Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (2014) s11e01 Episode Script
Supreme Court
1
Welcome to "Last Week Tonight!"
I'm John Oliver!
Thank you so much for joining us.
We are back!
And we have missed a lot
in the last two months,
from Ron DeSantis
ending his campaign,
to Nikki Haley
losing the Nevada primary
to "none of these candidates".
But the story
I'm most sad to have missed
concerned the sudden mania
around a hole shaped like a rat
on a Chicago street,
or "rat hole" as it became known.
Which probably peaked
with this.
You knew it was inevitable,
a Chicago rat hole wedding.
Wedding bells on Saturday
at what's become Chicago's
hottest tourist attraction:
the Chicago rat hole.
Raj and his partner looked
at a lot of Chicago landmarks
for their wedding,
until nine days ago,
when he saw the story
of the Chicago rat hole.
We were viewing a lot
of different venues,
a lot of different
big monuments in Chicago,
and finally, we looked at each other
and we were like
"Let's get married
at the rat hole".
Yes!
Say what you will,
that marriage is gonna last forever.
Nothing says a relationship is solid
like waiting until nine fucking days
before your wedding to pick a venue,
then looking into each other's eyes
and both saying
"Let's get married at the rat hole".
That is true love right there.
The hole's emergence
as a tourist attraction
became a bit of a nuisance
for neighbors, though,
which may explain why, shortly
before that wedding, this happened.
At some point today or yesterday,
someone filled in Chicago's
most famous concrete attraction.
What were your feelings
when you came to the rat hole
and you saw it was filled in
with concrete?
I don't understand why everyone's
trying to block our good time.
Exactly! She's right. Let us enjoy
one thing. Just one thing!
Filling in the rat hole
is a grave injustice,
both figuratively
and literally.
I'd love to spend this entire episode
talking about rat holes.
God knows I've done it before.
But there's more to catch up on.
In Russia, Putin has been busy.
One of his most prominent critics,
Alexei Navalny,
died in a Siberian prison this week,
for reasons
any idiot can figure out.
Making it a bit awkward that last week,
noted idiot Tucker Carlson
sat down with Putin
for a fawning interview,
in which he failed
to meaningfully challenge him.
Tucker was so docile,
even Putin later made fun of him.
I thought he'd be aggressive,
asking these so-called sharp questions.
I wasn't simply ready for it,
I wanted it.
Because it would give me
a chance to respond equally sharply,
which, in my view, would give
specificity to our entire conversation.
But he chose a different tactic.
Frankly speaking, I didn't get
complete pleasure from this interview.
There's embarrassing,
and there's "getting roasted by Putin
for being a lap dog" embarrassing.
Also, why on Earth did he think
there'd be sharp questions?
If whoever prepped Putin for that
interview said anything other than
"You're about to talk
to the dumbest Brooks brother,
so feel free to take a nap,
they should be fired."
Meanwhile, in the Middle East,
Israel continued its assault on Gaza,
with over 28,000 Palestinians now dead,
most of them women and children.
This week saw attacks in Rafah,
the city that stands
as the last refuge for Gazan civilians.
And yet, the U.S. refuses
to curtail military aid to Israel,
instead offering tepid rebukes,
like Biden saying Israel's actions
are "over the top",
while the White House
leaks that privately,
the president's very upset.
Part of what the president is saying,
according to people who've heard him
make these comments,
is that Netanyahu is, quote,
"giving him hell",
that he's impossible
to deal with.
We're also told on three,
at least three instances,
the president referred to Netanyahu
as an A-hole.
Careful there, Joe.
What if Bibi hears you?
Nothing shames the guy comfortable
with bombing hospitals
and refugee camps
like knowing that 6,000 miles away,
an 81-year-old
is muttering PG-13 words
under his breath.
Next, Biden is going to whisper
"what a dick" into a seashell
and toss it into the ocean?
Biden has reportedly said much worse,
which American TV danced around,
but Arabic-language Al Jazeera
delivered the quote in full.
And we're not going
to translate this for you,
but you'll know the phrase
when you hear it.
…bad fucking guy.
Yeah!
Biden apparently called Netanyahu
"a bad fucking guy".
You should be allowed to say that about
Netanyahu uncensored on American TV.
Because I guarantee,
it's coming out the mouths of Gazans
and the families of the hostages
nonstop right now.
The president's likely opponent
in November has been taking a break
between court dates and accumulating
massive financial penalties
to offer his own plans
for international relations.
First saying that if NATO members
don't "pay their bills",
which isn't a thing,
he'd encourage Russia to
"do whatever the hell they want".
Then he suggested aid to Ukraine
should actually be a loan,
then got distracted, then distracted
again from his original distraction.
Why should you just
hand it over to 'em?
Do it as a form of a loan.
I do that with athletes,
like a professional golfer
who I think is very good,
they don't have any money,
but they have a lot of talent.
I'll say, here's the deal,
I did it with a number of people,
here's the deal, what I wanna do,
professional golfer, play golf,
I play very nice.
Did you see the picture of me
with the stomach out to here?
So what I do is, I'm putting up today
a picture of me, actually,
what I actually look like, hitting
a ball, smashing the fricking ball,
and you'll see, quite…
I wouldn't say slim.
I wouldn't say slim. But not bad.
But the ball does go far.
I would say it goes about nine times
further than Biden can hit it.
What? I haven't watched Trump
speak in so long,
I forgot how jam-packed
with nonsense every sentence is.
It's the little details,
like the way he suddenly yelled,
"hand! it over to them",
as if a ghost jabbed him
in the ribs mid-sentence.
I don't want to be overdramatic,
but the idea of watching clips of him
talking every week for the next year
makes me want to book a trip
on the next Titan submersible.
And I know no one watching this
needs a reminder
that we have a long,
grim election year ahead of us.
But keep in mind, it's only February.
We need to pace ourselves,
or we're going to get burned out,
and want to crawl into a small hole
and wait for it to be over.
Though I will say,
if that does happen,
I know a pretty good hole in Chicago
that's apparently available.
And now, this!
And now, Chuck Grassley
Celebrates His Favorite Holiday.
Unfortunately, this is a little bit
like the movie "Groundhog's Day".
Some days,
constituent correspondence
may seem like the movie
"Groundhog Day".
Immigration is becoming
the "Groundhog Day"
of the United States Senate.
So, it's kind of "Groundhog Day"
once again.
Yesterday,
we also had Groundhog's Day.
My first chart
is a depiction of Punxsutawney Phil.
In the past, I have compared
this constant repetition
to a film called "Groundhog Day"
starring Bill Murray,
where Bill Murray's character relives
the same day over and over again.
Next to me is this chart
from the movie "Groundhog Day".
"Groundhog Day" is also the title
of a famous film starring Bill Murray.
So, I have another picture for you
of Phil and Bill driving along.
Moving on.
Our main story tonight
concerns the courts,
the dignified palaces of justice
which, during Covid,
brought us
spectacular moments like this.
Mr. Ponton, I believe you have a filter
turned on in the video settings.
It is, and I don't know
how to remove it.
I've got my assistant here,
she's trying to,
but I'm prepared
to go forward with it.
I'm here live,
I'm not a cat.
Perfect. You know a hearing's off
to a shaky start
when a lawyer has to clarify
that he is "not a cat".
And I did not want him
to "un-cat" himself there.
I wanted that man
to spend the rest of the hearing
as a photo-realistic kitten looking
like he witnessed a double homicide.
We're going to talk
about the Supreme Court,
which is set to have
a monumental year.
Not only will it take on cases
concerning the availability
of Mifepristone,
and whether Trump's immune
from prosecution
for his role in January 6th,
it's also considering one case
centering on something
called "Chevron deference".
It sounds like the title of a spy novel
that you'd burn through at an airport,
but it's a vitally important
legal precedent
that says that when there is ambiguity
in the letter of a law,
courts should defer
to regulatory agencies' expertise.
Do you like it when the EPA
regulates pollution,
or the FDA regulates drugs?
Much of their ability to do that
comes from Chevron deference.
And if the court guts it,
it'll be much easier
for private industries
to block government regulation.
So, this is gonna be a huge year
for a court that has seldom been
more powerful.
And yet, respect for it
has seldom been lower.
The court's public approval rating
has dropped to a 50-year low,
with just 18%
expressing great confidence.
It's true.
And it's hard to think of anything
people have less confidence in
right now,
aside from maybe the window seats
in Boeing planes.
