Sotomayor's wealth has skyrocketed since joining Supreme Court, raising ethics concerns

[mystery-ak]

 July 12, 2023 8:52am EDT
Sotomayor's wealth has skyrocketed since joining Supreme Court, raising ethics concerns
Obama-nominated SCOTUS justice has seen net worth spike during tenure on high court
By Aaron Kliegman | Fox News

Sonia Sotomayor's net worth has increased significantly since joining the nation's highest court, according to financial disclosure forms amid new revelations about the Supreme Court justice's efforts to promote her books.

Sotomayor was nominated by then-President Barack Obama to join the Supreme Court in 2009. At the time, her wealth was a small fraction of what it is now.

In 2007, the sum of Sotomayor's total investments was between $50,001 and $115,000, according to her financial disclosure form for that year. She reported only two assets: a checking account and a savings account, both at Citibank.

In 2008, Sotomayor's financial disclosures show she had the same two assets, this time totaling $15,001 to $65,000. The following year, during which Sotomayor was both nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court, she held the same investments for the same range of value.

Since then, Sotomayor's net worth has skyrocketed, putting her among the ranks of the nation's millionaires. In 2021, her investments totaled somewhere between $1.5 million and $6.4 million, according to financial disclosure forms. Last year, investments were roughly the same, in between $1.6 million and $6.6 million.

Sotomayor's yearly salary was about $180,000 as a federal appeals court judge before Obama nominated her, supplemented by about $25,000 a year from teaching at New York-area law schools. That salary went up several thousands of dollars upon becoming a Supreme Court justice.

Currently, members of the high court make $285,400 except for the chief justice, who earns just under $300,000.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sotomayors-wealth-skyrocketed-since-joining-supreme-court-raising-ethics-concerns

[Kamaji]

So she's clearly been monetizing her position as Justice of the Supreme Court.

Where is all the liberal outrage about that?

[DefiantMassRINO]

1.) Yes, it is unethical, immoral, and possibly illegal for Supreme Court Justices to monetize their positions - they are supposed to be public servants.

Outside moneys earned by high-level Federal officials in Office should probably be permanently relinquished to the US Treasury.  They can keep all the money they make after leaving office.

2.)  Sotomayor may have declared those on her disclosure forms, whereas, Clarence Thomas did not.

3.)  Sotomayor may have reported them on her IRS Tax Returns, whereas Clarance Thomas did not.

If Clarence Thomas goes down, it's not because he monetized his position; it's because he covered up his monetization of his position.

Remember, Nixon did not go down because of Watergate; he went down because of the coverup.

[Kamaji]

1.) Yes, it is unethical, immoral, and possibly illegal for Supreme Court Justices to monetize their positions - they are supposed to be public servants.

Outside moneys earned by high-level Federal officials in Office should probably be permanently relinquished to the US Treasury.  They can keep all the money they make after leaving office.

2.)  Sotomayor may have declared those on her disclosure forms, whereas, Clarence Thomas did not.

3.)  Sotomayor may have reported them on her IRS Tax Returns, whereas Clarance Thomas did not.

If Clarence Thomas goes down, it's not because he monetized his position; it's because he covered up his monetization of his position.

Remember, Nixon did not go down because of Watergate; he went down because of the coverup.

Since when is getting gifts from friends a taxable event that has to be reported on one's tax returns?  Justice Thomas is being hounded because he got some nice trips and gifts from friends.  That isn't taxable income - IRC § 102 - and does not have to be reported by the recipient, except in the event that the donor is a non-U.S. person and the aggregate gifts received from foreign persons exceeds $100,000.  IRC § 6039F (as modified by IRS Notice 97-34).  If it's a taxable gift, then it has to be reported by the donor, not the donee.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

 This is much worse than Thomas.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Son-of-gun, I just read that the recipient of the gift does not have to pay the tax, but the gift donor does.

 

For those who have too much money, I am accepting gifts.

[Free Vulcan]

Read an article this a.m. about how she's strong arming universities and libraries into buying her pricey book.