CLARENCE THOMAS AND WIFE GINNY ENJOYED 38 OTHER UNREPORTED FREE VACATIONS
You don’t have to be a political news junkie to have heard about a lot of questions regarding he impartiality of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. If nothing else, you’ve heard about how he had taken a few vacations that were entirely paid by, and in some cases hosted by, a billionaire friend. Not to mention being privately ferried by said billionaire’s personal private jet, to boot. Thomas has made some effort to amend or update his reports to include those lavish elite vacations, which is the least he could do. But now, it seems that there are 38 other unreported billionaire gifted vacations for us, the United States Congress, and President Biden to consider.
Read More: Facial Recognition Error Gets Black Pregnant Woman Arrested, Charged in Detroit
BILLIONAIRE FRIENDS OFFER LAVISH, EXCLUSIVE VACATIONS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FOR DECADES
But if you don’t think that this is important news, maybe consider how this could apply to you in context, even if you aren’t a judge (and then a judge on the country’s highest court). If you are 60 years old, and you enjoyed one of these vacations each of the last consecutive years, that would mean that you have been on an elite vacation every year since you were 22 years old. And no, you can’t be Tom Cruise, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Soros or any other billionaire to make this consideration. Because there are maybe a few hundred folks in the world who enjoy this kind of lavish lifestyle perks.
Related:
You’ll Get a Harsher Sentence if the Judge’s Football Team Loses
WITH GIFT VACATIONS LIKE THESE, WHO NEEDS IMPARTIALITY WITH ONLY ONE PARTY’S OVERSIGHT?
But a United States Supreme Court Justice like Clarence Thomas (and, well, his rightwing activist wife, Ginny)? This doesn’t pass the smell test for a District Attorney in a small, mid-size city, never mind the highest court in the land. But this is real, and that reality isn’t going away. And that’s a problem until we have some idea of resolution, contrite apology and a full accounting of how many cases Thomas has ruled on without recusal that may apply. And let’s also be real here; this isn’t likely at all, in either case (pun intended). This latest bombshell report comes from ProPublica.