And there are understandable
reasons for that,
from the unpopular decision
overturning Roe v. Wade
to the fact that one-third
of the court was appointed,
sometimes under
dubious circumstances,
by a man who never won
the popular vote.
But the past year
has also introduced us to
a whole new reason
to question the court's integrity,
thanks to a steady drumbeat
of stories like these.
Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas
is facing new allegations he accepted
luxurious vacations and gifts
from wealthy individuals
and didn't properly disclose them.
Politico reported
Justice Neil Gorsuch
sold property he owned
to the head of a major law firm.
Justice Samuel Alito
defended himself
after he didn't report a luxury trip
to Alaska and a private jet flight.
The report details
that in July of that year,
they stayed at the King Salmon Lodge
and were served multi-course meals
of Alaskan king crab legs
or Kobe filet.
They also enjoyed wine
that cost $1,000 a bottle.
Alito denies he did anything wrong,
and specifically said
"If there was wine, it was certainly
not wine that costs $1,000".
Which I hope is true
for multiple reasons,
namely, that wine
should never cost $1,000
because wine
is not that good a drink.
Think about the words
people use to describe good wine.
Complex? That's just
a fancy word for confusing.
Earthy?
That's literally dirt flavor.
And smooth?
Your best compliment is that
it didn't fight you on the way down?
It's a bad drink!
But the cost of the wine,
which, again, should be zero,
isn't the point here.
Stories like those have further
undermined public trust in the court,
which is a big problem.
Because it's an institution
that relies on respect.
It can't enforce its own rulings.
And without public buy-in,
it could theoretically be ignored.
Chief Justice Roberts himself
recently wrote:
"Public trust is essential,
not incidental, to our function".
These scandals
are a huge issue for it.
Given that, we'd thought we'd look
at how deep this court's problems go,
and a possible solution
that might go one-ninth of the way
towards helping things get better.
And let's start
with a striking fact.
When it comes to what ethical rules
the court is required to follow,
there basically aren't any.
Congress can impeach a justice
in extreme scenarios,
but short of that, the court
essentially regulates itself.
And that has happened
in the past.
In the '60s, Justice Abe Fortas
was involved in a number of scandals,
including taking money
to advise a businessman
who wound up having
a case before the court.
But despite the fact that getting paid
for outside work was legal,
and that Fortas both returned the money
and recused himself from the case,
the mere appearance of impropriety
caused lawmakers of both parties
to call for his resignation.
He stepped down, saying that he was
doing so "for the good of the court".
And just a few weeks later,
the U.S. judicial conference
unveiled a new ethics policy
for federal judges.
With one tiny exception.
See if you can spot it.
The United States judicial,
judicial conference
today issued a code of ethics
which forbids all federal judges,
except Supreme Court justices,
from accepting fees, gifts,
or compensation of any kind
for off-bench activities.
The Supreme Court justices
were exempt.
That new rule solved every problem
except for the one they just had.
And there've been multiple tweaks
to the code of ethics over the years,
with the one constant being
that the Supreme Court justices
are not covered by it.
And even laws that apply to them
are basically unenforceable.
The argument is that because
they are the highest court in the land,
there's no one they can answer to.
Over the years,
the justices have noted that they
voluntarily follow certain rules.
They're required to report
any gifts worth more than $480.
That is how we learned
about Ruth Bader Ginsburg
receiving a $4,500 opera costume,
Ketanji Brown Jackson
receiving a floral arrangement
from Oprah worth $1,200,
and Antonin Scalia
receiving "two firearms
and $950 worth of dictionaries".
Which is slightly weirdly phrased.
Because "$950 worth of dictionaries"
could either mean one very luxurious
dictionary or 120 regular ones.
But while those gifts were disclosed,
others haven't been.
Scalia had a habit of not disclosing
trips that other people paid for,
and died while staying for free
at the hunting lodge
of a business executive
whose company had recently
had a case before the court.
And I bet that executive
was very glad he got the ruling
before that fun-sounding visit.
And as you've already seen,
some justices
have run with that precedent.
Remember Alito's fishing trip?
When it came to light,
he said that he didn't think
the rules required disclosing it,
and attempted to justify
the free private jet flight
with a laughable argument.
Alito explaining
that on that private jet flight,
he was in "what would otherwise
have been an unoccupied seat".
Come on!
Alito's considered one of the sharpest
conservative legal minds,
and that's the best he's got?
If you hadn't been in the seat,
it would've been empty, Samuel.
That's not so much
a defense of your behavior
as it is an explanation
of how seats work.
Also, it's a private jet.
All the seats are otherwise unoccupied.
They don't overbook them
like it's the 5:05 Spirit Airlines
flight from Myrtle Beach to Vegas.
And that feels ethically dicey,
even before you learn
that one of his hosts on that trip
was a hedge fund manager
whose companies have since
had 10 cases before the court.
And that's not a one-off.
For years, Neil Gorsuch
had been trying unsuccessfully
to sell a 40-acre piece of property
that he co-owned in Colorado.
But coincidentally, just
"nine days after he was confirmed",
he managed to sell it.
And while he did disclose
that sale,
he left the identity of the purchaser
blank on the form,
which isn't great,
'cause it turned out to be
"the chief executive of one
of the nation's biggest law firms",
which has since been involved
in at least 22 Supreme Court cases.
And if you're wondering
what that weird sound is right now,
I'm pretty sure
it's the ghost of Abe Fortas going:
"Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?"
But the biggest offender on the court
is unquestionably Clarence Thomas.
If you're unfamiliar with his work,
I envy you.
But very quickly,
he's an extreme originalist,
known for adopting
hard-right positions
years before other
justices come around to them,
from overturning gun laws,
to undermining the Voting Rights Act.
He's also questioned whether
poor people have a right to a lawyer,
saying the constitution only guarantees
you the right to hire a lawyer,
not to have one provided for you.
And he once said
that Black civil rights leaders
"bitch, bitch, bitch, moan and moan,
whine and whine".
And sure, why can't the people
fighting for basic equality
just have the chill,
good-time vibes
that we all associate
with Clarence fucking Thomas?
He's so fun to be around!
Ask almost any woman
who's ever worked for him!
For years, there have been stories
about Thomas accepting lavish gifts.
But things escalated recently with
a series of ProPublica investigations
revealing Thomas' relationship with
these four conservative billionaires.
The report says the four moguls
collectively treated Thomas
to 38 destination vacations,
26 private jet flights,
plus an additional
eight by helicopter,
a dozen VIP passes to professional
and college sporting events,
two stays at luxury resorts
in Florida and Jamaica,
and one standing invitation
to an uber-exclusive golf club,
the dollar value
likely in the millions.
Just one of those vacations
was a nine-day Indonesian
superyacht voyage that,
if he'd paid for it himself,
could have exceeded
over half a million dollars.
And the way ProPublica tracked down
some of those trips is pretty great.
The host of that Indonesian vacation,
and multiple others,
was Harlan Crow,
a billionaire who "has given millions
to efforts to move the law
and the judiciary to the right".
Crow liked to give out
commemorative polo shirts
for the trips
that he took people on.
ProPublica started looking at the shirts
Thomas was wearing in photos,
which helped them
uncover some of these trips.
Journalism is a crapshoot.
Sometimes, you spend weeks
hunting down leads,
painstakingly building a timeline.
Other times, your target just posts
a photo of himself on Facebook
wearing a T-shirt that says "Secret
Undeclared Yacht Vacation 2003"
and gives the whole game away.
Those reporters
also tracked down photos and cards
that Thomas' wife, Ginni, sent to
friends to commemorate their trips,
with fun captions like "Five couples
ready for river rafting!"
"The Sokols took four lucky couples
to the first Nebraska footbal",
misspelled, "game of the season",
and this photo of a Trump
administration attorney and his wife
captioned "Mark and Tricia Paoletta
sang a special tribute
to Clarence they created!"
And every single one of those photos
looks like it was on the mood board
for "Get Out".
But wait,
'cause I'm still not done!
They also found
this photorealistic painting
that Harlan Crow commissioned of one
of those vacations featuring him,
Thomas, Leonard Leo,
of the conservative Federalist Society,
and a statue
of a Native American man
seemingly praying for lightning
to strike this exact spot.
But if you're thinking that that is the
worst piece of art Harlan Crow owns,
you are mistaken.
