CNN report on Supreme Court justices' net worth... What is the point in this?

[Viper GTS]

Here

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nine Supreme Court justices are richer than all but a small percentage of Americans, with at least five millionaires among them.

What the heck is the point in reporting this information in this fashion? It would be different if they simply reported the facts, but by stating specifically that "the nine Supreme Court justices are richer than all but a small percentage of Americans" they are implying that there is something wrong with this.

They note later in the article that all but one of the justices is over 60. At that age, with proper financial planning early in life, there is no reason why they shouldn't be millionaires - Except that it makes better headlines to say that they're richer than most Americans.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but this really annoyed me. By starting now I figure I'll have well over $1,000,000 by the time I'm their age, should I be ashamed of that?

Viper GTS

 

[Aves]

Typical Media tactic.

The story wouldn't be interesting to most people if it were only the facts and the news will do it whatever they can to get ratings.


I agree that it's annoying.

 

[SpongeBob]

My opinion is that it's somewhat of a conflict of interest to have that much money. Supreme Court justices are supposed to make decisions based on the best interest of the common citizen, and it's kind of hard to do that when you are so far removed from the economic situation of the majority of Americans.

 

[SWirth86]

Yea, that article is a waste of time, money, and resources. They are Supreme Court judes, cmon, theyre not going to be living in the lowest tax bracket. I could care less about how much money they have and about their assets. It is almost hinting at "they shouldnt be that rich", but, in reality, they should. Now one day some anarchist idiot is going to be like "5 of the supreme court judges are millionares, theyre stealing our tax money from innocent citizens of the US, so we need to fight the system!" Its just propaganda

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SpongeBob
My opinion is that it's somewhat of a conflict of interest to have that much money. Supreme Court justices are supposed to make decisions based on the best interest of the common citizen, and it's kind of hard to do that when you are so far removed from the economic situation of the majority of Americans.

Yea lets keep em poor so they are easily bribed....

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: SpongeBob
My opinion is that it's somewhat of a conflict of interest to have that much money. Supreme Court justices are supposed to make decisions based on the best interest of the common citizen, and it's kind of hard to do that when you are so far removed from the economic situation of the majority of Americans.

It is specifically mentioned in the article that they routinely excuse themselves from cases if there is even a chance of an interest conflict.

Viper GTS

 

[SpongeBob]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SpongeBob
My opinion is that it's somewhat of a conflict of interest to have that much money. Supreme Court justices are supposed to make decisions based on the best interest of the common citizen, and it's kind of hard to do that when you are so far removed from the economic situation of the majority of Americans.

Yea lets keep em poor so they are easily bribed....

Well that would be bad also. The point is to select a person with enough integrity to remain unbiased on all issues. I agree that this article is pointless right now, as I think our current justices are all people of integrity. I was just presenting the fact that it could pose a potential problem.

 

[jhu]

you're over reacting. it's just a slow news day (if discount that whole pakistan/india thing)

By starting now I figure I'll have well over $1,000,000 by the time I'm their age, should I be ashamed of that?

yeah, but what'll that be worth in 2002 dollars?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SpongeBob
My opinion is that it's somewhat of a conflict of interest to have that much money. Supreme Court justices are supposed to make decisions based on the best interest of the common citizen, and it's kind of hard to do that when you are so far removed from the economic situation of the majority of Americans.

Bullsh!t. If you have at least an average IQ and sufficiant ambition, there is no reason whatsoever why you shouldn't be wealthy by the time you hit your sixties.

I'd be highly suspect of someone's abilities who WASN'T wealthy by that age (unless they had given it all away... but then I'd question their sanity).

The point is, it is NOT unamerican or a "sin" to take full advantage of the economic freedoms America has to offer. These men are not Jesus, they are Americans.

Finally, these men are lawyers. If they weren't wealthy they'd be piss poor lawyers.

This article is just another in a long line of attempts by the press to breed class envy among Americans.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: jhu
you're over reacting. it's just a slow news day (if discount that whole pakistan/india thing)

By starting now I figure I'll have well over $1,000,000 by the time I'm their age, should I be ashamed of that?

yeah, but what'll that be worth in 2002 dollars?

If I only have $1,000,000 at that point I think I'll shoot myself.

My point is that $1,000,000 is relatively easy to attain, thus entry to their "millionaire" club is not terribly difficult - nor prestigious.

Viper GTS

 

[SpongeBob]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SpongeBob
My opinion is that it's somewhat of a conflict of interest to have that much money. Supreme Court justices are supposed to make decisions based on the best interest of the common citizen, and it's kind of hard to do that when you are so far removed from the economic situation of the majority of Americans.

Bullsh!t. If you have at least an average IQ and sufficiant ambition, there is no reason whatsoever why you shouldn't be wealthy by the time you hit your sixties.

I'd be highly suspect of someone's abilities who WASN'T wealthy by that age (unless they had given it all away... but then I'd question their sanity).

The point is, it is NOT unamerican or a "sin" to take full advantage of the economic freedoms America has to offer. These men are not Jesus, they are Americans.

