ConfirmThem

Although some may feel that judges are already paid too much, the truth is that in relative terms they are not. As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, most college professors and deans now make more money than do federal judges. In addition, most graduates of the top twenty law schools can make five to ten times more money per year as corporate or appellate lawyers than as judges. If we do not want to suffer a brain drain on the federal bench, we need to significantly raise judicial salaries, especially for COA judges.

Recently, we have lost the likes of conservative stalwarts Michael Luttig, David Levi and Paul Cassell due to a lack of money. In terms of intellectual acuity, we need intelligent people with good educations as judges. We need people who truly understand the constitutional ramifications of the issues on which they are adjudicating. I wouldn't want to see a lot of incompetent men and women as judges who are only results-oriented. The logical contridictions likely within their opinions would most certainly create a worse mess of legal interpretation in Ameica.

Once again reading this really wants to make me throw up. Quit hiding behind your children you coward. If money is more important just say so. I would respect you for that, rather than this drivel that you, Luttig, and others have cited for their reasons why they left. I have no problem with people wanting to make the most money they can to better their lives - that is the essence of capitalism. I am repulsed by this cowardly behavior because they just dont want to admit that fact. Grow up.

Federal judgeships are a lifetime appointment. It follows that if you take that appointment at a relatively young age, there is an opportunity cost in loss of future wealth.

Instead of complaining about the lack of state largesse, it might be better to stay in the private sector and save so that you can afford the job in the future. Or resign and get on with your life. But quit the complaining. Coming from someone entrusted with a sacred public office, it's pathetic.

in order to attract more qualified lawyers to the bench. At the same time, it's hard to feel much sympathy for someone making over $160,000 per year. Is he really going to have a hard time educating his kids at that salary? That's a pretty silly claim, IMHO.

One nation, in the courtrooms, with litigiousness and judicial activism for all.

We need to cut government waste so that we can pay judges and police officers and soldiers and border patrol agents the market rate in order to staff those positions with the best people possible.

Teachers should get market rate, too, but in a privatized educational system.

What is the "market rate" for a judge? Would that be the salary they were making at their prior job before becoming a judge? Would it be the earning potential that they would be giving up to join the bench? If it is what they have given up, then how will that be measured? Will a long time appellate court judge (Southwick) receive the "market" for an attorney in private practice with his years of experience? If the answer to that is yes, then what specific market will provide the baseline? I am assuming that salaries will have to be statified based upon geography--should a Fifth Circuit Judge sitting in Jackson receive the Jackson "market" the Houston "market" New Orleans "market"?

Part 1: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/09/ask_the_author_24...

Part 2: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/09/ask_the_author_26...

NYT Review of "The Nine": http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Margolick-t.html?_r=1&ore...

Great movie poster graphic! Looks like SDO is the main source, a la Stewart viz "The Brethren". Not surprising, even her most ardent supporters concede she was an unqualified diversity pick, and was strictly a "pragmatic, MOR, results oriented" Justice. No less than Dahlia says that most of her "Sandy's test" opinions will and(in a vacuum) should be overturned shortly.

And as one of the kossacks keenly pointed out, after the initial retirement fawning, she's basically slipped under without a ripple (this is why Scalia, for one, will never retire). Pryor demolished her "unprecedented attacks on judges" screed, no serious lib academics take her seriously, and the longer Iraq goes on the less popular she'll be with the college kids.

That said, I still always thought she was honest and a good person; just got over her head and seduced by the spotlight. Who knows, had Dutch decided to pick Bork in '81(sigh...), Sandy almost certainly would've succeeded Goldwater in the Senate, her personality would've gone over there like cinnamon toast on Christmas morn, and then after winning a third term in '98...

I can safely say that I would prefer Sandy as POTUS from 2000-8 more than Bush, Gore, or Kerry, and certainly more than as the "swing Justice" over the same time period. God Bless The Chief.

Interesting tidbit from the NYT: The Chief only allowed Sandy & Stevens to visit him at home near the end. Of course, Sandy was a friend for over fifty years, and Stevens was the only other WWII vet. Still...

I'm guessing WHR was fairly moderate personally, just very conservative judicially & politically, and a bare-knuckle partisan publicly. I'm also guessing he had little patience w/big govt conservatives and in-your-face "family values". Just guesses, but be sure to thank him tonight for Alito.

I seriously hope you are joking...what would Miss Affirmative Action do the federal judiciary?

RE Sandy was a friend for over fifty years.

They dated at Stanford in the late 40's and, according to a very reliable source, were quite and item. It was thought by some that Bill R. and Sandy D. would get married. But Mr. O'Connor came along and the rest is history.

When one lawyer heard about this a year or two she opined that this might have kept Sandra from being confirmed if it had become publicly known at the time of her nomination.

Just an interesting what if....

Your comment does you no credit. Obviously, we can't "look into his heart" and know for sure why Judge Cassell decided to resign, but your vicious attack on him for his offered explanation is simply absurd. I think most people would take it as a given that parents want to provide their children with every reasonable advantage in life. Cassell stated that he wanted to provide his children with the same educational opportunities he had. Well, he is a double Stanford grad. Undergrad tuition at Stanford is about $35,000 these days (not including any living expenses, books, etc); law school tuition is $40,000. Let's tack on $15,000 a year for living expenses, supplies and whatnot. So, the total cost for Cassell to pay for his three children to have the same education he had, in today's dollars, is approximately $1.1 million. Given those figures, 160k/year doesn't seem quite up to the task. Also, it's important to remember that he wouldn't be increasing his salary by just 50% or even 100%, which would be tempting enough, but rather by 500-1000%. The AVERAGE profits per partner at AmLaw 100 firms in 2006 topped $1 million. And suddenly those Stanford tuition bills seem a bit more reasonable.
I don't expect anyone to feel sympathy for Cassell - he didn't ask for it and certainly doesn't need it. And judicial pay will not and should not equal the private sector - there are other compensations in being a judge. Still, we have to realize that so long as the salary balance remains so tremendously skewed towards the private sector, the judiciary will have a harder time both attracting and retaining the people best qualified to serve.

Life is full of choices. Judge Cassell is free to quit the bench and make more money in the private sector. God bless him and God bless America. But a salary of $160,000 is perfectly adequate for a federal judge and taxpayers should not be on the hook for sending kids to Stanford or a Lexus, or beachfront vacation property. If you want all those things, and a lifetime appointment, it might be advised to accumulate the wealth first.

I do not think the American public should pass on the service of young, intelligent lawyers with families simply because some people are stingy with money. If we must rely solely on older people for public service, we risk having a judiciary out of step with the majority of people in America. We don't need a judicial generational gap. Judicial salaries could be easily raised if we had less pork in out budget (did we really need Stevens' bridge to nowhere? That 2 billion dollars could easily take care of this judicial salary crisis for several years) and more belt tightening in other areas.

I was partially joking; & partially speculating that Sandy would've stayed a lot closer to her roots had she been a AZ Senator rather than "FIRST WOMAN EVER-THE SWING JUSTICE!!!!".

But who knows, I saw something were she supposedly was a bit misleading about some of her votes in the AZ Senate, during her vetting back in '81. And there are hardly any shrinking violets or pillars of principle in the US Senate.

However, POTUS Sandy could hardly have appointed a worse Justice than Souter! ;)

Please spare me the sob story of a well paid PUBLIC SERVANT. Your facts are also incorrect. Cassell is NOT joining a law firm but becoming a professor at a small law school in Utah. Hardly that much of a pay bump. I stand by everything I said. Lastly children that are just handed everything on a silver platter appreciate what they are given less than someone who has to work a little bit for it. Obviously need scholarships would not apply because of his salary. Instead maybe his kids can earn an academic scholarship, take out low cost student loans, or get a summer job. Nearly all the extremely wealthy kids I grew up with were spoiled brats and were unable to achieve even some of the success their parents did for the mere fact that they never had to go out an get something on their own. You say I am speculating about his motives but you are the same to his kids. Maybe they dont want to go to college. Maybe they dont want to go to Stanford. Maybe they dont want to be lawyers. Maybe they would rather be a chef or go to a public school like Bush's daughter (and she could have gone anywhere at any cost and she choose U of Texas). I am NOT faulting Cassell from wanting to make more money. This is just something he should have thought about 5 years ago when Bush first nominated him or at the very least before the 2006 election. Its not like 3 kids just appeared out of no where. I just wanted him to be honorable and say I deserve more money or I needed to pursue something else. Dont hide behind your children and act like they are going to starve and become high school dropouts if you dont make more money. It would be better for him to cite no reason at all.

The pay of appeals and district court judges may need to be raised. However, the Supreme Court justices DO NOT DESERVE a pay raise. They have cut their caseload by more than half, and they take several months off visting Europe, where they adopt new ideas to impose on us.

The appeals and district court judges clearly have a lot more work to do. They have to decide EVERY case that comes to them. They also have to write opinions for all of them. The Supreme Court doesn't even come close.

I tend to think pay should be tied, at least to some degree, to how long and hard one works. A judicial pay raise should single out the nine on the Supreme Court until they relax their cert standards. Meanwhile, they can save money by not taking these ridiculous, lavish, and excessive trips around the world that we taxpers pay for not only monetarily but in terms of public policy.