Published reports say Dallas tycoon
Harlan Crow's controversial collection
includes Hitler's notorious
autobiography "Mein Kampf"
signed by Hitler,
oil paintings by Hitler,
and linen napkins
embroidered with the Nazi swastika.
The collection is housed
at Crow's mansion in Dallas.
"I can't get over the collection
of Nazi memorabilia",
said one guest,
who saw the Nazi treasure trove.
"You sort of just gasp
when you walk into the room".
Yeah, I bet you do!
Because that is a bit of a red flag!
Specifically, this red flag!
Crow says his controversial artifacts
are part of a collection meant
to "preserve a part of our history",
and "to understand
how we all got here".
And I'm guessing
his guests ask that exact question
when they see his signed copy
of "Mein Kampf" for the first time.
"How the fuck did I get here?"
Though, bad news for Harlan about
at least one of his Hitler paintings,
an expert has since deemed it
definitely not authentic.
Which I guess he probably should've
seen coming as it was signed
"A. Hitler" and not "The Hitler".
Crow's also repeatedly
flown Thomas out on his jet
for trips to the Bohemian Grove,
the California retreat
for the rich and powerful
where he and the Koch brothers
apparently developed a bond.
Here is Thomas with one
of them and Ken Burns,
for some fucking reason.
Thomas has also, incidentally,
"attended Koch donor events"
at least twice,
serving as "a fundraising draw"
for an organization that regularly
brings cases before the court.
His excuse
for not reporting any of this
was that he "sought guidance
from my colleagues and others,
and was advised that this sort
of personal hospitality
from close personal friends
was not reportable."
And while it is true
the judicial guidelines
have an exception
for personal hospitality,
experts will point out,
that means dinner at someone's house,
not a nine-day-all-
expenses-paid yacht trip.
A pretty good rule of thumb is,
if it could be a prize
on "The Price is Right",
it's not personal hospitality.
And Thomas has received
more than just hospitality anyway.
In 2014,
one of Harlan Crow's companies
bought a string of properties
in Savannah
including Thomas' childhood home
where his mother still lives.
Crow also reportedly
paid for two years of private school
for Thomas' grand-nephew,
who apparently Thomas
has raised as a son,
and which, based on the tuition rates
at the time,
amounted to roughly $100,000.
Neither of those
were disclosed at the time either.
And it gets pretty hard to square
the lavish vacations,
the real estate, the tuition,
with Thomas' insistence that he's an
iconoclastic voice for the little guy,
in appearances like this one
from two years ago,
where he thanked
the people who'd shown up
to support him
during his 1991 confirmation hearing.
The regular people showed up.
And it was always
us against the elites.
And that's the way
it has been
for the last 40-plus years
I've been in public life.
Us against the elites.
I get it!
So, the 38 destination vacations
were just part of your
"us versus the elites" plot, right?
Lull them into a false
sense of security,
then presumably,
on the 39th vacation,
vive la révolution!
I love it! What a plan!
But that sounds like horseshit
even before you see
that this is how that talk started.
I'm sure you and all of us
want to join Harlan…
thank Harlan Crow
and his family
for making this wonderful facility
available to us.
I know Harlan hates that.
I knew we had to…
That's why I wouldn't say it.
I'd like to keep that friendship.
I bet you would!
I'm sure friendship
is the thing that you like the most
about knowing Harlan Crow.
Not the lavish yacht trips,
or the private jet flights,
the simple human companionship
of an aging Nazi napkin collector.
But perhaps the item
that perfectly sums up
the distance between Thomas'
regular-guy persona
and his high-end tastes
is his motor home.
It is his prize possession.
He even showed it off during
his "60 Minutes" interview.
One of his passions
is this 40-foot-long motor home
that he and his wife use to explore
the United States in their downtime.
- Do you find this relaxing?
- Yeah!
It's away from the meanness
that you see in Washington,
and you get here
with just the regular folks.
And it's so pleasant.
I can see that. People in Washington
can be so mean, can't they?
I've heard some even make decisions
in landmark court cases
that loosen gun regulations,
limit affirmative action,
and strip women of their constitutional
right to an abortion,
so I get the impulse
to want to get outta town
to avoid those fucking sociopaths.
Thomas loves his motor
home so much,
he can be a bit of a snob
if asked inaccurately about it.
One of you enjoys
traveling cross-country
with your spouse
in a 40-foot RV.
- Who's that?
- That's technically incorrect.
- Is it not an RV?
- It is a motor coach.
- Is that bigger than an RV?
- It could be…
But it is a better vehicle
than an RV.
An RV is normally built
on a light truck chassis.
A motor coach is a tour bus.
I mean, it's old,
but it's really nice.
Honestly, if Thomas hadn't caused
so much human misery,
him liking big comfy trucks
that go vroom-vroom
would be genuinely charming.
Every man in his 70s
has picked a vehicle
that occupies way too much space
in his brain and heart.
Some like trains that go choo-choo.
Some like boats that go glub-glub.
And others love motor coaches,
based on a non-light-truck chassis.
I'm not saying these men love their
vehicles more than their families.
It's just, it's easier for them to say
"I prefer O scale trains
because historically,
that's what this country's finest model
trains have been since the 1800's,"
than "I'm proud of you, son".
But about that bus.
It is apparently
"the Rolls-Royce of motor coaches:
a custom Prevost Marathon",
or as Thomas himself once put it,
a "condo on wheels".
And if you're thinking
"That's a pretty big purchase
for a Supreme Court justice
to be able to afford" about that…
Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas
has been an RV evangelist
for decades,
traveling the country
in a 40-foot luxury motor coach
that he purchased in 1999
after borrowing more than
a quarter of a million dollars
from a wealthy friend.
But a new report from Democrats
on the Senate Finance Committee
alleges Thomas' friend
forgave a substantial amount
of that massive loan.
And nine years later,
his friend forgave all the debt.
That sounds like a sweet deal!
It's starting to feel like Thomas
doesn't so much have friends
as a collection of human ATMs.
And his wealthy friends
will say there is nothing to see here.
They're just doing for Clarence
what they would do for anyone else.
Harlan Crow
pulled that exact move.
In a statement, Harlan Crow,
the Dallas real estate billionaire
who picks up the tabs for the trips,
says he and Thomas
have been friends since 1996.
"The hospitality we have extended
to the Thomases over the years
is no different from the hospitality
we have extended
to our many other dear friends".
Okay, but it is different, though.
While you may have been friends
with Clarence Thomas for a long time,
you didn't start
being friends with him
until five years after he was made
a Supreme Court justice.
Each of his four major benefactors
appears to have first met Thomas
after he ascended
to the Supreme Court.
Which is inherently telling.
Even socially inept high schoolers
can figure that out.
If Brenna, Jackson, and Ashton
only start hanging out with you
after you get a job at Coldstone,
it's not about you,
it's about the free fucking scoops.
And thankfully, there is a way
for a justice to avoid the appearance
of impropriety, and that is recusal.
Any justice is required
to disqualify themselves
in any proceeding
where their impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.
But, as with everything else
you've seen tonight,
for the Supreme Court,
it's essentially just a suggestion.
The justices themselves decide
if they are able to be impartial,
and those decisions
cannot then be appealed.
Even when it comes to recusals,
Thomas is an outlier.
He almost never recuses,
even when he clearly should.
Take one recent case where he had
a flagrant conflict of interest,
albeit not a financial one.
Because the court recently
took up a number of appeals
involving cases
surrounding January 6th.
And as it happens, a major cheerleader
to overturn Biden's win
was Thomas' own wife, Ginni,
as her texts
to then-White House chief of staff
Mark Meadows show.
In one, Thomas writing, quote:
"Help this great president
stand firm, Mark!
Biden and the left is attempting
the greatest heist of our history".
And in another,
just days the 2020 election,
Thomas writing
"Do not concede".
On November 24th,
Meadows wrote Thomas:
"This is a fight
of good versus evil".
Thomas replied
"Thank you! Needed that!
This plus a conversation
with my best friend just now."
Ginni Thomas
looks exactly like a person
who would try to speak to the
manager about a presidential election.
But, despite that "conversation
with my best friend" line,
Ginni insists she never talked to her
husband about the election challenges.
Which is a bit weird,
because he says this a lot.
It's a particular honor
to be here with my wife, Virginia,
who is totally my best friend
in the world.
I love to spend time with my wife,
who's my best friend in the world.
I love being here
with my bride, Virginia,
who's a gift from God and
my best friend in the whole world.
