Judicial Pay: A Problem, Not a Constitutional Crisis
By Curt Levey Posted in Roberts — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The LA Times editorial page doesn't often get it right, while Chief Justice Roberts rarely gets it wrong, but this week's debate on federal judicial pay – spurred by Roberts' annual report on the judiciary – is an exception. In its editorial today, the Times takes a moderate and sensible approach to the topic. It agrees that "federal judges have been ill-treated by a 1989 law that links their cost-of-living raises to those of members of Congress" and concedes that "Roberts' frustration is understandable" given the decline in judicial pay after adjustment for inflation. But the Times correctly concludes – as have others – that while "Al Gore's refusal to accept the Supreme Court's decision in Bush vs. Gore would have been a constitutional crisis," the judicial pay problem simply doesn't rise to that level, notwithstanding the Chief Justice's assertion to the contrary.
I'm sure JGR's comments were due primarily to frustration over Levi's resignation.
I'm sure the Chief, like all of us, is just amazed at the train wrecks that are going on with COA vacancies, but unlike us, he can't blast the WH & Senate (tho wouldn't that be something if he did?!), so the pay issue, while valid, is his only outlet.
There are many types of crisises. The bad pay for judges may not be an 'exciting' or scary crisis hitting the headlines, but it may very well be a slow-brewing crisis if over the next 10 years quality men and women choose not to serve as judges due to pay issues, resulting in sub-ordinate quality individuals serving in our courts.
If we can't afford to staff the judiciary with the best and brightest because the discrepency between what they can get on the bench and in the private sector becomes too much - and we are instead left with low-quality judges who don't know how to read and interpret the law...that's a first rate Constitutional Crisis.
People like R. Ted Cruz shouldn't have to weigh whether or not go continue in public service or if he should go into private practice for a while to build up his net worth so he can afford to be a public servant.
I have just finished reading more articles criticizing Roberts' call for higher judicial salaries. Some of the statements are just ridiculous. Here is a particularly offensive Miami Herald editorial:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/16407168.htm
"It is true that, compared to 40 years ago, federal judges make less today than top law-school deans and senior law professors. But many of these academics supervise larger staffs and have more administrative chores -- in addition to their legal duties -- than do federal judges."
Knowing people who work in academia, I can say that I am aware of certain college deans who have very lax schedules and duties for salaries higher than most federal judges.
Perhaps we should begin paying judicial nominees, during the time between nomination and confirmation. They should receive a huge salary, considering what they have to go through.
Well, Roberts doesn't have a very large staff...He's only in charge of AN ENTIRE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
LOL at the "administrative chores" of academics, esp. "senior law professors".
Proof that Kethledge & Murphy are NOT part of the compromise on the 6th:
http://www.mlive.com/news/statewide/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1167957605128...
Hell, might as well keep blocking Neff then, Sam.
Sheesh, this literally is on a Keystone Kops level now.
Time Magazine reports: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1575066,00.html
According to TIME, Bush has selected Fred Fiedling as his new WHite House Counsel. It's about time he made a great selection for something (Roberts and Alito notwithstanding).
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1575066,00.html
Fielding chose good judicial nominees for Reagan from 1981 to 1986, so he should be able to help the White House with some good judicial nominees now. Hopefully, however, those numbers won't include Boyle, Myers or Haynes.
Boyle and Myers, I'm willing to let go. I think they should fight for Haynes, though.
Haynes has less to worry about from Leahy and Reid than he does from McCain and Graham. Graham will never let him out of committee, and McCain will make sure that McConnell never files a discharge petition on him. Haynes needs to be withdrawn ASAP. The Fourth Circuit is teetering on the brink of disaster with five vacancies. A quiet conservative without all Haynes' baggage needs to be nominated as soon as possible to Widener's seat so that we can get as many conservatives as possible confirmed to the Fourth Circuit before Leahy pulls the plug on all Bush nominees in January 2008.

Granted that Roberts use of hyperbole might seem inappropriate, but the loss of judges like Michael Luttig and David Levi support his basic premise: many good lawyers will no longer choose a career in the federal judiciary if its present salary levels compared to private practice and academia are maintained.