Whoa! Speaker Hastert stiff-arms the Supremes

U.S. News- Washington Whispers ^ | 01/12/04 | Paul Bedard

[Pokey78]

Despite a guaranteed job for life, free parking, and cool uniforms, federal judges are still whining about making less than, say, your average Michael Jackson superlawyer. The Supreme Court's chief justice, William Rehnquist, thought he had a deal late last year when Senate leaders and the White House warmed to a plan to "delink" judicial pay from the minimal annual congressional pay raise and get guaranteed yearly increases on top of their base $142,300-$198,600 salaries. He even thought he'd locked down an immediate hike of an average $25,000. But that was before his pay-plea team met with House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Just before Thanksgiving, we learn, four Supreme Court judges, including Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, had a private sit-down with Hastert to boohoo that lawyers want more money to become judges. His response? "It's not going to happen," says a leadership aide. In fact, when Hastert told fellow GOP-ers of the begging session, several grumbled that judges shouldn't get paid better than lawmakers until they start working as hard.

[Happy2BMe]

"Just before Thanksgiving, we learn, four Supreme Court judges, including Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, had a private sit-down with Hastert to boohoo that lawyers want more money to become judges."

Need we say more . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
1	California	$978.00	24	$40.75	1,834	$0.53	$1,452.56	96

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[PISANO]

Who says this is a conservative court?? There are Two Conservatives: Scalia and Thomas. One Moderate: Rehnquist. One Liberal: O'Connor. And FIVE Socialist/Marxists.

[jagrmeister]

Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens is 84. Is his goal to die while serving on the Supreme Court? Some old people do fine, but with Stevens, dementia has set in for at least a decade. They should seriously consider age limits on the Supreme Court and make that a condition of accepting the wage increases.

[goodnesswins]

HA...HA...HA....they finally found a "court" (with someone) or agreement they can't INTERPRET how ever they WANT to!!!

[mabelkitty]

Let the all resign for bigger pay if the want.
This shouldn't be a lifetime paycheck for people in their fricking '80s!

[mabelkitty]

I bet this is a bluff by Hastert and Scalia to get the old ones to quit.

[alloysteel]

Isn't there some provision, that the pay of a sitting judge has to stay in some sort of lockstep with Legislative and Executive Branch salaries, and that hierarchy cannot be altered by mere legislative or executive fiat?

[Nick Danger]

Restricting judicial pay is a mistake. We don't need to pay what the David Boies' of the world are making, but we do not want to set up a system that attracts the kind of person who would give up 40 or 50 grand a year in return for getting to wear a black robe and be a big shot. Those are exactly the "little Hitler" types that we don't want on the bench.

William Jefferson Clinton is the Rhodes Scholar lawyer who took a job paying $22,500 a year. Why? So that people would have to call him "Governor." That's what we don't want.

[freedumb2003]

Maybe the Supremes can follow the example of the California Banana Scanners and go on strike.

The Constitution would be assured of hanging on to what little intergity it has left for at least a few months.

[William Terrell]

I agree with your communication, but I believe each individual person is the source of sovereignty. They just lend it to a governing body until it pisses them off.

[LiteKeeper]

The Pack of Nine - hmmm

[NRA2BFree]

In fact, when Hastert told fellow GOP-ers of the begging session, several grumbled that judges shouldn't get paid better than lawmakers until they start working as hard.

LOL! What a joke! NONE of them work hard. I wish we knew just how often they all showed up for work. I think most of them would never be re-elected.

[EGPWS]

"It's not going to happen,"

Perhaps, for a change, the elitist judges will have to put forth some thought on an important issue.

Kudoes Speaker Hastert!

[ikka]

ARe you aware of the outside consulting and free junkets that companies like West Publishing etc. pay federal and especially Supreme Court judges? They get plenty of bennies, wonderful health care, whatever branch of the Feds that provide protective service, etc.

[Always Right]

I would pay them all millions of dollars per year if they would bother reading and applying the Constitution. As is that fewer than 4 can read and understand simple English, forget it.

[hchutch]

Agreed. Talent follows the money.

Up Congressional salaries to $600K a year, same for Cabinet members. Give POTUS a cool $750K a year.

Federal judges could get something similar: $450K for district court judges, $510K for appeals court judges, $570K for SCOTUS associate justices, $600K for the Chief Justice.

[Rebellans]

The black robes just got done spitting on the First Amendment, and now they want a raise?

Maybe we should stipulate that they can't accept any money 60 days before hearing a case.