Okay, first,
if Ginni is indeed "a gift from God",
I guess it's nice
that Clarence Thomas
got at least one gift from someone
who is not a billionaire.
But also, it'd seem
that either Ginni Thomas
was keeping her husband up to date
on her ongoing coup attempt,
or she's Clarence's best friend
but he isn't hers.
And that is rough. There's going to be
a lot of awkward silences
on their next motor coach trip.
But the fact is, a justice's wife
inserted herself into efforts
to overturn the last election.
Yet, in multiple cases
involving January 6th,
Thomas didn't recuse himself,
even in one concerning
whether White House files,
which could have contained
more of Ginni's texts,
had to be handed over
to the January 6th committee.
Thomas was the lone dissenter
saying that they should remain secret.
And if that is not
a conflict of interest,
I honestly don't know
what one is.
The fundamental corruption here
might be bigger than anything
one recusal could cover.
Because I'm not saying that Thomas
is only voting the way he is
because of the trips and the gifts.
His opinions were horrible
before he ever set foot on a yacht.
That doesn't mean those billionaires
haven't had a real impact on him.
Because, for years,
Thomas repeatedly talked about money.
In the 1980s, he told a reporter
he planned to be rich,
and said that means
"more than just a few
hundred thousand dollars a year".
But unfortunately for him,
that's exactly what being
a Supreme Court justice pays,
just under $300,000.
And he's been pretty vocal
about his dissatisfaction with that,
sometimes even publicly.
The job is not worth doing
for what they pay.
It's not worth doing
for the grief,
but it is worth doing
for the principle.
You sure about that?
'Cause your job is writing opinions
in a bathrobe and it pays six figures.
Most bloggers do that for free,
and they don't get to enjoy
seeing their worst takes
becoming everyone else's law.
It was right around that time,
in the early aughts,
that Thomas reportedly said to
a Republican member of Congress
that, unless it gave Supreme Court
justices a pay raise, quote,
"One or more will leave soon.
Maybe in the next year".
That set off alarm bells
in conservative quarters.
As that lawmaker Thomas
spoke to recalls it
"His importance as a conservative
was paramount.
We wanted to make sure
he felt comfortable in his job
and he was being paid properly."
Unfortunately, for Thomas,
justices' salaries haven't been raised
beyond inflation since then.
But it may not be a coincidence
that a handful of billionaires
have suddenly stepped in
to make sure that Thomas
was never anything less
than extremely comfortable.
And in recent years, he's seemed
much less worried about his paycheck.
Right now, what is the compensation
of a justice of the Supreme Court?
Goodness, I think it's plenty.
It's not quite where you are,
but it's…
I have no…
My wife and I are doing fine.
We don't live extravagantly,
but we are fine.
Here's a fun fact for you:
that was in early June of 2019.
Guess where he was
at the end of that month?
On Harlan Crow's
Indonesian yacht trip.
That is the comfortable laugh of a man
looking forward to a free trip
and, fingers crossed,
a free shirt to go with it.
Basically, what I'm suggesting is,
it's not that these billionaires have
paid Thomas to change his views.
It's that they like his views,
so they're paying for him not to leave.
Which is different, but not better.
And if that was their plan,
it has worked.
Thomas is at the heart of the new
conservative supermajority on the court
and has plans to go further.
In his concurrence in the Dobbs case,
he said the court should reconsider
previous erroneous rulings on sodomy,
birth control, and gay marriage.
And despite being known
for the consistency of his views,
there is one key issue
on which he's evolved.
Because remember that Chevron
deference that I mentioned earlier?
20 years ago,
Thomas wrote a majority opinion
that expanded
Chevron's protections.
But since then,
there's been a massive conservative
push to get rid of Chevron,
led by the Koch Organization,
you know, Clarence's vacation friends.
And a few years ago, Thomas
renounced his earlier decision,
writing that he'd determined that the
doctrine is unconstitutional after all.
What caused that change of heart?
I don't know.
Was it 15 years of marinating
in right-wing money, and vacationing
with businessmen who could massively
profit from it being overturned?
We can't say for sure. But we can
all think it together, can't we?
Ready? Let's do that. One, two, three,
yes, it's because of the money.
Shit, sorry, I thought it so hard
it came out of my mouth.
I know we focused a lot
on Clarence Thomas tonight,
but this story
isn't just about his integrity.
It's about the court's.
From the beginning, America,
like most countries,
was built on polite fictions,
by men who could somehow
hold in their heads
the idea that all men
were created equal,
at the same time that they were drawing
up the Three-Fifths Compromise.
And while we've shed
a lot of those fictions,
we still cling to the idea
of the Supreme Court
as a body separate
and apart from politics.
It retains a certain amount
of mystique and ceremony.
We put the justices on a pedestal,
and let them wear robes like wizards.
In their confirmation hearings,
they pretend to have no idea
how they'll rule on hot-button issues,
and we all have to pretend
to believe them
before we appoint them to a job
that they can hold until they die.
We don't treat them
like what they are, which is people,
who can be motivated by ideology
and greed, like anybody else.
But polite fictions can only be bent
so far before they break.
And right now, it feels like the
Supreme Court is at a breaking point.
And there are small ways to fix that,
from a real, enforceable ethics code,
to term limits, to even potentially
expanding the court.
And honestly, if it were up to me,
they'd also be dressed not in robes,
but as Walmart greeters,
to emphasize they're not magic,
they're humans, like everyone else.
But if we're not going to do
any of that,
if we're going to keep
the bar of accountability this low,
perhaps it's time
to exploit that low bar
the same way billionaires
have successfully done for decades.
And that finally brings us
to the solution that I mentioned
at the start of this piece.
Clarence Thomas is arguably the most
consequential justice on the court.
And he's never really
seemed to like the job.
He's said it's not worth doing
"for the grief".
So, what if he could keep the luxury
perks that he clearly enjoys,
without having to endure
all of that grief?
I think there might actually
be a way to do that.
Because, Justice Thomas, we have
a special offer for you tonight.
We are prepared to offer you
$1 million a year,
for the rest of your life,
if you simply agree
to leave the Supreme Court immediately
and never come back.
It is that simple.
Just sign this contract, resign,
and the money is all yours!
This is not a joke.
If you watch our show,
you know jokes aren't really our thing.
This is real. A million dollars a year,
until you or I die.
We have spoken to experts
who've all told us that,
best they can tell,
this is somehow legal.
Which seems crazy to me, 'cause
it really feels like it shouldn't be.
But as they keep pointing out,
there are no rules in place
to stop me from doing this.
And let me be clear, HBO is not
putting up the money for this.
I am personally on the hook.
You could make me really regret this!
I could be doing standup tours
to pay for your retirement for years.
But this offer is not forever.
You have 30 days from midnight tonight
to make your resignation effective.
And if you are still on the fence,
I have a little deal sweetener
that I'm excited to show you,
so please come with me.
Come this way!
We know you've got a lot
on your plate right now,
from stripping away women's rights,
to hearing January 6th cases
you definitely shouldn't be hearing,
to potentially helping roll back
decades of federal regulations.
And you deserve a break. Away
from the "meanness of Washington",
so you can be surrounded
by the "regular folks"
whose lives you've made
demonstrably worse for decades now.
And the good news is,
I think we can help you there.
Since your favorite mode of travel
might be in need of an upgrade,
we are excited to offer you…
This brand new, top-of-the-line
Prevost Marathon motor coach.
Look at this beauty, Clarence!
It's worth $2.4 million,
and it's got a full bedroom,
yes, that is a king bed,
one and a half baths,
a fucking fireplace, four TVs,
a washer-dryer,
and I quote,
a "residential-sized fridge".
And if you're thinking
"What will my friends say
if I take this offer?
Will they judge me,
as they sit in their boardrooms
and mega yachts and Hitler shrines?"
"Will they still treat me
to luxury vacations,
and sing songs about me
off their phones?"
That's the beauty of friendship,
Clarence.
If they're friends, they'll love you
no matter what your job is.
So, I guess, this might be
the perfect way to find out
who your real friends
actually are.
So, that's the offer,
a million dollars a year, Clarence,
and a brand-new
"condo on wheels".
All you have to do in return
is sign the contract
and get the fuck off the Supreme Court.
Talk it over with your totally
best friend in the whole world,
because the clock starts now!
30 days, Clarence!
Let's do this!
That's our show,
thank you so much for watching.
We'll see you next week,
good night!
How is this legal?
