 Billionaire Republican mega donor Harlan Crow for decades now has treated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny to luxury trips around the world on his super yacht, on his private jets, he's let him stay at his ranch in Texas and resorts, and each one of these trips would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if the Thomas' paid themselves. But the thing is, the Thomas' did not pay for these trips. These were gifts from a billionaire to a United States Supreme Court Justice, none of which were ever disclosed, despite them being a massive conflict of interest. As ProPublica reports, the extent and frequency of Crow's apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the US Supreme Court. These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas' financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress, and federal officials to disclose most gifts to ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said. Thomas' approach to ethics has already attracted public attention. Last year, Thomas didn't recuse himself from cases that touched on the involvement of his wife Ginny in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, while his decision generated outcry, it could not be appealed. Now, just to put in perspective how bad this is, members of Congress aren't even allowed to accept gifts worth more than $50, and if some sort of an individual or organization wanted to sponsor a trip for them, they'd have to literally get an ethics committee to approve of that first before taking it. But when it comes to the Supreme Court, for some reason, justices don't have the same restrictions on gifts. But they should generally avoid taking gifts since the Supreme Court's code of conduct says that they should try to avoid the, I guess, the appearance of improprieties, I think, the specific wording. So it's kind of optional, right? But if they don't care about the optics, they can choose to accept those gifts as Clarence Thomas did. The thing is that he is still obligated to disclose that he took these gifts. But Clarence Thomas did not do that. And he's been refusing to do this now for decades. And it's not like Crow and Thomas knew each other before he became a Supreme Court Justice. This so-called friendship was cultivated after Thomas got a spot on the highest court in the United States of America. And Crow isn't some apolitical billionaire who got lucky and won the lottery. He spends lots of money to influence policy because he wants his industry, the real estate industry, to do well. And this is likely one way that he's trying to do influence peddling. The article continues, Crow met Thomas after he became a Justice. The pair have become genuine friends according to people who knew both men. Over the years, some details of Crow's relationship with the Thomasists have emerged. In 2011, The New York Times reported on Crow's generosity toward the Justice. That same year, Politico revealed that Crow had given half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Jenny Thomas, which also paid her a $120,000 a year salary. But the full skill of Crow's benefactions has never been revealed. Long an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics, Crow has spent millions on ideological efforts to shape the law and the judiciary. Crow and his firm have not had a case before the Supreme Court since Thomas has joined it, though the court periodically hears major cases that directly impact the real estate industry. The details of his discussions with Thomas over the years remain unknown, and it is unclear if Crow has had any influence on the Justices views. Yeah. Listen, I really shouldn't have to say this because it's so obvious. But billionaires don't just suddenly become friends with Supreme Court Justices because they have similar interests and their friendship was sparked by this organic conversation one day that they had at a bus stop. Are we children here? Are we stupid? Use your common sense, people. The goal here is to influence decisions that benefit his industry, even if it is only implicit. Now, Crow responded to this article saying that they never sought to influence Thomas on any legal or political issue. But the problem is, regardless of what his intent is, which we know his intent, but regardless, the nature of his friendship is indeed influencing Clarice Thomas because Clarice Thomas, like all of us, is a human being. He's not uniquely immune to bribery. Like if somebody does something nice for him, that is going to be on his mind. Do you honestly believe that after this real estate mogul spent millions of dollars spoiling Clarice Thomas and his wife over the course of decades that Clarice Thomas has never considered how a particular Supreme Court decision would impact his friend, monetarily speaking? I mean, if you believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you. It's no coincidence that this is one of the most corporate friendly courts in American history. So this is just phrase and corruption, and action needs to be taken. Now, thankfully, as a result of the story, calls for Thomas's impeachment have been renewed, and Dick Durbin, who is the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is saying that he's going to take action. But let's get to some specific responses from members of Congress, because I think that they put it best. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote, This is beyond party or partisanship. This degree of corruption is shocking, almost cartoonish. Thomas must be impeached, barring some dramatic change. This is what the Roberts Court will be known for, rank corruption, erosion of democracy, and the stripping of human rights. And she's exactly correct about that. Representative Summer Lee echoed the same sentiment, writing, This cannot be about politics. There must be bipartisan action for accountability. Our commitment to democracy and our judicial integrity must be bigger than any party's hunger for power. It's time to vote on impeachment. And finally, Ilhan Omar writes, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Clarence Thomas needs to be impeached. And I obviously agree. It's just that I have so little confidence in our government that I don't expect to see any accountability despite what Dick Durbin says. And even as brazen as Thomas is, like you can be even more brazen than that. And I still don't expect anything to come of this. I mean, the reason why our government officials and our judges have become so openly corrupt is because they know that there's nothing anyone will do about it. They can get away with it. That's why they do it. So I mean, I hope that Dick Durbin does fall out there and takes action. But until real concrete measures are actually taken to rein in this level of corruption, it's only going to get worse. And the fact that you and myself, none of us are surprised by this story really demonstrates how bad it's gotten. But as desensitized as we've all become, we shouldn't let this stand even though it is normalized. We shouldn't tolerate this because this is completely unacceptable and this is how democracies die, where corruption becomes so common that people don't even blink at it. They just see it as a normal thing that occurs in our political system, but this shouldn't be normal. And the fact that it's normal tells us that we haven't done enough to save our country and save democracy. It has to be litigated. It needs to lead to impeachment. But again, I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.