, they never had a super-majority, just a slight majority in Congress, not anywhere near the 60 votes they’d need to stack the court.
19 Likes
This is the correct answer. The Senate filibuster rules are stupid, and require a supermajority to pass almost any bill, especially controversial ones.
12 Likes
If Oliver wants to close the deal, he should offer Thomas a bonus of 1500 porn DVDs (or better yet VHS tapes) suiting his tastes.
3 Likes
I’m good with eight years max for ALL branches of the government.
Clarence doesn’t want to pay taxes on his grift gifts.
3 Likes
There’s a GoFundMe I could support l!
8 Likes
I’ve heard this as a justification for electing the wealthy. They won’t be corrupt, because they are already rich! 
I agree with you on decent salaries, but I don’t think it would do much about corruption.
5 Likes
Not really the same argument. There’s a difference between “I’d like to go to a movie after I pay rent” and “I’d like a luxury RV”.
7 Likes
One downside of enforcing a high turnover rate for all government positions is that most people in government would be incentivized to make decisions that maximized their odds of landing a sweet private-sector job once their term was up. The legislator-to-lobbyist pipeline is one example of how corrosive that kind of mindset is already.
Another downside is that a government comprised entirely of people who had been in government for 8 years or less would be robbed of a huge amount of valuable experience and institutional knowledge.
14 Likes
Know what doesn’t require 60 votes? Abolishing the filibuster. If a simple majority of Democratic Senators chose to do that, they could. Just as they already reduced the number of votes it takes to end debate for certain judicial nominations.
I can’t imagine that using the “nuclear option” to abolish the filibuster would be more controversial than using their power to pack the Supreme Court.
7 Likes
It might as well be. A lot of Senators seem to think the filibuster is a sacred cornerstone of Democracy, which is ridiculous.
7 Likes
You have to pair it with laws/rules that punish or remove people who are being placated gifts. Quid pro quo.
3 Likes
