U.S. Chief Justice Calls on Congress to Boost Judges' Income

[stevedeshazer]

Jan. 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, in his first annual report on the judiciary, asked Congress to give federal judges a ``significant'' boost in pay, saying low salaries threaten the independence of the courts.

<snip>

Rehnquist will be considered by historians ``as among the handful of great chief justices of the United States,'' said Roberts, who was one of Rehnquist's law clerks in 1980-81.

<snip>

...Roberts wrote that with inflation the real pay of federal judges has declined by almost 24 percent since 1969, while the real pay of the average American worker has increased by more than 15 percent.

<snip>

Filings in U.S. bankruptcy courts rose 10 percent to 1,782,643. The all-time record increase was due to the passing of a 2005 law that will make it harder to wipe out debts, the report noted.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=abnLR1MCMRrI&refer=top_world_news

[billybob537]

1. The pay for justices

is intentionaly low to keep greedy carpet bagers like Roberts from aspiring to justice status.

[Inland]

31. They weren't supposed to make a goddam 50 year career out of the bench

Thanks to Reagan and Bush I and Bush II packing the courts with young judges, these guys are looking at spending their highest earning potential years on the bench. If they were to start appointing accomplished older lawyers with an earning career behind them already, there wouldn't BE any hardship.

If you want the money one earns by defending big buck clients, don't be a judge. Go make that money and come back when you are sixty.

[onenote]

70. sorry, but you don't have your facts straight

The notion that Supreme Court justices typically have been "accomplished older lawyers" and that it Reagan, Bush I &II have departed from this practice doesn't measure up against the historical record. The average age of all of the justices appointed during the 19th century was around 53 and they lived, on average, until 73. More than a quarter of those justices served for 25 or more years (and 7 had terms of 30+ years).

Its been more of the same in the latter half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Truman's four appointees average 53 (with two being 50 or younger). Ike had five appointees--averaged 53 with two 50 or less. JFK only had two appointees, averaging 49.5. On the other hand LBJ's two appointees averaged 57 (which means if you combine JFK and LBJ you end up at....53. Nixon actually changed things up -- he went for older guys, averaging almost 59. Three of his four appointees were over 60, but Rehnquist was only 47. Ford gave us Stevens at 55. Reagan began a slightly younger skewing trend, but only slightly -- his three "new" appointees averaged 51, but if you include his elevation of Rehnquist to CJ, the average age of Reagan's appointees was...53. Bush I only had two appointees, Souter at 51 and Thomas at 43. Clinton skewed a bit older -- 58 to be exact. And thus far, chimpy has given us Roberts at age 50 and Alito at 55 -- average age pretty close to that magic 53. Thus, the only real old ball is Thomas' appointment at age 43, although that is the same age that Potter Stewart was when he was appointed by Ike and only two years younger than Whizzer White at the time of his appointment by JFK.

Fun facts....

onenote

[Whoa_Nelly]

2. And just how muchis the salary of a SCOTUS judge?

Why...take a look here!

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/01/news/newsmakers/salary/

[merwin]

26. Poor judges, only making 150k per year!

How will they ever survive?

[saigon68]

40. They get a lot of FREE PERKS

Health Insurance and 100% prescription drugs

THEY ARE PIGS WITH THEIR SNOUTS IN THE PUBLIC TROUGH

[NashVegas]

41. Everyone Is Jealous of the CEO Salary

It's corrupting everything.

[Earth_First]

3. Apparently they missed this statement:

US government warns it's running out of cash

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051230/ts_afp/uspoliticseconomy

[no_hypocrisy]

7. You beat me to that point. Tell Roberts to hold a bake sale.

[Algorem]

10. just try not to pose with the food

[necso]

4. Didn't he just get the job? /nt

[stevedeshazer]

5. Started Sept. 29th

Just over three months in, much of it on vacation.

[stepnw1f]

6. F*ck You!

You fascist piece of shit!

[DELUSIONAL]

28. Yep -- you bet me to it -- my exact words when I read the headline

If that shit head didn't like the salary he should have taken a pass on the job and kept his high paying job.