Your move, Clarence.
Your fucking move!
Welcome to "Last Week Tonight!"
I'm John Oliver!
Thank you so much for joining us.
We are back!
And we have missed a lot
in the last two months,
from Ron DeSantis
ending his campaign,
to Nikki Haley
losing the Nevada primary
to "none of these candidates".
But the story
I'm most sad to have missed
concerned the sudden mania
around a hole shaped like a rat
on a Chicago street,
or "rat hole" as it became known.
Which probably peaked
with this.
You knew it was inevitable,
a Chicago rat hole wedding.
Wedding bells on Saturday
at what's become Chicago's
hottest tourist attraction:
the Chicago rat hole.
Raj and his partner looked
at a lot of Chicago landmarks
for their wedding,
until nine days ago,
when he saw the story
of the Chicago rat hole.
We were viewing a lot
of different venues,
a lot of different
big monuments in Chicago,
and finally, we looked at each other
and we were like
"Let's get married
at the rat hole".
Yes!
Say what you will,
that marriage is gonna last forever.
Nothing says a relationship is solid
like waiting until nine fucking days
before your wedding to pick a venue,
then looking into each other's eyes
and both saying
"Let's get married at the rat hole".
That is true love right there.
The hole's emergence
as a tourist attraction
became a bit of a nuisance
for neighbors, though,
which may explain why, shortly
before that wedding, this happened.
At some point today or yesterday,
someone filled in Chicago's
most famous concrete attraction.
What were your feelings
when you came to the rat hole
and you saw it was filled in
with concrete?
I don't understand why everyone's
trying to block our good time.
Exactly! She's right. Let us enjoy
one thing. Just one thing!
Filling in the rat hole
is a grave injustice,
both figuratively
and literally.
I'd love to spend this entire episode
talking about rat holes.
God knows I've done it before.
But there's more to catch up on.
In Russia, Putin has been busy.
One of his most prominent critics,
Alexei Navalny,
died in a Siberian prison this week,
for reasons
any idiot can figure out.
Making it a bit awkward that last week,
noted idiot Tucker Carlson
sat down with Putin
for a fawning interview,
in which he failed
to meaningfully challenge him.
Tucker was so docile,
even Putin later made fun of him.
I thought he'd be aggressive,
asking these so-called sharp questions.
I wasn't simply ready for it,
I wanted it.
Because it would give me
a chance to respond equally sharply,
which, in my view, would give
specificity to our entire conversation.
But he chose a different tactic.
Frankly speaking, I didn't get
complete pleasure from this interview.
There's embarrassing,
and there's "getting roasted by Putin
for being a lap dog" embarrassing.
Also, why on Earth did he think
there'd be sharp questions?
If whoever prepped Putin for that
interview said anything other than
"You're about to talk
to the dumbest Brooks brother,
so feel free to take a nap,
they should be fired."
Meanwhile, in the Middle East,
Israel continued its assault on Gaza,
with over 28,000 Palestinians now dead,
most of them women and children.
This week saw attacks in Rafah,
the city that stands
as the last refuge for Gazan civilians.
And yet, the U.S. refuses
to curtail military aid to Israel,
instead offering tepid rebukes,
like Biden saying Israel's actions
are "over the top",
while the White House
leaks that privately,
the president's very upset.
Part of what the president is saying,
according to people who've heard him
make these comments,
is that Netanyahu is, quote,
"giving him hell",
that he's impossible
to deal with.
We're also told on three,
at least three instances,
the president referred to Netanyahu
as an A-hole.
Careful there, Joe.
What if Bibi hears you?
Nothing shames the guy comfortable
with bombing hospitals
and refugee camps
like knowing that 6,000 miles away,
an 81-year-old
is muttering PG-13 words
under his breath.
Next, Biden is going to whisper
"what a dick" into a seashell
and toss it into the ocean?
Biden has reportedly said much worse,
which American TV danced around,
but Arabic-language Al Jazeera
delivered the quote in full.
And we're not going
to translate this for you,
but you'll know the phrase
when you hear it.
…bad fucking guy.
Yeah!
Biden apparently called Netanyahu
"a bad fucking guy".
You should be allowed to say that about
Netanyahu uncensored on American TV.
Because I guarantee,
it's coming out the mouths of Gazans
and the families of the hostages
nonstop right now.
The president's likely opponent
in November has been taking a break
between court dates and accumulating
massive financial penalties
to offer his own plans
for international relations.
First saying that if NATO members
don't "pay their bills",
which isn't a thing,
he'd encourage Russia to
"do whatever the hell they want".
Then he suggested aid to Ukraine
should actually be a loan,
then got distracted, then distracted
again from his original distraction.
Why should you just
hand it over to 'em?
Do it as a form of a loan.
I do that with athletes,
like a professional golfer
who I think is very good,
they don't have any money,
but they have a lot of talent.
I'll say, here's the deal,
I did it with a number of people,
here's the deal, what I wanna do,
professional golfer, play golf,
I play very nice.
Did you see the picture of me
with the stomach out to here?
So what I do is, I'm putting up today
a picture of me, actually,
what I actually look like, hitting
a ball, smashing the fricking ball,
and you'll see, quite…
I wouldn't say slim.
I wouldn't say slim. But not bad.
But the ball does go far.
I would say it goes about nine times
further than Biden can hit it.
What? I haven't watched Trump
speak in so long,
I forgot how jam-packed
with nonsense every sentence is.
It's the little details,
like the way he suddenly yelled,
"hand! it over to them",
as if a ghost jabbed him
in the ribs mid-sentence.
I don't want to be overdramatic,
but the idea of watching clips of him
talking every week for the next year
makes me want to book a trip
on the next Titan submersible.
And I know no one watching this
needs a reminder
that we have a long,
grim election year ahead of us.
But keep in mind, it's only February.
We need to pace ourselves,
or we're going to get burned out,
and want to crawl into a small hole
and wait for it to be over.
Though I will say,
if that does happen,
I know a pretty good hole in Chicago
that's apparently available.
And now, this!
And now, Chuck Grassley
Celebrates His Favorite Holiday.
Unfortunately, this is a little bit
like the movie "Groundhog's Day".
Some days,
constituent correspondence
may seem like the movie
"Groundhog Day".
Immigration is becoming
the "Groundhog Day"
of the United States Senate.
So, it's kind of "Groundhog Day"
once again.
Yesterday,
we also had Groundhog's Day.
My first chart
is a depiction of Punxsutawney Phil.
In the past, I have compared
this constant repetition
to a film called "Groundhog Day"
starring Bill Murray,
where Bill Murray's character relives
the same day over and over again.
Next to me is this chart
from the movie "Groundhog Day".
"Groundhog Day" is also the title
of a famous film starring Bill Murray.
So, I have another picture for you
of Phil and Bill driving along.
Moving on.
Our main story tonight
concerns the courts,
the dignified palaces of justice
which, during Covid,
brought us
spectacular moments like this.
Mr. Ponton, I believe you have a filter
turned on in the video settings.
It is, and I don't know
how to remove it.
I've got my assistant here,
she's trying to,
but I'm prepared
to go forward with it.
I'm here live,
I'm not a cat.
Perfect. You know a hearing's off
to a shaky start
when a lawyer has to clarify
that he is "not a cat".
And I did not want him
to "un-cat" himself there.
I wanted that man
to spend the rest of the hearing
as a photo-realistic kitten looking
like he witnessed a double homicide.
We're going to talk
about the Supreme Court,
which is set to have
a monumental year.
Not only will it take on cases
concerning the availability
of Mifepristone,
and whether Trump's immune
from prosecution
for his role in January 6th,
it's also considering one case
centering on something
called "Chevron deference".
It sounds like the title of a spy novel
that you'd burn through at an airport,
but it's a vitally important
legal precedent
that says that when there is ambiguity
in the letter of a law,
courts should defer
to regulatory agencies' expertise.
Do you like it when the EPA
regulates pollution,
or the FDA regulates drugs?
Much of their ability to do that
comes from Chevron deference.
And if the court guts it,
it'll be much easier
for private industries
to block government regulation.
So, this is gonna be a huge year
for a court that has seldom been
more powerful.
And yet, respect for it
has seldom been lower.
The court's public approval rating
has dropped to a 50-year low,
with just 18%
expressing great confidence.
It's true.
And it's hard to think of anything
people have less confidence in
right now,
aside from maybe the window seats
in Boeing planes.
