Au Contraire...I rest my case: 
"Well if they're in it for the money then they can always resign and go elsewhere."
Okay, let's review our Conservative dogmas....
1. The free market rules. In this case, the free market has set the "price" for a top-notch legal mind significantly higher that what the gov't is willing to pay. Since when have Freepers allowed the Government to decide the market value of anything?
2. A low-paid judge is a bribable judge. Just look at the massive body of Senators and Representatives who are either "legally" bribed by special interests, or cross the line to the "illegal" kind (which are arguably more honest).
3. There are some things in life that you don't price-shop. For instance, do you buy the cheapest birth control? How about the cheapest hair cut? Or, do you buy the cheapest tires? Well, I don't use the cheapest atty, and I sure as hell don't want to use bargain justices either.
The 9th Circuit Court, widely derided here, is also the highest-priced place in the USA to live. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should pay better money so that we get justices that actually are competent?
3.
Your premise is invalid. Judges are appointed by politicians. It's not a free market.
I agree with you whole heartedly. For a free market society, salaries should be competitive. The best and brightest legal minds will not be motivated to be federal judges if federal judges get paid half of what their private sector conterparts are paid. The same can be said of many other professions. If goverment salaries are in the bottom quartile, then goverment employees will be dredged from the bottom quartile. Do we really want the lowest performers to be responsible for running the country?
There is no "market" for jobs that only exist in the government sector. That's "since when" the Governemnt can decide the wages.
2. A low-paid judge is a bribable judge. Just look at the massive body of Senators and Representatives who are either "legally" bribed by special interests, or cross the line to the "illegal" kind (which are arguably more honest).
Millionaire Seators are succeptable as well. How much do you intend to pay these judges? Enough that a million dollar bribe is chump-change? Paying people to be honest is a fool's errand.
3. There are some things in life that you don't price-shop. For instance, do you buy the cheapest birth control? How about the cheapest hair cut? Or, do you buy the cheapest tires? Well, I don't use the cheapest atty, and I sure as hell don't want to use bargain justices either.
None of that has jack to do with judges. The president doesn't select judges based on what salaries they will accept. They are selected based on QUALIFICATIONS and IDEOLOGY.
You're ignoring the intangibles. Antonin Scalia, corporate attorney is a nobody. Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, is quite a different matter. Sitting on the bench allows them to have an impact far in excess of anything a private citizen can have. It's the same with the Senate or Congress. How do you place a price on ego?
2. A low-paid judge is a bribable judge. Just look at the massive body of Senators and Representatives who are either "legally" bribed by special interests, or cross the line to the "illegal" kind (which are arguably more honest).
You would have to convince a lot of people that incomes in the $160,000 to $200,000 range is 'low paid'. It provides a very nice lifestyle, far nicer that 95% of the people in this country enjoy. They knew what they were getting into. If they felt that they could not live on that then they should not have become a judge in the first place. And if you raise the salary to a million or two per year, what the highest paid attorneys make, then how do you determine who wants to become a judge for the responsibility from who in merely in it for the money?
3. There are some things in life that you don't price-shop. For instance, do you buy the cheapest birth control? How about the cheapest hair cut? Or, do you buy the cheapest tires? Well, I don't use the cheapest atty, and I sure as hell don't want to use bargain justices either.
You fly on the cheapest airplane that the airline could buy. You ride in a car built as cheaply as the manufacturer knew how. Our troops fight with equipment sold to the government by the lowest bidder. Less expensive is not necessarily second rate. Nor is more expensive necessarily better. John Edwards made millions as an attorney. Does that mean that he's a better choice for the bench than someone like John Robert who was, by your definition, a poorly paid appeals court justice before becoming Chief Justice?
Perhaps, just perhaps, we should pay better money so that we get justices that actually are competent?
The Nazi's were competent. We need morals and they can't be bought. Paying more only attracts those who care more about money. How has paying more helped the public schools?
In a free market when a person sucks at their job .. they can be fired
Federal Judges are appointed .. not hired
And you are right, market conditions ARE applying which is why so many are leaving. They have families to raise.
Au Contraire...I rest my case:
When we expect these fine "legal minds" to discover new applications for plainly written English, we are begging for trouble.
Having said that, 165K is not a lot of money in any US metro area.
Amen to that. Too many class warfare Freepers out there this morning.
Judges are often appointed - they don't have to serve. No one is holding a gun to their heads to make them take the job.
They trade money for prestige.
Actually, we'd be much better off if judges were limited to just a few years in office. Then we could get rid of the idiots we now have for life.
If they don't like it, they can always quit and get another job or write novels which Stephen King does to earn his Millions.
Now if we had a European system where the judges actually had to know something (terrorism courts, patent courts, etc.) he might have a point, but given that the only requirement is to be literate and be able to tie your own shoes, I don't see why they should be paid more than minimum wage, let alone the six figures they are paid.
Now, concerning the high cost of living in San Francisco, move the 9th to rural Utah.
Go back and see what Roberts is comparing the salaries to ~ working attorneys ~ certainly the judiciary can reign in the lawyers by refusing the more highly paid of them entry into their courts.
I pay $5. After a little "training" it's become as good as any other haircut I've had, even at almost 3x the price. Did I mention that I get a shoulder and neck rub with the haircut? At her old shop, it was $7, but she undercut the competition, while retaining the quality. Maybe even improving it a bit, she now talks to me while she cuts my hair, which the barbers at her old shop did not seem to do as much.
This is public service. The free market doesn't apply here.
2. A low-paid judge is a bribable judge.
That judge had no principles to begin with. Pay has nothing to do with it. There are lots of honorable judges who make (in their sense) far less than those who work in the private legal sector.
3. There are some things in life that you don't price-shop.
And there are other forms of employment for judges if they feel they don't make enough in the public sector. That's why it's called public service. You do it for your country & community, not for the money.
People who are motivated by money always want more money. If they are paid a million dollars a year they want 10 million. If they are paid 10 million they want 100 million. And if they earn as much as the 2nd richest person on this earth they will want more than the richest person on earth.
Those motivated to do public service are motivated by public service. They only want and need enough money to live on. 165 thousand dollars a year is plenty enough to live on. The problem with people who earn far more than the average American is that person can not understand the plight of thoe that do not make large sums of money.
I would much rather have a judge motivated to earn a reputation for good judgment and service to the nation rather than a person motivated by money to want a very upscale lifestyle.
In the capitalist system people in the private sector are motivated by money. They do good as a side benefit of trying to earn as much money as possible. They have to hire people and pay good wages in order to get qualified people that can make them even more money.
On the other hand a person motivated by money who is drawn to government will still be motivated by money and will use the power of government to acquire as much wealth as he or she can. That is a very bad thing.
Thank you for a modicum of honesty here. Judges appointed for life are making half what they could earn as law profs. Averagely successful lawyers make $100,000 to $175,000 after overhead; those with top law firms earn millions.The suggestions here seem to be that the top legal minds should give up lucrative professions for PUBLIC SERVICE, knowing they will never be monetarilly successful---but heck, they are serving their fellow man.
Of course, the argument could be made that we are not getting the best legal minds except occasionally.
I think the Supremes should top out at least at $300,000. They do still have investment options and their retirement is the best, so that needs to be taken into consideration.
Judges stay on the bench until they are old; senators serve two terms and get a huge retirement.
vadine