President Nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supremes--her investements?

[freebird5825]

...
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.

Good thoughts, excellent in fact. However, human nature is human nature.

We all have run into this type of attitude, in our own way and in our own places, because of our different traits.
Labels will never go away.

I just exited a field where I was prejudged by BOTH genders and where it was often attempted to bulldoze right over me
(in their dreams ) for 25 years because of labels, not who I was or what was in my brain.
No pity party invitations or anger here. It's just the way people are.

 

[ChrisC]

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....

I don't know of what world you live in, but none of the people in my world "fully" view themselves by "one characteristic." Perhaps, that's a misguided extrapolation of a statement made by a Supreme Court nominee.

I think most of us, including those other people who you are casting aspersions, have stepped way beyond the idea of treating people of one group or another as being in one giant monolithic category of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. You appear to persist in thinking otherwise. Why?

 

[samclem]

I think most of us, including those other people who you are casting aspersions, have stepped way beyond the idea of treating people of one group or another as being in one giant monolithic category of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. You appear to persist in thinking otherwise. Why?

Maybe because the single most reported thing about this candidate is her ethnicity and her gender. When the media (and the public) put her accomplishments, her past rulings, her statements regarding issues likely to come before the court ahead of her race and her sex, then we'll have arrived where we need to be.

Even her investments are more significant than her ethnicity!

 

[freebird5825]

Maybe because the single most reported thing about this candidate is her ethnicity and her gender. When the media (and the public) put her accomplishments, her past rulings, her statements regarding issues likely to come before the court ahead of her race and her sex, then we'll have arrived where we need to be.

Even her investments are more significant than her ethnicity!

I couldn't have said it better, even on my best day.

She is being nominated to serve as a SCJ, not a female SCJ nor a Hispanic SCJ. Not even a dark-haired SCJ.
SCJ. period.
Accomplishments, rulings, statements carry the major weight here.
Not her gender, ethnicity, nor hair color. Those are secondary (and pretty much non-essential) to her nomination.

 

[ChrisC]

Maybe because the single most reported thing about this candidate is her ethnicity and her gender. When the media (and the public) put her accomplishments, her past rulings, her statements regarding issues likely to come before the court ahead of her race and her sex, then we'll have arrived where we need to be.

Even her investments are more significant than her ethnicity!

Maybe you should keep on reading about her accomplishments (both personal and career), her past rulings and her statements; The NY Times yesterday covered all of this and more. Yes, gender and ethnicity did dominant the story of her nomination, but why is that an issue for debate? she's a trailblazer and blazing the trail does have special newswothy significance -- it's like saying the media should have simply focused on Jackie Robinson's base-running abilities rather than his race when he broke the color line in Major League Baseball?

My point to Mr. Armor, however, was why does he persist in thinking that people view their ethnicity as the single most important charactistic that defines who they are? You can't get that from media reports of someone who has blazed a trail.

 

[samclem]

P.S. -- I think there is also something to be said for a judge that did not grow up in an affluent or professional home. It is another area in which the Court is not diverse.

I agree. The economic circumstances in which a person is raised is probably far more important in building a world view and in shaping the available opportunities than is race or even gender. A poor black kid probably has more in common with a poor white kid than he does with the child of a black neurosurgeon.

But regarding the selection of a supreme court judge: The individual should have a record of verdicts, written opinions, and academic work that is vastly more revealing and germane to his/her ability to serve than how much his/her parents earned and where they grew up. We should be talking about this nominee's work and her outlook, not about her skin pigmentation or plumbing. And her work has been, well, not distinguished.

 

[Nords]

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

Not only that, but Roe v. Wade has doubtless shrunk the pool of future Social Security contributors...

 

[ChrisC]

And her work has been, well, not distinguished.