Finally, these men are lawyers. If they weren't wealthy they'd be piss poor lawyers.

Once again, I am not saying it is a problem, just that it has the potential to be and we have a duty as Americans to monitor it. Hell, I hope to be at least that wealthy by the time I'm that age!

 

[Handle]

The point is, it is NOT unamerican or a "sin" to take full advantage of the economic freedoms America has to offer. These men are not Jesus, they are Americans.

Finally, these men are lawyers. If they weren't wealthy they'd be piss poor lawyers.

This article is just another in a long line of attempts by the press to breed class envy among Americans.

They are not all men. In fact, there are 2 women if I'm not mistaken.

And I also do not see how their financial situation is relevant. It would be unusual for someone to be so capable and so accomplished so as to be appointed to the Supreme Court, yet not capable enough to accumulate significant amounts of money.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Handle
And I also do not see how their financial situation is relevant. It would be unusual for someone to be so capable and so accomplished so as to be appointed to the Supreme Court, yet not capable enough to accumulate significant amounts of money.

Yeah, that was my point. Thanks for summing it up better than I could.

 

[PrinceofWands]

While it isn't a big deal in and of itself, it DOES indicate a dangerous trend, that of all positions of power also being positions of wealth. The two do NOT have to be tied together, in fact the point of a government of, by and for the people was specifically that you did NOT have to be rich to obtain such a position. Granted, for those that work themselves up from poverty and have money as a side effect of their work, no big deal. But if we see continuances of this trend, where ONLY those with money have any influence, then we're in a very very bad spot...in fact, we've likely reached revolution at that point. Thankfully this article has little to do with that, it's alarmist at best.

For those saying everyone should have millions by that age, get real. I know 2 people with a net worth over a million dollars out of the THOUSANDS I've met. We're not talking morons here, we're talking government employees, executives, multiple college degrees, you name it. It is NOT that easy to come into that much money. It just isn't. My father worked 44 years with advanced college degrees and all kinds of good things under his belt, but he probably is worth at MOST 1/4 mil. My brother is the vice president of a multi-state bank and may be worth a hundred thou all things considered. Money isn't automatic, you have to want it, and you have to sacrifice for it. There's NOTHING wrong with not having money, and everything wrong with desiring money over important things (like love, family, values, etc).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
While it isn't a big deal in and of itself, it DOES indicate a dangerous trend, that of all positions of power also being positions of wealth. The two do NOT have to be tied together, in fact the point of a government of, by and for the people was specifically that you did NOT have to be rich to obtain such a position. Granted, for those that work themselves up from poverty and have money as a side effect of their work, no big deal. But if we see continuances of this trend, where ONLY those with money have any influence, then we're in a very very bad spot...in fact, we've likely reached revolution at that point. Thankfully this article has little to do with that, it's alarmist at best.

For those saying everyone should have millions by that age, get real. I know 2 people with a net worth over a million dollars out of the THOUSANDS I've met. We're not talking morons here, we're talking government employees, executives, multiple college degrees, you name it. It is NOT that easy to come into that much money. It just isn't. My father worked 44 years with advanced college degrees and all kinds of good things under his belt, but he probably is worth at MOST 1/4 mil. My brother is the vice president of a multi-state bank and may be worth a hundred thou all things considered. Money isn't automatic, you have to want it, and you have to sacrifice for it. There's NOTHING wrong with not having money, and everything wrong with desiring money over important things (like love, family, values, etc).

Nearly every president we've had has been considerably wealthy. It goes with the territory. No, I never said it's "automatic," but those who have the drive and ambition to gain power also obtain wealth along the way.

You wont ever get wealthy doing a 9 to 5 job being someone else's lacky. Those who have leadership skills, combined with ambition will more than likely end up very well off. All the education and knowlege in the world wont help you if you don't have the drive and ambition too. And if you think about it, it's that same drive and ambition that is required to obtain office.

My father was much like your father. He worked 30 odd years for ITT and TRW with mulitple college degrees. Because he never had the ambition to take on leadership roles and enter management he remained middle class. He lacked drive and ambition. Therefore he never gained a position of wealth, or power.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, however that's not the kind of person who will seek office, much less obtain it.

As for a "dangerous trend," like I said, the vast majority of those who have held national office have been wealthy. They make their mark in business, or law, and move to politics.

 

[gopunk]

For those saying everyone should have millions by that age, get real. I know 2 people with a net worth over a million dollars out of the THOUSANDS I've met. We're not talking morons here, we're talking government employees, executives, multiple college degrees, you name it. It is NOT that easy to come into that much money. It just isn't. My father worked 44 years with advanced college degrees and all kinds of good things under his belt, but he probably is worth at MOST 1/4 mil. My brother is the vice president of a multi-state bank and may be worth a hundred thou all things considered. Money isn't automatic, you have to want it, and you have to sacrifice for it. There's NOTHING wrong with not having money, and everything wrong with desiring money over important things (like love, family, values, etc).

i have a relative who is a retired professor... net worth 1 million +. it's a matter of wise investments and savings if you simply want a million.

