Cyberdyne's Journal: "Only" being paid $200k is a "constitutional crisis"

According to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, paying his colleagues a "mere" $200k, with federal district court judges languishing on just $165k, is "inadequate" and "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

Frankly, I'm not convinced of his core assumption that "life tenure" is desirable, let alone essential - I'd prefer term limits, the very opposite, or at least having them face regular election to make them accountable to those they profess to serve. Perhaps he does have a point that without the taxpayer making judges rich directly, their greed will drive them into the pockets of lobbyists, but I suspect the opposite is more likely: make them richer and you'll be attracting more people motivated by money, rather than more laudable motives, as in the Simpsons episode where America entrusts the trillion dollar bill to Montgomery Burns: as the richest man, clearly he's the least corrupt.

I'm not too keen on life tenure either, but...

[Bill Dog]

...I think you totally misrepresented the position -- it's not "only being paid [generous amount of] dollars" that makes it a constitutional crisis, it's that they're getting paid half of what the most studdly of their peers outside the courts are paid, such as for being a senior law professor at a top school. And that judges are leaving the federal bench as a result. He thinks the federal judiciary is important enough that it needs to attract and retain mostly the best and brightest.

I guess I can sorta see

Mod Parent Up.

[mekkab]

I came in here to make the exact same point, and I think you made the point better than I would have.

Re:

[tomhudson]

I disagree. The law profession is already overcrowded, and the next recession will find a lot of law profs being declared supernumary, just as the last recession killed off a crop of them.

Also, more and more, people are able to "do it themselves" - they're just intimidated by the whole process. And for those who say "a person who acts as their own counsel has a fool for a client", I'd stack my win/loss record against theirs any day. Remember - half of all lawyers graduate in the bottom half of their cla

Re:

[mekkab]

The law profession is already overcrowded, and the next recession will find a lot of law profs being declared supernumary, just as the last recession killed off a crop of them.

I have absolutely no disagreement with the above quote, however it speaks of "the next recession", and not the current state of the market. Top firms pay large salaries. They also have incredible turn over/burn out rates(and lawyers are more likely to abuse drugs/alcohol (source: DC Bar association seminar)) so it comes at a price.

Re:

[tomhudson]

Your situation is far from unique, and VERY easy to handle, even without the easement. I have the same situation - a rear gate that opens onto another property's driveway. In my jurisidction, this is known as a natural servitude. My neighbour is therefore forbidden by law from interfering with my access to the street via the rear gate - this would destroy the servitude. A simple call to the police would end it, no need to go to court. Interfering with a natural servitude is public mischief, so I wouldn't e

Re:

[Cyberdyne]

And that judges are leaving the federal bench as a result. He thinks the federal judiciary is important enough that it needs to attract and retain mostly the best and brightest. I guess I can sorta see his point. For example, I'd be appalled if the space shuttle program paid their programmers half of what I make and had huge turnover.

If it had "huge" turnover - which does appear to be the spin he's putting on it - he might have a point. The actual turnover rate, though, is less than 5% over six years (38

Re:

[Bill Dog]

To me, anyone claiming to be dangerously "underpaid" and pointing to a 1% annual turnover rate is either unhinged or dishonest;

I'm only suggesting that arguing against value judgments, but completely outside of their intended context, is of limited use. For example if an automobile engine designer speaks of the critical importance of sub-millimeter tolerances, it does little good to say, well, in other areas in life, a millimeter is just not that much, so you must be a little crazy, or have ulterior motives

Re:

[Cyberdyne]

I'm only suggesting that arguing against value judgments, but completely outside of their intended context, is of limited use.

To some extent, I agree: I'm not trying to compare that salary with that of, say, a cop - but the salary is high enough that it doesn't leave the recipient impoverished, meaning it isn't low enough in itself to be a problem. So, if your argument is that it's low enough to cause problems, you have to identify what those problems are - and all Roberts gave in this article is the "hig

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Well, on the mortality component of the turnover rate, I think Roberts advocates federal judgeships "for life", not "for eternity", so presumably to him a judge dying is an acceptable reason for leaving the bench! :-) It's what they're leaving the bench for, that he's concerned about, and dying is not leaving it for anything (as it's usually involuntary!).

As for the problems with even a single-digit turnover rate, he seems to be concerned about federal judge impartiality. Comparing their turnover rate with