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 ...
But, I notice that these are all comparative. More power and prestige than being a lawyer. More interesting work. More job security. More generous pensions.
The very article you cite compares judges' compensation to that of private sector lawyers. But if you believe that the two are entirely different markets, isn't the article irrelevent in your own opinion?
Everything is mathematics. Everything. Every bit of science is either a (possible renaming) of a mathematical concept, taxonomy or experimentation. All high-order thinking is mathematics at its core.
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.
Unless they program jury-vacs like on The Jetsons, it's pretty much talkin', readin' and writin'.
Nobody on this thread would bisit an amateur dentist of doctor or accountant.
All true. However, what great theory or idea of dentistry is beyond the reach of a well-educated person? If I can quote my dermatologist, "We don't know what causes that." Do you know what that refers to? Anything I ask him, actually. With respect to accountants, again it's arcane work but if you can find somebody who can't understand debits and credits, I would love to meet him. These professions involve some skill and expertise, but much more so than a judge.
Or are you saying we live in a oligarchy of the law profession where government is of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers?
These professions are also only lucrative (with the exception of accountancy, they aren't particularly well-paid) because they are piece work. If the dentist wants his hygenist to do all the work, then he has to pay her out of his own earnings. But if he's willing to work, he can pay more hygenists and take more patients. Oh, there's another reason that the medical profession has been lucrative (it is less so now, particularly because of lawyers), and that is that medical schools have artificially restricted the supply of doctors.
Yet people think that the Law is so simple anyone can interpret it. Hilarious.
It had better be. We serfs are expected to follow it.
this isn't France.
BTW, France has no world-class university anymore. Just a useless bit of information.
For that matter, math teachers are harder to find because their subject has a higher market value in the private sector.
You would think so, but the union (a monopoly) ensures that there is not much difference in public education salaries and middle school math teachers are not required to have a math degree.
Dear Non-Sequitur,
"Which also means that senior Congressmen and Senators have the income of a household of low to mid-level bureaucrats."
Yes, that's true. However, I suppose that the appeal of being a US Representative or Senator is more about the political power. As well, the perks for these folks are significantly greater than that of judges.
But, from time to time, these folks have run into a little trouble as they've tried to balance their political careers with their family life, and the ability to support those families on congressional salaries. Sen. Santorum got caught up in this as he received significant criticism for: 1) owning just a little scrap of a house back home in Pennsylvania, while living in a $700,000 house in northern Virginia, and 2) trying to use Pennsylvania's Internet charter school curriculum, in order to try to save a few bucks in educating his passel of kids.
"That's also one income exceeding that of two low to mid-level government bureaucrat supervisiors."
No. That's one income that is COMPARABLE to two low to mid-level government bureaucrat supervisors. Even that description is generous.
The first supervisory level on the GS schedule is a GS-13. This positions starts at about $80K per year, and with sufficient years in service goes up to about $103K.
A GS-15 is the last mid-level supervisory pay grade, after that, it's Senior Executive Service (SES) folks. A GS-15 gets between $110K and $140K.
Thus, the range of these two-income households would be between $183K and $280K. Federal judges get paid between $160K and $212K. And of course, there is only one federal judge who makes $212K, and only eight more make as much as $200K. Realistically, nearly all federal judges make between $165K and $175K, which is less than the least of the two-income government supervisor households, and a whole lot less than a two-income household comprising two mid-level managers.
"Don't you think that judge's spouses are allowed to work?"
Sure they are. However, their work is circumscribed by their spouses' position to a much greater degree than most folks. As well, I suspect that their professionally-required social obligations are greater than two GS-14s or GS-15s, thus more time-consuming and costlier.
sitetest
The Constitution does say that salaries cannot be cut for a judge, but we could start a new merit system with newly-installed judges.
I'm still pushing this: If lawyers get paid so much from our (the public's) system, then tax them more to pay the judges.
Roberts came from a family where the father was an executive, thus almost certainly had his education paid for. He spent 14 years in private law practice and his wife is currently in private law practice. He is not poor, but is certainly making a huge financial sacrifice to take this job.
