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 ...
Yep.
Irrelevant. The average judge is (and should be) far better qualified than the average lawyer, and could make far more than the average lawyer in private practice.
Definition of elite:
1. privileged minority: a small group of people within a larger group who have more power, social standing, wealth, or talent than the rest of the group
The Founding Fathers and Federal judges fit this definition. So do Senators. This does not mean they are better people (far from it).
And as far as master's degree holders in Mathematics are concerned, they are elite compared to the rest of us when it comes to math. For that matter, math teachers are harder to find because their subject has a higher market value in the private sector. This does not make them "demigods" -- just more valuable.
The idea that an untrained person can be a successful SCOTUS Justice, as some have argued on this thread, is proof of total ignorance of what lawyers and judges do. If that is "elitism" then so be it.
Nobody on this thread would bisit an amateur dentist of doctor or accountant. Yet people think that the Law is so simple anyone can interpret it. Hilarious.
That said, their is way too much inbreeding among our "elite" political leaders. Lately our Presidential nominees seem to be mostly Yale and Harvard men. I don't think an Ivy League education should be a prerequisite for top political nominations -- this isn't France.
You misunderstand my logic.
Why is it that Supreme Court Justices can have absurd feelings on the basis of monetary value. Somehow, their salary decreases their personal perception of themselves. Meanwhile most would be elated to know they have reached the pinnacle of a fine education (we hope)and accomplished the ultimate praise in their field.I'm hoping that but this point in his/her career that it would be done for love of the country which brought them to a lifetime with definite purpose and meaning to millions. But, 3 or 4 hundred thousand dollars is much more satisfying? I wish I could know in my heart that I influenced 1 person to make their life better or more meaningful and no matter if I ever received a thank you a mute point. Clarity of existence is priceless, will they ever allow happiness or must the whole planet die first?
When a judge can hit, catch, pitch, and run, I'll be willing to give him a ball player's salary.
Oh, and just which judges' league are we talking about? National League? Federal League? Penumbra League?
To take it to a different industry, a lot of unknown actors have turned in better performances than the big-bucks hacks.
The bottle neck on federal judgeships is CONGRESS, not lack of ready, able, and willing candidates.
The average person or the average of their peers? You cannot equate a SCOTUS judge or anyone else with an advanced law degree who busted their but to get through law school and pass the bar with someone who drives a rig or is the assistant manager at Wal-Mart. A good lawyer in NY, DC, SF or LA can do $300K per year as a senior associate. A partner position even more than that.
President: I want you to be a judge.
Nominee: Sorry, the head of the judiciary committee hates my guts for personal reasons.
President: Crap! OK, who's number two hundred thirty-seven on my list...?
And quite frankly, we expect our judges to live a certain lifestyle - mind you - not the lifestyle of the rich and famous, but a rather nice, elegant lifestyle befitting of their position.
Fine. Let 'em go do it, then.
Change that attitude, then the cost of education for our public servants will go way down. We need to stop dissing our very good alternative schools and realize that we have very smart people that are being overlooked. Being a realist...that's not happening for some time. And yes we are all paying for it.
Look at France and their top heavy socialist structure and you will see that we are a heck of a lot better off then some of the European countries in this regard.
I'm not saying make the guys wealthy but you have to cover their costs of living. If the guy wants to send his kids to school, we need to give him the means to do so. You are not going to get another family man to take the job if his children will not be allowed the same type of education that he received.
To the salaries of people currently in private sector positions requiring the qualifications we would like to see in Supreme Court justices.
Mind reader...
I'm all for increasing the pay of judges who understand the US Constitution and are seldom overturned by higher courts. I'm all for cutting the pay of courts that continually get overturned. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit loons should pay the taxpayer for being allowed to crank out nonsense that continually get overturned. Sort of a meritocracy kind of thing.
Has anyone ever heard of a "poor" judge?
Seems to me like you have some animus against people who make a lot more money than you do.
I'm sure we could find several imams and mullahs right here (Detroit & Dearborn come to mind) who would volunteer to do the job for free.
Even though the work done by the same individual is totally different at a university than at a hedge fund, because both jobs rely on the same skills and hence on the same pool of talent, the wall street wage affects the professor wage.
Your argument would be that they are two different markets and should be treated separately, but they are intrinsically linked by the skills required of the employees. If top universities decided to ignore the outside option and set the pay much lower, the quality of the professors would be much lower.
The same logic applies to the discussion in this thread on judges and lawyers. The outside option matters. Judges can practice law, and if the pay differential is too great, the only judges you will have are the crappy lawyers who couldn't make it.
Your argument would imply that a lumberyard and a paper mill should pay different amounts for the same exact wood because the market for paper does not compete with the lumber market. I'm arguing that if the lumberyard will only pay half as much for wood as the paper mill, the lumberyard will only get the crappy wood.
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.