While Democrats, left-wing pundits, and media outlets persist in demanding the removal of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas due to allegations of accepting improper perks and gifts from a billionaire friend, they have conveniently overlooked the substantial wealth accumulated by one of their favored justices, Sonia Sotomayor, since her appointment to the highest court in the land.
As per a comprehensive report from Forbes, Sotomayor's net worth experienced a significant increase from three-quarters of a million dollars to millions after her appointment to the bench by former President Barack Obama. This surge can be attributed to various factors such as book deals, speaking engagements, and the advantageous perks of the position, including a lucrative pension.
At the time, Sotomayor had a net worth of approximately $750,000. Currently, her net worth is estimated to be around $5 million. According to Forbes, her fame resulting from her position has opened up opportunities for book deals, which have generated a substantial income of $3.8 million since she became a member of the court.
"The post also enabled her to recruit and employ staff for various purposes, including allegedly boosting her book sales. This action attracted attention, but it seems to have remained within legal boundaries, possibly due to the fact that Supreme Court justices have fewer ethical constraints compared to other government officials," the report elaborated.
Sotomayor has also enjoyed the advantage of a highly lucrative pension as a result of her position on the Supreme Court. According to Forbes, the individual in question has been receiving a guaranteed salary since reaching the age of 65. At present, her salary amounts to $285,400 per year. This benefit will continue for the remainder of her life, and is estimated to be worth around $2.3 million.
In a recent incident, some individuals on the far-left attempted to discredit Thomas by highlighting a report from Pro Publica. The report claimed that a "billionaire friend," Harlan Crow, had given luxury gifts to the justice.
Thomas' colleagues and associates, such as Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Hardiman and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho, swiftly came to his defense.
The two judges made an appearance at an event held at Princeton University on April 12th, where they answered questions related to Thomas.
What struck me as peculiar about the Justice Thomas situation is the so-called 'scandal' surrounding it. Throughout the entire ordeal, there was never any suggestion that his wealthy acquaintance had any matters to address before the Supreme Court. So, what is his approach to assisting his friend? He is unable to assist his friend since his friend has never had any cases in the Supreme Court," Hardiman replied to a student's inquiry.
As a judge, I preside over legal cases in Pittsburgh. I am familiar with these lawyers. A few of them happen to be my former law partners. I am a member of various organizations with them. I have lunch with them. Is it advisable for me to refrain from hearing their cases? If you harbor doubts regarding our integrity, it could potentially hinder the judges' ability to perform their duties, as you may become entangled with everyone at some point," he remarked.
I have had my previous law clerks confidently present arguments in court. "I don't believe they have ever been successful in any of their cases," remarked the judge. "And it's not because they lack brilliance in their legal expertise. Yes, they are. However, typically, they are handling pro bono immigration cases, which can pose significant challenges for the immigrants involved.
"If someone were to attempt to tarnish my reputation by suggesting that I showed favoritism towards a client in an immigration case argued by my former law clerk, it would undoubtedly lead to a significant public scrutiny," he remarked.
"I believe that's an excellent response," remarked Judge Ho, a former clerk for Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court. According to him, there exists a distinction between a concrete case of corruption and the mere perception of it.
"The appearance issue holds significant importance," Ho emphasized, highlighting the crucial role of credibility in the judiciary. "It is vital for people to have faith in our work," he added. "The judiciary, just like any other human institution, is not flawless because none of us can claim to be perfect," he stated.
As per a comprehensive report from Forbes, Sotomayor's net worth experienced a significant increase from three-quarters of a million dollars to millions after her appointment to the bench by former President Barack Obama. This surge can be attributed to various factors such as book deals, speaking engagements, and the advantageous perks of the position, including a lucrative pension.
At the time, Sotomayor had a net worth of approximately $750,000. Currently, her net worth is estimated to be around $5 million. According to Forbes, her fame resulting from her position has opened up opportunities for book deals, which have generated a substantial income of $3.8 million since she became a member of the court.
"The post also enabled her to recruit and employ staff for various purposes, including allegedly boosting her book sales. This action attracted attention, but it seems to have remained within legal boundaries, possibly due to the fact that Supreme Court justices have fewer ethical constraints compared to other government officials," the report elaborated.
Sotomayor has also enjoyed the advantage of a highly lucrative pension as a result of her position on the Supreme Court. According to Forbes, the individual in question has been receiving a guaranteed salary since reaching the age of 65. At present, her salary amounts to $285,400 per year. This benefit will continue for the remainder of her life, and is estimated to be worth around $2.3 million.
In a recent incident, some individuals on the far-left attempted to discredit Thomas by highlighting a report from Pro Publica. The report claimed that a "billionaire friend," Harlan Crow, had given luxury gifts to the justice.
Thomas' colleagues and associates, such as Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Hardiman and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho, swiftly came to his defense.
The two judges made an appearance at an event held at Princeton University on April 12th, where they answered questions related to Thomas.
What struck me as peculiar about the Justice Thomas situation is the so-called 'scandal' surrounding it. Throughout the entire ordeal, there was never any suggestion that his wealthy acquaintance had any matters to address before the Supreme Court. So, what is his approach to assisting his friend? He is unable to assist his friend since his friend has never had any cases in the Supreme Court," Hardiman replied to a student's inquiry.
As a judge, I preside over legal cases in Pittsburgh. I am familiar with these lawyers. A few of them happen to be my former law partners. I am a member of various organizations with them. I have lunch with them. Is it advisable for me to refrain from hearing their cases? If you harbor doubts regarding our integrity, it could potentially hinder the judges' ability to perform their duties, as you may become entangled with everyone at some point," he remarked.
I have had my previous law clerks confidently present arguments in court. "I don't believe they have ever been successful in any of their cases," remarked the judge. "And it's not because they lack brilliance in their legal expertise. Yes, they are. However, typically, they are handling pro bono immigration cases, which can pose significant challenges for the immigrants involved.
"If someone were to attempt to tarnish my reputation by suggesting that I showed favoritism towards a client in an immigration case argued by my former law clerk, it would undoubtedly lead to a significant public scrutiny," he remarked.
"I believe that's an excellent response," remarked Judge Ho, a former clerk for Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court. According to him, there exists a distinction between a concrete case of corruption and the mere perception of it.
"The appearance issue holds significant importance," Ho emphasized, highlighting the crucial role of credibility in the judiciary. "It is vital for people to have faith in our work," he added. "The judiciary, just like any other human institution, is not flawless because none of us can claim to be perfect," he stated.
