Posted on 01/01/2007 7:26:14 AM PST by indcons
Pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence, Chief Justice John Roberts says in a year-end report critical of Congress.
Issuing an eight-page message devoted exclusively to salaries, Roberts says the 678 full-time U.S. District Court judges, the backbone of the federal judiciary, are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools.
In the 1950s, 65 percent of U.S. District Court judges came from the practicing bar and 35 percent came from the public sector. Today the situation is reversed, Roberts said, with 60 percent from the public sector and less than 40 percent from private practice.
Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100.
Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.
The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."
"Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence judges need to uphold the rule of law - even when it is unpopular to do so - will be seriously eroded," Roberts wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.nwsource.com ...
There are certain penumbras that emanate that make this true. I think.
Con: If they'd stick to interpreting the law rather than writing it, I'd care enough to do something. When they start showing a commitment to being judges is when I'll start caring about their pay.
CON wins, as far as I can tell. However, I'll happily raise Scalia's pay. Gosh he's fun to read!
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.
The people arguing for low pay for judges are the same ones who would never make that argument for the private sector.
Ah yes. Bush's 'conservative' choice. The one we had to have. It's not bad enough politicians are wasting money, now a Republican judge thinks $165,000+ is not enough to live on.
If the best minds are conservatives and we want the best minds to be attracted to the bench, why not pay the amount the best minds could earn elsewhere?
"their private sector conterparts are paid."
Pleae tell me what private industry employs judges.
Didn't CJ Roberts ask what the salary was before he agreed to take the gig?
Where is it written that judging has to be their life long occupation? Work in the free market for a while, then do your public service for a while. Go back to the free market if it becomes to burdensome.
But it competes with the free market.
See my post 33.
Please tell me what private industry employs judges.
And yet, those are the ones who grip when an increase in the minimum wage is being considered.
Good thing you are not the owner of a baseball team.
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.