And there are understandable
reasons for that,
from the unpopular decision
overturning Roe v. Wade
to the fact that one-third
of the court was appointed,
sometimes under
dubious circumstances,
by a man who never won
the popular vote.
But the past year
has also introduced us to
a whole new reason
to question the court's integrity,
thanks to a steady drumbeat
of stories like these.
Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas
is facing new allegations he accepted
luxurious vacations and gifts
from wealthy individuals
and didn't properly disclose them.
Politico reported
Justice Neil Gorsuch
sold property he owned
to the head of a major law firm.
Justice Samuel Alito
defended himself
after he didn't report a luxury trip
to Alaska and a private jet flight.
The report details
that in July of that year,
they stayed at the King Salmon Lodge
and were served multi-course meals
of Alaskan king crab legs
or Kobe filet.
They also enjoyed wine
that cost $1,000 a bottle.
Alito denies he did anything wrong,
and specifically said
"If there was wine, it was certainly
not wine that costs $1,000".
Which I hope is true
for multiple reasons,
namely, that wine
should never cost $1,000
because wine
is not that good a drink.
Think about the words
people use to describe good wine.
Complex? That's just
a fancy word for confusing.
Earthy?
That's literally dirt flavor.
And smooth?
Your best compliment is that
it didn't fight you on the way down?
It's a bad drink!
But the cost of the wine,
which, again, should be zero,
isn't the point here.
Stories like those have further
undermined public trust in the court,
which is a big problem.
Because it's an institution
that relies on respect.
It can't enforce its own rulings.
And without public buy-in,
it could theoretically be ignored.
Chief Justice Roberts himself
recently wrote:
"Public trust is essential,
not incidental, to our function".
These scandals
are a huge issue for it.
Given that, we'd thought we'd look
at how deep this court's problems go,
and a possible solution
that might go one-ninth of the way
towards helping things get better.
And let's start
with a striking fact.
When it comes to what ethical rules
the court is required to follow,
there basically aren't any.
Congress can impeach a justice
in extreme scenarios,
but short of that, the court
essentially regulates itself.
And that has happened
in the past.
In the '60s, Justice Abe Fortas
was involved in a number of scandals,
including taking money
to advise a businessman
who wound up having
a case before the court.
But despite the fact that getting paid
for outside work was legal,
and that Fortas both returned the money
and recused himself from the case,
the mere appearance of impropriety
caused lawmakers of both parties
to call for his resignation.
He stepped down, saying that he was
doing so "for the good of the court".
And just a few weeks later,
the U.S. judicial conference
unveiled a new ethics policy
for federal judges.
With one tiny exception.
See if you can spot it.
The United States judicial,
judicial conference
today issued a code of ethics
which forbids all federal judges,
except Supreme Court justices,
from accepting fees, gifts,
or compensation of any kind
for off-bench activities.
The Supreme Court justices
were exempt.
That new rule solved every problem
except for the one they just had.
And there've been multiple tweaks
to the code of ethics over the years,
with the one constant being
that the Supreme Court justices
are not covered by it.
And even laws that apply to them
are basically unenforceable.
The argument is that because
they are the highest court in the land,
there's no one they can answer to.
Over the years,
the justices have noted that they
voluntarily follow certain rules.
They're required to report
any gifts worth more than $480.
That is how we learned
about Ruth Bader Ginsburg
receiving a $4,500 opera costume,
Ketanji Brown Jackson
receiving a floral arrangement
from Oprah worth $1,200,
and Antonin Scalia
receiving "two firearms
and $950 worth of dictionaries".
Which is slightly weirdly phrased.
Because "$950 worth of dictionaries"
could either mean one very luxurious
dictionary or 120 regular ones.
But while those gifts were disclosed,
others haven't been.
Scalia had a habit of not disclosing
trips that other people paid for,
and died while staying for free
at the hunting lodge
of a business executive
whose company had recently
had a case before the court.
And I bet that executive
was very glad he got the ruling
before that fun-sounding visit.
And as you've already seen,
some justices
have run with that precedent.
Remember Alito's fishing trip?
When it came to light,
he said that he didn't think
the rules required disclosing it,
and attempted to justify
the free private jet flight
with a laughable argument.
Alito explaining
that on that private jet flight,
he was in "what would otherwise
have been an unoccupied seat".
Come on!
Alito's considered one of the sharpest
conservative legal minds,
and that's the best he's got?
If you hadn't been in the seat,
it would've been empty, Samuel.
That's not so much
a defense of your behavior
as it is an explanation
of how seats work.
Also, it's a private jet.
All the seats are otherwise unoccupied.
They don't overbook them
like it's the 5:05 Spirit Airlines
flight from Myrtle Beach to Vegas.
And that feels ethically dicey,
even before you learn
that one of his hosts on that trip
was a hedge fund manager
whose companies have since
had 10 cases before the court.
And that's not a one-off.
For years, Neil Gorsuch
had been trying unsuccessfully
to sell a 40-acre piece of property
that he co-owned in Colorado.
But coincidentally, just
"nine days after he was confirmed",
he managed to sell it.
And while he did disclose
that sale,
he left the identity of the purchaser
blank on the form,
which isn't great,
'cause it turned out to be
"the chief executive of one
of the nation's biggest law firms",
which has since been involved
in at least 22 Supreme Court cases.
And if you're wondering
what that weird sound is right now,
I'm pretty sure
it's the ghost of Abe Fortas going:
"Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?"
But the biggest offender on the court
is unquestionably Clarence Thomas.
If you're unfamiliar with his work,
I envy you.
But very quickly,
he's an extreme originalist,
known for adopting
hard-right positions
years before other
justices come around to them,
from overturning gun laws,
to undermining the Voting Rights Act.
He's also questioned whether
poor people have a right to a lawyer,
saying the constitution only guarantees
you the right to hire a lawyer,
not to have one provided for you.
And he once said
that Black civil rights leaders
"bitch, bitch, bitch, moan and moan,
whine and whine".
And sure, why can't the people
fighting for basic equality
just have the chill,
good-time vibes
that we all associate
with Clarence fucking Thomas?
He's so fun to be around!
Ask almost any woman
who's ever worked for him!
For years, there have been stories
about Thomas accepting lavish gifts.
But things escalated recently with
a series of ProPublica investigations
revealing Thomas' relationship with
these four conservative billionaires.
The report says the four moguls
collectively treated Thomas
to 38 destination vacations,
26 private jet flights,
plus an additional
eight by helicopter,
a dozen VIP passes to professional
and college sporting events,
two stays at luxury resorts
in Florida and Jamaica,
and one standing invitation
to an uber-exclusive golf club,
the dollar value
likely in the millions.
Just one of those vacations
was a nine-day Indonesian
superyacht voyage that,
if he'd paid for it himself,
could have exceeded
over half a million dollars.
And the way ProPublica tracked down
some of those trips is pretty great.
The host of that Indonesian vacation,
and multiple others,
was Harlan Crow,
a billionaire who "has given millions
to efforts to move the law
and the judiciary to the right".
Crow liked to give out
commemorative polo shirts
for the trips
that he took people on.
ProPublica started looking at the shirts
Thomas was wearing in photos,
which helped them
uncover some of these trips.
Journalism is a crapshoot.
Sometimes, you spend weeks
hunting down leads,
painstakingly building a timeline.
Other times, your target just posts
a photo of himself on Facebook
wearing a T-shirt that says "Secret
Undeclared Yacht Vacation 2003"
and gives the whole game away.
Those reporters
also tracked down photos and cards
that Thomas' wife, Ginni, sent to
friends to commemorate their trips,
with fun captions like "Five couples
ready for river rafting!"
"The Sokols took four lucky couples
to the first Nebraska footbal",
misspelled, "game of the season",
and this photo of a Trump
administration attorney and his wife
captioned "Mark and Tricia Paoletta
sang a special tribute
to Clarence they created!"
And every single one of those photos
looks like it was on the mood board
for "Get Out".
But wait,
'cause I'm still not done!
They also found
this photorealistic painting
that Harlan Crow commissioned of one
of those vacations featuring him,
Thomas, Leonard Leo,
of the conservative Federalist Society,
and a statue
of a Native American man
seemingly praying for lightning
to strike this exact spot.
But if you're thinking that that is the
worst piece of art Harlan Crow owns,
you are mistaken.
Published reports say Dallas tycoon
Harlan Crow's controversial collection
includes Hitler's notorious
autobiography "Mein Kampf"
signed by Hitler,
oil paintings by Hitler,
and linen napkins
embroidered with the Nazi swastika.
The collection is housed
at Crow's mansion in Dallas.
"I can't get over the collection
of Nazi memorabilia",
said one guest,
who saw the Nazi treasure trove.
"You sort of just gasp
when you walk into the room".
Yeah, I bet you do!
Because that is a bit of a red flag!
Specifically, this red flag!
Crow says his controversial artifacts
are part of a collection meant
to "preserve a part of our history",
and "to understand
how we all got here".
And I'm guessing
his guests ask that exact question
when they see his signed copy
of "Mein Kampf" for the first time.
"How the fuck did I get here?"
Though, bad news for Harlan about
at least one of his Hitler paintings,
an expert has since deemed it
definitely not authentic.
Which I guess he probably should've
seen coming as it was signed
"A. Hitler" and not "The Hitler".
Crow's also repeatedly
flown Thomas out on his jet
for trips to the Bohemian Grove,
the California retreat
for the rich and powerful
where he and the Koch brothers
apparently developed a bond.
Here is Thomas with one
of them and Ken Burns,
for some fucking reason.
Thomas has also, incidentally,
"attended Koch donor events"
at least twice,
serving as "a fundraising draw"
for an organization that regularly
brings cases before the court.
His excuse
for not reporting any of this
was that he "sought guidance
from my colleagues and others,
and was advised that this sort
of personal hospitality
from close personal friends
was not reportable."
And while it is true
the judicial guidelines
have an exception
for personal hospitality,
experts will point out,
that means dinner at someone's house,
not a nine-day-all-
expenses-paid yacht trip.
A pretty good rule of thumb is,
if it could be a prize
on "The Price is Right",
it's not personal hospitality.
And Thomas has received
more than just hospitality anyway.
In 2014,
one of Harlan Crow's companies
bought a string of properties
in Savannah
including Thomas' childhood home
where his mother still lives.
Crow also reportedly
paid for two years of private school
for Thomas' grand-nephew,
who apparently Thomas
has raised as a son,
and which, based on the tuition rates
at the time,
amounted to roughly $100,000.
Neither of those
were disclosed at the time either.
And it gets pretty hard to square
the lavish vacations,
the real estate, the tuition,
with Thomas' insistence that he's an
iconoclastic voice for the little guy,
in appearances like this one
from two years ago,
where he thanked
the people who'd shown up
to support him
during his 1991 confirmation hearing.
The regular people showed up.
And it was always
us against the elites.
And that's the way
it has been
for the last 40-plus years
I've been in public life.
Us against the elites.
I get it!
So, the 38 destination vacations
were just part of your
"us versus the elites" plot, right?
Lull them into a false
sense of security,
then presumably,
on the 39th vacation,
vive la révolution!
I love it! What a plan!
But that sounds like horseshit
even before you see
that this is how that talk started.
I'm sure you and all of us
want to join Harlan…
thank Harlan Crow
and his family
for making this wonderful facility
available to us.
I know Harlan hates that.
I knew we had to…
That's why I wouldn't say it.
I'd like to keep that friendship.
I bet you would!
I'm sure friendship
is the thing that you like the most
about knowing Harlan Crow.
Not the lavish yacht trips,
or the private jet flights,
the simple human companionship
of an aging Nazi napkin collector.
But perhaps the item
that perfectly sums up
the distance between Thomas'
regular-guy persona
and his high-end tastes
is his motor home.
It is his prize possession.
He even showed it off during
his "60 Minutes" interview.
One of his passions
is this 40-foot-long motor home
that he and his wife use to explore
the United States in their downtime.
- Do you find this relaxing?
- Yeah!
It's away from the meanness
that you see in Washington,
and you get here
with just the regular folks.
And it's so pleasant.
I can see that. People in Washington
can be so mean, can't they?
I've heard some even make decisions
in landmark court cases
that loosen gun regulations,
limit affirmative action,
and strip women of their constitutional
right to an abortion,
so I get the impulse
to want to get outta town
to avoid those fucking sociopaths.
Thomas loves his motor
home so much,
he can be a bit of a snob
if asked inaccurately about it.
One of you enjoys
traveling cross-country
with your spouse
in a 40-foot RV.
- Who's that?
- That's technically incorrect.
- Is it not an RV?
- It is a motor coach.
- Is that bigger than an RV?
- It could be…
But it is a better vehicle
than an RV.
An RV is normally built
on a light truck chassis.
A motor coach is a tour bus.
I mean, it's old,
but it's really nice.
Honestly, if Thomas hadn't caused
so much human misery,
him liking big comfy trucks
that go vroom-vroom
would be genuinely charming.
Every man in his 70s
has picked a vehicle
that occupies way too much space
in his brain and heart.
Some like trains that go choo-choo.
Some like boats that go glub-glub.
And others love motor coaches,
based on a non-light-truck chassis.
I'm not saying these men love their
vehicles more than their families.
It's just, it's easier for them to say
"I prefer O scale trains
because historically,
that's what this country's finest model
trains have been since the 1800's,"
than "I'm proud of you, son".
But about that bus.
It is apparently
"the Rolls-Royce of motor coaches:
a custom Prevost Marathon",
or as Thomas himself once put it,
a "condo on wheels".
And if you're thinking
"That's a pretty big purchase
for a Supreme Court justice
to be able to afford" about that…
Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas
has been an RV evangelist
for decades,
traveling the country
in a 40-foot luxury motor coach
that he purchased in 1999
after borrowing more than
a quarter of a million dollars
from a wealthy friend.
But a new report from Democrats
on the Senate Finance Committee
alleges Thomas' friend
forgave a substantial amount
of that massive loan.
And nine years later,
his friend forgave all the debt.
That sounds like a sweet deal!
It's starting to feel like Thomas
doesn't so much have friends
as a collection of human ATMs.
And his wealthy friends
will say there is nothing to see here.
They're just doing for Clarence
what they would do for anyone else.
Harlan Crow
pulled that exact move.
In a statement, Harlan Crow,
the Dallas real estate billionaire
who picks up the tabs for the trips,
says he and Thomas
have been friends since 1996.
"The hospitality we have extended
to the Thomases over the years
is no different from the hospitality
we have extended
to our many other dear friends".
Okay, but it is different, though.
While you may have been friends
with Clarence Thomas for a long time,
you didn't start
being friends with him
until five years after he was made
a Supreme Court justice.
Each of his four major benefactors
appears to have first met Thomas
after he ascended
to the Supreme Court.
Which is inherently telling.
Even socially inept high schoolers
can figure that out.
If Brenna, Jackson, and Ashton
only start hanging out with you
after you get a job at Coldstone,
it's not about you,
it's about the free fucking scoops.
And thankfully, there is a way
for a justice to avoid the appearance
of impropriety, and that is recusal.
Any justice is required
to disqualify themselves
in any proceeding
where their impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.
But, as with everything else
you've seen tonight,
for the Supreme Court,
it's essentially just a suggestion.
The justices themselves decide
if they are able to be impartial,
and those decisions
cannot then be appealed.
Even when it comes to recusals,
Thomas is an outlier.
He almost never recuses,
even when he clearly should.
Take one recent case where he had
a flagrant conflict of interest,
albeit not a financial one.
Because the court recently
took up a number of appeals
involving cases
surrounding January 6th.
And as it happens, a major cheerleader
to overturn Biden's win
was Thomas' own wife, Ginni,
as her texts
to then-White House chief of staff
Mark Meadows show.
In one, Thomas writing, quote:
"Help this great president
stand firm, Mark!
Biden and the left is attempting
the greatest heist of our history".
And in another,
just days the 2020 election,
Thomas writing
"Do not concede".
On November 24th,
Meadows wrote Thomas:
"This is a fight
of good versus evil".
Thomas replied
"Thank you! Needed that!
This plus a conversation
with my best friend just now."
Ginni Thomas
looks exactly like a person
who would try to speak to the
manager about a presidential election.
But, despite that "conversation
with my best friend" line,
Ginni insists she never talked to her
husband about the election challenges.
Which is a bit weird,
because he says this a lot.
It's a particular honor
to be here with my wife, Virginia,
who is totally my best friend
in the world.
I love to spend time with my wife,
who's my best friend in the world.
I love being here
with my bride, Virginia,
who's a gift from God and
my best friend in the whole world.
