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 ...
Okay, so Clarence Thomas, Anton Scalia and Wm. Reinquist are or were ambulance chasing scumbags.....
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.
Given the elitism evident on this thread, it's probable that the political class will likely keep handing the "all-powerful" judiciary the tiny bit of control over our futures they haven't already accrued to themselves.
I hope you get some cash back from your Father's invention, if from nothing else but the book.
Luckily, many top law students come from much richer backgrounds, and will probably be willing to trade the money of the private sector for prestige and public service of the judiciary without hurting their lifestyles much. I hope they tend to be conservatives.
My nomination for quote of the day.
McLean, Great Falls, Langley and Chevy Chase are all pricy burbs of DC. 3,000 Sq. feet will cost you $1-1.5 million.
Buy a condo in DC (nice area) and you will pay $600K for 1,200 sq. feet of space.
It occurs to me that, since the entire court system is not a market system but is created by our government, it isn't right for lawyers to benefit so much from it while ordinary taxpayers pay for all the costs.
I suggest that officers of the court be assessed a tax so that we can pay the judges properly.
The Constitution specifies life tenancy for judges. Perhaps you are not particularly concerned about the Constitution and the Original Intent of the Framers to make the judiciary independent?
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.
So Federal Judges would then make rulings to impress their future employers. Great.
A judge, particularly a Federal judge is not just any other public sector job. Citizen-legislators are fine; citizen-judges are just nonsensical. You can't have amateurs interpreting the Law just as you can't have amateurs performing surgery. We need the best legal minds in the most important legal positions -- the Federal judiciary. The best won't stay if they take too great a financial hit.
Of course, if you think having Luttig leave the DC Circuit is a good thing, then by all means go ahead.
One particular problem with this system is that if someone accepts a paycut of 100K+, then the job must be paying him in other ways. Is it power? Ability to implant his idealogy in his rulings? It must be something. Do we really want people on the bench with these motives?
I don't begrudge them as much money as they can earn. If its that important quit and go get it. I get sick of this blather about "public service" out of one side of their mouths and the constant demand for market level wages. If you can't support your wife in the manner she has become accustomed Mr. Roberts, then do your duty for 5 years and then go grab the money.
Uhmm...that's kinda what I thought.
Hopefully, they haven't educated your brains out of your head yet.
What stinks?
Currently, the problem is not with their independence. It is with the dangerous idea that they are supreme.
The job of a common-law judge (which is roughly what we have) is far more difficult than that of a civil-law judge, since far more is left to judgment and the application of ambiguous precedent.
I'll remain conservative regardless... I doubt even the best legal minds at Harvard could change that if they tried.
By this "logic", workers are hired by bosses, therefore, labor is not a free market.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the posters who are defending Roberts' are in the legal profession.
As I said in a previous post, paying someone to be honest is a fools errand. Either a person IS honest or a person is NOT.
If one cannot afford a 2 bedroom apartment on 200K a year, perhaps socialism IS the answer because the free market has failed.
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.