0
   

Robbery highlights wealth, travel of Supreme Court justices

 
 
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2012 11:20 am
Interesting that Savage and Duncan only chose to write about the Democrats and not the Republican justices. ---BBB

Feb. 20, 2012
Robbery highlights wealth, travel of Supreme Court justices
David G. Savage and Ian Duncan | McClatchy-Tribune News Service

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer was at his Caribbean vacation home late in the evening one recent Thursday when a man wielding a machete cut his way through a screen door, walked into the living room and demanded "money, money, money," according to Colin Smith, the gardener.

The thief "looked more nervous than we were," Mary-Anne Sergison-Brooke, Breyer's sister-in-law, said in an interview from her home near Oxford, England. "Nevis is such a nice, friendly island. We were never that worried."

The encounter drew attention not only because of the prominent victim but also because of where he was spending the week, at his wife's family "cottage" in the West Indies.

These days, the Supreme Court justices spend much of their time away from Washington in the weeks when the court is not in session. And Breyer, who speaks fluent French and is married to the daughter of a British lord, is the most frequent flier of a well-traveled group.

He made two visits each to Paris and Cambridge, England, in 2010. And there were other trips to Luxembourg and Marseilles and speaking trips to New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and half a dozen other U.S. cities and college towns. In all, he made 23 trips in addition to vacation travel, according to his financial disclosure form.

The nine justices meet as a group in Washington only about 80 times a year. They spend much of their time reading briefs or writing opinions. And like workers everywhere, they have learned they can do much of their work electronically far from the office.

During this four-week winter break, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was in Guam and Hawaii, teaching and talking about the law. Back home in New York, she appeared on Sesame Street when she judged a dispute between Baby Bear and Goldilocks over a broken chair. "Accidents do happen," Sotomayor observed, and she suggested Goldilocks help fix the chair.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg traveled to Egypt and Tunisia with her daughter to celebrate the "Arab Spring" on a trip arranged by the State Department. She raised eyebrows when she told an Egyptian interviewer she would not recommend America's "18th century" Constitution as a model, pointing to the South African Constitution as being more fitting a new democracy. She also spoke in New York at the Columbia Law School earlier this month.

Breyer, a former Harvard Law School professor and judge in Boston, and his wife have a townhouse in Washington's upscale Georgetown neighborhood, but they have kept their nearly $2 million, 6-bedroom house in Cambridge, Mass. The family has a summer home and 150 acres in New Hampshire. Breyer and his wife, Joanna, a psychologist and daughter of the late Viscount Blakenham, go to Nevis in the winter where they stay in a bungalow that was purchased by her mother years ago.

On the island, the justice has kept a low profile. He "is quite down to earth. He speaks to everybody. He's not stuck up or anything," said a woman who works at the Golden Rock Inn, a small hotel near his house where he swims every morning. She asked not to be identified because she is not authorized to talk about guests.

In the robbery, the thief took about $1,000 in cash from Breyer, his wife, her sister and a friend. Afterward, Breyer was "as cool and composed as ever," the hotel employee said. No one was injured.

Nevis is a former British colony that was the birthplace of Alexander Hamilton. Breyer estimated the value of the house as between $101,000 and $250,000 in his financial disclosure. A family friend said it was about a mile from the sea.

Breyer is second to Ginsburg in personal wealth among the nine justices. The associate justices are paid $213,900 a year - the chief justice gets $223,500 - but Breyer and Ginsburg owe most of their fortunes to their spouses.

While financial disclosure forms do not provide a precise figure of the justices' wealth, the Center for Responsive Politics used them to estimate that in 2009 Ginsburg had about $28 million, and Breyer $10 million, excluding some of their real estate. Next in line was Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. with $3.6 million.

At the bottom was Sotomayor. In 2009, her debts exceeded her assets by $22,000, the center said. But the justice has signed a $1.1 million contract with a New York publisher to write a book about her early life.

