It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Roberts Pushes Pay Raise for Federal Judges (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is pushing for a raise for all Federal judges. This issue was at the top of his list of the 19 year-end reports that he submitted to the U.S. Congress.
 



www.foxnews.com
Roberts, who succeeded the late William Rehnquist, warned Congress that judges' pay is an issue that is driving them off the bench and deterring qualified lawyers from throwing their names into consideration for judgeships.

"A strong and independent judiciary is not something that, once established, maintains itself," Roberts wrote. "It is instead a trust that every generation is called upon to preserve, and the values it secures can be lost as readily through neglect as direct attack."

In many of his 19 year-end reports, Rehnquist put judicial pay raises at the top of his wish list for Congress' consideration, once noting wryly that he realized he was "beating a dead horse."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think that this will make the federal judges less likely to take bribes. An independent judiciary willing to be above reproach is necessary these days. However, is there a way to insure that the raise only goes to the judges that make good decisions?




posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Define "good decisions". Tying pay raises and bonuses to "good decisions" is the quickest way I can think of to turn a judge into a "yes man".

The best way to recruit judges with integrity and honesty, as well as good judgement, is to make it worth their while to join and remain on the bench. A good compensation package is one thing, but not all men are swayed by money. Other perks are as attractive as money to many judges.

One thing that is important is to have a boss like Roberts that is looking out for his people. You will get responses here decrying the fact that he is in favor of raises for judges; he will be called a corrupt, greedy, capitalist who will write decisions that favor big corporations at the expense of our civil rights, but nothing could be further from the truth. He is well aware of the fact that a good lawyer can earn seven or eight figures in private practice. While I'm not suggesting that judges get paid that rate, they are underpaid and it is a good thing that John Roberts is putting the spotlight on this problem.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
and $151,984 isn't enough for a judge to live on? what are they being forced to take bribes to keep the roof over thier kid's head and food in the little darling's mouth? How terrible!!! quick, let's increase the welfare guidelines to $200,000 and save these poor kids from starvation!!!

tell ya what, if can find something in the budget that they divert the money from to pay for these raises without taking the food from the child's mouth, healthcare away from them, or destoying some talented kids hopes of going to college....go for it!! But if it's gonna be my kids, and my grandkids that get to foot the bill, well, then, instead of raising salaries for the federal employees making over $100,000/ year, theyshould be trimming them!



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Well, $152K isn't much:


  1. When you've achieved the top of your field
  2. In most major metropolitan areas in the US
  3. For a position with so much responsibility

Many times a judge holds life and death decsions in his hands. Or will rule on decisions that will affect the entire population ( abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. ).

Do you want the cheapest mind available to rule on those cases?

$152K is about what a middle manager makes in a private company. Some executive secretaries can earn a salary approaching that.

And let's not get into comparative salaries. I don't want to hear that a good judge isn't worth his salary when grownups that manage to play a child's game well is paid in the millions right out of high school. I'm tired of hearing
"He got an $8million a year contract plus a $10million signing bonus. But he's worth every penny of it!"

I know, I know: one is private and one is a public servant. But it just goes to show how skewed our values are in this country.

Btw, the minimum salary for a rookie NFL player is $225K. Minimum salary for an NFL player with 10 years is $750,000.



[edit on 1-1-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
What has someones salary got to do with their ability to actually do the job? I know many people in the corporate field with high paid jobs and positions but absolutely no sense. Usually a degree in something mundane and a bit of ass-kissing does the trick though


Comparing their salary to earnings of those in the corporate field is meaningless. So what if they are at the top of their field?, if the money is not enough for them then hard luck. It is, after all, the profession that they chose and they did so knowing full well the likely earnings.

Are people to expect a lower standard of justice and accept that some judges may take bribes just because the pay is not as high as some would like?



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

from Britguy What has someones salary got to do with their ability to actually do the job? I know many people in the corporate field with high paid jobs and positions but absolutely no sense.