Okay, first,
if Ginni is indeed "a gift from God",
I guess it's nice
that Clarence Thomas
got at least one gift from someone
who is not a billionaire.
But also, it'd seem
that either Ginni Thomas
was keeping her husband up to date
on her ongoing coup attempt,
or she's Clarence's best friend
but he isn't hers.
And that is rough. There's going to be
a lot of awkward silences
on their next motor coach trip.
But the fact is, a justice's wife
inserted herself into efforts
to overturn the last election.
Yet, in multiple cases
involving January 6th,
Thomas didn't recuse himself,
even in one concerning
whether White House files,
which could have contained
more of Ginni's texts,
had to be handed over
to the January 6th committee.
Thomas was the lone dissenter
saying that they should remain secret.
And if that is not
a conflict of interest,
I honestly don't know
what one is.
The fundamental corruption here
might be bigger than anything
one recusal could cover.
Because I'm not saying that Thomas
is only voting the way he is
because of the trips and the gifts.
His opinions were horrible
before he ever set foot on a yacht.
That doesn't mean those billionaires
haven't had a real impact on him.
Because, for years,
Thomas repeatedly talked about money.
In the 1980s, he told a reporter
he planned to be rich,
and said that means
"more than just a few
hundred thousand dollars a year".
But unfortunately for him,
that's exactly what being
a Supreme Court justice pays,
just under $300,000.
And he's been pretty vocal
about his dissatisfaction with that,
sometimes even publicly.
The job is not worth doing
for what they pay.
It's not worth doing
for the grief,
but it is worth doing
for the principle.
You sure about that?
'Cause your job is writing opinions
in a bathrobe and it pays six figures.
Most bloggers do that for free,
and they don't get to enjoy
seeing their worst takes
becoming everyone else's law.
It was right around that time,
in the early aughts,
that Thomas reportedly said to
a Republican member of Congress
that, unless it gave Supreme Court
justices a pay raise, quote,
"One or more will leave soon.
Maybe in the next year".
That set off alarm bells
in conservative quarters.
As that lawmaker Thomas
spoke to recalls it
"His importance as a conservative
was paramount.
We wanted to make sure
he felt comfortable in his job
and he was being paid properly."
Unfortunately, for Thomas,
justices' salaries haven't been raised
beyond inflation since then.
But it may not be a coincidence
that a handful of billionaires
have suddenly stepped in
to make sure that Thomas
was never anything less
than extremely comfortable.
And in recent years, he's seemed
much less worried about his paycheck.
Right now, what is the compensation
of a justice of the Supreme Court?
Goodness, I think it's plenty.
It's not quite where you are,
but it's…
I have no…
My wife and I are doing fine.
We don't live extravagantly,
but we are fine.
Here's a fun fact for you:
that was in early June of 2019.
Guess where he was
at the end of that month?
On Harlan Crow's
Indonesian yacht trip.
That is the comfortable laugh of a man
looking forward to a free trip
and, fingers crossed,
a free shirt to go with it.
Basically, what I'm suggesting is,
it's not that these billionaires have
paid Thomas to change his views.
It's that they like his views,
so they're paying for him not to leave.
Which is different, but not better.
And if that was their plan,
it has worked.
Thomas is at the heart of the new
conservative supermajority on the court
and has plans to go further.
In his concurrence in the Dobbs case,
he said the court should reconsider
previous erroneous rulings on sodomy,
birth control, and gay marriage.
And despite being known
for the consistency of his views,
there is one key issue
on which he's evolved.
Because remember that Chevron
deference that I mentioned earlier?
20 years ago,
Thomas wrote a majority opinion
that expanded
Chevron's protections.
But since then,
there's been a massive conservative
push to get rid of Chevron,
led by the Koch Organization,
you know, Clarence's vacation friends.
And a few years ago, Thomas
renounced his earlier decision,
writing that he'd determined that the
doctrine is unconstitutional after all.
What caused that change of heart?
I don't know.
Was it 15 years of marinating
in right-wing money, and vacationing
with businessmen who could massively
profit from it being overturned?
We can't say for sure. But we can
all think it together, can't we?
Ready? Let's do that. One, two, three,
yes, it's because of the money.
Shit, sorry, I thought it so hard
it came out of my mouth.
I know we focused a lot
on Clarence Thomas tonight,
but this story
isn't just about his integrity.
It's about the court's.
From the beginning, America,
like most countries,
was built on polite fictions,
by men who could somehow
hold in their heads
the idea that all men
were created equal,
at the same time that they were drawing
up the Three-Fifths Compromise.
And while we've shed
a lot of those fictions,
we still cling to the idea
of the Supreme Court
as a body separate
and apart from politics.
It retains a certain amount
of mystique and ceremony.
We put the justices on a pedestal,
and let them wear robes like wizards.
In their confirmation hearings,
they pretend to have no idea
how they'll rule on hot-button issues,
and we all have to pretend
to believe them
before we appoint them to a job
that they can hold until they die.
We don't treat them
like what they are, which is people,
who can be motivated by ideology
and greed, like anybody else.
But polite fictions can only be bent
so far before they break.
And right now, it feels like the
Supreme Court is at a breaking point.
And there are small ways to fix that,
from a real, enforceable ethics code,
to term limits, to even potentially
expanding the court.
And honestly, if it were up to me,
they'd also be dressed not in robes,
but as Walmart greeters,
to emphasize they're not magic,
they're humans, like everyone else.
But if we're not going to do
any of that,
if we're going to keep
the bar of accountability this low,
perhaps it's time
to exploit that low bar
the same way billionaires
have successfully done for decades.
And that finally brings us
to the solution that I mentioned
at the start of this piece.
Clarence Thomas is arguably the most
consequential justice on the court.
And he's never really
seemed to like the job.
He's said it's not worth doing
"for the grief".
So, what if he could keep the luxury
perks that he clearly enjoys,
without having to endure
all of that grief?
I think there might actually
be a way to do that.
Because, Justice Thomas, we have
a special offer for you tonight.
We are prepared to offer you
$1 million a year,
for the rest of your life,
if you simply agree
to leave the Supreme Court immediately
and never come back.
It is that simple.
Just sign this contract, resign,
and the money is all yours!
This is not a joke.
If you watch our show,
you know jokes aren't really our thing.
This is real. A million dollars a year,
until you or I die.
We have spoken to experts
who've all told us that,
best they can tell,
this is somehow legal.
Which seems crazy to me, 'cause
it really feels like it shouldn't be.
But as they keep pointing out,
there are no rules in place
to stop me from doing this.
And let me be clear, HBO is not
putting up the money for this.
I am personally on the hook.
You could make me really regret this!
I could be doing standup tours
to pay for your retirement for years.
But this offer is not forever.
You have 30 days from midnight tonight
to make your resignation effective.
And if you are still on the fence,
I have a little deal sweetener
that I'm excited to show you,
so please come with me.
Come this way!
We know you've got a lot
on your plate right now,
from stripping away women's rights,
to hearing January 6th cases
you definitely shouldn't be hearing,
to potentially helping roll back
decades of federal regulations.
And you deserve a break. Away
from the "meanness of Washington",
so you can be surrounded
by the "regular folks"
whose lives you've made
demonstrably worse for decades now.
And the good news is,
I think we can help you there.
Since your favorite mode of travel
might be in need of an upgrade,
we are excited to offer you…
This brand new, top-of-the-line
Prevost Marathon motor coach.
Look at this beauty, Clarence!
It's worth $2.4 million,
and it's got a full bedroom,
yes, that is a king bed,
one and a half baths,
a fucking fireplace, four TVs,
a washer-dryer,
and I quote,
a "residential-sized fridge".
And if you're thinking
"What will my friends say
if I take this offer?
Will they judge me,
as they sit in their boardrooms
and mega yachts and Hitler shrines?"
"Will they still treat me
to luxury vacations,
and sing songs about me
off their phones?"
That's the beauty of friendship,
Clarence.
If they're friends, they'll love you
no matter what your job is.
So, I guess, this might be
the perfect way to find out
who your real friends
actually are.
So, that's the offer,
a million dollars a year, Clarence,
and a brand-new
"condo on wheels".
All you have to do in return
is sign the contract
and get the fuck off the Supreme Court.
Talk it over with your totally
best friend in the whole world,
because the clock starts now!
30 days, Clarence!
Let's do this!
That's our show,
thank you so much for watching.
We'll see you next week,
good night!
How is this legal?
Your move, Clarence.
Your fucking move!