This is Part 1 of a Pulitzer-winning ongoing series exploring the financial scandal surrounding the Supreme Court.
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.
The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Archive link: https://archive.ph/YeVOT
- Part 2: Harlan Crow Bought Property from Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.
- Part 3: Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.
- Part 4: Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court
- Part 5: Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel
- Part 6: Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events
As a non-american, everything I’ve ever heard about the supreme court sounds completely absurd.
How does it differ from the systems in your country (or other countries in general?)
Less politically polarised (though that is partly due to multiple parties instead of a two-party system) and mandatory and reasonable retirement age instead of appointment for life ensures a somewhat more frequent refreshing of the court. I don’t think anyone currently appointed has served longer than 14 years.