I am going to disagree with you here, and I doubt lay people are in a position to evaluate the work of a judge. And I would trust the judgement of those who appear before her or who have worked with her in the past. But since when is the body of the work of a judge the litmus test for a seat on the Supreme Court? It might disqualify someone from sitting on the Supreme Court - if it shows you're a babbling idiot -- but surely it does not move you up the scale, which is essentially a political decision of the President. Of the Justices currently serving, I wouldn't consider Justices Thomas, Roberts or Alioto as having remarkably distinguished careers on the US Court of Appeals. And none of the current Justices to my knowledge has ever served as a trial judge. A nominee's worthiness as a Justice should not simply be based on his appellate work -- you should look at the whole career of the nominee and in this regard, her credentials, experience and talent appears first rate. She's simply not a first rate, second rate lawyer like Kennedy or Thomas before they became Judges or Justices.

But this is beside the point, even Justices with the most stellar of credentials can become disappointing Justices and some Justices with modest credentials have become extraordinary Justices as well. I think Obama is correct in viewing the total circumstances of a nominee's personal experiences as well as his or her body of work as a lawyer and/or judge. If you don't like her leanings just say so, but to suggest she's not distinguished enough is nonsensical.

 

[samclem]

. . . I doubt lay people are in a position to evaluate the work of a judge.

but then we have . . .

Of the Justices currently serving, I wouldn't consider Justices Thomas, Roberts or Alioto as having remarkably distinguished careers on the US Court of Appeals

and . .

her credentials, experience and talent appears first rate. She's simply not a first rate, second rate lawyer like Kennedy or Thomas before they became Judges or Justices.

I guess by your standards I'm not qualified to judge the judge, but we are fortunate enough to be in the company of someone who is. But, according to your remarks, the quality of the judge's judging isn't very significant in whether she gets the job because it is a political decision. Or something like that.

 

[Leonidas]

P.S. -- I think there is also something to be said for a judge that did not grow up in an affluent or professional home. It is another area in which the Court is not diverse.

Got intrigued by this so I read up on the current justices' early lives. To my surprise I found a diverse group and thought I would share.

Alito - Kind of hard to pin this one down to one category. His grandfather was an immigrant laborer who brought his father over from Italy as a child. Father was a child of the depression, worked as a park ranger, reform school teacher, high school teacher, researcher for the New Jersey Legislature and finally ended up as the director of the legislative services office of the state.

Roberts - Son of a steel mill manager. Sounds like solid middle class.

Breyer - from a "middle-class Jewish family". Father was a lawyer for the San Fran schools.

Ginsburg - Grew up in Brooklynn, in a "neighborhood consisting mainly of poor, working class Jewish, Italian and Irish immigrants." Father described as a "furrier".

Thomas - (It doesn't get much poorer than this guy) Born in Pin Point, Georgia, "a small, impoverished African American community". Father left when he was 2-years-old, a later fire left the family homeless and they were taken in by his grandfather who made Thomas work on the farm from "sunrise to sunset".

Souter - Another one hard to classify. Father the son of immigrants who became a banker. Mother from wealthier background, Mayflower descendant. Raised on a farm her mother inherited from her family. Upper middle class-to-wealthy I guess.

Scalia - Father a college professor, mother a school teacher. Attended public and catholic schools in what he said was a "middle class" upbringing.

Stevens - "Born to a wealthy family" Daddy owned hotels.

Kennedy - "Son of a prominent attorney"

 

[ChrisC]

I guess by your standards I'm not qualified to judge the judge, but we are fortunate enough to be in the company of someone who is. But, according to your remarks, the quality of the judge's judging isn't very significant in whether she gets the job because it is a political decision. Or something like that.

Like every other appointed Justice, "she" gets the job because it is a political appointment of the President. It appears that there are basic standards that every nominee must possess for consideration but the President simply is not obliged, and the Senate not required to, select and confirm the "best lawyer" or "best judge" or "most qualified person" or "most well rounded individual" for the job. If the President and Senate were obliged to select the best lawyer or best judge or most qualified person, the Supreme Court would have a different composition of people than the nine currrently serving. And I'm sure people might argue that there are other Judges on the Second Circuit, US Court of Appeals, from the same political party of the President who are better qualified as the current nominee: Judge Carbranes comes to mind. However, the public and the Senate demand that the President select someone who has the "goods" to do the job and at least one notable nominee, Harriet Miers, in the past decade has flunked the test!

