Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

tonylogan1 (29.11)

Does the new Supreme Court Justice have a gambling habit?

Recs

18

June 04, 2009 – Comments (30) | RELATED TICKERS: BRO , KAZ

In yet another example of our leaders not knowing what they are doing in their own personal finances (yesterday's highlight was Geithner), we get the new Supreme Court nominee financial details disclosed today from the WSJ…

 

Her finances reveal she has a net worth of $740,000.

 

$600,000 of that net worth is from her home equity, which could of course vaporize over the next 1 or 2 years. Also included is equity in a condo that she owns a third of.

 

She has $16,000 in credit card debt and $15,000 unpaid dentist bills. I started to think that she would just go ahead and write both a check later this month, but apparently she has only $32,000 in cash.

 

She was making over $200,000 per year, and I presume if she is old enough to serve on the Supreme Court, she is old enough that she should have been saving a few pennies along the way.

 

That begs the question to me… What the heck has this lady been spending all her money on? She seems to have all the common sense of … well… the rest of the lackey leadership we have these days. It is getting easier to see how they ended up with the wrestling champion as the president in the movie Idiocracy.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090604-716946.html

30 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 04, 2009 at 8:45 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

Ok after a little more research... looks like maybe she has retirement that is not reported in this, so at least the welfare that the citizens will provide for her in her retirement will be a government pension, not a welfare check.

Regardless, this is definitely not a financial role model by any stretch of the imagination

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/why-judge-sotomayor-should-save-more?page=2

 

Report this comment
#2) On June 04, 2009 at 8:53 PM, blake303 (68.94) wrote:

Who cares? She is a judge, not Suze Orman or Secretary of the Treasury. As long as she has been paying her taxes, I could care less.

Report this comment
#3) On June 04, 2009 at 8:57 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

She is supposed to be smart. Are we really setting the bar this low?

TMF - You can use this post as a test case... Right now I award comment #2 minus one rec... if it gets another 4, it can be hidden via the new "this comment is not going to get viewed by very many people" policy.

Report this comment
#4) On June 04, 2009 at 9:03 PM, checklist34 (99.92) wrote:

i didn'nt follow this appointment very closely...

are the cries that she's a racist legitimate or just media hype?

Report this comment
#5) On June 04, 2009 at 9:11 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

My personal feeling is it is some of both.

I think if you say something that if a whie man said his career would be over, then you are racist. Just not the commonly referred type of racist.

example: "As a white man, I will be able to do a better job at XYZ than a hispanic woman"

When we get to the point that race is not even considered an issue, then there is no racism. So if she would have said something more like, "my race will make no difference" then I would say she is not racist.

full disclosure: I am half black half white... so nothing I say can be considered racist. (sarcasm noted)

Report this comment
#6) On June 04, 2009 at 9:17 PM, checklist34 (99.92) wrote:

thanks for the input tony.  I have a cousin in law named Tony that I think is half black and half white...  I don't know if his last name is Logan though to be honest.

I think that for us as a society to come to a point (at long last) where race isn't an issue we have to stop treating people of different races differently.  Throw out all the race based laws and let us all be people/Americans.  Right now society is exacerbating race as an issue imo by always making it one. 

Report this comment
#7) On June 04, 2009 at 9:32 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

It gets votes. Until non-whites start voting for non-racism panderers, it will stay around

Report this comment
#8) On June 04, 2009 at 10:16 PM, herztical (24.66) wrote:

Tony you forgot to mention the undisclosed assets pertaining to the Caymen islands

Report this comment
#9) On June 04, 2009 at 11:12 PM, blake303 (68.94) wrote:

She is supposed to be smart. Are we really setting the bar this low?

She is smart as is anyone worthy of a nomination to the Supreme Court. Smart people need not excel in all aspects of life (read Clarence Thomas). There is a HUUUUGE difference between a judge not being able to manage her finances, which you made a weak case for, and the Secretary of Treasury/President of the NY Fed whose job is managing finances on a much larger scale. I do not have a WSJ subscription, so I am only going off of your comments. I doubt she was making $200,000 her entire career. I also know nothing of the reasons for her credit card debt. Was it for handbags or an emergency home repair? Many people have a substantial portion of their net worth tied up in their homes, but that does not make them inept at personal finance. At least she has positive net worth. And if she "only" has $32k in the bank, at least she has enough to pay her debts with $1,000 left over.

