You're right; we need crack teams of lawyers, just like our best plumbers!
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 ...
The tradition of sending kids to Catholic schools jumps more rapidly to mind. Here is the tuition schedule for the Catholic high school in the toniest section of Washington, Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School:
Tuition costs for 2006-2007: $18,250
It's a little less than two-thirds of what many pay for tony non-Catholic DC private schools ($26K).
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.
Are you going to say that we won't simply end up with well paid power hungry idealogues?
It's a shame that even the better judges don't seem to understand what the concept of "public service" means. It's not a get-rich-quick scheme. Nor should the pay be based on catering to public officials' envy of private sector income. Most federal employees, including judges, are given what is essentially guaranteed well-compensated employment for life and a generous benefits package second to none. But that doesn't stop them from whining endlessly about how they're not making as much as those who subject themselves to the risks and uncertainties of market forces.
For the life they have to lead and the confirmation process, yep they need more money. Just getting past the left wing pacs is tough enough, but getting past schumer is worth millions. Add to this that they really can't invest or moonlight at anything, but they are expected to be the absolute best in their field, yeah they ought to get paid pretty well. How much is a 2500 square foot house in VA these days?
You're right; we need crack teams of lawyers, just like our best plumbers!
It's our system..don't like it change it.
That said, I'm watching every dollar the house takes out of my retirement package and if they vote to rip me off they won't have my support.
Giving a few SC judges a pay raise shouldn't scare anyone when you see the big bucks some of those guys are letting fly out the window.
IIRC, there is no official requirement that a Supreme Court justice have a law degree. But in practical terms, there is no way anyone would pass Senate review without one.
I would just like to say that entertaining is a Judge which complains about compensation in a public service office. maybe he should go to the table and remind everyone that an amendment to the constitution states that no lawyer may hold any public office. Then lets see how many of these debutants have jobs in the morning. Money for being in office illeagally, Sounds good to me. We can just take all the pimps that are in prison for tax evasion to replace them.
I must respectfully disagree. Voting was limited to male landowners. Women could not own property in many states nor even claim custody of their children if their husband left them. And of course, slaves had no legal rights. Together, women, slaves and non-landowners made up the majority of the population.
Sorry to say that the senate or house are public office and would most are lawyers to be regarded as non qualified constitutionally to hold that office. Abraham Lincoln Amendment (11?) original "No Lawyer will be allowed to hold any public office" This whole argument is unqualified because the person (s) who are wanting more aren't supposed to be there to begin with, why in over 100 years hasn't this been the slightest issue. Thus, all problems begin with defiance of our constitutional rights given to the citizens of the United States, to ensure the integrity of the checks and balances
Have you seen the returns lately? They barely pay for a parking space at Yale. lol. Are you giving me the 3rd degree? hehehe.
I don't get it. That's a lot of money for a salary -- I don't even make close to that, somehow I get by and do pretty well.
Given the elitism evident on this thread
We're talking about the Federal judiciary and comments by the Chief Justice. If you think that such positions are not "elite" then you must also think a plumber could do brain surgery.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"elitism" is almost always used to denote a superior state of mind and entitlement: e.g. elitist vs pluralist.
Your if/then theory re the plumber and brain surgery seems hare-brained to me.
They don't even have to maintain two homes, the way Congressmen do. WHat are tehy complaining about?
I agree with that. Welcome to FR, by the way.
Couldn't agree more. Communists always seem to believe there should be a handful who are "first among equals."
I do -- and I'll tell you what, as an annual salary, $165,000 is plenty to live on in DC. If they were like Congressmen and had to maintain two residences, it might be a different story. And seriously, most of the lower paid ones -- the district judges -- are living in parts of the country that are far less expensive than DC.
That's cause we are in Indiana silly. The liv'in is fine here. I wouldn't live in DC if someone gave me a half a mil a year.
No, I'm a Hoosier Ex-Pat in DC.
My sympathies.
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.