Obviously there are people who are willing to forego maximum compensation in order to take positions of great influence and recognition, especially those who have become independently wealthy prior to taking such a position. But that's not a justification for setting the salaries for this type of position at way below free market levels. Roberts was earning over $1 million a year in private practice. Why should he and his family and charities he might choose to support be penalized to this huge degree, because he chose to take a public sector position?
And obviously few positions in the judiciary have the prestige of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The fact that we can point to a well-qualified and honorable person filling that position at 20% of his market value, doesn't mean that the majority of federal court judgeships are filled by the sort of people that our country should want in these powerful positions.
It is a very leftist, socialist notion that people shouldn't care about making money, and should just be content to work "for the greater good" while getting paid enough to get by on. I don't want leftists/socialists holding the majority of federal judgeships, since they have little respect for the Constitution or for individual liberty.
How do you compare compensation?
There are intangibles associated with being one of the 'supremes' which simply do not come with any other job.
This is just fine for judges.
Did it occur to you that the low pay afforded to judges, on the federal and state levels, may just have contributed to that? The pay is so low that it is difficult to get top quality conservative judges into the judiciary. Instead, the kind of person who is demented enough to take a 75% or more pay cut to become a federal judge is generally power hungry -- just the kind of person who screws up the judiciary. Pay them more and you'll get better nominees and better results.
I HATE it when people interrupt my nonsensical rants with good common sense.
Good point. I guess to make it more "liquid", though, we need some way sort of impeachment to get rid of judges who don't perform up to spec.
So the question is, what kind of person would take a 90% pay cut for a government job? It may be someone who is patriotic or motivated by a devotion to public service, but more likely -- and this is someone we see in the judiciary every day of the week -- it's because they're power hungry.
Raise judicial pay and you'll limit the numbers of power hungry judges.
I couldn't have said it any better, Dirtboy!
I'd point out to Roberts that in this day and age, the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the few places left on the planet where a dope like David Souter can be gainfully employeed.
The average lawyer isn't qualified to be a judge. Do you want to guess at the average private sector salary earned by one of President Bush's judicial nominees? I'm guessing on average -- and this is a conservative estimate and it includes nominees to obscure federal tribunals as well as Roberts and Alito -- they earn at least $500,000 in the private sector. That means, if they want to become a judge, they have to take a remarkable pay cut.
Many qualified candidates aren't wiling to take that pay cut. In fact, I'm suspicious of those powerhungry few who are willing to do just that.
I'm sure there are a lot of lawyers who'd be willing to do it for less, and who would perform better.
This would most definitely apply to the liberal sort. But I'm staying optimist that some people actually serve the country from a sense of duty and as a service to God.
That said, our conservative Judges did not take a vow of poverty. You can't blame a guy for trying to make a better living for his family.
Let's look at another "sector":
2007 pay scale: O-10 (full General) w/26 years of service: 14508.60/month = 174103.20/year.
Try E-9 w/26 years of service: 5512.80/month = 66153.60/year.
Somehow, I suddenly do not feel too sorry for these "poor" judges.
2007 Military Payscale - Effective January 1st, 2007
Anyone who is going to make the "best pay to attract the best and brightest" may want to look at this, and wonder who, & why they would, be attracted to such a "paltry" salary, when a person with comparable education and experience could earn ever so much more (and do it ever so much more safely) in the private sector.
If this doesn't kill the "we need to pay more to attract good candidates" argument, then nothing will. There are some jobs that need to filled by people with concerns other than the pay. Judge is one of them.
While I'm sure that's true, it's also irrelevant. High level military personnel aren't paid anywhere near what they could command in the private sector either. That's due to the limitation on not being paid more than the President and Congressmen. Gonna raise their pay too? Most of them at least are competent at their jobs, something that cannot be said for far too many federal judges, who after all, are political appointees. They've got lifetime tenure, now they should have high salaries too?
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.