Simply stated, she has the "goods" based on her experiences, which include two Senate confirmation hearings as well.

 

[Leonidas]

Simply stated, she has the "goods" based on her experiences, which include two Senate confirmation hearings as well.

I'm not sure how much I would depend on that first Senate confirmation as a reliable indicator of her possessing the "goods". I understand you made the point that it is a political appointment, but the confirmation process, in which you would think there would be input from both sides, was somewhat "lacking" in her initial appointment to the bench.

Why did the first President Bush nominate Sotomayor to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York? Veterans of the first Bush administration say the answer is politics, with a generous helping of horse-trading thrown in. Appellate courts and the Supreme Court are often the stage for ideologically based confirmation fights. The lower district courts are, in the words of one former Bush official, “darn near patronage jobs.”

Why did George H.W. Bush pick Sotomayor for the courts? | Washington Examiner

I'm not taking a political stance here on this subject, because it is obvious that both Republicans and Democrats were passing out District Court positions based on "patronage". I'm just saying that getting picked in the first place was more of a test of her political loyalty/affinity than it was of her qualifications as a jurist.

By a number of accounts, Moynihan and D’Amato had a long-standing arrangement from the Reagan years. “It was a special deal whereby D’Amato agreed to defer to the pick of Moynihan for one out of every four district court seats,” another former Bush official told me. “That was a deal that preceded [President George H.W. Bush], so basically Moynihan was picking one of four district court nominees.”

 

[Independent]

Getting back to the OP - her investments.

The whole point of this board is "Early Retirement". Most of us view j*bs as things that will eventually be a burden, and look forward to being able to walk away when that happens. Even if we enjoy our jobs, we know that a new CEO could make our dept go away in a heartbeat.

Judge Sotomayor already has virtual lifetime tenure (can be removed only by impeachment) in a job that pays $180k. She apparantly enjoys her work. She's got Federal Civil service retirement pension and health benefits if she should ever choose to leave work. She does not need to leave an estate for anyone. I think her spending/investing strategy makes a lot of sense for her situation.

The primary ER connection is to recognize that the wide variations in personal circumstances should lead to wide variations in spending and investing.

 

[ChrisC]

Getting back to the OP - her investments.

The whole point of this board is "Early Retirement". Most of us view j*bs as things that will eventually be a burden, and look forward to being able to walk away when that happens. Even if we enjoy our jobs, we know that a new CEO could make our dept go away in a heartbeat.

Judge Sotomayor already has virtual lifetime tenure (can be removed only by impeachment) in a job that pays $180k. She apparantly enjoys her work. She's got Federal Civil service retirement pension and health benefits if she should ever choose to leave work. She does not need to leave an estate for anyone. I think her spending/investing strategy makes a lot of sense for her situation.

The primary ER connection is to recognize that the wide variations in personal circumstances should lead to wide variations in spending and investing.

Retired Federal Judges don't get a Federal Civil Service pension; they get lifetime pay at the salary they were receiving before retirement and keep their Federal health benefits; and they can enter "active retirement status," in which they can still occasionally sit as Judges on Federal cases and retain their own office. One former US Supreme Court Justice, Tom C. Clark, used to ride the Circuits as a retired Justice of the Court, and hear lots of cases. Retired Justice Byron Whizzer White likewise maintained an office and heard cases at the lower court level. Not sure whether Retired Sandra Day O'Connor has heard any cases yet, but it would be a real privilege for any trial lawyer to try a case before a retired Justice. She had been a trial judge before she went to the Supremes.

