No, I'm not proposing making him 'guest of honor' at a BBQ.
Justice Thomas is the most conservative member of the Supreme Court and probably its angriest, still feeling perceived slights from his '15-cent' Yale Law education and his rough confirmation hearing (where he reprises the Anita Hill testimony and re-trashes her--her rebuttal), to his belief that everybody thinks only his skin color got him where he is today. We thank him for his 16 years' service to the Nation, but I and many others think he should be spending more time with his family.
So I have a proposal to ease his way to an early retirement--a leveraged buy out.
(more below)
It had occurred to me last spring that perhaps one of the conservative members of the court might find a lawfully-structured, sufficiently large monetary award an inducement to retire after a long stint of serving as a respected member of our highest court. I couldn't really decide on a particular candidate to target, but was leaning toward Thurgood Marshall's inheritor in large part because of his well-known poverty-stricken youth.
Now, with the court back in session, and with the publication of his memoir, 'My Grandfather's Son' and concomitant interview on '60 Minutes', etc., his apparent anger and freewheeling lifestyle (touring Walmart parking lots in his RV motor home) convinces me that he is the proper focus and indeed ready for retirement. He has served now for 16 years without saying a word during arguments before the bench, and nobody would miss him.
I propose that collectively we raise $10 million, $25 million, $50 million or more as a lump sum pay out (more if taken as an annuity) to dangle in front of him if he retires between January 20, 2009 and the end of that year. The way I think it could work is if somebody progressive in the financial world set up a perverse mutual fund where the best possible outcome is the investor losing his entire stake. It would be be just like any other mutual fund except that the investor withdrawal penalty would be high until Thomas accepts ownership upon actual resignation, or until the end of 2009. This way the fund would remain in place and earn dividends, and in the event it did not succeed in its aim, the original investors could liquidate the fund and recapture their investment. I would gladly invest at least $1000 myself, but think that smaller investments should be considered if the expenses of mailings, etc. could be kept low enough.
It will fall to the constitutional lawyers among us to devise proper language to avoid the appearance of bribery. After all, we aren't trying to sway his opinion, only remove it.
I would appreciate any comments that could help make this modest proposal a reality. I don't mean this to be a joke.