“Chief Justice Roberts noted that “the nation faces pressing economic problems, resulting in business failures, home foreclosures and bankruptcy,” and he said the federal judiciary was doing its part to conserve resources. The federal judiciary’s budget of $6.2 billion, he said, “represents a mere two-tenths of 1 percent of the United States’ total $3 trillion budget.”
At the end of each year, the Chief Justice of the United States gives his State of the Judiciary report. According to the New York Times, CJ Roberts once again raised the rally cry for a judicial pay raise. Talk about lousy timing.
“I suspect many are tired of hearing it, and I know I am tired of saying it,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “but I must make this plea again — Congress must provide judicial compensation that keeps pace with inflation.”
“Judges knew what the pay was when they answered the call of public service,” he wrote. “But they did not know that Congress would steadily erode that pay in real terms by repeatedly failing over the years to provide even cost-of-living increases.”
Didn’t anybody tell him that 2008 was a bad year for the economy. People can barely afford to keep up the payments on their Ferrari, and he’s calling for a pay raise? It’s outrageous. Smart governmental-types got their raises quietly, so no one would know and it wouldn’t make unemployed citizens feel bad.
This year, he said, every other federal employee, including members of Congress, received a cost-of-living increase. Only federal judges missed out.
Obviously, federal judges aren’t as smart as they think they are, or they would have gotten a raise too. It’s hard to take a seat on the federal bench and then whine about the salary. As Roberts correctly notes, it’s not a job one wants for the money. And as he correctly notes as well, it doesn’t come with an oath of poverty.
But judges are a bunch of tough guys when it comes to us, and relatively gutless when it comes to themselves. This isn’t the year to stomp for pay raises, and now isn’t the time to complain. But when they have the chance, when cash was available and nobody would have blinked, they did little to serve their cause.
Judges hide behind the dignity thing, claiming that going around hat in hand would be undignified. Standing up for themselves would be undignified. They want so badly to be dignified. Of course, it’s hard to be dignified when first year Biglaw associates made more than them. And now that there are no more first year associates left to make fun of, all of them standing on bread lines waiting for crumbs from solo practitioners, the judges can’t even use them to justify a raise.
The third branch of government is not merely the least dangerous, but the least potent. Not because it can’t do anything, but it won’t. How did all those rough and tough street fighting trial lawyers turn out to be black-robed wussies?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Supply and demand. It exists in government. I too believe that judges should be paid a respectable salary. I think tying it to any level of private practitioner is wrong. There is private practice, and government service, regardless of how much mahogany is between the black robe and the lawyer in the well.
Everytime a federal judicial seat opens, its like ants on a piece of chicken that fell from the grill.
Unless and until there is weak demand for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, Congress’ attitude on the issue of raises and cost of living increases: “or what?”
Ever since Justice Rehnquist, a CJ has taken up the habit of passing the hat around New Year’s, pleading for a raise. I’ve always been opposed to an increase in judicial salaries because judges have a good gig going. But this year, it’s particularly unpalatable when 1762 lawyers at large firms – the purported barometer for measuring judicial salaries to begin with – were laid off, and hundreds more have no idea what the future holds. I think right now, most would settle for a “measly” salary of $169k for life (which is what federal district judges get) than the stress and uncertainty of earning $200-$400 today and potentially zero tomorrow.
While I agree with you in general, it does reach a point where the reduced value of a judicial salary over time becomes ridiculous. As for the Biglaw lawyers who lost their jobs this year, bummer. They can always work for a living instead. But at minimum, judges should receive COLA increases, and should never be paid less than a first year associate, not because of direct connection but because it’s just demeaning. Maybe the answer is to keep first year salaries below that of judges, no matter how poorly judges are paid.
Would you feel any kinder toward judges if there was some potential you might someday be one?
No. If the President of the United States called me and said “I’m going to nominate you to the federal bench. You will never have to worry about business, overhead, etc…. again. You will get a black robe and you can do whatever the hell you want (you can even depart downward from the guidelines if you have a set) and you will get about $169,000 a year, forever” I would have the option to say “yes” or “no.”
Being a judge is public service, government service. Those that accept appointments to work for elected officials make great sacrifice for little money and they don’t get lifetime appointments. Think of the guy making $300,000 a year who moves to Washington for a couple years to work for the President for $120,000. That, against a lifetime appointment?
I am a huge advocate for judicial pay increase, and not because of the first year associate disparity, which again, I think is a bad comparison.
I’ve advocated in Florida, where we elect state court judges that salaries go from $139,000 to $250,000 because the age of judges running is ridiculous – 35 year olds as felony judges does not sit well with me. Take a guy in practice 25 years, making $500,000, his kids are out of college, maybe $250,000 for a robe is more enticing.
Life is about what the market will bear, and if there are lines of lawyers and judges wanting to be on the federal bench, as there are, then they get what they get.
Congress could give a crap about the judiciary, that’s why we have sentencing guidelines and minimum mandatories.
No need to use sentence structure or follow any logical stream of thought here. It’s my pleasure to provide you with an alternative to the constraints of language or logic.
Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any very remarkable felicities of expression. ~Bronson Alcott
Exactly what I was thinking.
It was also ridiculous that condominiums in California were tripling in value over a short span of time, but the market took corrected that. As you suggest, the market is going to take the first year associate salary problem off the table pretty quickly.
Maybe Cravath can get a bailout.