[insane_cratic_gal]

8. Assholes

why not raise min wage dick heads! Tell that to someone making 10k a year at 5.35 an hr or 200 bucks a week

$212,100 a year, while the other eight justices are paid $203,000. Federal appeals judges make $175,100 and trial judges $165,200 annually.

Tell that any family out there scrapping to make ends meet. When they are pulling in 4k a week

[ckramer]

12. Exactly

But poor people can go to hell, can't it?

That's why this country is going downhill. Totally corrupted. Everybody at the top only cares about their salary.

[AngryAmish]

38. Judges are former lawyers

A good lawyer in my area makes from $500,000 to $10,000,000 a year. How do you attract good candidates or retain good judges? You have to pay them more.

[insane_cratic_gal]

39. difference is it comes out of OUR Money

Our tax dollars. Lawyers who are making 500,000 are earning it. BIG difference.

If they feel it's too little they can refuse the position.

SC judges are getting extra bennies with all of the power they wield. Are they not getting the VP out their ranches?

So if we pay our Senators more do you think we will get better candidates? Just wondering?

[AngryAmish]

43. You could get SC justices if you paid them nothing

I'm talking about lower down the system, especially trial judges and magistrates. If you do not pay them adequately all you get are ideologues which make for awful judges.

[northzax]

65. well, actually

there is something to be said for it. In fact, government policy jobs have never been as low paying as they are now, in comparison to what can be made on the outside. I have a good friend who was a senior advisor to a powerful democratic senator. He was making about $85 grand. But he couldn't, on that salary, afford to buy a house and raise children in DC (outside of DC, certainly, but in a place where a two bedroom condo costs $500 grand, that's not a huge amount of money. So it's commute hours to work, or go to the private sector. he's not a lobbyist. overnight, his salary tripled. 80 to 240. He was an exceptionally good policy advisor, now he's a good lobbyist, and he can afford to send his kids to college. another friend just bailed on her prosecutor gig, she wasn't making 40 grand three years out of law school, and owed about 100 thousand in student loans. So she's in the private sector and can afford a decent apartment. Yes, it's tough all over, I know, but these are the opportunities public servants are offered. why not make the decision a little harder?

If we paid senators a million dollars a year, would they spend careers building relationships with businesses to get paid consulting gigs when they leave?

[LiberalFighter]

45. If they were appointing good judges then I would support it

And no one is forcing someone to become federal judge or supreme court judge

[Algorem]

9. soliciting bribes is exhausting,and with Abramoff's problems just not as

lucrative now

[Deja Q]

11. How very patriotic of them; to give themselves raises while they

pass laws helping the corporate elite and killing the average American worker.

[madaboutharry]

13. When the republicans do everything they

can to make sure that there is no hike in minimium wage, cut programs for the poor, and squeeze the middle class; it is really in bad taste for the newest republican on the SC to start whining about almost $200K a year.

[meti57b]

14. So why take the job if it doesn't meet your salary requirements.

[Idioteque]

15. Hmm folks here are taking it better than the freepers.

heh.

"Gimme a break!

The last ten years have seen the utter destruction of the Constitution. Why reward the destroyers?

Hire some freaking wetbacks at $4 an hour. The destruction will continue but we'll save millions. "

[JusticeForAll]

66. Wow! They hate this worse than we do!

Thanks for the powerful insight!

I cannot believe the one comment..."Yep, a Bush appointee!"

Sounds like one of us!

[Demeter]

16. Salary Hasn't Anything To Do With Judicial Independence

As any judge who takes bribes is asking for some first-hand experience on the other side of the bench.

No, keep the pay low, and only those who love justice will want the job--like we do for mothers, teachers, and other essential service workers.

[NanceGreggs]

17. I am totally intrigued by the statement ...

"... low salaries threaten the INDEPENDENCE of the courts."

What is that supposed to mean? What does one have to do with the other -- unless you're insinuating that judges will be 'forced' to take bribes, engage in other illegal activity to make money, etc.?

Is that a THREAT, Justice Roberts? Or a PROMISE?

[stevedeshazer]

27. That really junps out, doesn't it?

So, if we don't raise their pay enough, they won't be independent? What kind of BS is that?

[saigon68]

42. he will take free airline tickets and other freebies

HE WILL BE PAID TO SPEAK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY

HELL CLINTHONG DID IT FOR YEARS NOW.

