According to The New York Times' Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, Chief Justice John Roberts has released his annual report on the federal judiciary, the central theme of which is that judges are just not paid enough.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made judicial pay the sole topic of his second annual report, issued on Sunday, declaring that the failure by Congress to raise federal judges' salaries in recent years has become a "constitutional crisis" that puts the future of the federal courts in jeopardy.He noted that judges had fallen well behind the American labor force as a whole in keeping up with inflation over the past 25 years, with judges' pay having declined by 23.9 percent since 1969, adjusted for inflation, while the national average for all wages rose by 17.8 percent.
[...]
Federal judges rarely left the bench in the past but are now leaving at an increasing rate, 38 in the past six years, including 17 in the last two years. "Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure," the chief justice said.
[...]
By statute, federal district judges receive the same salaries as members of Congress, now $165,200 a year. Judges on the federal appeals courts receive $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court, $203,000; and the chief justice $212,100. The linkage of district judges' and Congressional salaries means that judges pay the price when members of Congress discern that it would be politically unpopular to raise their own pay.
Life must be tough for Chief Justice Roberts. Although his income alone places his household among the top 3 percent, close to 5 times the median household income in the country, he is only making about one-fifth of what he did in private practice -- a significant decrease in pay to accept his current position.
Snark aside, Roberts' report raises an important question: What is the right amount to pay our public servants? There is no question that the incomes offered by government need to be sufficient to draw talented and able officials. But what is less clear is if the federal government needs to pay salaries anywhere near those provided in the private sector.
The fact is the power and prestige offered by these positions should be incentive enough to take them. Members of Congress earn as much as the lowest level federal judges and there are literally thousands of people around the country -- many of whom are highly talented, highly educated and highly trained in their respecitve fields -- lining up to try to make it to Capitol Hill. If a federal judge like Michael Luttig, who left the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in May to accept a position at Boeing, there are no doubt many qualified potential jurists in the region -- whether they be lower level federal judges, judges at the state level, law school professors, lawyers in private practice, legislators -- who would jump at the opportunity to replace him.
I am certainly not arguing that we debase the federal judiciary by underfunding positions to the degree that suitable candidates are not interested in accepting positions or that able judges feel required to leave the judiciary after a relatively short tenure. At the same time, we must acknowledge that being a federal judge offers intangible benefits, such as the power to interpret law and the ability to play a role in leading the country, that are not offered outside of government. And those who are more interested in earning money than receiving these ancillary benefits -- and not to mention having the opportunity to serve their community -- might not, in fact, make for the best federal judges.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 122 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
