The whole “Sonia Sotomayor is the reanimated corpse of Michael Jackson come to kill all yr babies” approach does not seem to be working so well for opponents of the Supreme Court candidate, so they’ve basically got two options: they can cite that Ricci case and talk about how she’s a racist (although not a judicial activist!), or they can talk about how much money she spends and how that makes her a bad capitalist.
Greg Mankiw tried this a month and a half ago and got shouted down by notorious researchy libtard Nate Silver. But let’s not mention Mankiw, who cited his dead grandmother as a premier authority on proper income-to-savings ratios, because somebody is sure to scold us for having the temerity to mention a sacred dead person on a humor blog.
Let’s talk about this new jackass instead, Peter Brown, who managed to come up with pretty much exactly the same argument against Sotomayor today:
Does it matter in the overall scheme of things that her personal financial behavior doesn’t jibe with the well-planned career path and professional distinction that has characterized her life?
Probably not, although it does raise interesting questions about her views, belief in, and understanding of, capitalism. And the way she spends her money does tell us something about a woman who will rule on the most cases involving business, labor and capital.
Simply put, Ms. Sotomayor’s behavior would make a financial planner cringe.
Ugh. Just to reiterate: if YOU had a job that you could not lose unless you were impeached, if you had an incredibly generous pension and the option to make buckets of post-retirement income giving speeches, if you had $1 million of equity in your apartment, sterling health benefits, and no dependents, would YOU be saving up a rainy-day nest egg?
(The answer is yes, unless you are a communist.)
Sotomayor: A Lack of Interest in Money? [Wall Street Journal]