David G. Savage and Ian Duncan write for the Tribune Washington Bureau.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,156 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2012 11:29 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
In 2008, seven of the nine sitting justices were millionaires, and the remaining two were close to that level of wealth.[109] Historian Howard Zinn, in his 1980 book A People's History of the United States, argues that the justices cannot be neutral between the rich and the poor, as they are almost always from the upper class.[110] Chief Justice Roberts is the son of an executive with Bethlehem Steel; Justice Stevens was born into a wealthy Chicago family;[111] and Justices Kennedy and Breyer both had fathers who were successful attorneys. Justices Alito and Scalia both had educated (and education-minded) parents: Scalia's father was a highly-educated college professor and Alito's father was a high school teacher before becoming "a long-time employee of the New Jersey state legislature".[112] Only Justices Thomas and Sotomayor have been regarded as coming from a lower-class background. One authority states that "Thomas grew up in poverty. The Pin Point community he lived in lacked a sewage system and paved roads. Its inhabitants dwelled in destitution and earned but a few cents each day performing manual labor".[113] The depth of Thomas' poverty has been disputed by suggestions of "ample evidence to suggest that Thomas enjoyed, by and large, a middle-class upbringing".[114]

Financial disclosures

Beginning in 1979, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 required federal officials, including the justices, to file annual disclosures of their income and assets.[115] These disclosures provide a snapshot into the wealth of the justices, reported within broad ranges, from year to year since 1979. In the first such set of disclosures, only two justices were revealed to be millionaires: Potter Stewart[116] and Lewis F. Powell,[117] with Chief Justice Warren Burger coming in third with about $600,000 in holdings.[116] The least wealthy Justice was Thurgood Marshall.[116]

The 1982 report disclosed that newly appointed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a millionaire, and the second-wealthiest Justice on the Court (after Powell).[118] The remaining justices listed assets in the range of tens of thousands to a few hundred-thousand, with the exception of Thurgood Marshall, who "reported no assets or investment income of more than $100".[118] The 1985 report had the justices in relatively the same positions,[119] while the 1992 report had O'Connor as the wealthiest member of the Court, with Stevens being the only other millionaire, most other justices reporting assets averaging around a half million dollars, and the two newest justices, Clarence Thomas and David Souter, reporting assets of at least $65,000.[120]

The 2007 report was the first to reflect the holdings of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Disclosures for that year indicated that Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy were the only justices who were clearly not millionaires, although Thomas was reported to have signed a book deal worth over one million dollars.[121] Other justices reported holdings within the following ranges:[122]

Justice Lowest range Highest range
John Roberts $2,400,000 $6,200,000
John Paul Stevens $1,100,000 $3,500,000
Antonin Scalia $1,200,000 $2,800,000
Anthony Kennedy $365,000 $765,000
David Souter $5,000,000 $25,000,000
Clarence Thomas $150,000 $410,000
Ruth Bader Ginsburg $5,000,000 $25,000,000
Stephen Breyer $4,900,000 $16,800,000
Samuel Alito $770,000 $2,000,000

The financial disclosures indicate that many of the justices have substantial stock holdings.[121] This, in turn, has affected the business of the Court, as these holdings have led justices to recuse themselves from cases, occasionally with substantial impact. For example, in 2008, the recusal of John Roberts in one case, and Samuel Alito in another, resulted in each ending in a 4-4 split, which does not create a binding precedent.[123] The Court was unable to decide another case in 2008 because four of the nine justices had conflicts, three arising from stock ownership in affected companies.[124]
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2012 04:02 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
If injustice did not pay well it would not be worth doing...
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2012 04:14 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Interesting that Savage and Duncan only chose to write about the Democrats and not the Republican justices. ---BBB


To be really interesting, there would have to have been some element of the unexpected. The last unbiased news I recall was a candidate position paper prepared by The League of Women Voters, and that was about a decade ago.

So far as wealth and income go, why would we expect them to be poor - not that some of the assets listed were all that great. Do we really expect the people who make it to the Supreme Court to have been pulled away from working a temporary construction job? The plain fact is that some people are smarter and more competitive than others.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 06:00 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
The best argument devised to make justices sympathetic to the rich is to make them rich...
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 09:03 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
This doesn't surprise me just like it doesn't surprise me that the top basketball players, lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, musicians, actors, etc are all doing pretty well. If you are at the top of your profession, you're going to get paid accordingly.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 09:46 am
There is definitely a problem with the compensation rates of federal judges. They're not getting paid enough. Does anyone seriously think that Breyer wouldn't make two or three times as much as he currently earns if he switched to the private sector? There are a lot of very capable lawyers out there who would be a credit to the bench, but they spurn any chance to become a judge because the pay isn't sufficient.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Robbery highlights wealth, travel of Supreme Court justices
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 08:40:58