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:

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/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600914.html?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/congress/testimony/109thCongress/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]

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]

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:

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/suprem...Supreme-Court-Dockets&q1=retirement&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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/forums/f32/turning-over-a-new-leaf-in-the-soap-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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ChrisC]

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

Antitrust stuff; labor stuff; the national pastime; and the solitary struggle of one man are all covered in Flood v. Kuhn. Flood v. Kuhn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Justices who originally decided that baseball was exempt from the Antitrust Laws, in a case authored by one of the most esteemed Justices ever to have served on the Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, "made law" by reading an exemption into the Sherman Act for baseball. This decision was later affirmed by another Supreme Court, although in the 1950's and 1960's, professional football and basketball were not found to be exempted -- I guess the Justices there were not football or basketball fans. Then came a one Curt Flood, who challenged the exemption one more time and lost -- his case was even argued by a former Supreme Court Justice, many considered to be one of best labor lawyers of the last century.

 

[ERD50]

Antitrust stuff; labor stuff; the national pastime; and the solitary struggle of one man are all covered in Flood v. Kuhn. Flood v. Kuhn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Thanks, I just skimmed it, I have to run for a long w/e getaway, but it sure seemed to have a lot of drama and covered a lot of bases (excuse the pun).

Free markets, restraint of trade... interesting. Will read in detail later

- ERD50

 

[crazy connie]

SC did not do Ma Bell. That was a Fed Judge by the name of (if memory serves me correctly) Harold Greene. The SOB has been cussed for oh so many years. This country had the best and safest telecom in the world, and that fool decided that monopoly was a bad thing. Now what we have is a convoluted technical quagmire with more issues than benefits of competition have ever brought about. IMHO gathered from a career pre and post divestiture. We also lost the best R&D in numerous technologies because it became too costly for 1 company to carry vs the nation. Much of the current TV tech cam,e right from Ma Bells labs.

So yes, in my opinion Judges at all levels and especially the SC need to be examined and vetted by the masses as well as the elected. It will not bode well to have another SC justice who wants to make law from the bench. Per her own words (the clip that's been running on all the quasi news shows) that may well be what we are in for.

 

[ERD50]

This country had the best and safest telecom in the world, and that fool decided that monopoly was a bad thing. Now what we have is a convoluted technical quagmire with more issues than benefits of competition have ever brought about.

Wow, I feel just the opposite - maybe a little revisionist history in your rear view mirror?

I vaguely recall you had to lease each handset, it was illegal to buy and use one on the open market. Limited choices and every little upgrade (oooooh-ahhh, a LIGHTED dial!) was big bucks. Not many homes had a second phone back then.

Remember the SNL (Laugh In?) skit with Lily Tomlin - "We're the phone company, we don't care, we don't have to"? Sure, it was comedy/satire, but it wouldn't be funny if people could not relate to it.

Although I'd say, as monopolies go, sure, some good came out of it, probably more than most.

In fact, I think the issue today is there is still not enough competition in telecom (providers). 25 cents for a text message that costs them less than a fraction of a second of speech to provide (and they an 'bury' the message in empty slots on the network since texts just have to be quick, not nearly as fast as speech). Does not sound like a free market to me.

-ERD50

 

[armor99]

The only thing that I find truely sad in all of this, is for her, or anyone else, using her race as an issue one way or the other for her confirmation.

My opinion, as it has always been, is that skin color, religion, gender, lefthandedness, wearing glasses, having blue eyes, or any one of hundreds of other personal characteristics, makes up such a small part of who you are as a whole person, that to identify yourself fully by only that one characteristic, is sad in the extreme.

If anyone ever said to me that I would make a better (or worse) decision maker than another, due to my skin color, religion, etc, I would be offended in the extreme! And why is that? That is because that statement removes from me all of my indivduality. The very essence of what makes me a unique mind in all of the world. It attempts to say that all people of a certain color, religion, etc, will all think and act the same way. That somehow I am also interchangeable with any other member of whatever particular group I have been lumped into.

People are individuals.... they should be treated as such. Judge a person by what they say they believe, what they have done in the past, and what they say they will do in the future. Any attempt to attribute (good or bad) traits to a person based on something as trivial as skin color, religion, gender, etc... is to be truly inhuman....