GLOBALIST: Supreme Court justice caught vacationing 38 times with billionaires

GLOBALIST: Supreme Court justice caught vacationing 38 times with billionaires

How many times does a Supreme Court Justice have to be caught vacationing with billionaires and failing to disclose the trips before he gets impeached?

Clarence Thomas is working hard to find out the exact number, but it is at least 38 so far, according to new reporting.

Ah, thinking back to those innocent days when we thought Justice Thomas’s illegal gifts were limited to yachting the South Pacific with Harlan Crow, how naive we were…

Today, Pro Publica brings us a new research report that found that Thomas received private jet flights, helicopter flights, yacht trips, and expensive tickets from three other billionaires.

There is one particularly concerning thing about the “new three.” None of them knew Thomas prior to him becoming a SCOTUS justice.

Very transactional, or so it appears.

Along with Harlan Crow’s already reported largesse, Justice Thomas received gifts from former Miami Dolphins owner Wayne Huizenga, investor David Sokol, and oil tycoon Paul “Tony” Novelly.

As is his pattern, Thomas did not report the gifts from any of the three. It is almost like he thinks it doesn’t matter at all. But it does. These are extremely rich men who only invest in something that brings returns. According to Pro Publica’s report:

At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.


It must be really fun to be a Supreme Court Justice wholly unburdened with any sense of shame or morality.

This is especially true when considering the fact that Pro Publica goes out of its way to emphasize that its incredible work in digging up the above is surely an undercount. 

Yes, that means there’s more. But because Justice Thomas never reports any of this largesse, we can’t know how much more.

I am not making an accusation, and I am certainly not reporting any facts.

But I think it’s fair to note that if these gentlemen are willing to wine and dine Thomas at this level, it is not beyond consideration that Thomas could say off-handedly that it’s very difficult living in or near Washington DC on just $285,400 (Thomas’s salary) and being handed a paper bag with $60,000 in cash in it.

There is ZERO proof, but someone willing to take all these trips, and tickets, and sell the property to Harlan Crow may not be above accepting that bag or even asking.

Indeed, at one point in his career, Thomas did say that his job on the Supreme Court was not worth doing, considering the measly salary. Business Insider reports:

“The job is not worth doing for what they pay,” Thomas said during a speech in 2001, The New York Post reported at the time. “The job is not worth doing for the grief. But it is worth doing for the principle.”

Of course, in 2001, Thomas was only making $178,300, so it does seem as though Congress responded to Thomas’s lament.

Given the statement, we might ask Justice Thomas to define the “principle” he referenced.

The pattern, of course, represents a massive deviation from judicial norms and expectations. Pro Publica reports that Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who served for years on the judicial committee that reviews judges’ financial disclosures, states:

“In my career I don’t remember ever seeing this degree of largesse given to anybody, I think it is unprecedented.”

Well, let’s all say it together. One would certainly hope!

If it is not unprecedented, then Thomas is simply repeating a pattern set by other justices

Former Justice Scalia did die in his sleep at a luxury hunting lodge in Texas, though I’m not making any accusation of impropriety because I have no proof whatsoever, just an observation.

Let’s just say that we hope this is unprecedented.

As for “hope” that Congress can regulate the Supreme Court’s ethical obligations to report their conflicts, there wouldn’t seem to be much hope.

We have already heard Justice Alito say that Congress doesn’t have the Constitutional right to regulate the Court.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts declined to even speak to Congress due to cross-branch concerns, which would seem to be two “No” votes.

Justice Kagan did rebut Alito’s categorical statement.

That’s one yes.

She wouldn’t even accept a bagel platter from her alma mater.

We know how Thomas would vote.

Starting off three-to-one is tough stuff.

Especially when you have Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the Court…

Seems like one may be starting at three and a half to one.

Does anyone else find it odd that it is the conservative justices that are fighting Congressional oversight?

This column is based on fantastic reporting by Brett Murphy and Alex Mierjeski at Pro Publica.

I can be reached at and on Twitter at @JasonMiciak

Editor’s note: This is an opinion column that solely reflects the opinions of the author.

Jason Miciak

Jason Miciak is an associate editor and opinion writer for Occupy Democrats. He's a Canadian-American who grew up in the Pacific Northwest. He is a trained attorney, but for the last five years, he's devoted his time to writing political news and analysis. He enjoys life on the Gulf Coast as a single dad to a 15-year-old daughter. Hobbies include flower pots, cooking, and doing what his daughter tells him they're doing. Sign up to get all of my posts by email right here: