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 ...
We also have Judge Judy, Judge Mathis, Judge Alex, and other luminaries who are busy dispensing justice in TV land.
"American Idol!!!!!"
LOL!! Pay them what Simon gets!! It's only fair!
The article points out that the mix of judges coming from the public and private sectors has changed in recent decades, with those coming from the public sector now predominating.
Often, becoming a judge is quite a step up for a typical left liberal public sector lawyer. But for a conservative private sector lawyer, becoming a judge, especially at current salary levels, is likely to entail a dramatic cut in compensation.
That means folks who are more likely to have a liberal bias, as conservative lawyers are often more inclined toward private practice.
Thus, Chief Justice Roberts is really identifying another problem: the difficulty of attracting competent CONSERVATIVES to the bench, since conservative lawyers are more likely to be making bigger bucks in the private sector.
I agree. I'm not saying they are under paid. I have never seen a case of a judge refusing a seat on the bench over money.
I'll take the job at that price.
I was more attempting to reinforce your point rather than disagreeing with you.
Dear Non-Sequitur,
"You would have to convince a lot of people that incomes in the $160,000 to $200,000 range is 'low paid'. It provides a very nice lifestyle, far nicer that 95% of the people in this country enjoy."
It depends on where you live. If you're in the Washington metropolitan area, $160K - $200K is about what a two-income family, comprising a ocuple of GS-13 - 15s, makes.
So, that means a senior-level judge might have the income of a household with a couple of low- to mid-level government bureaucrat supervisors.
Yikes.
sitetest
Is that really your argument?
OK, I wasn't sure.
Well on the surface that is true. But they are naked under those robes and dont have to buy pants like I do.
US Supreme Court packed with millionaires
By Kate Randall
17 June 2002
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
Recently released figures document the fact that the US Supreme Court, an unelected body that rules on issues affecting the lives of millions of Americans, is comprised of representatives of the wealthiest layers of society.
According to financial disclosure reports for 2001, five of the nine Supreme Court justices are millionaires, and the other four are not far behind. These reports actually underestimate the wealth of the justices, since they exclude primary residences. Were the homes of the justices included in the financial reports, it is likely that all nine would top one million dollars in net worth.
The justices, who are appointed to life-time positions by the US president, subject to confirmation by the Senate, are all richer than the vast majority of Americans. Figures on their wealth were released May 31 and reported by the Associated Press.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the wealthiest, worth between $7.7 million and $33.7 million, excluding her home in Washington and some other holdings. She also has retirement accounts worth at least $4 million. Ginsburg has ranked as the richest justice in past years as well.
Stephen Breyer comes in second, reporting a net worth of between $4.2 million and $15.2 million. This estimate does not include Breyer’s home in the posh Georgetown neighborhood in the nation’s capital, although he did list rental property in the West Indies and real estate holdings in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sandra Day O’Connor is worth $2.8 million to $6.4 million. She holds a long list of telecommunications and medical stocks and, like the other justices, often recuses herself from cases that might impact her portfolio. O’Connor is reportedly the most frequently absent for such conflicts of interest.
John Paul Stevens and David Souter are also millionaires, with Stevens worth $1.3 million to $2.7 million, and Souter worth $1 million to 5.1 million.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist is worth somewhere between $510,000 and $1.2 million, not counting his home. Antonin Scalia has a reported net worth of $500,000 to $1.3 million.
Only Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy came in well below $1 million—at least on paper. Thomas reported holdings of between $150,000 and $410,000, not counting his home in suburban northern Virginia. Kennedy reported cash holdings and life insurance worth $45,005 to $180,000. He has reportedly divested major assets over the past several years.
From the standpoint of compensation, all of the justices are in the top 5 percent of US households. The chief justice takes home $192,000 annually, and the other justices make $184,000.
Supreme Court justices, like other high-level government employees, are required to account publicly for income beyond their salaries, and disclose stock or other holdings that could potentially influence their performance on the job. But the reports on the justices’ holdings are vague, listed only in general categories, such as those worth up to $15,000 or those worth between $1 million and $5 million. While the justices are required to report these holdings, they are under no obligation to divest them.
The justices are also required to list non-paid, out-of-town speaking engagements at law schools and other law-related functions. While they receive no monetary compensation, their hosts foot the bill for travel expenses, hotel accommodation, food and other perks.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/rich-j17.shtml
The pay is being compared to deans and teachers at institutions of higher learning. Perhaps the pay standards at those institutions are too high. Sounds like a lot of money to me.
Why would you ever know if a person refused the offer of an appointment? Are you the gatekeeper?
Perhaps, just perhaps, we should pay better money so that we get justices that actually are competent?
The Nazi's were competent. We need morals and they can't be bought. Paying more only attracts those who care more about money. How has paying more helped the public schools?
Yup. They can cry me a river.
Doubling the salary of a few hundred judges is a lot less expensive than having to put the next Alcee Hastings or Thelton Henderson on the bench because all of the good people chose private practice for financial reasons.
Mr. Roberts, let's tackles more pressing Constitutional crisis' first.
Take your pick of dozens....
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.