TMF - You can use this post as a test case... Right now I award comment #2 minus one rec... if it gets another 4, it can be hidden via the new "this comment is not going to get viewed by very many people" policy.

Please. I am all for the ignore policy, but I wasn't attacking you personally. I do consider your criticism nitpicky and irrelevant, which is why I stand by my "who cares?" comment. Shouldn't her most noteworthy rulings be the primary rationale for her nomination to the Supreme Court. What do you think about those?  Shouldn't someone that can take an article titled "Sotomayor Disclosures Show Few Extravagances" and slant it as "Does the new Supreme Court Justice have a gambling habit?" deserve at least 10 negative recs if I deserve negative 1?  

Report this comment
#10) On June 04, 2009 at 11:22 PM, blake303 (68.94) wrote:

And I gave you a rec just for the hell of it.

Report this comment
#11) On June 05, 2009 at 7:18 AM, PrestonCheek (88.98) wrote:

Tony, I do know that the Rupublicrats have jumped on board with the radicalist card, of course that's vote driven so I would not believe nothing they say.

Report this comment
#12) On June 05, 2009 at 1:02 PM, leohaas (99.28) wrote:

And how does this affect investing?

Report this comment
#13) On June 05, 2009 at 1:15 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

Blake303 - Thanks for your extended reply. I contend that "who cares" is a reply that I would red thumb, and your extended reply that says WHY you do not care is green thumb reply. The second reply added to the debate, where the first one would be the reply you would expect to get from a mall attending teenage girl or a drunk trucker... "Who cares"

She has been earning a large salary for a large part of her life, and her finances are pitiful. I 100% agree this is not as important as the treasury secretary, but you may be missing my point. 

Her clerks have gone so far as to say she is really not very smart, not just in her personal finance, but in her decisions. In fact, I think the biggest reason that she will not be filibustered by republicans is that they know that they would be in worse shape if Obama went and got someone smarter who could really challenge the brighter minds of the existing conservative judges.

Her personal finance adds one more indicator (IMHO) that her own clerk's claims maybe valid.

Report this comment
#14) On June 05, 2009 at 1:18 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

leohaas - Personal finance (or lack thereof) is an important part of investing. Understanding how personal finance is being handled by our leaders can give us great clues as to where the economy is going.

Nancy Pelosi's personal investments... SURPRISE!!! become her personal agenda. Her net worth is HUGELY tied to california real estate and solar projects... where do you think the money is going to go...

Plus it is entertaining. Geeze, get of my back.

Report this comment
#15) On June 05, 2009 at 1:50 PM, FleaBagger (99.16) wrote:

As long as she has been paying her taxes, I could care less.

Ha ha! How low has Obama set the bar in this administration! If you don't steal from the republic, you're better than average in this White House.

Report this comment
#16) On June 05, 2009 at 2:12 PM, bdpatty2 (40.85) wrote:

While the new Oboma choice for the supremecourt seems to be a very nice person, and some say an excellent judge by law, it seems to me that we are dubbing down our highest court in the land when we are offered a person  lax in theequasions of gender and nationality.  I believe she lacks in fortitude to manage her own affairs, lacks in ability to state the law without her childhood interfereing in her decisions and in her public transcripts she seems definitely biased toward feministic ay of interpreting logical and legal issues she has espounded on.

 

Our supreme court deserves the very best legal minds, the very best citizenship, the very best nutrality in politics and walk that protrays these characteristics of development.

 Her appointment to the Supreme Court would simply be another notch in the dictorial belt of Oboma, Obamo,  the self imposed dictator who puts down white America at every turn in his political speeches and walk.

it takes stoic people to lead others. It takes conservative leaders to promote the welfare of the people.  It takes a lion with courage and a tin man with a heart to walk the yellow brick road of Americanism.  These characteristics are lacking in the man living in the White House.  this is my belief and I believe the first 100 days has proven this analogy to be more than justified.

Bill

Report this comment
#17) On June 05, 2009 at 2:45 PM, IndianaDave (80.68) wrote:

First off, I really like the idea behind this research, and article.

There is a need for having high ranking officials lead a life of fiduciary responsibilty. Especially after the PR quagmires of some of Obama's cabinet noms, it's not too much to ask for our elected officials to have a clean, responsible balance sheet. Morals can sway with the people's will, but it's far better to have these individuals have solid financial roots, not only to quell fears of corruption, but these are supposed to be our best and brightest individuals. Why should I give a power to these people when they can't save for retirement. 

 As for the usual comment trolling about the "white man" comments... look up some of the comments Alito made when he was undergoing approval, specificially those about "I think about my immigrant parents and their decisions when I look upon immigration cases." 

Feeling indignation about racism allows those in any majority, be it white, male, or Christian to channel a great sense of moral outrage when they see the very things they have been scolded for not apply to someone of another background. The easy path is to cry foul and unfair. Like most easy paths, it's the cowards way. 

The better plan is not to show why the action of others, such as Sotomayor, is hypocritical, but to instead reprove why the ways of the majority led us to be the majority. It is better to turn the other cheek and excel in ones own path than to cry foul upon others and do the same. Those, and in this case myself included, in the majority should lead by example. 

Report this comment
#18) On June 05, 2009 at 3:46 PM, nottheSEC (72.43) wrote:

 Point 1: in fairness because of SOLELY my own belief system I thought there were better choices. I am Latino.

Point 2:That being said equity in two properties is a form of savings. Perhaps a poor one by today's standards but still most middle class peoples' net worth is in their residence, vacation, bought-for-mom homes.I am also sure she as I and many gov workers has a government administered 457/401K or the like.

Point 3  Every supreme court nominee has all there skeletons not only bought out but revisited by the opposition party.  

Point 4 Those revisited items include all you have said in your  lifetime Including unfortunate, poorly said but not racist comments as Newt said   

Point 5 Dems left Thomas alone when he said

"I can bring something different to the court" because I'm black...Clarence Thomas

Thomas was also seated despite the harassment charges of Anita Hill an educated professor with a six figure salary that was dismissed as scorn despite no relationship.

Report this comment
#19) On June 05, 2009 at 4:09 PM, nottheSEC (72.43) wrote:

.....Until non-whites start voting for non-racism panderers, it will stay around

Mr. Logan this is offensive to me as a Latino. I vote for and demand leaders in my community who espouse my issues. Everybody from any neighborhood does the same ranging from zoning ordinances to racism.That being said the latter is an issue in my neighborhood.

Report this comment
#20) On June 05, 2009 at 4:27 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

nottheSEC -

I am sorry you feel bad, but it is a fact.

I always wonder why people get mad at statistically relevant data.

I am not saying that EVERYONE votes on their race. I am saying that the statistics show that certain races predominantly vote for one party.

So, as an example, if you are a Latino politician, what are the odds that you are going to do something to stop poor Latinos from showing up where you live? Very slim. Now this is racism, since you are making decisions based on race.

If you doubt that this happens in politics, you are naive at best.

What I am saying is that eventually, race will not be a significant factor in voting, and when that happens, politicians will not pander to various racial groups to get votes.

It may take a long time, possibly even getting to the point when the populations race is just so mixed that it is hard to get reliable race related data.

 

Report this comment
#21) On June 05, 2009 at 4:57 PM, blake303 (68.94) wrote:

bepatty2 (< 20) - It takes a lion with courage and a tin man with a heart to walk the yellow brick road of Americanism.  These characteristics are lacking in the man living in the White House.

Click you heels together three times and go back to Yahoo finance. Who are you to question another person's intelligence when you can't build a single sentence free of misspellings?

the self imposed dictator who puts down white America at every turn in his political speeches and walk.

A. He was elected. You don't like it, but it's true.  

B. He is half white and has done nothing to put down "white America", while you are full-blooded racist.

IndianaDave (78.11) - Why should I give a power to these people when they can't save for retirement. 

