That all sounds great in theory but.. waves hands at Clarence Thomas

Indeed. It's already the case Clarence Thomas's way of life may depend on whether or not he rules the way certain friends and acquaintances want.

His job is safe, but much of his salary--no, not quite the right word--much of his overall reward is dependent on what powerful friends want him to do.

Ultimately, people don't care about keeping their job--who the hell likes their job?--people want to keep their compensation, and for the US Supreme Court, their compensation can easily be controlled by powerful third parties.

Approximately half the country loves Thomas, and agrees with him. The fact that the perspective of each member of the Court is effectively frozen in time when they are appointed is intentional.

I don't know where you get 'half the country loves/agrees with him', other than the (incorrect) assumption that the population of the country is divided 50/50 along party lines (no Republican president has won the popular vote since 2004, and only once since 1992)

Clarence Thomas is notably the least loved justice in a historically hated court

https://thehill.com/homenews/4019788-poll-thomas-has-highest...

What is the “popular vote?” You mean adding up the state-by-state votes which is a number nobody is trying to win?

And if we are talking about numbers that don’t matter, republicans won the Congressional popular vote four of the last seven times (by three million votes in 2022) and are on pace to in it again.

You can also look at the generic congressional ballot polling, where republicans regularly are ahead.

Yeah, that's fair. For most elections 'not voting' would be the plurality, especially in off year elections.

Well, kind of fair, with that caveat that this means even less Americans are likely to agree with Clarence or this ruling.

Don’t make assumptions about what non-voters prefer. Lower propensity voters lean right these days: https://hbstrategies.us/trumps-non-voters/ (“Within this lower propensity segment, the respondents favor Trump over Biden by 12 percentage points, 50-38%. The unit would prefer a Republican Congress by a 50-41% margin, and Republicans would enjoy the five point identification advantage.”).

That's why I said "approximately".

I'd say Thomas is to the right about what Ginsberg was to the left - the favorite of the core of their respective parties.

He's taken a suspicious quantity of "gifts", you can look it up.

My apologies, but I decline to argue this point. Whether Thomas (or any other Justice) is a good person or correct in their rulings isn't germane to the point I'm making.

Of all the currently-service Justices, the only one who has deviated from the perspective of the President who appointed them would probably be Roberts - and that statement is mostly based on a single ruling. It's not like he's well-loved by the left.

I was responding to a comment saying that lifetime appointments prevent bribery. Justice Thomas is proving the theory wrong.

Why should I believe his decisions are about principle when money is changing hands?

Ah, I agree with you there. I see no way lifetime appointments change the incentives around bribery.

That sounds like an impeachment issue to me.

So, Thomas's perspective comes from an era when bribery and collusion with monied interests were accepted and normal?

The recent controversy around Thomas's behavior did not spring up because his opinions on governance date back to his appointment, but because--to the outside observer--it looks like he is perfectly comfortable with selling his opinion to the highest bidder. Lifetime appointments are supposed to keep judges aloof from external influences, but it seems like that logic failed in this case.

Federal justices still have lifetime appointments - and what the OP is describing wouldn’t change that.