Rehnquist is leading campaign to boost salaries 16.5 percent (to $180k/yr)

[Ediacara]

Rehnquist is leading campaign to boost salaries 16.5 percent
By PETER SHINKLE Post-Dispatch
updated: 08/02/2003 05:55 PM

For many people, pulling down a salary of $154,700 would be a sign that they've arrived.

But U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist says that salary level - which is what federal district court judges are paid - is a sign of big trouble ahead for the American judiciary.

Rehnquist contends that the salary level is so low in comparison with what some private lawyers earn that it raises the risk that fewer qualified lawyers will be willing to leave highly compensated positions to become federal judges. That, in turn, means that the judiciary is in danger of losing its diversity, he argues.

In May, Rehnquist called the need for pay raises for judges "the most pressing issue facing the federal judiciary today."

More at the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch

[DagmarK]

1. Ignorant bastard!

And that's about the most productive thing I can say at this very moment!

Aaarrrggghhh...............

[Ediacara]

3. I can think of a lot more

and bastard would probably be the most polite thing....

This is UNBELIEVABLE!

[saigon68]

21. HE'S A PIG WITH HIS "SNOUT" IN THE PUBLIC TROUGH

Aaah "Renchburg, what's his name", thats how Tricky Dick Nixon described this useless piece of DUNG on the Watergate tapes.

To be appointed to any Judgeship, one needs to be rich and connected. --- What a joke, your line is, RENCHBURG.

Don't be mislead by the notion that in order to have someone competent, as a Judge, you need to pay them more than $156,000.00 per year.

99.99% of these Judges seek appointment, because of their GARGANTUAN EGOS, not for a few pieces of silver.


(Edited for punctuation, Gawd, I hate Sunday AM)

[leQ]

29. it's the only way they can get who they want to sign on

'who they want' are those greedy boys who haven't a clue about 'serving your country' and would rather stay in their cushy jobs than take some federal bench stinch. these people dont have egos, they only have fat pockets. being persuaded by the 'loyalists' of the party with some 'for the better good' argument is a foregone illusion that is finally sinking in inside the beltway, and now they want 'us' (remember 'the rich' got all theirs back) to pay for it. the only way 'these lawyers' will come onboard, is with some financial guarantees of our tax dollars. if there was a list of really fair candidates getting nominated, with wide bi-partisan support, then giving them fair compensation would be a good thing. but i just dont see that happening.


***
"if they stop changing the rules, maybe i'll start playing fair."

[Democat]

2. There is an argument to be made for paying judges well

If we want the best and the brightest judges, like teachers, they are going to have to be paid competitively. Imagine how much some of these people could be making in the private sector if they decided to leave the bench.

I doubt it's the most pressing issue, considering that Bush is trying to pack the bench with right wing fanatics, but there is an argument to be made for keeping the salaries up.

[Ediacara]

4. I agree they should be payed well

but there's a difference between paying them well and paying them a fifth of a million dollars every year for the rest of their lives, which is considerably more than "well."

[Julien Sorel]

6. It's all relative.

Partners in a top law firm make well in excess of that. 200k might seem like a lot of money to you and me, but to someone at a level where they could become a higher-level fed judge, it isn't a lot at all. Like it or not, the government isn't exempt from market forces when it comes to competing for labor.

[DagmarK]

7. When did public servitude equate with private industry?

And when did anyone make the assumption that JUDGES should be on par with lawyers? they are two different animals. You don't have to be a lawyer to be a judge. It isn't a pre-requisite. Sure, we want them to know the law and all and they will more than likely be lawyers.

But I can think of A LOT of civil rights activist attorneys making $40,000 a year who would LOVE to be a federal judge -- even if the judicial salary were cut in half.

What makes a partner in a big law firm the cream of the constitutional crop? NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING............

[Julien Sorel]

17. You don't have to be a lawyer to be a judge,

but considering what a judge does, especially on the federal level, it's a practical prerequisite.

But I can think of A LOT of civil rights activist attorneys making $40,000 a year who would LOVE to be a federal judge -- even if the judicial salary were cut in half.

And I can think of a lot of common Americans who would rather not see the benches filled with activists. I can think of a lot of gun nut attorneys, winger attorneys, religious attorneys and so on, who would like to do it, too, some of them for free. Personally, I'd rather have people who want to do the job because they want to do the job, not because they have some ax to grind.


What makes a partner in a big law firm the cream of the constitutional crop? NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING............

Opinions opinions. If you can rise to the top and become partner at a good law firm, it generally says something about your skills, knowledge, and work ethic. That might be 'ABSOLUTELY NOTHING' to you, but being a skillful attorney with a strong work ethic sounds like good starting qualifications for the bench to me.