Because it is none of our business what she has saved. She is entitled to save as much as she pleases and her net worth has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to perform her job. The national median net worth is $86k. By that measure she is a superstar. Obama's appointees with tax issues are another story because THEY BROKE THE LAW. I think the motivation for this post and many of the responses is anti-Obama sentiment to put it lightly. However, as I said before, this is all irrelevant nitpicking. Her personal finances are a non-issue as long as she has acted within the law, but more importantly she is doing very well and you are spinning it to look like she is irresponsible.

Report this comment
#22) On June 05, 2009 at 5:14 PM, nottheSEC (72.43) wrote:

 tonylogan1 I am troubled by the choice of  terminology i.e "panderer" when it comes to non-white nabes. It should be said universally. All Polticans to some degree pander to their constituency and/or special interests in rich or poor neighboorhoods promising things they cannot deliver or saying things they do not believe yet its is mostly used to describe politcians in non-white neighborhoods. Draw your own conclusions.

In any event I am of the opinion that politcal discussion belongs in poltical rooms/ blogs/shows such as provided by Rush or Huffington. I have blogged that knowledge of political proclivity is not necessary in examing a balance sheet. 

Report this comment
#23) On June 05, 2009 at 5:36 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

nottheSEC- I probably should not have used the word pander. But from my last post, you understand what I mean. I would not worry so much about politics if the government was not so involved in finance these days. I'd be happy for the change.

 

blake303  - You refuse to get the point that all aspects of a person's behavior are important for measuring the person's character. If you think someone earning 200k+ that has $1,000 of free cash left is living a remotely intelligent life (particularly considering that she knows that her finances are going to be public knowledge) then fine by me. It also shows that irresponsibility has permeated all of society that people find this acceptable and "normal"

Also... I am not Anti-Obama. I think Obama and Bush are nearly identical and have both just continued years of bad policies that will hurt rather than help the US.

Report this comment
#24) On June 05, 2009 at 5:50 PM, blake303 (68.94) wrote:

Conversely, you refuse to get the point that personal finance and character have little correlation. When a candidate's finances are examined publicly, it is to expose any potential impropriety. Your post (and I suppose the article) demonstrates little fiscal irresponsibility. Maybe she could have saved a bit more, but she is by no means broke or underwater. She is capable of paying off her debts with two month's salary and would still have $32k in the bank. You also mentioned that it "looks like maybe she has retirement that is not reported in this". What is the value of that retirement account?  

Report this comment
#25) On June 05, 2009 at 6:07 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

blake303 - Unfortunately its my blog post so either get your own or leave it alone... I got your point, my man, and we obviously disagree.

Report this comment
#26) On June 05, 2009 at 6:23 PM, NOTvuffett (95.42) wrote:

I am offended that the assertion was made that this nominee has a gambling problem.  Everytime I saw her at the craps table she was making rather modest wagers, lol.

Report this comment
#27) On June 08, 2009 at 9:47 PM, camotop (22.64) wrote:

Her nomination is reflective of the direction of our federal government. Should have nominated Judge Judy.

Report this comment
#28) On June 09, 2009 at 12:48 AM, timetodrive (< 20) wrote:

I don't know what all this has to do with markets and investing, but I find it fascinating that people get so bristled.  I agree it is a little sad that people being put into extraordinary positions in our political or judicial system prove themselves to be nothing other than ordinary (George W. was a prime example of this).  In the standards of today she really isn't that bad off...also not well off, but who is to judge.  It's all relative.  Her appointed position is about being a good judge of character, understanding laws and the legal system more than being good with finances, isn't it?

I loved the movie Idiocracy, btw.  I heard about it on NPR and saw it on opening night in LA.  My friend and I were two of maybe 10 or 15 people there.  Most people have never even heard of it.  Classic Mike Judge.

Report this comment
#29) On June 09, 2009 at 12:27 PM, tonylogan1 (29.11) wrote:

time - I think its like the boiling frog example... each time we get subjected to someone a little dumber (not dumb, but dumber) we get a little more accustomed to leaders not really being very bright.

Report this comment
#30) On June 12, 2009 at 2:50 AM, goldminingXpert (99.98) wrote:

Leave a link to the original post of our bet on my most recent blog piece. I want to link to it in my otherwise completed "eat crow" post.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners