It's irrelevant here, however.

...earning and making money is bad!! Surely if you have any assets you are in the pocket of some corporation or a robber baron yourself. We should all only make $40k a year and the rest goes into some "social utopia pot"...

We should trust only those who cannot succeed financially.

is it that people hate money or only hate that they don't have any?

If per chance they got money, would they give up 99% of it, and forward it to the BOTTOM 1%?

Rather than the wealth itself or the wealthy who earned their money without scamming the American people?

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:09 AM - Edit history (1)

I can understand Ralph Nader's two picks and Reagan/Bush's for the other three,

however are you saying the above four are abusing?

If they were in the private sector they would earn hundreds of millions more.

Damn those founding fathers for making us a capitalistic republic.

Wait a minute, all the founding fathers were rich, mega rich

In fact, the man who wrote ALL MEN (but not women nor 82% of the democratic party) was SO RICH he owned mega land
and he owned people too.

And yet the OP is focusing on Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

btw, last I looked, the biggest wall street profiteer was sitting in jail pennyless with NO chance of ever seeing sunlight again.

yes, I think there has been abuse of the system.

Do I feel justices shouldn't be wealthy? No. I have no problem with the justices being wealthy providing the gains in wealth aren't as the results of compromising the law by taking expensive speaking fees from corporations (under the guise a of a non profit organization) looking to influence their opinions.

Do I feel that legal opinions have been influenced by abuses of wealth?

Hell yes....

it's not that they are corrupt, its that they were the product of what selected them

and the both sides are the same meme continues to be spewed

actions lead to consequences.

Nader said both are the same

Would a court under Al Gore/John Kerry/ Barack Obama have been THIS COURT?

NO.

the old adage is true- you get what you pay for and this court is paid for by the Bush family

so tearing down the current president to get Jeb Bush, how exactly will that change it around???

But bashing Ginsberg makes no sense.

you.

All workers from our bridge builders to our delivery room nurses should have the right to such perks, and job security.

be construed as sarcasm... but actually that is not what I meant, I believe it's more of a necessity for the safety of our family's and the security of our country to have these things...

but this should not surprise. Their salaries are high relatively speaking, tho not compared with those of most counsel who appear before them, and federal government incidences of employment, 'perks,' if you will, increase base salaries for those who take advantage of such as Thrift Savings Plan, TSP, for which employer matches employees' contributions to some extent, and the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program. TSP is a well managed and widely diversified investment vehicle. (I'm learning details about this now as my husband just passed on, and tho I'm not a beneficiary, I've had to look into the benefits he designated for our daughters and others.)

I don't begrudge judges earning supplements to their salaries from speaking fees and other investments.

I would expect them all to be.

a corporation is appointed to the bench.

Remember corporations have feelings too....

but couldn't find it...

They have one of the top 5 most important jobs in the country, they should be millionaires. If anything, they are severely underpaid. $213,000 for a justice and $223,000 for the chief is terrible when you consider what some others make. A small, successful restaurant owner can make more than that.

holders of other high office - both elected and appointed.

This is old news.