Most of them are wealthy, not because of their salary on the Court, but because of outside activities, such as speaking engagements, book sales, investments, etc.
Note
US Supreme Court justices are prohibited from taking money for speaking engagements while in office; this is considered an ethics violation, and may be an impeachable offense. Justices can only be reimbursed for their expenses while still on the bench.
The Supreme Court is very powerful in that it is able to review acts by Congress or the Executive Branch and determine them to be unconstitutional. The Court is also able to "legislate from the bench," or effectively create law through court cases (known as precedents). Therein lies the Supreme Court's weakness, however, as it is generally unable to act independently - the Court must, in most cases, wait for a case to appear in a lower court or wait for an act by one of the other branches in order to "legislate."
In the Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court would determine if the laws made by Congress were constitutional or lawful.
All federal officials, including US Supreme Court justices, must take an oath promising to uphold the USConstitution.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Basically any way their own personal experience and beliefs influence them to. Since they were selected, a lot of people trust their judgment. Notice the root of the word judgment? Another view: The terms"without respect to persons" and "impartially discharge" make it clear that judges are specifically not to make decisions on their own experiences or beliefs. According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
people who are rich in money and poor in happiness
I would say pretty rich because he was Sage of the Supreme Court.
The primary reasons so few women and other diverse people have served on the US Supreme Court is past discrimination and the justices' long tenure on the Court. Some of the other groups previously excluded from serving were Jews, Italians, African-Americans, Latinos, and many other people who are part of our rich cultural tapestry. To put things in perspective, the US Supreme Court has seated only 112 justices in the entire history of the Court -- that's 221 years (as of December 31, 2010). For most of that time, the country was dominated by white, protestant males. This is reflected in the historical composition of the Court. The Civil Rights Movement, which many of us associate solely with African-Americans, helped break down barriers preventing all so-called "minority groups" from fully participating in government. But the change is recent, slow and ongoing. Seven Jewish people, two African-Americans, four women, and one Latina doesn't seem to represent much diversity, but considering how recently these people were considered viable candidates, and how infrequently a vacancy opens on the Supreme Court, the statistics are actually positive.
Here is the oath of federal judges and US Supreme Court justices: "I, _________ (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a __________ (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The Supreme Court is very powerful in that it is able to review acts by Congress or the Executive Branch and determine them to be unconstitutional. The Court is also able to "legislate from the bench," or effectively create law through court cases (known as precedents). Therein lies the Supreme Court's weakness, however, as it is generally unable to act independently - the Court must, in most cases, wait for a case to appear in a lower court or wait for an act by one of the other branches in order to "legislate."
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 US 469 (2005)On June 24, 2005, The United States Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London (CT) that local governments have the right to force property owners to sell their property in order to make land available for private economic development. It is significant to note that this was a 5/4 ruling. Nearly half of the justices disagreed. The decision favored the rich and powerful and influential of society and left no recourse for the small property owner of a desirable parcel of land. The decision is a good example of how a court sculpted along political lines can change the law to favor one group, most often the rich and powerful and influential.
In the Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court would determine if the laws made by Congress were constitutional or lawful.
Many cases and they reject many cases! In my case I was refused an appeal on clear error of law because the Chief Justice wrote MacFarlane v Rich and he did not want it overturned so he did not allow me an appeal. The judge is Brock who was impeached 2001 as he was entertaining case fixing by judge Thayer another Supreme Court judge. My case can be researched on Yahoo MacFarlane v Rich 132 NH 608 and I have declared it Legal Rubbish...
Some people are rich and some people are not rich, but doing ok, and some people are poor.
All federal officials, including US Supreme Court justices, must take an oath promising to uphold the USConstitution.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
There are court fees for a reason. The court has to make you suffer for your mistakes. They just want money. The court is stupid and they want to be rich.
Night Court - 1984 If I Were a Rich Man 7-2 was released on: USA: 11 October 1989
the rich people wore clothes