Replies

And why should the best people accept judgeships if they have to take huge paycuts and live well below their ability in the private sectors? If you want the best, you need to pay for it. Otherwise, mediocre people will be the only ones willing to accept the positions.

The people arguing for low pay for judges are the same ones who would never make that argument for the private sector.

And yet, those are the ones who grip when an increase in the minimum wage is being considered.

And why should the best people accept judgeships if they have to take huge paycuts and live well below their ability in the private sectors? If you want the best, you need to pay for it. Otherwise, mediocre people will be the only ones willing to accept the positions.

John Edwards was making millions as a trial lawyer in North Carolina. John Roberts was making less than 200 grand as an appeals court judge. Does that mean that Edwards is a better candidate for the Supreme Court bench than Roberts?

The people arguing for low pay for judges are the same ones who would never make that argument for the private sector.

No, they're the ones realizing that there is a difference between the two. Judges make a good salary. Is it higher than in private life? No, but they aren't going on foodstamps any time soon, either. There are many reasons to become a judge. Money shouldn't be one of them.

Perhaps more to the point, people who believe that they shouldn't be compensated at competitive, free market rates, tend to be LEFTISTS. Wonder why we have so many leftist judges? Because the compensation system makes sense to people who believe the Marxist mantra "from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs". Pay competitive, capitalist rates, and you'll get judges who believe in the free market, which is largely a proxy for believing in Constitutional liberty.