If you were to look at the investments of other Justices who primarily had careers of Federal service like Justices Alito or Thomas before they got appointed to the Supreme Court, I'm sure they would have similar investment profiles to Judge Sotomayor. Thomas, in particular, because for most of his career he was unmarried like Judge Sotomayor and had little income from a spouse.

 

[ChrisC]

I'm not sure how much I would depend on that first Senate confirmation as a reliable indicator of her possessing the "goods". I understand you made the point that it is a political appointment, but the confirmation process, in which you would think there would be input from both sides, was somewhat "lacking" in her initial appointment to the bench.

I think that once you've gone through confirmation, at least once, it necessarily means you have the "goods." It doesn't mean you're politically safe for a step up, but it does mean that your legal experience has proven good enough for a seat on the Federal Bench. Once on the Bench, one could disable himself from continuing to have the "goods." That did not appear to be the case with United States District Judge Sotomayor before she stepped up to the United States Court of Appeals. (Heck, it did not happen with Justice Thomas who only served a year on the Bench before his appointment to the Supreme Court -- perhaps he's been wise to stand mute as a Judge and Justice during oral arguments, lest people get the wrong idea of his ability.)

I found your post about the Justices' backgrounds and diversity quite interesting. Diversity, for many, is in the eye of the beholder. Some would say the current gang is hardly diverse at all: most are from Yale and Harvard law schools, a majority are from the same religious order, none attended public colleges as undergraduates or law students, most are from the Northeast. Have they had "diverse personal experiences" -- well I'm not so sure about that either; only one really appears to have personally experienced real poverty. In fact of all of Justices, I would say Souter and Thomas have personal experiences that truly set them apart from the gang. And Souter's personal experiences in small town New Hampshire has shaped his outlook of the Bench. And then you have the issue of only one woman and minority on the current team. Whether diversity adds to the decision-making process is certainly debatable, but sometimes the perception of diversity is as powerful or more important than whatever element diversity might add to the decision-making process. By that I mean, that sometimes our notions of fairness and equal Justice before the law is shaped by our perception of diversity and our sense that people like us are judging us-- I think this is demonstrated by the strip-search case before the Court involving the 13 year old girl, where I heard that Justice Ginsburg remark after the case was argued and given the temperment of her colleagues that "they've never been a 13 year old teenage girl." In general, the public needs to be assured of the legitimacy and fairness of our judicial system -- when the system lacks diversity for all that come before the bar of justice, the credibility of the system is undermined.

 

[Independent]

Retired Federal Judges don't get a Federal Civil Service pension; they get lifetime pay at the salary they were receiving before retirement and keep their Federal health benefits; and they can enter "active retirement status," in which they can still occasionally sit as Judges on Federal cases and retain their own office. One former US Supreme Court Justice, Tom C. Clark, used to ride the Circuits as a retired Justice of the Court, and hear lots of cases. Retired Justice Byron Whizzer White likewise maintained an office and heard cases at the lower court level. Not sure whether Retired Sandra Day O'Connor has heard any cases yet, but it would be a real privilege for any trial lawyer to try a case before a retired Justice. She had been a trial judge before she went to the Supremes.

If you were to look at the investments of other Justices who primarily had careers of Federal service like Justices Alito or Thomas before they got appointed to the Supreme Court, I'm sure they would have similar investment profiles to Judge Sotomayor. Thomas, in particular, because for most of his career he was unmarried like Judge Sotomayor and had little income from a spouse.

Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like a deal I'd like.

 

[REWahoo]

I think this is demonstrated by the strip-search case before the Court involving the 13 year old girl, where I heard that Justice Ginsburg remark after the case was argued and given the temperment of her colleagues that "they've never been a 13 year old teenage girl." .

Perhaps we should lobby the Obama administration to appoint unclemick to the bench.

 

[ziggy29]

I think that once you've gone through confirmation, at least once, it necessarily means you have the "goods." It doesn't mean you're politically safe for a step up, but it does mean that your legal experience has proven good enough for a seat on the Federal Bench.

