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.
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.
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.
But the issue here, it seems to me, is how to attract judges with more intellect than what we see,
Intellect isn't the problem. It doesn't take intellect to see the Kelo and Roe v. Wade decisions were not consistent with the US Constitution.