A ProPublica report uncovered that Supreme Court Clarence Thomas made an undisclosed trip in 2018 to Coachella Valley for an event backed by the Koch brothers.

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.

  • @Thehalfjew
    3•1 year ago

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

    There’s a lot of apolitical fundraising.

    • @[email protected]
      9•1 year ago

      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.

      • @Thehalfjew
        -7•1 year ago

        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