Is that Tony Blair? Looks like he economizes by getting his shirts folded after laundering instead of individually bagged on hangers.
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 ...
I can say only three things in defense of his claim:
1) The cost of living in DC is as high as Manhattan or LA. It is impossible to buy even a one-bedroom apartment for less than $275,000. Most of the justices have wives and children. The median house price is over $500,000, for the type of houses my working-class grandparents lived in in NE and NW DC a few decades ago. If your house doesn't have a parking space, they also rent for what many pay for a house in the rest of the country.
2) Justice Scalia has often remarked about his pay in relation to the fact that he has nine children.
3) Comparables for decision-makers/thought leaders: university presidents average around $500,000. Corporate CEOs pull down millions per year. Top pay for government lawyers on salary is nearly $120K. Average compensation for trial lawyers in private practice who stand before the Supreme Court is $127,000; of course, many make much more.
The love of money is going to be the downfall of this country.
Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't, but the fact is, unless you like the way the judicial system currently operates, you'd see that the present system isn't working.
Instead of attracting selfless patriots, the system presently attracts middling power-hungry incompetents who are after power, not money. We'd get a lot more qualified judges if we were paying them 50% of private sector wages, not 10%.
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.
Are you a NEA member? That's the line they keep pushing and it doesn't work there either. On the other hand, if we could return to the US Constitution as written it would be worth billions a year.
The question isn't money, it's who is nominating and approving the judges. Until that is fixed no amount of money will improve the situation in the least.
I don't argue with your number, but THAT is nuts.
LOL!!
"Hello, my name ist Jeem, J-I-M! May I be of helped too yoo toodey?"
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.
They would have to be morons like George Washington.
Is that Tony Blair? Looks like he economizes by getting his shirts folded after laundering instead of individually bagged on hangers.
"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."
BINGO!
I don't think it's either / or. I think we need a President who will nominate qualified conservative judges. We need a Senate who will approve them. But in addition, we also need a larger pool of qualified conservatives who aren't power hungry megalomaniacs.
At the current pay structure, we just aren't attracting them. In fact, if you followed the courts closely you'd see that one of the consistent problems is that many apparent "conservatives" who want to be appointed to the federal bench are closeted megalomaniacs (see: Souter, David).
The best early sign of judicial megalomania? How about a willingness to take a 90% pay cut to go work for the Federal Government? There's nothing wrong with judges motivated by money, and I'd rather get a bunch of them than a bunch of power hungry zealots.
And no, I'm not an NEA member.
That would be fine. But a couple hundred grand a year is not poverty-level, even in Washington, DC. Not even close.
My nephew is an academy grad and lower grade officer. He gets a fourteen hundred dollar a month housing allowance if he lives off base, and free housing and utilities if he lives on base, not to mention dozens of other perks. I wonder what a general's housing allowance is?
...by force?
Alrighty then./s
It's understood that any amount of resistance to paying taxes will be exceeded by the collecting government. You refuse to pay and armed men willeventually show up. You pick up a gun they shoot. Or do you believe everyone just pays out of the goodness of their heart?
In the entire history of the American Republic, from Lexington and Concord down to the present day, there has been exactly one George Washington. Hoping for a great, selfless man on a white horse isn't policy, it's lunacy.
In fact, if you read the Constitution, you'll read a very cynical document. The framers believed -- correctly -- that their descendents would be base, impure, power-hungry zealots and that's why they created a Bill of Rights and a Separation of Powers to check (somewhat) their influence.
We need to recognize that judicial nominees aren't going to be little George Washington and instead are either going to be well paid, competent professionals, or else ill-paid power-hungry ideologues. Given the choice, I'd prefer the former.
Instead of attracting selfless patriots, the system presently attracts middling power-hungry incompetents who are after power, not money. We'd get a lot more qualified judges if we were paying them 50% of private sector wages, not 10%.
If this is truely the problem then the solution is to take away power not to pay more.
A most entertaining post.
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.