When you’re a lawyer in a robe.
Low pay threatens judiciary, Roberts warns
Pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary’s independence, Chief Justice John Roberts says in a year-end report critical of Congress.
Roberts said the judiciary will not properly serve its constitutional role if it is restricted to people so wealthy that they can afford to be indifferent to the level of judicial compensation, or to people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase.
Issuing an eight-page message devoted exclusively to salaries, Roberts says the 678 full-time U.S. District Court judges, the backbone of the federal judiciary, are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools…
Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100.
Gee, let’s compare this, shall we?
Top Coal Miner Salary: $65,000 a year
Job: Getting the fuel we need to make sure our nation continues to function. Dig hundreds of feet into the Earth to mine coal. Risks: Lung cancer, gas explosions, tunnel collapse, maiming, death.
Top Enlisted Member of our Military Salary: $64,000 a year
Job: Defend and protect the United States, in part by confronting and killing our enemies. Be shipped off to serve in a barren desert to face a terrorist enemy who doesn’t wear a uniform and tries to kill you remotely. Deal with American media which tells you day after day that you can’t win the war and your service useless, while American senators call you the “terrorist.” Risks: Maiming, death, being arrested for murder when you actually kill the enemy.
Top Salary for a District Court Federal Judge: $165,200 a year
Job: Referee legal fights, make declarations about what the law means, “interpret” the Constitution. Go to an air-conditioned suite where people treat you like God because you’re a lawyer in a robe. Have your assistant bring you coffee as you sit in your cushy chair contemplating legal nuances in cases that affect other people’s lives. Sometime you have to walk to a courtroom, where you sit on a bench higher than everyone else, and listen to arguments and testimony about a case. At the end, you read a little bit more, proclaim your decision while you have your clerks write it up for you. Risks: Becoming arrogant, greedy and fat.
So, let’s see here. Justice Roberts tells us that lawyers who become judges can’t be trusted to be ‘Independent” (i.e. fair, and not corruptible) unless they make a truck load of money. Yet, it appears non-lawyer regular people can be trusted to do incredibly dangerous and brave work for comparatively not a lot of money at all. So the real issue here is not what people are paid, but what people become; ergo, the so-called Elite in this nation cannot be trusted with anything, and lawyers should never become judges.
Yeah, Justice Roberts, I see why you’re so concerned about the quality of person who will want to be a judge considering the work involved and the overall situation. Apparently, all the good people in America are wearing a uniform, not a robe.
Related Links:
Judicial Watch: Judicial Financial Disclosures
Related Post:
John McCain Thinks Americans Are French
That sounds nice, Tammy, but as a government lawyer, here’s the difference: the law is the ONLY profession in the world where you can go from the public sector to the private sector and immediately triple (or more) what you get paid. This is ESPECIALLY true for judges, because they’re drawn from more experienced lawyers.
Should the bench be a revolving door? Should people be judges for only a few years and then cash that in as a big-firm partner? Because I would suggest that the more that happens, the more the independence and neutrality of the courts comes into question by the parties before them.
And if anything this is even more a problem for state-court judges than for the federal judges Roberts is lobbying for.
I see your point Tammy, but I also have to agree with DaveJ. The private sector holds the carrot in the legal profession. Whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, it is the reality. CJ Reinquest was also a huge cheerleader for raising the salaries of judges. I can recall time and time again whenever he was interviewed on C-Span his passion regarding this issue.
Having weighed the issue myself, I find I am more in line of Roberts logic. While it is true that those with ‘more important’ jobs as you listed make less..it is no excuse not to raise the salaries of those we expect to uphold the laws of the land and our Constitution.
I do not think that most judges sit on their arse’s and do nothing..except of course for the beautiful circus out in California, *wink*
Salaries need to be raised on all fronts, but to argue that judges do not deserve it is not a good enough reason for me. Wow, I disagree with my Tammy. That’s okay, that is what makes this blog and her listener’s fantastic. We can and still do so with civility. Maybe Pelosi and Co are taking notes..
