The Supreme Court: RIP Literally Everything

It’s Thomas, again

On Jan. 25, 2018, dozens of private jets descended on Palm Springs International Airport. Some of the richest people in the country were arriving for the annual winter donor summit of the Koch network, the political organization founded by libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch. A long weekend of strategizing, relaxation in the California sun and high-dollar fundraising lay ahead.

Just after 6 p.m., a Gulfstream G200 jet touched down on the tarmac. One of the Koch network’s most powerful allies was on board: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

During the summit, the justice went to a private dinner for the network’s donors. Thomas has attended Koch donor events at least twice over the years, according to interviews with three former network employees and one major donor. The justice was brought in to speak, staffers said, in the hopes that such access would encourage donors to continue giving.

That puts Thomas in the extraordinary position of having served as a fundraising draw for a network that has brought cases before the Supreme Court, including one of the most closely watched of the upcoming term.

A spokesperson for the Koch network, formally known as Stand Together, did not answer detailed questions about his role at the Palm Springs events but said, “Thomas wasn’t present for fundraising conversations.”

“The idea that attending a couple events to promote a book or give dinner remarks, as all the justices do, could somehow be undue influence just doesn’t hold water,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

To score an invite to the summit, donors typically have to give at least $100,000 a year. Those who give in the millions receive special treatment, including dinners with Charles Koch and high-profile guests. Doling out access to powerful public officials was seen as a potent fundraising strategy, former staffers said. The dinners’ purpose was “giving donors access and giving them a reason to come or to continue to come in the future,” a former Koch network executive told ProPublica.

Thomas has attended at least one of the dinners for top-tier donors, according to a donor who attended and a former high-level network staffer.

“These donors found it fascinating,” said another former senior employee, recounting a Thomas appearance at one summit where the justice discussed his judicial philosophy. “Donors want to feel special. They want to feel on the inside.”

A former fundraising staffer for the Koch network said the organization’s relationship with Thomas was considered a valuable asset: “Offering a high-level donor the experience of meeting with someone like that — that’s huge.”

Thomas’ appearances were arranged with the help of Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society leader, according to the former senior network employee. “Leonard was the conduit who would get him,” the former employee said. During one summit, Thomas gave a talk with Leo in an interview format, the donor recalled.

On the Thursday before the January 2018 summit in Palm Springs, Thomas flew there on a chartered private jet, according to records reviewed by ProPublica. Four days later, the plane flew to an airport outside Denver, where Thomas appeared at a ceremony honoring his former clerk, federal Judge Allison Eid. The next day, it flew back to northern Virginia where Thomas lives.

Thomas’ financial disclosure for that year contains two speaking engagements: one in New York City and another at a Federalist Society conference in Texas. His trip to the Koch event in California is not on the form.

During the event, the group announced a new initiative focused on getting conservatives on the Supreme Court and the federal bench.

3 Likes

IMG_0192

8 Likes

There’s something darkly comic about the absurd “ethics” rules the Supreme Court has. You can go to a Koch fundraising event where they are raising money to create a conservative majority, give a speech about your conservative judicial philosophy and presumptively what would happen if even more conservative justices were on the court, and then walk out the room, have the donors give money to the event, then walk right back in and it’s kosher. But if you’re in the room it’s a breach of ethics.

1 Like

Doesn’t matter appointed for life

White privilege.

If Tarantino didn’t model Sam Jackson’s character in Django after Thomas, what an amazing coincidence. The resemblance is uncanny.

1 Like

False equivalence considering who gets to name each of those replacements.

If Breyer had been caught with a whole bunch of gold bars in his house in 2017, I don’t think the calls for resignation would have been as strong from Democrats as they have been for Menendez in 2023.

2 Likes

Fair

I just like a guy is named Leonard Leo.

I don’t know, Democrats got rid of Al Franken pretty fast on pretty scant evidence.

1 Like

Who was immediately replaced by another Democrat.

That’s my point. It doesn’t cost anything for Democrats to nuke this guy.

1 Like

You don’t think they can lose a special election? The 2021 governor race only went D+3.

Keeping Al Franken on board would undermine the Dems legitimacy on women’s issues. They can’t call themselves the party that’s pro-women’s rights and then give out hall passes when stuff like this happens.

image

1 Like

People say this, but the party differences are stark enough that I doubt 10 Franken’s could compare to like Dobbs, which is real and tangible. I think people pushing those kinds of narratives are either confused or, more likely, the opposition. I blame Franken for being a bit of a wimp.

Let’s not forget that this was the final straw that led to calls for his resignation.

“He was between me and the door, and he was coming at me to kiss me. It was very quick, and I think my brain had to work really hard to be like ‘Wait, what is happening?’ But I knew whatever was happening was not right, and I ducked,” the former aide said in an interview. “I was really startled by it, and I just sort of booked it towards the door, and he said, ‘It’s my right as an entertainer.’”

I’m sorry but it’s absurd. Women are the most important constituency the Dems have, selling them out for a bag of magic beans is ludicrous. And what do you tell voters after Dobbs? “We didn’t actually mean any of that #MeToo bullshit, but trust us, we def got your back on abortion?”

2 Likes

But muh Calvinball!!!

1 Like

As the law professor Steve Vladeck documents in his book The Shadow Docket, the justices spent decades lobbying for the right to choose how much work they do, and Congress has largely acquiesced, passing a series of laws relieving the Court of its duties to hear certain types of cases. Today’s Court enjoys near-total control over its docket, which is also shrinking at an alarming rate. In the mid-1990s, it wasn’t uncommon for the Court to hear oral argument in 100+ cases in a term. Last term, it heard 58, and as Vladeck observed, it has scheduled seven cases for oral argument over the first twelve slots this fall. The Court does not take cases “as they come”; it takes only the cases it wants to hear, and stuffs the rest in the garbage.

This is not to suggest that justices have an equal say in the process. Five votes are necessary to win a case, but only four are necessary to put it on the calendar. In an era of a conservative supermajority, this difference matters, because that supermajority can endure two defections and still get all the cases it wants. As a result, reactionaries have a near-total monopoly on the Court’s time, and there is basically no room for cases that could push the law to the left, even if a majority for some reason wanted to do so. In almost every opinion the Court hands down, the best-case scenario for conservatives is a grand reimagining of the law in the graven image of John Birch. For liberals, it’s a tepid (and perhaps fragile) affirmation of the status quo, over a furious Clarence Thomas dissent that doubles as a helpful roadmap for how Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers can structure the next vehicle to get a different result.

Because conservatives worship at the altar of originalism only when doing so is politically expedient, I usually don’t care much for appeals to What The Framers Would Have Wanted. That said, it is hard to overstate how alarmed the Framers who’d just escaped a tyrannical, out-of-touch, unaccountable monarchy would be if they’d known that every year, we’d be waiting on pins and needles for nine life-tenured god-emperors to issue the final, unimpeachable word on what the law is.

4 Likes

How will scotus rule on the Texas and Florida Republican laws about social media and the need to clearly explain every moderation action taken to every user?