The Cellar - Judicial Pay

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Judicial Pay (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=12986)

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.
The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."
"Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence judges need to uphold the rule of law -- even when it is unpopular to do so -- will be seriously eroded," Roberts wrote.

So, according to Roberts, people to whom 165k seems like a lot of money aren't fit to be judges, and people who are willing to do it anyway because they already have enough money also aren't fit to be judges.

Also, consider that the federal goverment is one of the last employers with a fully funded pension plan.

Keep in mind that soldiers are not compensated well for what they do. Cops and firefighters are also not well compensated considering the pay given to their private sector counterparts. The public sector has never paid as well as the private sector. Part of this is because some people enter public service to actually serve the public. Another part of this is that public service offers stability, pensions, and job protections not found in the private sector. Just as someone is rewarded for taking risks, there is a financial cost with taking the safe route.

I wish someone would pay me $165k so I could complain about it.

Quote:

Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.

He shows no evidence of why they left. Die? Retire? Pissed off at the Bush appointment's? Want to distance themselves from the current government?

He does have a point though, the President makes a fraction of private sector executives..... and look at what we got. :right:

Does that mean you advocate paying the president more on the basis that you get what you pay for Bruce?

I think we need to look at the WHOLE compensatio package a President receives - there are a lotta fringe benefits associated with being the Pres - just ask Clinton.

Yes, I understand when Clinton looked into the benefits, he was blown away.:rolleyes:

No Aliantha, any pay increase would be a pee hole in the snowbank compared to the benefits of being an ex-president. Even unpopular exs are invited to the best parties, command big bucks for a canned speech, write high grossing memoirs, and live happily ever after.

the top execs who don't ever look at politics don't necessarily choose business over public service (ha! said that with a straight face) because of the pay. rather it is because they refuse to become involved with the trash known as career politicians.

Except Ken lay. :right:

Trash known as career politicians vs trash known as career executives... Hey- why "vs"? Two great tastes that go great together!

Really HM the only difference between the two is that the politicians usually get away with a lot less.

most execs will clearly state their positions and goals. 1) make money for shareholders and themselves. 2) achieve goals of business to make more money for shareholders and themselves.

good luck getting a clear statement of purpose from a politician.

At that high level of "positions and goals", the political equivalent is "best serve my constituents and the US". Whether they go for short-term or long term goals, and what they're willing to consider collateral damage along the way is what's important.