[LiberalFighter]

46. I do the job for $100,000 a year!!!

And I wouldn't be bought.
No limo -- I probably need to have someone drive though
Someone mentioned the freebies including having travel paid to attend events to talk... hmmm how about organizations that don't have the major funds or no funds so that a judge gets out and sees the real world? Personally, I would consider the events that current justices attend to be boring and useless especially since they are generally sponsored by corporations and other non-average groups.

Wouldn't need to have a liquor bar
Visitors needing refreshments would just have to put up with whatever coffee, tea or soda the secretary has on hand.

I imagine that justices have their own law library at home and probably have access to legal research on the internet.

[sweetheart]

18. God wants judges to live in comfort

God wants all judges to have a second home on a south pacific island, with huge plasma TV
screen conferencing facilities, so that they are protected from a nuclear attack on washington DC.
God wants all those judges to not have to wear robes, but to sit naked on a chair at the front
of the room.

But, in return, they get to live in the monastary, as everyone knows judges traditionally
renounce the right to property, and so the renunciate priesthood has evolved in the south
pacific, breeding with the natives as much as their wives, that entire 5 start hotels
are now staffed with judgemental children. ;-)

The judges monastary is usually a spacious compound, like a manse, where the judge can take
time to be well studied and wise. And that is why god wants a pay raise for all southern
baptist judges, dammit! Aeeehhhmmmmeeen.

[Sydnie]

19. From the Yahoo article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060101/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_judiciary

<snip>

Roberts opened his report on the federal courts by insisting that he didn't want to seem presumptuous after just three months on the job. But, like Rehnquist, he did not mince words on the pay issue and called it a "direct threat to judicial independence."

He said judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers than ever before, compared to the 1960s when only a handful of federal judges retired or resigned. Since 1990, he said, 92 judges have left the bench, 59 of them to go into more lucrative private practice. In the past five years, 37 judges have left, nine of them last year, Roberts said.

Real pay for judges has declined substantially, the chief justice said. "If Congress gave judges a raise of 30 percent tomorrow, judges would — after adjusting for inflation — be making about what judges made in 1969," he wrote. "This is not fair to our nation's federal judges and should not be allowed to continue."

Roberts said judges understand the difficult funding choices Congress must make. "But the courts play an essential role in ensuring that we live in a society governed by the rule of law," he wrote. "In order to preserve the independence of our courts, we must ensure that the judiciary is provided the tools to do the job."

<snip>

Guess he hasn't heard that most of the new jobs are minimum wage. Most of us could do just fine on a judges salary, I think.

[Child_Of_Isis]

20. real pay of federal judges has declined by almost 24 percent since 1969

So? Welcome to the real world. Get a second job like everyone else.

[mbperrin]

21. Real pay of average workers down 50% since 1972

eom

[ckramer]

22. I say let the judges live in hardship so that they would be more

sympathetic and understanding to the poor. That's only good for the country.

haha!

[Moosepoop]

23. Here's their argument:

http://www.abanet.org/poladv/fedcomp2003.pdf

It's a May 2003 report written by the American Bar Association/Federal Bar Association titled "Federal Judicial Pay -- An Update on the Urgent Need for Action". Here's the first four paragraphs of the 28-page report:

In 2001, the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association collaborated on and issued Federal Judicial Pay Erosion: A Report on the Need for Reform because of a shared
conviction that the salaries of Federal judges had reached such levels of inadequacy that they threatened to impair the quality and independence of the Third Branch. Over the course of the past two years, the problem has not been rectified; indeed, the problem has worsened.
Deeply concerned over the insidious changes in the Federal judiciary that have surfaced because of a decade of salary neglect, the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association have issued this updated joint report to document the gravity of the situation and to urge the Bush Administration and the 108th Congress to take immediate and lasting action to avert a crisis in the Federal judiciary.

The U.S. Constitution imposes upon Congress and the President the responsibility for setting the pay of the Federal judiciary. The core problem with the current procedure for setting judges’ pay is the statutory linkage of judicial salaries (as well as those of high-ranking
Executive Branch officials) to the salaries of Members of Congress. This linkage causes Federal judges and top officials of the Executive Branch to suffer the consequences of Congress’ reluctance to award itself a pay increase or even to accept cost-of-living adjustments provided by statute.

Despite a series of attempts by Congress and the President over the last 30 years to enact legislative measures to establish workable solutions to the salary-setting dilemma, none has been fully successful, including the latest reforms, enacted as part of the 1989 Ethics Reform Act. The salary review commission envisioned by the Act never became operational, and the new mechanism for automatic, annual cost-of living adjustments has not worked as intended. While these failed reforms have adversely affected salaries for top-level Federal officials in all three branches of government, this report focuses on their impact on the Federal judiciary.

Over the course of the past three decades, judicial salaries have declined in value, while the salary of the average American worker has increased by 17.5 percent. A comparison of the purchasing power of today’s judicial salaries with those that existed in 1969 (the first time judicial salaries were raised significantly, based on recommendations of a non-partisan salary review commission) reveals that real pay has declined 23.5 percent for district court and circuit court judges (and more for Supreme Court justices). Their current salaries would have to be raised by approximately 27 percent to recoup that loss.

In a nutshell, the judges feel that they've gotten the short end of the stick ever since their pay increases were put under the authorization of Congress, and tied to increases that Congress votes for themselves (or doesn't, as the case may be). I think that the last round of Congressional pay raises has caused the judges to demand theirs, too.

This is where the "independence" of the judiciary comes into play. Their pay is not independent of Congress, and they don't like it one bit.

[UrbScotty]

24. Poor boy can barely keep food on the table

:sarcasm:

[indypaul]

25. Perhaps Scalia will invite

Roberets to go along on the next "duck hunt" so you can
learn how this systems operates.

[kentuck]

29. If they're in it for the money, they should not be judges...

The same goes for those "public servants" in Congress, in my opinion. It's not supposed to be a career. If you can't live on the salary, get the hell out !!

[stevedeshazer]

32. The timing is very suspect, too

Not to mention the threat of loss of "independence" C.J. Roberts refer to.

[baby_bear]

30. No one has mentioned that they have lifelong tenure

They have a job for life and health benefits for life.

How many people can claim that?

But aside from that, I don't understand the "independence" part of the argument. If he were to argue that a relatively low salary (compared with what a justice could get in the private sector) discourages qualified people from being willing to take the job, that's one thing. But -as others have suggested here - if he is saying it compromises the independence of the courts, what could that mean but illegality?

Is that what he really means?

good grief.

I am a 21 year career professional federal civil servant. I could make a lot more money in the private sector as a scientist with a doctoral degree, but I wanted to work for the people, not for a corporation or a contractor. It never occurred to me that I should be considered less than independent in my thinking and my decision-making just because I don't make a large salary. (And by the way, my job could be outsourced by the administration. No job security here.)

I don't get it. But Roberts has not impressed me.

b_b

[cantstandbush]

33. I repeat. RW and Rethug politics is all about the money.

They want to win and remain in power just to get the money.

[salin]

34. er... then don't go into public service.

Teachers, policemen, folks in the service - all serve the public for a heck of a lot less money. Chief Justice Roberts, you knew what the pay was when you accepted the PResident's nomination. Don't like the pay? Resign.

[zann725]

35. Okay, let's raise them to Mininimum Wage. What's that now anyway?

$5-something bucks? But no C.O.L.A.!

After all, "justice" begins at home, does it not?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

37. If you ask me, NOBODY should get a raise until minimum wage

is brought up to a living wage.

[zann725]

69. That was exactly my point!

No one should be above the law...least of all, the Justices.

[anitar1]

36. Sorry, but all I can say is filthy swine, apologies to swine. n/t

[Toots]

44. Isn't there a way to just give Conservative judges a raise and not Liberal

I suppose that is really what they wish for..

[area51]

47. Roberts: "we're so poor!"

Somebody better call the waaaaaaaaaaaambulance. </sarcasm>

[OKNancy]

48. kick

:kick:

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

49. (John) Roberts urges pay raises for judges (30% would not be enough)

Roberts urges pay raises for judges

From Bill Mears
CNN Washington

Monday, January 2, 2006; Posted: 2:40 p.m. EST (19:40 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/02/scotus.roberts/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chief Justice John Roberts picked up where his late predecessor had left off, declaring in his first year-end report that the problem of pay for judges "has gotten worse, not better."

The remarks came in a nine-page assessment of the federal judiciary, a tradition for chief justices begun 30 years ago.

Roberts, who took over leadership of the high court in late September, used strong language to urge Congress to boost judicial salaries. He called current pay levels "a direct threat to judicial independence."

"Every time a judge leaves the bench for a higher-paying job, the independence fostered by life tenure is weakened," wrote Roberts. "Every time a potential nominee refuses to be considered, the pool of candidates from which judges are selected narrows." Roberts said that even an immediate 30-percent raise would, after inflation, return them only to what they were making in 1969.

[texpatriot2004]

50. I urge a 30% increase in the minimum wage, I urge a 30% cost

of living increase for average American wages...I urge John Roberts to rot in hell.

[Warpy]

60. He's right that judges are underpaid

but the problem is that we're ALL underpaid, and have been ever since the OPEC oil shocks skewed the economy and dumped our wages. Wages have NEVER recovered to the 1969 level in buying power and continue to be eroded by the inflation we're not supposed to have.

Cry me a river, Johno, until you realize we're all in the same boat, and that most of us are suffering a lot more than some guy in a black robe who had to settle for a Ford instead of a Lexus.

[bliss_eternal]

51. WTF?

He just GOT THERE--and he's trying to get more money already!

:grr: :mad: :grr: :mad::grr:

How typical, what repuke doesn't want MORE? :eyes:

[IndyOp]

52. Everytime a corporatist is willing to be put on the bench because

the salary is adequate (500K+?) - God Smiles!

:patriot:

:sarcasm:

[SpiralHawk]

53. Funds to be raised by cutting prisoner rations

"Gruel? You want more gruel? You wretched proles, I will show you what you get..." BushCo compasionate conservatives

[DS1]

54. 167,000 isn't enough?

With free medical/dental/vision for life, plus housing if I'm correct.

[Jose Diablo]

62. Well, $167,000 doesn't go as far as it used to.

It's ONLY $13,000 a month. Important guys like that are used to making 4-5 times that amount by just by being associated with those important bagmen on K Street.

You think these guys are in it for the honor of working for the betterment of the country? LOL, thats rich.

I don't think anyone on this board, after 5 years of this administration is close to being that naive. Like when we were fresh and young, when we first started out.


"First are the lawyers."

[MindPilot]

55. How about y'all get that raise AFTER you get all the labor laws enforced

for those of us who actually work for a living.

[SmokingJacket]

56. If ANY of them are in the job because of the salary, they should leave.

Honestly. If they'd rather pick up a bigger paycheck someplace else, they should go for it!

Being on the bench is an honor and a privilege. Of course they and their families should earn a decent -- even a good -- living, but that's it.

It's a government job in a time of budget problems. Anything over 120K or so is more than adequate.

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. Uh, your honor? Excuse me but can I get a 30% raise too??

I too am a poorly paid public servant. :cry:

[stepnw1f]

58. Fuck Him

Nazi boy!

[Straight Shooter]

59. What happened to "sacrifice"?

I agree with SmokingJacket. If you want money, go into another line of work. I'm sure all the a**-kissing of judges and the power they wield away from the bench more than makes up for a piddly loss of income.

What. a. whore.

[stillcool]

61. Please......how much did they make...

off of Gore vs. Bush?

[Cronus Protagonist]

63. He should name this judge who left for a higher salary

And provide a list of top-notch judge candidates who refused because the pay would be too low.

He makes claims like this and he's our Chief Justice?

We are fucked.


Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Algorem]

64. how much would it cost to get him to step down?

[SoCalDem]

67. When all people making LESS than they do, get a 30% raise,

they can have their 30%.. Imagine the boom if people making 25K all of a sudden made 32.5 or people making 40 started making 52 k a year.. People would be buying cars, furniture, tvs, appliances..

It's a shortage of spendable income for the MIDDLE that causes economic downturn. The rich can always buy what they want, but they can only use so much.. the poor can barely afford to buy more than the absolutely need.. It's always been the middle class that buys the "extras" and keeps the economy humming.. Stop them or scare them, and the economy grinds down..

[fooj]

68. Boo fucking hoo!

:cry: