Roberts warns low pay threatens judiciary

Well I would say that federal judges pay should be in a range of something like $500,000.00 for the lowest paid new district court judges going up to like $2,500,000.00 for the U.S. Chief Justice.

Based on the current scale, that's fine, but I think we would be better of with a more compact scale.

Obviously, the ideas I'm putting forward have one major flaw (and a number of others I'm sure, but this one I'm aware of as of now), implementation.

It's easier just to jack up the pay scale for judges to bring them more in line with their peers than it is to bring the whole system down to their level. However, as I've said, I think if we take the hard steps and redefine the rules, we would be in a better position for the future.

I realize the value of a weak currency as it applies to investment, but from where I'm standing, hyperinflation is a much bigger threat than a reduction in foreign investment. It's great to be making half a million bucks a year when bread is thirty dollars a loaf, but for all us poor schmucks (and there are a LOT of us) making 20k a year, that's too much to ask.

Anyway, the core issue in my mind is that our society is both sick and deluded. Millions of people slave away, day in, day out, to make money for someone else. They have dreams of comfort and they are pacified with entertainment and drugs, but there's a limit to how far you can ride this camel...

I think the ideal system of governance is a meritocracy, which is what capitalism aspires to be but has failed miserably to become. In a meritocracy, judges and civil servants would still be at the top of the pyramid (but salesmen and executives, unfortunately, would be nearer to the bottom).

Judges should be compensated and entitled to a higher standard of living than laborers, but the scale we're working with right now, where some people make a few dollars, and others make more than they can spend in a lifetime, is untenable. Do you disagree?

The problem with a meritocracy, is that it ignores the market forces, supply and demand, etc... The market decides what something is worth, not some beaurocrat making arbritrary economic decisions. Do athletes make too much? The easy answer is yes, but there's a lot more to it. Sports organizations are big businesses, and better athletes mean more money to the shareholders/advertisors/etc.... so if one must compete for limited resources(in this case the best athletes), because one's profitability is directly related, then their salary is controlled by the market. As long as tens of millions or more folks keep watching sports, and the ads played during the games, and buying things that athletes endorse, then the salaries are going to remain astronomical. Now a CEO making a ridiculous amount whether his company is doing well or not, is a lot more arguable. In a free market and society though, it's not any external source, government's (or otherwise) place to tell a company what the most they can pay someone. Additionally, when you start telling companies what the minimum they must pay employees(or other expensive mandates that they must follow), you run into problems too. The more expensive you make the cost of business, the higher the unemployment rate. It's not doing the low wage earner any favors if they get laid off.

But really, how much does a SCJ work anyways? A couple of photo ops here and there, and you might have to convene once a millenia to hand down a decision. That's 165 thousand bones for basically doing squat. Talk about crying with a loaf of bread under your arm.

Besides that, all those justices are in sombody's pocket anyways.

Peace

Forget about Public Service and welcome in the era of GETTIN' PAID Bee-yotch-ees!!! It's all about living big pimpin' at the tax payers expense! I firmly believe that their pay SHOULD BE CUT!!! They are PUBLIC SERVANTS for Christ's sake and should act like it. If they want the fat paychecks - go back to private enterprise!

Are there corrupt people in government? Yes

Are all people in government corrupt? No

Is it possible that people in government with whom I feel are dead wrong on their positions, aren't corrupt? Absolutely


To say unequivocally that everyone in government is corrupt and not to have any credibility(or that anyone who even might consider going into government for that matter), is utter nonsense. You're entitled to your opinion, but if you wish to state something as fact, you need hard evidence(which I'd very much like to see). This logic allow you to discredit and smear anyone that you don't agree with, without having to provide a shred of evidence. The assumption here is also that every business is corrupt, and are willing to do absolutely anything for a buck. In this society full of corruptness, who would you say that I could trust?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It's still extremely low when compared to what good lawyers can make in a law firm or private practice, therefore it does pose a problem. Why would a bright lawyer want to be a district judge when they could make 10x more in the private sector?

Maybe we don't need judges that want to be judges based on a paycheck? Those lawyers can keep their money, I'm looking for an honest working judge....are there any?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It's still extremely low when compared to what good lawyers can make in a law firm or private practice, therefore it does pose a problem. Why would a bright lawyer want to be a district judge when they could make 10x more in the private sector?

Maybe we don't need judges that want to be judges based on a paycheck? Those lawyers can keep their money, I'm looking for an honest working judge....are there any?

So one's salary is directly related to their honesty? You do realize it's incredibly expensive to get a law degree, so would it be a ridiculous notion that someone might want to see a return on their investment(and still be honest). If you want bright lawyers to take an interest in being judge, would it not stand that a huge pay cut might be a disincentive? This is a profession, not a volunteer organization. These folks have families too, and taking care of one's family has to play a role(especially when we're talking about lifetime appointments- that's a paycut for life).

Originally posted by GT100FV
So one's salary is directly related to their honesty?

No, I didn't mean it that way.

You do realize it's incredibly expensive to get a law degree, so would it be a ridiculous notion that someone might want to see a return on their investment(and still be honest).

Well, my engineering degree was probably just as much. Am I crying because I'm not making 160+ K? No...period. BTW, some of my peers DO make that much. Should I be getting paid that much just because some of my peers do?

If you want bright lawyers to take an interest in being judge, would it not stand that a huge pay cut might be a disincentive?

Then don't have lawyers that make a killing and then they might want to be judges. Furthermore, I don't want a judge who is a judge just because of the money.

This is a profession, not a volunteer organization. These folks have families too, and taking care of one's family has to play a role(especially when we're talking about lifetime appointments- that's a paycut for life).

Most people have families and do just fine with under 160 K a year. What's your point?

My point is- let's say you have a really bright lawyer, who is earning high 6 figures or more, has an expensive mortgage, car payment, and possibly paying for kids in school. Now, we're going to ask you to take a huge pay cut, sell your stuff, etc.. if you want this job. Do you see how that might be a disincentive. Then your stuck with a we'll get what we can talent pool.
I'm not saying it's impossible to live well on $160k or less, but the pay should reflect the talent(you want) and responsibility(they will have) to make it even a consideration.

The job of government that was supposed to provide its citizens with the basic needs is no longer in our nation.

That was call social ethics.

Now government uses the tax payer money that is the money of the people to do as it wishes in none essential projects that are more than often in no way to benefit the communities that pay those taxes.

Capitalism in American has been taken over by the elites that worshiped it at the expenses of the people; society is nothing more than a big pot of commercial real state to be exploited.

Our government can not control them anymore due to the corruption from within and the pressures from greed driven interest that uses their power to keep our elected government blind.

In other words a very good system that used to work in America is now corrupted and only working for interest groups.

Justices wants more money but that money is coming from us the tax payer people. So they can keep the standards of living that many in this country can only dream off.

Originally posted by GT100FV
My point is- let's say you have a really bright lawyer, who is earning high 6 figures or more, has an expensive mortgage, car payment, and possibly paying for kids in school. Now, we're going to ask you to take a huge pay cut, sell your stuff, etc.. if you want this job. Do you see how that might be a disincentive. Then your stuck with a we'll get what we can talent pool.
I'm not saying it's impossible to live well on $160k or less, but the pay should reflect the talent(you want) and responsibility(they will have) to make it even a consideration.

That's the point. Talent should be the incentive for the pay they recieve. Not a minimum wage for just being a judge. If you set a minimum wage for judges, then any Numb Nuts judge will be making this minimum wage without ever having to worry about talent.