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.

[AmishDude]

Looks like Hastert told each them to commit constitutionally-protected relations with themselves.

[Theophilus]

Go look for your pay raises in the prenumbra, you find everything else that you want there.

[nygoose]

What Hastert must do is have the House impeach a couple of the Justices for not upholding their oath to preserve and protect the U. S. Constitution. That's the only way to stop this crap.

If the Senate does not convict , impeach two more etc. etc.

[catpuppy]

Restricting judicial pay is a mistake

Respectfully disagree. Rather than attracting those legal stars who feel entitled to splendid salaries, I would rather that--as intended--the court attract decent folk who, while perhaps lacking impressive degrees, are possessed with an uncommon amount of plain common sense.

We don't need over-educated wordsmith wizards who can divine "emanations" and "penumbras" wherever such will promote a particular cause. What we need on the courts are everyday people who can read and apply the Constitution and the law as they are written.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

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.>>

You're utterly ignorant on this subject. 90% of congresscritters work like slaves: 90 hours/week when Congress is in session, 70 hours/week during "recess" (ha ha), 168 hour weeks during election season.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Respectfully disagree. Rather than attracting those legal stars who feel entitled to splendid salaries, I would rather that--as intended--the court attract decent folk who, while perhaps lacking impressive degrees, are possessed with an uncommon amount of plain common sense.>>

You fail to take into account the fact that (1) this REALLY means restricting the Court to the independently wealthy and (2) makes graft much more attractive.

[catpuppy]

You fail to take into account the fact that (1) this REALLY means restricting the Court to the independently wealthy and (2) makes graft much more attractive.

To the contrary, it opens the courts to those willing and able to serve, irrespective of wealth. As for making graft more attractive, why would those willing to honestly apply the law while working for less money than some legal lights require be tempted to engage in graft?

[dennisw]

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.

Say what you want about our CongessCritters but they do work their butts off. Eating all kinds of rubber chicken and crap off buffets to get elected. Shaking hands and sucking up to campaign donors and others. My estimate is they are "on the job" 16 hours per day. The Supreme Court judges have a much less stressful life with more prestige and honor. If prestige and honor doesn't do it for them I could care less.

[dennisw]

I agree in my post #28.

[avenir]

$450K/$510K/$570K/$600K/$750K...a year.

Tell me you're joking.

Pay them $100K...MAX! I doubt we'd be any worse off than we are now (since they already make outrageously more money than most Americans do and still issue godless rulings).

Besides, they get who-knows-how-much worth of hidden perks. I consider it generous to disregard that and STILL give them $100K.

[Jabba the Nutt]

No age limit, we need term limits for judges as well as members of Congress.

[Happy2BMe]

"The Supreme Court judges have a much less stressful life with more prestige and honor. If prestige and honor doesn't do it for them I could care less."

Couldn't agree more.

I might add though that the USSC's charter is to work for the People, not the People working for the USSC.

[GladesGuru]

If the members of 'The ASSinine" so please you, why not write them a hefty check of your own?

But please, do resist the temptation to put your hand in my pocket through the surrogate of government.

[reg45]

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.

and the federal income tax rate for Congresscritters, cabinet members, Presidents and federal judges should be 50%.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

If they got payed based on merit, most of them would owe us taxpayers rather than get a penny in salary.

[rightcoast]

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.

This sounds a little pricy, but when you do the math, it's not completely unreasonable:

Current salary for House and Senate members is $154,700 yearly, with the Majority & Minority leaders of each house (and the Senate President Pro Tempore) receiving $166,700 and the Speaker of the House receiving $192,600. This is a total Congressional salary payroll of $82.86 million.

Increasing Congressional salaries to $600,000 a year and adding a Leader/President Pro Tempore bonus of $50,000 and a Speaker bonus of $100,000 would yield in a total Congressional salary payroll of $321.35 million.

What you could do to offset these costs would be to reduce the pension of retired Congressional members to something more reasonable. A nice piece of corresponding legislation would be to enact term limits, which would have the effect of raising the bar in Congress by paying more, but eliminating it as a life profession. I would love to see a Congressional Compensation and Service Reform Act (would probably have to be in the form of a constitutional amendment) in my lifetime, but it will probably never happen.

[jagrmeister]

What is the "term" of a Supreme Court judge? They have lifetime "terms". So would their limit be 1? And states have age limits on some of their justices. The ravages of old age take their toll and it would be wise to apply this policy to the Supremes.

[aruanan]

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.

Yeah, just what we need: Both lawmakers and judges working their butts into a sweat to foist more and more laws and judicial decrees onto everyone. If the lawmakers were to work a whole lot less hard, even get to shoveling off the lawbooks some of the great piles of crap they've passed over the years, there would be a lot less for the judges to do and to have to get paid for.

[Lael]

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.

I guess there are no more Warren Court types on the current Supreme Court, so their lack of "Institutional Memory" may be excused.

Briefly, when the Congress had its fill of the Warren Court's "Make it up as you go along" approach to the Constitution, the Democrat-Dixiecrat dominated Congress refused several pay raises to send The Black Robed Nine a suitable message!

[hchutch]

No, I'm not. The problem is, the biggest perk right now is prestige, and most Congresscritters are there for the power.

For the real talent, current salary is a serious pay cut. Make the financial payoff more attractive for those folks - or else you will get a lot more drones and a lot less folks who want to get stuff done.