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 ...
"Many qualified candidates aren't wiling to take that pay cut."
Name 3.
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.
So what do you want? You want a monk in the position? They don't require much. They are kind of weird though.
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.
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.
I think Justice Roberts would be better able to answer that question than I.
This is just good basic common sense.
The man never was supreme court justice material and should have never been appointed.
Edging closer. Moonbeam Brown is the new Attorney General of California...He could still be driving a Duster.
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?
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?
Exactly.
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.
>>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.
I still want to know how many of those defending Roberts are lawyers.
Alrighty then./s
I'm sure the folks in China are amused.
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.
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.
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.