President Nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supremes--her investements?

[samclem]

(From a previous post)

washingtonpost.com

"If confirmed, Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice and only the third woman ever to sit on the panel. She grew up in a Bronx housing project, went on to Princeton University and Yale Law School.
Aides said Obama met Sotomayor in person for the first time Thursday, and made his decision to nominate her last night."
******************************************
From this article:

Quote:

Sotomayor is less affluent than many of the typical high court prospects. Though drawing a six-figure income, she lives in expensive Manhattan. Sotomayor earned $179,500 as a federal appellate judge in New York last year, plus $14,780 teaching at New York University’s law school and $10,000 as a lecturer at Columbia University’s law school, according to her most recent financial disclosure report. Sotomayor owns a condominium in trendy Greenwich Village. She has had the property since at least 1998, and took out a $350,000 mortgage from JPMorgan Chase Bank last fall, the city records show. Sotomayor refinanced and used proceeds for renovations, her office said. The condo, the only property Sotomayor owns, appears to be her primary asset. Other units in the building have sold for $900,000 to $1.5 million over the past five years, city records show. Sotomayor listed two bank accounts as her only investments: $50,000 to $100,000 in a Citibank savings account and up to $15,000 in a checking account.

So, she's 54 years old, earns about $200k per year, but has only somewhere between $65K and $115k in liquid investments. Most of her net worth is tied up in a single property with equity of somewhere between $550K and $1.2M.

I guess she'll get some kind of federal pension. But, she doesn't seem to be socking away the dough. Probably has a lot to do with living in NY.

[bright eyed]

Maybe she was REALLY counting on that lifetime appointment! and probably has FERS or something like it?

[freebird5825]

I see she's been to the College of Hard Knocks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

I'm not sure what retirement system the Supreme Court judges would fall under. It's most likely one of those special cases, like LE or air traffic controllers. I'll go take a gander at OPM. Be back soon...

Updated...here's the pay rates from http://www.opm.gov/News_Events/congr.../5_16_2006.asp, dated 2006:
In the Federal court system currently, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court earns
$212,100, and the Associate Justices earn $203,000.
Federal court of appeals judges earn $175,100 a year, while district court judges have salaries of $165,200 (equal to the rate for Executive Level II), as do judges in the Court of Federal Claims. Federal judges with limited jurisdiction, such as magistrates and bankruptcy court judges, have salaries of $151,984, which is slightly less than the top rate for ALJs ($152,000).

Do a Find In Page search on "retirement" at the above link, and you wil find an entire section toward the bottom of the page. It looks like the answer is either CSRS or FERS, but with additional provisions for the length of service these judges put into their very long careers.

[ziggy29]

Supreme Court nomination or not, I suspect she hasn't had to worry about health insurance in retirement. Someone on the news noted that she was a Type 1 diabetic diagnosed at age 8. Shouldn't be a problem, since I'm sure she has access to the best health care available and it's manageable (albeit costly) with good care. People trying to FIRE with that condition are royally screwed if they didn't have retiree health insurance or a spouse with health insurance and a very secure j*b.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I guess she'll get some kind of federal pension. But, she doesn't seem to be socking away the dough. Probably has a lot to do with living in NY.

I wonder what sort of federal pension a SCJ gets? (edit, I see FB posted some info).... And does that influence their view of government actions towards the "common good" (which always struck me as far too vague to provide guidance).


-ERD50

[donheff]

I was going to post over here before I saw Samclem's post. Ha - you should have stayed away from "other" topics and you should have added some FIRE related opinion to get things started. I agree with you that who goes into the Supremes is important to our FIRE future and, although the discussion may be fraught with political peril, is a suitable topic for this section of the forum. I assumed the mods set this section up as a safe haven for controversy. (If I am wrong and shouldn't even be discussing the matter like this mods should feel free to delete my post and I won't be offended - seriously, I wasn't even aware of this section until the other day and may have missed posts on appropriate use).

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff I assumed the mods set this section up as a safe haven for controversy. (If I am wrong and shouldn't even be discussing the matter like this mods should feel free to delete my post and I won't be offended - seriously, I wasn't even aware of this section until the other day and may have missed posts on appropriate use).