We all know those type of people and wish to avoid the same situation in our judiciary.

Comparing their salary to earnings of those in the corporate field is meaningless.

Actually, it's quite valid, and probably the best single comparison we can make. Comparing our judges salaries to another country's won't work - some of them have to wear those powdered wigs, for example
and I don't know if they have to pay for them out of their own pocket.



So what if they are at the top of their field?, if the money is not enough for them then hard luck. It is, after all, the profession that they chose and they did so knowing full well the likely earnings.

Are people to expect a lower standard of justice and accept that some judges may take bribes just because the pay is not as high as some would like?

You're missing the point. Low salaries may very possibly drive good people away. And another problem is that it may attract only those who are independently wealthy. Like the Kerrys of the world. To those who consider salary a top factor, it's usually because they cannot earn that kind of money somewhere else. Why? Probably because they are incompetent. And those types are susceptible to get into money problems, and take bribes to bail themselves out.

Remember, not only do we want to attract bright young minds as judges, we aslo want to keep them.








posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
hey, I said that they could have their pay raise....as long as they money that is used to pay for it is taken out of somewhere else...without telling someone making 7 or 8 dollars an hour tough luck, go back to school and get some training if the job you's spent half a lifetime doing flew the coup and all your alternatives pay squat! espacially when they're cutting the finacial adie for such programs also....

if someone making minimum wage or a little higher is susposed to be able to function in this society, well, someone who is earning $100,000 plus should very well be able to!!

if it comes to borrowing the danged money to provide them with a lifestyle that 50% of the population will never have and or them flying the coop to the private sector, well, then I can see why we have problems with judges and bribes! Find the danged money, don't expect my kids and grandkids to provide that nice l ifestyle to someone who more than likely died ages ago!!



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
jsobecky

I agree with the first part of your first post, I see money when it comes to judges of the highest court as something that has to be take very seriously.

Money often clouds judgment.

And then again they are appointed for life so I guess they pretty much wants compensation for their life appointments.

Now how about privatizing the federal court?


I bet it will be plenty of investors out there that will be willing to pay whatever they are asking for it.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

from dawnstar
hey, I said that they could have their pay raise....as long as they money that is used to pay for it is taken out of somewhere else...without telling someone making 7 or 8 dollars an hour tough luck, go back to school and get some training if the job you's spent half a lifetime doing flew the coup and all your alternatives pay squat! espacially when they're cutting the finacial adie for such programs also....

I don't know how you're tying judicial salaries to welfare payments? I don't know why one has to be cut so that the other one can survive, either.

I'm 100% in favor of every American being given the opportunity to get training or a college degree, to further themselves. And I realize that trade schools are oftentimes much more appropriate for an individual than a BA degree from a 4 year college. But I stll don't see the connection.


if someone making minimum wage or a little higher is susposed to be able to function in this society, well, someone who is earning $100,000 plus should very well be able to!!

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Where have I heard that before?

I hate to sound harsh, but the gov't does not owe you a job or an education.

if someone making minimum wage or a little higher is susposed to be able to function in this society, well, someone who is earning $100,000 plus should very well be able to!!

Right. Whatever. It sounds like personal experience has made you bitter about professional salaries.

On a related note, some states pay the entire college tuition of illegal aliens. How about them apples?


from marg
And then again they are appointed for life so I guess they pretty much wants compensation for their life appointments.

Now how about privatizing the federal court?

It should be the same as other jobs; as long as you perform, you should be paid.

Privatizing federal courts? It would work for some elements of the judicial system. Like juries. Judges, I don't think so.




posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
public servants.......

should the servant be paid 10 or more times the master??

but, you're totally evading the one point I keep making....it doesn't matter what they want to increase, my answer would be the same....find somewhere in that overbloated budget to take the money from!! preferable without it being from the social service net, college financial aide, education, ect....

I dont' care how valuable those judges are, how scarce they are, my grandkids, who aren't even born, who just may be trying to live on that $7$8 an hour job shouldn't be stuck paying the tab!!!