But I believe Tammy’s point is that if other people can be trusted to do their jobs honestly, why not judges? Is the nature of the people in the legal profession, the people we expect to be the arbiters of The Law, so hopelessly unprincipled that only lots of money will get us an untainted judiciary? If that’s the case, there will never be enough money
Yeah, DaveJ raises a point that can’t be ignored: Lawyers make the big bucks. I have no idea why this is, but we can’t ignore the market rates without consequence. Although I certainly don’t see how lawyers produce wealth commensurate with their remuneration. But just because I don’t see something doesn’t mean it’s not true. Although I do suspect the legal profession is lucrative largely because our lawmakers (who are almost all lawyers, of course) pass a lot of laws that are effectively full employment acts for lawyers. And I know for a fact that lawyers deliberately create work for each other. There are obvious reasons to create work for your friends, and you also create work for your opponents in hope of overwhelming them with legal costs.
Hmmmm….I just did a Google search on keywords “kill” and “lawyers” and got one and a half million hits. I guess that says something about the attitude of normal people.
Maybe it’s time to trot out those lawyer jokes. Here’s one of my favorites:
Q:What’s the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?
A:There are skid marks in front of the dog.
Good points all, but in Jeebies dream world, qualified judges (and lawyers) would serve their Country, or their State, and not be concerned about the pay. If a judge works for the government, then the citizens, via the legislature probably have some say-so as to their value. (After Kelso, I am believing some are WAY overpaid!). Too, I am afraid the logic behind the pay raises would become a never ending issue, as equality in pay will never happen. Should judges receive 500k? A million? Kind of like the CEO game, remember Enron? Even 50 million is no guarantee of honesty, or quality. And it’s still no guarantee they won’t defect to the private sector anyway. How about patriotism or a chance to be of service to ones country serving as the “carrot”?
I am fond of pointing out that the most dangerous jobs are not held by cops and fireman, but farmers, construction workers, cabbies, and party store clerks.Where’s the parade when one of them dies? My personal experience is that those who are paid the least are expected to do the most.
The problem is simply one of the free market. You get what you pay for. Put this in a slightly different perspective. If you set up a pay structure that makes it impossible for people who are very smart and who have prepared for their career very hard for 12-15 years (doctors) to make enought money to send their kids to a good college, those same smart people will find another line of work. Yes, many will come into the profession because of altruism, etc., but you are automatically carving out a large percentage of folks that you would want in those roles. Same thing for judges.
C’mon! Some lawyers make big bucks but not all lawyers! Those of us in the private sector that are paid good money, however are paid to use good judgement and make correct decisions! Federal judges don’t!
Excellent point Tammy. I have long argued that Federal (and State Judges) should be paid the minimum wage. The argument is always we need to pay these people what they could make in the private sector to attract the best. My argument is what we have now is scary so why not pay them the minimum wage, the quality couldn’t possibly go down any. These people are elitest tyrants now, reduce their pay and maybe they will get a clue that we don’t appreciate them grabbing all the power. Power to the people and let them go on food stamps.
And…I’m NOT a lawyer…thank GOD!!! Know what happens when you give Viagra to a lawyer? He gets taller…
Congress has complete power of the purse and can set any wage rate they want for Federal Judges, this is clearly set out in the Constitution and goes back to the concept of no taxes without representation. I am very dissappointed in Judge Roberts, it is beneath the dignity of his office to be campaigning for more money, in fact it really stinks. I suggest if he doesn’t like his job get the hell off the bench and go work for a living. Tammy, you got me going on this one (I could rant about this for a month). Reduce their pay to the minimum wage and no health benefits. See how they like those apples.
Someone should do a study on what a federal judge is really paid. And compare it to single practitioners in the bar, not senior partners in law firms. Into the salary should be added the expense of a secretary-federal judge’s don’t pay for their own, a single paractioner does; a full-time stneographer–federal judges don’t pay for ctheir own, but each has his own court-reporter, single practioner’s don’t have such an employee; a minimum of two bar member law clerks, federal judges do not pay thier salaries, single practioner’s have to use non-bar member para-legals, if they can afford them; rent free offices; free telephone service; free computerized research, single practioners have to pay for theirs; free postage; free office furnishings; free health care, again single practioners get to pay for thier own; free investigators (law clerks and probation officers); etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. Also there is a guuarantee of receiving the same salary as any other similar judge (trial, appellate) for life, so no retirement program is necessary unless the Judge wishes to live like Donald Trump or any Hollywood star or mogul. i would approximate the salaries of these whiny little malcontents at the equivalent of $1,000,000.00 per year or more.