In other words, it guarantees one is worthy of consideration, but it's no guarantee that they won't demonstrate the Peter Principle at the next level.

 

[jug]

Ah, the Supremes are a lost cause, locked away in their room and robes, scribing boring decisions that make most of us yawn.

In any case, looks like Ruth Bader Ginsbug won't be the hot babe in the band anymore.

jug

 

[ChrisC]

In other words, it guarantees one is worthy of consideration, but it's no guarantee that they won't demonstrate the Peter Principle at the next level.

Like this guy: Charles Evans Whittaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[samclem]

Some would say the current gang is hardly diverse at all: most are from Yale and Harvard law schools, a majority are from the same religious order, none attended public colleges as undergraduates or law students, most are from the Northeast. Have they had "diverse personal experiences" . . .

There are only nine justices. We'd have to specifically engineer people to fit each seat if we wanted to somehow have an accurate demographic representation of gender, religion, economic circumstances at birth, public school vs private school attendance, astrological sign, etc. And, I'm happy and not surprised that most of the Supreme Court justices hail from the nation's finest law schools.

I guess the whole idea is that some people want a Supreme Court that "looks like America." I've been to Walmart, I've seen "America." Instead of "America" I'll settle for a Supreme Court that "looks like" the best justices we can find, with "best" being determined by the political process and based on the evidence of the nominee's legal and academic work. Period.

I assume that all those arguing for the nominee's social background and ethnicity to have a weight similar to his/her judicial "chops" will cite Clarence Thomas as a candidate who demonstrates the validity of this approach.

 

[ziggy29]

I guess the whole idea is that some people want a Supreme Court that "looks like America."

I didn't know America was comprised of 100% lawyers.

 

[Shawn]

Sotomayer post

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

I grew up below the poverty level. In 6th grade I broke my ankle but no one would take me to the hospital. In 9th grade I had one pair of pants and one shirt to my name. Many of my fellow students would make fun of me for always wearing the same tattered clothes to school. It was girls, more often than boys. I don't remember how many were Hispanic, but a fair percentage were black. I won't mention what happened in the 10th grade, but it wasn't good. In 11th grade, I tried to pull out an abscessed tooth with a pair of pliers because no one would take me to the dentist (up until then, the last time I had been to the dentist was in 5th grade). Many people joke about dumpster diving, but for me, it was an applicable skill. That's what you do when you're hungry and want food. I would sometimes do homework in a storm drain near my house. It was warm, and I could see from a nearby streetlight shining through the grate. Sometimes I would sleep there. I didn't want to go home. And I'm not even scratching the surface. My childhood years were filled with household violence, alcoholism, and drugs. And plenty more. The police would often stop me on my way home from school to ask me how I was doing and how things were going at home. But no complaints. My experience is likely the driving force behind my frugality, and hence my ability to retire early.

A girl at school had a mother who was a state supreme court judge. We even got to meet her once when we went on a field trip to the courthouse. However, Sotomayor believes that this girl, whose life was filled with relative luxury and opportunity, was somehow better than me due to the "richness of her experiences." This isn't a knock on my female classmate. She was a nice person. She even asked if I would go to the senior prom with her. Couldn't go, though. It cost money. Didn't have anything to wear. But it is a knock on Sotomayor.

Sorry Sonia. Don't lecture me about richness of experience. I've had plenty. And there are many in worse situations. And most of them are white (half being boys/male). Whites make up about 2/3 of those below the poverty level. But they don't count. They don't have the necessary "richness of experience."

[moderator edit]

 

[EDDY AMPS]

Berkeley Law - News Archive

Full text of 2001 Sotomayer speech

 

[Bestwifeever]

It's probably not affecting her financial decision-making re ER, but she acknowledges your concern:

White House: Sotomayor says she chose word poorly - Yahoo! News