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I don't think that the money for the raises would come from cutting any social programs, dawnstar. Do you have any info to the contrary? If not, it's sort of a red herring, isn't it?

As far as your future grandkids earning $7 or $8 an hour, that only matters if prices are high, right?



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

However, is there a way to insure that the raise only goes to the judges that make good decisions?

That would be a bribe.


and $151,984 isn't enough for a judge to live on?

Would you rather, as a young lawyer, try to reach that goal after many years of hard work, or get work as a private lawyer and make much much more much much sooner??

A smart person wouldn't take the track that ends at being a federal judge. Thats a problem, you kinda want the smart people to take that job.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Might wanna fix your intro.

That aside, judges make more than enough to live on. I've known judges, I've sat at their dinner tables, and believe me, they're not in the poor house just yet.

Maybe the focus should be on making sure more people can get by, considering food/fuel/healthcare costs are absolutely unsustainable.

Judges should be well paid, enough to support a family. They don't need to live like kings.

100k a year is PLENTY of money to live on, and that's with a large family. Most people I know get by on substantially less than 20k a year. I don't see the logic in his argument.

A greedy, shiftless, corrupt judge is not going to change his stripes just because he gets a 6% raise, or whatever. It's a character flaw that flies in the face of good judgement, it has nothing to do with practical need in MOST instances. There are exceptions, but we can't very well design the whole system around them, now can we?

Judges make more than enough to live comfortably on, and they don't even work all that hard. I can't afford to go grocery shopping, and he can't make do with 100k + every year? WTF? Look, if he doesn't want the job, I'll take it. I would certainly appreciate the pay a HELL of a lot more than he does.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
That's the problem with being a "public servant". People feel they have every right to dictate your standard of living.

100K is not "PLENTY of money to live on, and that's with a large family". It's adequate, but not excessive. The fact that most of your acquaintenances get by on "substantially less than 20k a year" says more about them than anything else, and is totally irrelevant.

Oh, I get it. You were actually being facetious when you typed that response. You want to play the "class warfare" game, eh?
Well, I'll play along.

Haha.



When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

-John Lennon
www.ocap.ca...


Hopefully I employed the new quote tags correctly..



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
JSO


That's the problem with being a "public servant". People feel they have every right to dictate your standard of living.


People feel they have the right to dictate the standard of living for public servants..yeah, they do. I wonder why? Maybe because WE PAY THEIR SALARY!?

It's ludicrous to think that anyone BUT the taxpayers should be responsible for determining the standard of living for public servants.



100K is not "PLENTY of money to live on, and that's with a large family". It's adequate, but not excessive. The fact that most of your acquaintenances get by on "substantially less than 20k a year" says more about them than anything else, and is totally irrelevant.


How is it irrelevant? It's completely relevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether judges make enough money. The answer is yes, they do make enough money to support a family. They must, because people who make 1/5th-1/10th their salary are expected to manage the situation. Simple logic.



Oh, I get it. You were actually being facetious when you typed that response.


No, sorry Becky, you don't get it. You absolutely do not get it. Nice use of the external quote tags to inject that poetic irrelevancy though.


Nygdan
I think smart is secondary to principled. Men and women with respect for the ideal of justice tend to be highly principled, and I would argue that highly principled people would understand the value of things other than money.

Anyone who can't make do on 150k probably isn't suited to such an important position. If lawyers want to be rich, they ought to stay lawyers. If they want to do some good for the world, they can instead choose to become judges, and spend their days reigning in the wild, exhuberant, flush-with-money-in-place-of-morality lawyers.

Zing.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   

from wyrdeone
How is it irrelevant? It's completely relevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether judges make enough money. The answer is yes, they do make enough money to support a family. They must, because people who make 1/5th-1/10th their salary are expected to manage the situation. Simple logic.

Right....and the president doesn't need that big fancy White House, either. Hell, he can get a corner booth at Denny's with your



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join