• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
24,640
20,804
✟1,718,592.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's time for Congress to hold the USSC accountable for its apparent inability to hold justices accountable for their unethical behavior.

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.


For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

It appears Sen Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, may call for hearings based:


“The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards. Today’s Pro Publica report reveals that Justice Thomas has for years accepted luxury travel on private yachts and jets and a litany of other gifts that he failed to disclose. This behavior is simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a Justice on the Supreme Court.

“Today’s report demonstrates, yet again, that Supreme Court Justices must be held to an enforceable code of conduct, just like every other federal judge. The Pro Publica report is a call to action, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will act.”
 

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,759
7,407
North Carolina
✟339,048.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's time for Congress to hold the USSC accountable for its apparent inability to hold justices accountable for their unethical behavior.

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.


For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

It appears Sen Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, may call for hearings based:
“The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards. Today’s Pro Publica report reveals that Justice Thomas has for years accepted luxury travel on private yachts and jets and a litany of other gifts that he failed to disclose. This behavior is simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a Justice on the Supreme Court.
Is it wrong to have a good personal friend who is wealthy?
Are you to refuse the company of his friendship just because he is wealthy?

And how does that alter his interpretation of the Constitution and the Law of the land?
He is not a politician who can grant political favors.

And then there's the "business" of the family of the current president. . .
“Today’s report demonstrates, yet again, that Supreme Court Justices must be held to an enforceable code of conduct, just like every other federal judge. The Pro Publica report is a call to action, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will act.”
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Site Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
12,169
13,035
East Coast
✟1,019,780.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm curious. What is the issue that can get him in trouble, if any, the fact he accepted the gifts or the fact he didn't disclose them?

It's sketchy he didn't disclose them because it then appears he didn't want to give an account for why he would accept such lavish gifts over an extended period. And if he didn't want to give an account for why he accepted them, it makes one wonder if he was being influenced. But if he had disclosed them all along, would that have been a problem? Is there are law against Supreme Court justices receiving lavish gifts or is it just a bad look?

ETA: The fact he didn't disclose them is the legal problem, apparently. But it looks like he could have disclosed them without legal issue; it just would have the look of impropriety. Since he didn't disclose them, it looks even worse. Personally, I have no doubt the gifts are all about influencing him, but I imagine that could be hard to prove.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Innsmuthbride
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,428
10,015
48
UK
✟1,319,404.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Is it wrong to have a good personal friend who is wealthy?
Are you to refuse the company of his friendship just because he is wealthy?

And how does that alter his interpretation of the Constitution and the Law of the land?
He is not a politician who can grant political favors.

And then there's the "business" of the family of the current president. . .
He is a supreme court judge, he absolutely is in the position to grant political favours, in cases heard and judgements made.
 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Is it wrong to have a good personal friend who is wealthy?
There is nothing wrong with having rich friends. My father was a doctor and we had a nice house and a swimming pool open to our friends and neighbors. But in the real world, you are burning up a lot of fuel and it would be considered proper to help pay for some of that.


Musk lives off of his rich friends. He sold all of his property and just uses the homes of his rich friends.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,759
7,407
North Carolina
✟339,048.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm curious. What is the issue that can get him in trouble, if any, the fact he accepted the gifts or the fact he didn't disclose them?

It's sketchy he didn't disclose them because it then appears he didn't want to give an account for why he would accept such lavish gifts over an extended period. And if he didn't want to give an account for why he accepted them, it makes one wonder if he was being influenced. But if he had disclosed them all along, would that have been a problem? Is there are law against Supreme Court justices receiving lavish gifts or is it just a bad look?
I'm thinking there is no law requiring his disclosure.

And if so, his critics are holier than the law.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,759
7,407
North Carolina
✟339,048.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
He is a supreme court judge, he absolutely is in the position to grant political favours, in cases heard and judgements made.
The Supreme Court only interprets the law, the Legislature makes the law.
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,428
10,015
48
UK
✟1,319,404.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The Supreme Court only interprets the law, the Legislature makes the law.
And the interpretation of law is priceless, it can make companies billions, and win politicians elections.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Site Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
12,169
13,035
East Coast
✟1,019,780.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Is it a "lavish gift" if somone gives you a ride in their car?

You need to work on your analogy. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice and have no friends giving me a lift in their private jet for a vacation on their exclusive yacht.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟196,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Is it a "lavish gift" if somone gives you a ride in their car?
No, but 30 years of lavish gifts to a Supreme Court Judge is lavish. What is wrong about this is that these gifts were kept from public view.

One or two omissions would be - perhaps - careless. What has happened here is a pattern. He should, if he has any honour, resign.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,759
7,407
North Carolina
✟339,048.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And the interpretation of law is priceless, it can make companies billions, and win politicians elections.
"Intepretation" is grounded in text, and Thomas is not the sole judge making those calls.
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,428
10,015
48
UK
✟1,319,404.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
"Intepretation" is grounded in text, and Thomas is not the sole judge making those calls.
True, but would you be happy with a judge accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts, not declared? It is a terrible look.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Innsmuthbride
Upvote 0

Brihaha

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2021
2,691
2,986
Virginia
✟173,736.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Intepretation" is grounded in text, and Thomas is not the sole judge making those calls.
Ironically, Mr Thomas has been the lone dissenter often in SC rulings. 33 times he has been the lone dissenting justice. And 40 times he has authored the majority opinion in 5-4 decisions. It seems concerning and relevant that Mr Thomas refused to report these "gifts" over an extended period of years.


 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
True, but would you be happy with a judge accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts, not declared? It is a terrible look.
Can you find a judge somewhere, anywhere that does not accept hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of "gifts"? It is called the good old boys club and membership is very exclusive.
 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
You need to work on your analogy. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice and have no friends giving me a lift in their private jet for a vacation on their exclusive yacht.
So are you jealous they will not let you in their club? We should be looking at where the money came from and not how they are spending it. That is the real crime, where did they steal the money from that they can share so lavishly with others.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Site Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
12,169
13,035
East Coast
✟1,019,780.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So are you jealous they will not let you in their club? We should be looking at where the money came from and not how they are spending it. That is the real crime, where did they steal the money from that they can share so lavishly with others.

I think you've lost the script.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,759
7,407
North Carolina
✟339,048.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ironically, Mr Thomas has been the lone dissenter often in SC rulings. 33 times he has been the lone dissenting justice. And 40 times he has authored the majority opinion in 5-4 decisions. It seems concerning and relevant that Mr Thomas refused to report these "gifts" over an extended period of years.
And who chose him to author the majority opinion?

And how many times have others authored majority opinions?

Are you giving the full truth or a partial truth?
Only partial truth makes a lie of the whole truth.

Clarence Thomas alone does not make the calls for the Supreme Court, that is done by majority decision.
Do not see what his record has to do with his friendship. . .guilt by association?. . .why should a Supreme Court Justice, of all people, have to surrender his Constitutional right to assemble with whom he chooses?

Some Constitutional apprehension seems in order.
 
Upvote 0