[Beagle8U]

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.

[DManA]

I was more attempting to reinforce your point rather than disagreeing with you.

[Timmy]

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.

Why would you ever know if a person refused the offer of an appointment? Are you the gatekeeper?

[undeniable logic]

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.

You are missing or ignoring "selection bias". I'm sure there are many attorneys that would make steller judges that choose not to seek a judgeship because the pay is not high enough. The only question is whether the remaining pool of interested lawyers is large enough to get competent judges. If the answer is yes, then don't raise the pay. If the answer is no, then raise the pay. It's that simple. I think Robers is arguing that the answer is no. I have no idea if he's right or not, but your argument would always suggest that the pay for judges is sufficient, no matter what the pay is.