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 ...
Oh please. All any idiot has to do to get confirmed is to bow down and promise to uphold Roe v. Wade. Schumer would fall all over himself getting them confirmed.
An extra $100K a year is worth it of they would just follow the damned constitution and leave the legislating to the proper branch of government.
That is exactly the attitude that has gotten this country in the financial bind it is in. Any single expenditure is "only a small share of the cost...".
I think about my personal finances in the same way. I don't eat lunch out everyday, for example, despite the fact that it would only be a "small share" of my income. When you start to add up all the "small share" expenditures, it becomes a big deal.
When the SCOTUS gives us decisions like Kelo, why would we want to pay them anything ?
Run of hte mill Commies can be hired anywhere in Eastern Europe for 10% of what we now pay the "ASSinine'.
Worst of all, is that Scalia and Thomas are paid equally with Ginsberg and Souter.
You have a valid point about term limits for judges, I hadn't considered.
I still don't think throwing money at it is going to solve the problem any more than I believe raising the minimum wage is going to raise people out of poverty.
Most people here on FR don't believe that a minimum wage increase is a good idea, but many believe that giving already wealthy individuals a raise is a good idea (and with taxpaper money to boot).
I firmly believe that the solution to both is the same. Don't like the pay, then don't take the job or quit.
I'm not a lawyer so it has no bearing on this issue.
Since when does IQ(intellect in your terms) equate to talent ?
I think we all know people who have very high IQs who we would not use to walk our dogs.
I'm sure there is plenty of "intellect" on the 9th Circuit court - the fact of the matter is they are appointed for life and they feel free to promote their ideological agendas with no repercussions. No amount of money will fix that problem.
Similarly, a few hundred million dollars toward raising judicial salaries (most importantly at the appeals court level, IMO) could have a significant impact on the quality of an important branch of government, while that same amount of money would be virtually meaningless in, say, the Department of Transportation. If we're going to be frugal and save money--something I'm fully in favor of--I'd say we should focus on the bureaucratic executive agencies, which get far more money in relation to their importance to the country.
Remember Meyers? First you have to have the education and then a perfect career just to get into that chair. Then you have to have the temperament to deal with those losers and not snap. I think these guys like Roberts and Scalia are top notch and a worth a whole lot more than $200K/year. These guys could be running multi 100 million dollar firms and rolling in dough. Instead, they sacrifice to represent the founding fathers properly. It's not just them that sacrifices, either. Their kids lose out on a whole lot of inheritance, too.
The TOP guys in each profession make way less than $265 you suggest. Even senators only make $165,200. The speaker of the house makes only $$212,100. I find it difficult to believe that we need to pay these judges more than all the other top Federal servants. They need to want to do it for love of country(much like our soldiers do) instead of an excessive paycheck.
You seem to think we should be impressed by your intellectual credentials, but all you can point to are things that happened while you were still in your teens.
You said, in part: Don't like the pay, then don't take the job or quit.
***
I completely agree, from the perspective of prospective judges and whether they should apply; however, from the perspective of those who want the best opinions coming out of our courts, will they be satisfied with those who find $165K/year sufficient pay to make complicated legal decisions? The fact is, even here in backward North Carolina, there are lots of attorneys making more than $165K who have NO business deciding cases with national implications, but that is the likely pool of applicants if we keep pay at the current level. The exceptions will be those who are truly willing to sacrifice in order to serve (or who have an agenda unaffected by this level of pay) or for whom the honor of being a federal judge bridges the gap between what they are currently earning and what a judgeship pays. As was suggested above, there may be a sufficient number of those who consider being a judge a high enough honor to forego greater pay. Chief Justice Roberts appears to disagree on that point, and I suspect he has access to better numbers than any of us does.
Let's see some proof that we aren't attracting top talent. What is your definition of "top talent" BTW ? Let's define terms here.
Let's add up all the benes and perks of the SCOTUS - car and driver, home security, top-notch staff to do most of the work in the offices, private dining room and meals, overly-generous pension and medical benefits, the summer off, etc. Can you add all that up and give me a figure ?
Oh cry me a river. So the kids will have to go out and make it on their own in the world just like me? Booo-freaking-hooo.
No one pities the judges, but the point is that the country as a whole suffers if the most qualified lawyers, instead of becoming judges and pitying themselves for their low salaries, decide to avoid the career in favor of the private sector.
Thank you for a modicum of honesty here. Judges appointed for life are making half what they could earn as law profs. Averagely successful lawyers make $100,000 to $175,000 after overhead; those with top law firms earn millions.The suggestions here seem to be that the top legal minds should give up lucrative professions for PUBLIC SERVICE, knowing they will never be monetarilly successful---but heck, they are serving their fellow man.
Of course, the argument could be made that we are not getting the best legal minds except occasionally.
I think the Supremes should top out at least at $300,000. They do still have investment options and their retirement is the best, so that needs to be taken into consideration.
Judges stay on the bench until they are old; senators serve two terms and get a huge retirement.
vadine
They weren't "rolling in dough" when they became SCOTUS judges, so why would you think they are worth more ? They agreed to the terms of the job, monetary and otherwise.
Why would I care whether their kids have huge inheritances ? When they're concerned about my kid's inheritance (re Kelo, for one), I'll worry about theirs'.
Wow! Three strawmen in one reply. Is that a record? First, an accountant is by definition an auditor, not that you would know; did you mean book keeper?
"Also, no more engineers as building or highway inspectors. Let's use short-order cooks"
It's been 27 years since I was an inspector, and I wasn't licensed at that time, as inspectors rarely are; it's an entry level position. When you see an engineer as an inspector, you know you have a clown on your hands.
"The anti-intellectualism on this thread is scary."
I think you mean psuedointellectualism, because that is your true line.
"I do not like political elites, but the idea that expert knowledge in a complex field like the law is unnecessary is beyond naive."
When a judge begins to believe that he is an expert, we get judicial legislation, activism. Their heads are clouded with previous errors, and bias. Appellate judges need no complex knowledge of past mistakes; their heads need to be clear and sharp. This is the very essence of what is wrong with our judicial system.
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.