Steven Calabresi is a Professor of Law at Northwestern University and the co-chairman of the Federalist Society. He is also the author of a defense of Clarence Thomas which is so full-throatedly over the top that it is close to parody (https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/22/clarence-thomas-the-best-and-most-incorruptible-supreme-court-justice-in-u-s-history/). In it, Calabresi calls Thomas "the very best justice out of 116 to have ever served on the U.S. Supreme Court" and concurs with another admirer that he is "a genius," and an "incorruptible" one at that.
Calabresi excuses Thomas' acceptance of gifts from billionaires and others on the relatively "low" pay of the Supreme Court Justices. It is Congress' fault that Thomas HAS TO accept a rent-free home for his mother, tuition for his grandnephew at expensive private schools, yacht vacations, and trips to luxury resorts.
The salary of a Supreme Court Justice is $285,400. That puts Thomas well above the top 10% of earners at $167,639 and much closer to the top 5% at $335,891. And that's not counting the income Ginni Thomas makes, which is probably over $100,000 annually, given previous reports about her earnings (more than $686,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 until 2007). Why this paragon of legal virtue and intelligence couldn't figure out how to fill out an annual finance disclosure form correctly in 32 years on the bench is not addressed.
I don't know but this sounds to me like the brainwashed soldiers captured with Raymond Shaw in The Manchurian Candidate who, when asked, automatically say, "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life." For Professor Calabresi, Clarence Thomas is "the best and most incorruptible Supreme Court Justice in U.S. History."
Somehow, I think if this were testified to in court, a decent lawyer would object, "Facts not in evidence, Your Honor."