Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Huh to the Chief

Chief Justice John Roberts thinks the salaries paid to federal judges are too low, so low, in fact, that the situation presents a "constitutional crisis." You know, like Watergate and the Civil War. Didn't you get the memo?

As you can tell, I have no patience for this tale of woe, so painfully told by those making $165,200 (district judges); $175,100 (appellate judges); $203,000 (Supreme Court associate justices); and $212,000 (the Chief Justice) who have life tenure, nice offices, law clerks, and the juice to have lawyers jump up every time they enter a room.

There are lots of problems with the argument the Chief Justice makes, and a number of people have been quick to point them out (here and here, for example). The Chief Justice trots out the overused and meaningless comparison of judicial salaries to those paid to young associates in the largest law firms and professors and deans at elite law schools. If a lawyer made such an argument in a case before the Chief Justice and his colleagues, they would have him for lunch. Why is it a surprise -- or even a problem -- that top jobs in the private sector pay better than top jobs in the government? And why is it a crisis -- constitutional or otherwise -- if some judges choose to leave the bench to pursue other, more lucrative positions? Good for them, but there are lots and lots of highly qualified lawyers to take the place of every federal judge now serving.

What the Chief Justice does not mention is that he is Exhibit A for the "it's not about the money" argument. In his late 40s, with two small children, John Roberts gave up a law firm partnership that paid him several times what he makes as a federal judge. Obviously, he saw some non-monetary attractions in his new job. And, like every one of his fellow judges, he made the choice he did fully cognizant of its economic impact.

To be sure, it is a mistake to link judicial salaries to congressional salaries, as the law now requires, since the former stagnate when representatives and senators are afraid to raise their own pay. Judges deserve reasonable and regular cost-of-living increases, and it might make sense to have geographic adjustments so that a judge in Manhattan, New York makes a bit more than a judge in Manhattan, Kansas. The current system could be better, but the Chief Justice should stop with the sky-is-falling rhetoric he would be so quick to dismiss if used by others.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home