Here you go:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Threads belong here if the focus is predominantly opinion based, concerning public policy, prominent political figures, or topics about governmental conduct. Posts must be related to the subject of early retirement in more than a tenuous fashion. Be courteous and remember to address the issue at hand. Avoid sweeping generalizations and group characterizations (including generalizations regarding ideology and/or political party). Do not put aside collegial posting habits when you enter the newly renovated FIRE Related Political Topics Discussion section. The community rules apply. To that point, excessive sarcasm, extreme belligerence, insults, profanity, extreme anger, offensive comments about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and national origin, are not acceptable and those who do not follow the rules will be moderated.

[freebird5825]

I had to dust the cobwebs off a long ago History lesson...I was probably doodling in my notebook that day
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/briefoverview.pdf

The main page for the US SC is here
About the Supreme Court

I did a search on "retirement" and found some dockets
http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme...ment&x=37&y=18

[FinanceDude]

It is a political appointment that involves Congress, and if she gets approved, has the ability to inlfuence change for many years, so it IS a Fire-Related political topic.......

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude It is a political appointment that involves Congress, and if she gets approved, has the ability to inlfuence change for many years, so it IS a Fire-Related political topic.......

In the view of the moderating team, discussion of her political appointment does not pass the above quoted "related to the subject of early retirement in more than a tenuous fashion" test.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo In the view of the moderating team, discussion of her political appointment does not pass the above quoted "related to the subject of early retirement in more than a tenuous fashion" test.

Now if someone were to go back and examine her past opinions on issues that clearly do relate to FIRE, on the other hand -- tax policy, health care, that sort of thing, and focus the discussion *there*...

The point is, it shouldn't just be an excuse for creating a generic partisan/ideological dumping ground.

[ERD50]

OK, so I'm up for a history lesson - who can fill us in on important past SC decisions that influenced the economy in a FIRE related way?

I recall the Freakonomics guy made the case that the downturn in violent crime could be traced to fewer unwanted births, which he correlated to Roe v Wade ( this was not a moral judgment on his part, he was just coldly dissecting the data).

Lower crime rates should help everyone financially - lower govt spending on incarceration, trials and enforcement, lower business spending on security translates to lower prices.

Anything else?

-ERD50

edit - posted, then I saw Ziggys' post, but that's OK I think

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 OK, so I'm up for a history lesson - who can fill us in on important past SC decisions that influenced the economy in a FIRE related way?

I pass - I had enough trouble surviving my two ConLaw classes in college.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 The point is, it shouldn't just be an excuse for creating a generic partisan/ideological dumping ground.

Well, partisan politics and ideology is pretty much what shapes the political landscape these days (perhaps past days as well), and affects our lives.

Are you going to tell me that CAFE standards and tax rebates for questionable technologies like ethanol (just a few examples) are not ideology? And that ideology is not often partisan? And that it does not affect us?

I'll totally agree on the "dumping ground" aspect - it ought to be intelligent, respectful exchange of information and viewpoints. But putting ideology and partisanship off bounds seems to be putting our heads in the sand.

Just my view.

-ERD50

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 But putting ideology and partisanship off bounds seems to be putting our heads in the sand.

Here are 142 posts discussing that very subject: http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...box-41262.html

[Bestwifeever]

Why is anyone surprised that a sitting president gets to nominate someone for a SC vacancy or that people on one side or another are going to have a problem with it?

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever Why is anyone surprised that a sitting president gets to nominate someone for a SC vacancy or that people on one side or another are going to have a problem with it?

Yep. "Bork" has been a verb for what, 22 years now?

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever Why is anyone surprised that a sitting president gets to nominate someone for a SC vacancy or that people on one side or another are going to have a problem with it?

Who is acting surprised?

Are you referring to the posts here - I guess I missed that?

-ERD50

[FinanceDude]

This thread should be closed, noone wants to comment on it........

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude This thread should be closed, noone wants to comment on it........

We can just keep walking on eggshells, and not really say anything in the process.

However, I'm genuinely curious what economic decisions the SC has made in the past. I know I could look it up, but there are some bright people on this forum that are good at putting in terms that are relevant to this group.

Anti-trust stuff, right? That was the SC? Breakup of Ma Bell, was that the SC?

edit/add - geez, how could I forget - the Microsoft case - what a sham that was, and the coursts move too slow to deal with all the tech details anyhow.

-ERD50