I’m wondering what it is, exactly, that Justice Roberts is having to do without on his measly $212,000 a year? How incredibly petty.
This is the same rationale our esteemed politicians used decades ago to get themselves more of our dough, and once Congress got its raises, the caliber of politicians rose dramatically, right? Riiiiight!
Mr. Chief Justice, if judges aren’t making enough money, why do I see so many attorneys coveting the offices? Most working women and men change jobs when they can’t earn enough where they are. Why don’t judges? After all, they could run for elective office, win and steal millions in a matter of months like many in Congress manage to do.
Well, I agree with you insofar as being unimpressed with the argument Justice Roberts puts forth. (Caveat: As it is reported.)
But, however poorly he argued, it does not render “you get what you pay for” irrelevant. I do not expect anyone to spend the last 20 or 30 years of their life in service for the country or by extension for me, when there is another job which pays better.
I do find it amusing, though, that Justice Roberts has so quickly forgotten how to advocate effectively. I wonder how sympathetically he would judge them if proffered by someone else.
“My argument is what we have now is scary so why not pay them the minimum wage, the quality couldn’t possibly go down any.”
Oh please. Of course it could. Do YOU work with judges on a daily basis? I do, and while the experience is certainly a mixed bag, if they got paid minimum wage, no one would do it.
With respect again to the disparity between government and private attorneys, keep in mind that the same wage to an attorney is LESS in terms of disposable income than it is to the statistically average member of the workforce, because we’re in more debt having had to finance seven years of higher education.
“Congress has complete power of the purse and can set any wage rate they want for Federal Judges…”
I fail to see how noting this uncontroversial point is really relevant: no one’s disputing that Congress sets the salaries of federal judges. Although the plenary authority you seem to be implying is of course limited: Congress is forbidden by the federal constitution from reducing judicial pay.
“…it is beneath the dignity of his office to be campaigning for more money…”
The Chief Justice is the head of the entire federal judicial branch. Who exactly is supposed to lobby Congress on behalf of their purported interests if not him? Every CJ has done so to some extent: it is not beneath the dignity of the office but is very much a part of the job.
“I could rant about this for a month.”
Please, go right ahead.
Why isn’t $212,000 a year enough? Is it all about “what I do is way more important than what you do and I want the salary to prove it!” or “Mine is bigger than yours.” ? This whole thing is about a real loss of perspective.
“Congress is forbidden by the federal constitution from reducing judicial pay.”
Dave J.: Can you site the article in the Constitution where Congress doesn’t have the authority to reduce Judges’ pay.
On the comment: “the law is the ONLY profession in the world where you can go from the public sector to the private sector and immediately triple (or more) what you get paid.”
That isn’t necessarly true, I have quite a few friends and coworkers who did the same jump from the military to a defense contractor. The same hold true is some cases in the engineering fields when one gets into the project management aspect of the job.
“Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
Ok I answered my own question, but it still looks like we can pay the minimum wage for newly appointed Judges, it’s just the ones still in office we cannot reduce. We can at least not give them a raise.
Well, here we have an idea of how a lawyer weighs the pros and cons of accepting a judgeship.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WilliamFBuckley/2007/01/05/justice_for_justices
He’s bummed about the drop in pay but, “ As Senator Longo reminded me, this is a lifetime appointment. It’s a federal judgeship, and federal judges aren’t even up for election every few years, the way state judges are. Is that undemocratic? Well, I haven’t been asked to serve on a commission to reconstitute the U.S. judiciary. As far as J.J. Postlewaite is concerned, that’s it. Say I live to 80 … I could quit at 70, but I could keep just enough of a caseload to retain my office and staff up to 80, and serving in senior status is not … exhausting. Certainly not as exhausting as tomorrow’s race to Bermuda will be, judging from last timeâ€
Lawyer Postlethwaite’s yacht capsized while racing to Bermuda, no survivors. His diary was recovered.