[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.