Clarence Thomas spent time at the Koch Brothers' version of Coachella. Something tells us they weren't making each other flower crowns.
Clarence Thomas spent time at the Koch Brothers' version of Coachella. Something tells us they weren't making each other flower crowns.
A ProPublica report uncovered that Supreme Court Clarence Thomas made an undisclosed trip in 2018 to Coachella Valley for an event backed by the Koch brothers.
Do you think Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas listens to Beyoncé?
Maybe? Either way, in 2018, the controversial judge flew into California's Coachella Valley for one of the snazziest events of the year. Unlike other influencers who make their way to Coachella, however, Thomas didn't post about it on Instagram — or his financial disclosure forms.
Of course, the event Thomas went to had nothing to do with the beloved music festival. Still, a new investigation from ProPublica uncovered his recent participation in a fundraiser hosted by the Koch brothers in the same desert valley in Southern California. (Oddly enough, the actual Coachella also has Koch connections.)
Per the publication, a network of nonprofits handled by Charles Koch, an influential conservative, hosts its largest fundraiser in the Coachella Valley every winter. There, hundreds of donors fly in with cash in hand for a jam-packed weekend with their pals.
You're viewing a single thread.
NO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SHOULD BE HOSTIG OR SPEAKING AT ANY FUNDRAISER PERIOD. by doing so should call for immediate removal from their position.
But guess they can as corrupt as they like and nothing can be done to them.
This mother fucker is stripping our rights away and in October going see a case that going strip us of our ability to fight against financially Institutions. Which by they if they vote to strip it will also destroy social security and medicare.
Things can be done about it, but one party will never vote against one of their own
And the other party will fret and hand-wring while passing non-binding resolutions and writing sternly worded letters.
We've had right wing congresspeople openly call for revolution and allude to violence. We have no voices from the left with the balls or the platform to say what needs to be done with Thomas and his ilk.
He's corrupt to the core, string him up along with his billionaire owner and review every case he's decided.
good cop bad cop.
no. i do not mean both sides are the same. one side wants the status quo to remain but isn't taking seriously the fact that their bad cop partner is going to take them both down. maybe because they're all as fucking old as possible.
i am not sure i'm comfortable with expressing a desire to string anyone up but i agree that when WEAREALLDOMESTICTERRORISTS isn't a statement that grinds this whole shitshow to a halt and we examine wtf is going on in the US ... then wtf are people doing?
I don't think it's good cop/bad cop. It's all bad cop. They forgot why they became cops. To help people. And they help no one.
of course GC/BC is a metaphor. ACAB. and they aren't elected to help us but to represent us. they fail, but like i said, one side is rushing to put everything to an end and the other is at least making a poor showing of keeping up the pretense.
Well, they shouldn’t be getting paid for it (or accept “accommodations”)
But I wouldn’t mind if they flacked for something relatively inoffensive at fundraisers.
Oh yeah? What about _______?
Cancer research? Subsidized childcare in poor neighborhoods? Alma mater scholarship funding?
There's a lot of apolitical fundraising.
Irrelevant. Any one of those organizations can still find themselves needing to defend their position in court. Just because it's not a political issue doesn't change the presence of bias.
So could any restaurant chain. Are they not allowed to eat out? Or shop at stores? Or have a favorite sports team?
There's a point where it becomes unreasonable to ask them to stay neutral and detached. Especially as they can always recuse themselves.
Edit:typo
Edit 2: there's also a major difference between political decisions and any other matter that comes before the court. The Supreme Court is tasked with overseeing a number of government cases. That's a primary responsibility. They need to be apolitical in order to handle that aspect of their work--or they would need to recuse themselves constantly.
But they are still people. They can still have preferences. They can still do good in the world beyond their jobs.
Recusing from the rare overlap of a particular cause is reasonable. Recusing for political bias is not.
Apolitical fundraising is fine.
Edit 3: I'd appreciate hearing an actual argument here instead of just down voting. Without that it seems like people just don't like a different point of view
Edit 3: I'd appreciate hearing an actual argument here instead of just down voting. Without that it seems like people just don't like a different point of view
Permanently Deleted
Cool. This story is about a Supreme Court Justice though. It's okay to keep focused on the issue.