 

[PrinceofWands]

As for a "dangerous trend," like I said, the vast majority of those who have held national office have been wealthy. They make their mark in business, or law, and move to politics.

Agreed. But this was originally because only the wealthy upper class had education or opportunity. Now, it's because that money and those contacts are used to effectively 'buy office'. Not always the case, but it's often true. I don't so much mind that, as long as we don't see an 'upper class' where family money buys peoples position in office without any ability on their part. That's where I see the 'dangerous trend'. Families (like the Bush's, although I'm not saying that they did this) make tons of money (some in not so honorable ways) and then it stays in the family. A couple generations later they buy their idiot redneck kid a private education (having to hire a dozen tutors to keep him passing), they give him a good spot in a family subsidized company (not necessarily at the top, but certainly not in the mail room), and then use all their family ties and wealth to buy the kid into political office...beating out a middle class opponent who doesn't have the connections and pockets to run the kind of campaign that wins today, but may be much more qualified and a better person overall.

I DO see that in general, legislation favors the wealthy. I remember hearing a congressional hopeful when I was in school debating on private gun ownership. He said "If people are in fear for their safety, they need to move into a better area or hire professional security like the rest of us." Ummmmm, HELFU&%$NGLO!!! We don't all have those kind of options. If a man like that achieves a seat on the supreme court, then when my case gets to him I'm likely to lose my right to be safe because he has NO CLUE what life is REALLY like, having lived a sheltered life of the 1% club. Leaders must represent the 99%, not the 1%. I mean, take care of the 1% when you can, but if it's a choice BETWEEN the two, then the 99% win, period. That's what scares me about today's wealthy and powerful...they don't UNDERSTAND the 99% and they don't seem to want to.

 

[compuwiz1]

What the heck is the point in reporting this information in this fashion? It would be different if they simply reported the facts, but by stating specifically that "the nine Supreme Court justices are richer than all but a small percentage of Americans" they are implying that there is something wrong with this.

What it tells you, is that the under society, is creating lots of wealth up above. Question your fines? Maybe you should! :Q

 

[PrinceofWands]

i have a relative who is a retired professor... net worth 1 million +. it's a matter of wise investments and savings if you simply want a million.

No, those things are only the beginning. There are numerous other considerations. Enron, financial depression due to terrorist attack, etc can cause catastrophic failure in a persons investments, so luck is a factor. Different financial requirements with a family of 6 who has a child with leukemia than a couple that has 2 cats is a factor. People who work 40+ years and retire earning under 40k because they do an IMPORTANT job rather than a LUCRATIVE job, also a consideration. I could list a thousand other random factors that affect net worth, but it's all the same idea...nothing is absolute.

I'm not saying it's impossible, hell I've never made 30k in a year and I have my 401k, a private investment fund, and my savings...so even at my level it's POSSIBLE to retire with enough to live on...but it's not as simple as people are claiming here.

 

[gopunk]

No, those things are only the beginning. There are numerous other considerations. Enron, financial depression due to terrorist attack, etc can cause catastrophic failure in a persons investments, so luck is a factor.

luck is a factor, yes. but most people don't have a solid portfolio and lose it all in some freak occurance like WTC or enron. most people never had that solid portfolio to start out with.

Different financial requirements with a family of 6 who has a child with leukemia than a couple that has 2 cats is a factor.

family planning is related to financial planning. obviously you can't plan for leukemia, but you can plan how many children you have.

People who work 40+ years and retire earning under 40k because they do an IMPORTANT job rather than a LUCRATIVE job, also a consideration. I could list a thousand other random factors that affect net worth, but it's all the same idea...nothing is absolute.

of course not, i am not saying that EVERYBODY must reach that goal or whatever.... but for most professionals, a million by retirement is not a very distant possibility.

 

[Cyberian]

People who work 40+ years and retire earning under 40k

I'm 57, worked for 30 years, have no education beyond HS, and never made over 40K.
I have about 2/3 of a million in savings, a house and two cars free and clear and no debt at all.
If I can do that, I see no reason why a competent attorney over 60 shouldn't have at least a million in assets.

 

[FelixDeCat]

>My point is that $1,000,000 is relatively easy to attain, thus entry to their "millionaire" club is not terribly difficult - nor prestigious

Spoken by someone who obviously doesnt have it.

 

[Bluga]

It means they own much more than you ever will.

 

[Kilgor]

It means they own much more than you ever will.

No it means they have money you can get as much as you want, it depends on how bad you want it.

 

[djheater]

In my admittedly uneducated opinion it seems that the Supreme court is one of the few places in our political system where men and women try to honestly consider the impcat and import of thier decision's. The justices have an incredible amount of real power... it's heartening they don't seem to abuse it very often (don't get me wrong there have been some notable stinkers)

It would be more unusual and disturbing if a judge who had been elected justice had not been able to attain a significant amount of wealth. This is America... remember?