ConfirmThem

is this really a bad thing? for the occasional judge or justice to resign his post for an ambassadorship, or to run for office, or to do any other number of things?

I don't think a pay raise is likely to increase the quality of nominees. It's just as likely to decrease it, IMO, and to reward awful judges along with the good ones. What WOULD increase the quality (or the number of quality judges) is to end the bad behavior of the Dems on the judiciary committee. But that's not going to happen as long as the the Dem caucus on the SJC is composed exclusively of the far-left wing of the Dem Senate caucus, which in turn is far oversaturated with far-left-wingers compared to their percentage in the population.

Well...since how good a judge is is rather subjective to some, we have to pay all judges the same just as we pay all legislators the same.

However, I'm with the Chief Justice on this one. I think that the GOP should come up with target pay raises, see how much it would cost, and use it as an opportunity to slash spending in other areas to offset it.

"Gee...we love PBS, but we need to pay federal judges more money because justice is really more important than cookie monster. So...we're going to take that $400 million and apply it to judicial salaries." :-)

I disagree. Judges shouldn't have to spend their time schmoozing elected politicians or the common man in order to get higher paying, more powerful or more prestigious government jobs. The upstart of that would be that judges would tailor their decisions even more to fit the expectations of those whose favor they seek to curry. Jurisprudence would become all results-oriented with no care for the actual wording of the Constitution or a statute. No, judicial salaries need to be adjusted to reflect the realities of the job market. Kennedy is right when he says that it is ridiculous that SCOTUS law clerks can paid starting salaries over twice the salaries of the justices they just served.

In general, I think all the government salaries are too low. I would give the president $1,000,000 a year, the Chief Justice $750,000 a year, and the Vice President, Senators and Associate Justices $500,000 a year. Representatives and COA judges would get $350,000 a year and district court judges $250,000 a year. Considering many CEOs make in excess of $30,000,000 a year, I think the numbers I suggest are not outrageous.

I agree with you on the salaries; in fact Thomas Sowell, for one wants them much higher than your suggestions on the grounds that more & better candidates will emerge.

As for Flipper, gotta give credit where credit is due. Wonderful to read about him lighting up Specter on cameras & Morrison.

When you read articles like this about him, and then remember gibberish like his speech to the ABA in Hawaii, it's hard to believe it's the same guy.

I do agree with Greenburg that Kennedy is more conservative than O'Connor, and he certainly had more of a grasp of what judges SHOULD do upon joining SCOTUS than she did.

He's just a divaish sort who goes bonkers in the spotlight.

that an increase in salary will lead to less results-oriented jurisprudence. I don't see how it follows at all. I'm not saying salaries shouldn't be increased, I'm just saying the quality argument is totally bogus in my mind.

watching on CSPAN now, and he sounds a bit like Dr. Evil when he's talking while thinking out what he's saying, lol. "That's a non-seq-ui-tor, Mr. Powers Chairman." (actually he was speaking to Specter, but Mr. Ranking Member doesn't work as well)

I agree with Sen. Durbin's statement. hell just froze over. and again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a raise (which sort of mirror's Durbin's statements that he's voted for raises in the past).

how's this: the payment for Justices is proportional to the number of cases they hear ;)

may have just helped get some judges confirmed quicker where there are many vacancies.

haha, funny exchange between Specter and Kennedy re: the magical shrinking docket vis-a-vis the cert pool.

Specter cites the cert pool as a reason for the decrease in cases heard.
Kennedy says he thinks its actually the opposite, because a clerk can spend more time on each case. "We have over 9000 petitions for certiori. 9000!"
Specter: Do you need more clerks? We can give you more clerks.
Kennedy: *sigh/pause* Uh, I don't particularly want more clerks.

just struck me as funny the way he said it. and maybe hopeful that he doesn't want to be influenced by clerks.

Leahy buttering up Kennedy for all he's done over the past decade to champion the cause of human dignity, blah blah blah.

the live (tape-delayed) blogging of the latter portion of Justice Kennedy's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sorry guys!

Jan Crawford Greenburg has a post on Kennedy's testimony at Legalities

the first part of her post where she scoffs at the implication that criticism of judges somehow endangers them sounds like she's in our camp.

then there's this gem, on cameras in the courtroom:

"Then the hearing turned to cameras in the courtroom, which we all expected. Kennedy is against them, as we all knew. Really against. He even banged on the table. (Might he have been playing to the CSPAN cameras recording the hearing?) He implored the Senators to drop the whole thing before, horror of horrors, one of his colleagues actually plays to the cameras inside the courtroom."

though I might have guessed that was an indication she did not favor the move, a later statement on same made me think otherwise.

but she sounds like she agrees with Kennedy, in what she thinks is the biggest news of the hearing, that sentencing guidelines should go. boo! (and an aside, I could be wrong, but wasn't Breyer on a panel some time ago that came up with guidelines?)