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.

106 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Things can be done about it, but one party will never vote against one of their own

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Cancer research? Subsidized childcare in poor neighborhoods? Alma mater scholarship funding?

There’s a lot of apolitical fundraising.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Cool. This story is about a Supreme Court Justice though. It’s okay to keep focused on the issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

Clarence Thomas aside for one second…

How the hell did this article get past an editor’s desk without a single “Kochella” pun in it.

J. Jonah Jameson would have someone packing their desk for this. The headline writes itself.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Someone get me a picture of Spider Thomas at that event!

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Who’s fucking bright idea was lifetime appointments? This is absurd. An un-fireable public servant who is obviously corrupt and we all sit here like “wish we could do anything but the founding fathers…” What the fuck is this?

permalink
report
reply
-8 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

What the fuck is this?

Democracy. American-flavored. Yee-haw.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

My good sir, it seems you’ve penta-posted your comment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I really hope it was called Koch-chella

permalink
report
reply
8 points

One would think the violent right wing extremists would do something about this but I guess they’re too busy harassing Librarians. Or are they just masquerading as patriots?

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Harassing librarians is part of their patriot cosplay

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 453K

    Comments