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 ...
Actually you are just denigrating yourself with such an ignorant remark.
I started the 12th grade at 15 years old
Congratulations. Will you turn 16 before you graduate this year?
His intellect and earning potential far exceed that of most professionals in the DC areas.
The President only earns $400k per year. His job is more demanding than any CEO I can think of. But he's not in it for the money, he is a public servant.
Likewise, $165K is a respectable salary and plenty to have decent lifestyle in the DC area. If they need more than that, we don't need them.
So what? they get a lifetime job doing whatever they want and evidently are virtually unaccountable to anyone for anything. Impeach one of them and he or she will teach you a lesson by running for congress and desecrating government even further. The judiciary has become pussy-willow and compensation has little to do with that. You don't have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court, and a few blue collars there would help moderate things.
This issue is not much different from the teacher pay issue. We have lots of bad teachers (not all of them are, but many are bad). How do we remedy this? Paying bad teachers won't make them good, that is true, but increasing pay will likely attract better teachers.
The same is true of judges. We have many bad ones (see the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a prime example). Relative to other lawyers, they are NOT paid well. Full disclosure, I am an attorney--that's pond scum to some of you in here-- in my 18th year of private practice. I don't do criminal defense or personal injury work, and I am shocked to report that even I make more than federal district court judges (but not that much more). I did ok in law school, upper 10% of my class (not that hard at UNC liberal bloodbath school, but ok for a mill village kid first to attend college on either side of the family).
I'd be willing to take a pay cut to serve as a district court judge-- as soon as I can get my kids through college, but it WOULD be a pay cut. Most of those in the true running for federal judgeships earn FAR more than what they would make as a judge. Those who earn less are attorneys who, for the most part, are not as able or experienced as those who do better, and as one post above mentioned, many are liberals working in public defender or legal aid jobs and the like.
Finally, a brief word in my own defense on the "pond scum" characterization. If I am pond scum, I was pond scum when I was a school teacher, a convenience store clerk, a custodian (my job in the summer before law school), and an iron worker (in a stair and rail business). I help lead our early morning worship service each Sunday, and teach my adult Sunday School class. I admit I am pond scum, but probably no more so than the rest of us.
Yes I do and I am not a pond scum lawyer to boot.
I really can see the difference by reading the posts on this issue. All the lawyers want raises for the courts and the rest of us think they can quit if the pay if too little for them.
What a concept? Unhappy with your pay? Get a new job, like the rest of us in the real world. The pampered elites just want more of our money and no controls on them, since they all have lifetime appointments.
I see, another lawyer pipes in.
I finished college at 18 but thanks for playing.
I disagree. I confess I am paid far more than I ever thought I would earn, and I have many resentful relatives. But the issue here, it seems to me, is how to attract judges with more intellect than what we see, for example, out of the 9th Circuit. I do agree with your point that if you don't think the pay is enough, don't apply for the job. Only problem is, those for whom the current level of pay seems adequate are NOT talented legal minds. There are plenty of lawyers who don't earn any where near $165K/year, but are those the ones we want to be judges? I have seen them, and I suggest that they are NOT who we want.
You wouldn't think that concept would be that difficult at a conservative website, would you? It's the same with state legislators who are unpaid or paid very little. Only the rich or the lowlifes who will find a way to profit are willing to take the office. Regular people can't afford to participate.
As you have already stated and I did also earlier, this is the same thing we hear time and again in respect to teacher's pay.
We can see how good that turned out.
I would support an increase in pay for judges only as long as they agreed to a 10 year term limit. Yes I know this would require a Constitutional amendment.
And well below what they can make in private practice. Furthermore, these people are not supposed to be a GS-13 level but rather someone of great skill as a lawyer.
I don't expect anything of a judge other than they do a competent or possibly even brilliant job. I don't care where they live or with whom their kids attend school. You sound like we all read a version of People magazine for top federal employees.
I want my kids to go to fine schools too - but that doesn't mean my employer should feel beholden to pay me more just because I have a kid of college age.
Law schools restrict the supply of lawyers just as medical schools do.
Many of the most capable (and conservative) lawyers will choose exactly that path (or forgo judicial jobs in the first place). The judiciary may be more liberal and incompetent as a result, but they will make enough to insulate themselves and their families from most of the negative effects. Is that what you want?
What do you do now?
I am not sure I like the term limit idea. I would prefer life tenure, and while we are talking about our 'druthers, I'd like a requirement that the judge agree to take no other pay or compensation for life OTHER than his/her judge's salary and government pension (if any). I wouldn't like a judge to make decisions knowing that after a 10 year term is up, he can go to work for one or more parties who may have appeared before him in court. We see this in elected officials all the time after their terms are up, and I think it stinks.
On teacher pay, I would be happy to increase teacher pay to a level that would encourage talented teachers to teach, but I would want apprpriate testing or evaluation before giving them that pay. The crummy teachers could continue to receive their crummy pay, until talented teachers are available to replace them. My own thoughts are to consider returning to teaching after I retire from law practice (I taught high school for several years before going to law school). The pay would be a secondary consideration (I hope, if my practice continues with moderate success.)
OK, lets presume that $165K isn't enough to attract the top talent that we need in the judiciary. What pay level do you think IS adequate? Are we talking a $20K raise or a $200K raise?
I don't give a crap about the Ivy League, but I know that my husband wouldn't take a big cut in pay if it meant that he couldn't provide his children with what we considerimportant.
People Magazine? What's that? :)
Your proof for saying there's a shortage of willing conservative judges is ... ? Ping me to any documentation you have on that, please.
I was rather under the impression that the filibusters and merciless grilling of conservatives in the Senate by boobs such as Ted *snort* Kennedy and Joe *cheat* Biden and *Leaky* Leahy were a bigger reason.
Even a $200k increase would hardly leave a mark on the federal budget, since the judiciary represents such a small share of the cost of other branches of government.
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.