Roberts blasts inadequate pay for judges

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | December 31, 2006 | PETE YOST

[L98Fiero]

"Many qualified candidates aren't wiling to take that pay cut."

Name 3.

[El Gato]

How about the cheapest hair cut?

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.

[Beagle8U]

"I'm glad you brought this up Amish Dude. Can someone tell me what the original 11th amendment to the constitution was?"

I can't recite the 11th amendment for you, sorry. I can say that you will get better response to questions if you ping the person you are asking.

[Earthdweller]

"There are some jobs that need to filled by people with concerns other than the pay. Judge is one of them."

So what do you want? You want a monk in the position? They don't require much. They are kind of weird though.

[Alter Kaker]

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.

I agree that some people actually serve from a sense of duty without regard to renumeration. But there are not nearly enough of them -- certainly there would be more noble people willing to serve their country if they only had to take a 50% pay cut instead of a 90% cut.

[freedomfiter2]

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, all you who expect our judges to live a certain lifestyle can take up a collection.

[Alter Kaker]

Name 3.

I think Justice Roberts would be better able to answer that question than I.

[Earthdweller]

"....certainly there would be more noble people willing to serve their country if they only had to take a 50% pay cut instead of a 90% cut."

This is just good basic common sense.

[hedgetrimmer]

The man never was supreme court justice material and should have never been appointed.

[RGSpincich]

So what do you want? You want a monk in the position? They don't require much. They are kind of weird though.

Edging closer. Moonbeam Brown is the new Attorney General of California...He could still be driving a Duster.

[freedomfiter2]

If the guy wants to send his kids to school, we need to give him the means to do so.


Why should his kids get what ever they want from taxpayer dollars when it's taken by force from the taxpayers children?

[Alter Kaker]

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.

I think the proof is in the results. There isn't a major shortage of qualified general officers (I hope) with the existing pay structure. There is, however, a significant shortage of qualified conservative judicial nominees. There are many who have "concerns other than the pay;" however, as we can readily see from the results, that concern is almost always power.

I'd rather have a judge motivated by the pay than by a lust for power. How about yourself?

[Hacksaw]

Well if they're in it for the money then they can always resign and go elsewhere.

Exactly.

[grizzly84]

I'm told the reason they pay the military McDonalds wages is because you're suppose to volunteer to serve your country rather than the prospect of monetary compensation. Why shouldn't the same standard apply to judges? I just don't buy this argument that we need "great minds" who will leave the court if the sacks of gold aren't forthcoming, I don't think Americans want such minds interpreting their constitution.

[AmishDude]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blfirstbor.htm. One has to do with the technicalities of apportionment, the other is the 27th amendment, saying that pay increases (or decreases) for Congress have to take effect in the next Congressional session.

[1L]

>>It's funny how whenever these types of threads get posted, people from rural Alabama pop up to sarcastically say things like, "Yeah, they look real underpaid to me!" The point is that all of these judges must live in expensive cities and maintain lifestyles commensurate with their offices<<

I don't live in rural Alabama, and 100K is more than enough for all of them. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere and actually work for a living.

I detest most Federal judges. The Article III judges by and large have a god-like complex. Outside of those that are incompetent, I've liked most Article I judges I've practiced in front of.

The judiciary is out of control. Raising judges' wages isn't something that would help.

[EternalVigilance]

I still want to know how many of those defending Roberts are lawyers.

[Earthdweller]

...by force?

Alrighty then./s

I'm sure the folks in China are amused.

[Alter Kaker]

I don't live in rural Alabama, and 100K is more than enough for all of them. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere and actually work for a living.

They don't like it and they do go elsewhere where they actually earn a decent living. That's exactly why you don't get very many qualified, conservative judges -- because virtually the only people who will work for $100k / year who would otherwise be earning $1million per year in the private sector are those judges who are independently wealthy. And there are precious few of those. In the law, as with most things, you get what you pay for.

[Tall_Texan]

If a pay increase would make the judges more intelligent, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, a pay increase just means stupid arrogant judges will be better paid.