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 ...
You miss the point - most all judges have had years in their legal careers before becoming judges. I would hope debts from law school would be paid off by then.
People who are motivated by money always want more money. If they are paid a million dollars a year they want 10 million. If they are paid 10 million they want 100 million. And if they earn as much as the 2nd richest person on this earth they will want more than the richest person on earth.
Those motivated to do public service are motivated by public service. They only want and need enough money to live on. 165 thousand dollars a year is plenty enough to live on. The problem with people who earn far more than the average American is that person can not understand the plight of thoe that do not make large sums of money.
I would much rather have a judge motivated to earn a reputation for good judgment and service to the nation rather than a person motivated by money to want a very upscale lifestyle.
In the capitalist system people in the private sector are motivated by money. They do good as a side benefit of trying to earn as much money as possible. They have to hire people and pay good wages in order to get qualified people that can make them even more money.
On the other hand a person motivated by money who is drawn to government will still be motivated by money and will use the power of government to acquire as much wealth as he or she can. That is a very bad thing.
Abe Lincoln, the first justices of the Supreme Court, and many other home-grown lawyers learning and practicing law before the 20th century would laugh at your post.
Law schools and bar associations only came into being as a cartel to restrict entry into the profession and raise the price of lawyers - ostensibly they were created to increase the status of a lawyer as a professional. Are you arguing we have better (educated) lawyers today than 100 years ago ?
The history of the legal profession and that of the teaching profession have some interesting parallels regarding credentialization and professionalism.
Excellent analysis.
We all know what the perks are.
We need decent, honest and intelligent people, but no past or present member of the bar should ever be allowed to become an appellate judge. It's a conflict of interest.
Let's see how good you are at logic.
Lawyers are, by nature, POND SCUM. Do not give them any more due than they deserve.
Clearly you are not a logical person but one filled with hate. Smearing all lawyers as pond scum is an idiotic statement. Senator Jeff Sessions is a lawyer -- do you think he is pond scum? For that matter, my brother is a lawyer, a Freeper and a decorated Marine veteran to boot. If you want to call him "Pond Scum" then send a Freepmail to XJarhead and say so. I'm sure he'll treat your childish name-calling with the respect it deserves.
The Constitution does NOT require a law degree to be on the Supreme Court.
It doesn't require the Surgeon General to be a surgeon either. The Founders did expect double-digit IQ from those who apply the Constitution. Not even the dumbest clods in the Senate would vote to confirm a nominee who was not even minimally qualified to serve as a Justice.
I would trust the opinion of the average idiot on the street as much as a federal judge.
It is understandable that you would trust someone you could relate to, as you clearly have not the least bit of insight into what Justices actually do. Fortunately, nobody in any position of influence would do as you suggest.
Once they get appointed and confirmed for LIFE, they are little GODS and know it. They are not desperate for cash.
The Founders wanted an independent judiciary. I do not see how turning Justices into panhandling bums would improve the quality of the decisions. That's why the Founders made it unconstitutional to reduce judicial compensation.
Then again, you probably think any group of people on the street could have written the Constitution in the first place. The fact is that the Founders were highly educated men who were very familiar with the history of Rome and other classical history. They were all mostly lawyers as well. If you wish to consider the Constitution as the product of pond scum then there is no hope for you.
No when I say all lawyers are POND SCUM, I mean it. Actually I feel I am denegrating pond scum.
If the founders would have wanted lawyers to be a requirement, they would have made it so.
I started the 12th grade at 15 years old, so I ignore your attack on my intelligence.
That is Tony Blair
Using that logic no accountant could ever be an auditor. Do you think just anyone can audit books, or does one need formal understanding of accounting principles?
Maybe scientific articles should no longer be subject to peer review. Let's mandate that nobody with a degree in natural science can vet a scientific article. That will eliminate the conflict of interest.
Also, no more engineers as building or highway inspectors. Let's use short-order cooks.
The anti-intellectualism on this thread is scary. I do not like political elites, but the idea that expert knowledge in a complex field like the law is unnecessary is beyond naive.
That's a ridiculous dichotomy that you draw. Everyone is motivated by a combination of factors, and for nearly everyone, these include money.
Do you have a job? Would you do it for free? If not, you are motivated by money? Would you do it if they paid you only enough to survive? If not, you are not only motivated by the need to survive, you are motivated by the desire to have more money than you need.
There is nothing wrong with this, so long as this monetary motive is balanced by a strong ethical code limiting how far one will go to get money.
Al
I did, too. Finished it afore I was 22.
"Are indicative" should be "are not indicative."
I think Justice Roberts is out of touch with how most Americans live.
He's not in the class of most Americans both in terms of intellect or earning potential.
$165K is way above and beyond the $100K that many professionals earn in the DC area.
They pay these intellectual freaks?
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.