[Ediacara]

9. public service

should be reward enough. Being a supreme court justice should be enough of a pull to settle for $50k/yr less.

And for Christ sake, it's still almost a fifth of a million dollars, which is an obscene amount of money to think of as "not a lot at all."

[frustrated_lefty]

10. Public service should be reward enough?

That's a lofty sentiment, but it makes me wonder if you have kids of your own to feed or put through school.

Maybe I'm goofy, but I'm less concerned about salary caps and more concerned about the minimum wage.

[Ediacara]

11. well sorry

but HALF of Rehnquist's proposed sallery is PLENTY to feed and educate kids....

[frustrated_lefty]

12. Have you glanced at

tuition costs?

Let's say you're some federal bigwig, you have to maintain two residences. I visited DC recently and saw a studio apartment advertised for $1,100 a month. Let's say you are still a federal bigwig and need to own something larger than a studio. Call it 3 grand a month. Yes, you could get something cheaper, but you are expected to entertain foreign diplomats. Three grand a month (low estimate here) x 2 for two residences = 72 grand a year. You have 1 kid in a semi-decent medical or law school which costs 40 grand a year. Just based on those two expenses, you're already talking about 112 grand a year. You may have grade school kids in private schools, which run 10-12 grand a semester.

Feeding, housing and educating kids is not as cheap as you might think.

[Ediacara]

14. why yes I have

I am paying them. You don't NEED two residences if you live in DC, and if you're buying rather than renting, I would assume your mortgage would be under $3000 month.

[sandnsea]

5. $155,000 is being paid well

People have simply lost their minds in this country. Where is it written a lawyer has to be filthy rich in order to be a success? Didn't use to be that way. Lawyers are priced so high most people can't even afford them. If there's a danger to the justice system, that's number one, no access to the system at all because of money.

[DagmarK]

8. Rehnquist is making the assumption that a top tier atty IS the best choice

for a judge.

There are sooooooooo many attorneys in this country who make far less than the $154K -- much, much less.

Just because some guy played the game and landed in a corner office for $2 mill a year (plus many, many fringe benefits.....MANY!!!), doesn't make him a better candidate for a judge. In fact, it probably means that he doesn't get too bogged down in the nitty gritty of the law and hasn't for many years. He has a staff of associates for that. It means, simply, that he was able to bring high paying clients into the company. This does not make him a premier judicial candidate. It actually makes him less desireable -- if indeed the PURPOSE for courts is to administer justice.

[sandnsea]

13. They are sooo out of touch

Having known some and some who went on to be judges, I don't think it's the money that drives them to do it anyway. It's an opportunity to add their years of experience and expertise and make their mark on the judicial system. I would agree that if Rehnquist thinks money is going to influence people to give a shit, he's sadly mistaken. And seems to me an income of $150,000 a year puts you in the top 5%. I don't think Rehnquist even gets that little piece of the puzzle, he thinks being in the top 5% of income earners isn't good enough. And to suggest this now when sooo many people are out of work and taking pay cuts to keep their jobs. Reminds me of when Dick Armey justified the pay raise with 'everybody else gets a pay raise every year'. Oh really!?! My husband and I have been self-employed for 15 years. We had a few really good years in the 90's, but we're back to charging the exact same amount for services now that we did in 1990. People just can't afford to pay more. I just want to smack this bozo right upside the head!!!

[duid12]

18. lawyers

Good lawyers (certainly people qualified to sit on the bench eventually), can make $1million or much more per year easily...we as taxpayers can't afford to compete, nor should we. There are plenty of other perks for being a SC justice...we shouldn't make a high salary the reason someone gets on the bench....I'd prefer paying a fair salary and get people that are dedicated to public service and serving the country.

[w4rma]

15. He's trying to woo Corporate sell-outs to the judicial system (n/t)

[tedoll78]

16. Allow me to translate for Rehnquist:

"Waaah! Waah!"

I think almost everyone I know would kill to make that much in a year. He needs to learn how to live within his own means. The big baby.

[JNelson6563]

19. might as well squeeze Bush for all

they can, since he owes them "big time". Time to pay the piper.

Julie

[rocketdem]

20. $155k isn't really that much

Not compared to what top lawyers can make.

While I disagree that it's the "most pressing issue," I do agree that they should be paid more.

I believe that everyone in top government positions should be paid very handsomely but that their government paychecks must be their only source of income (other than, perhaps, blind trusts).

We should indeed have the best and the brightest running the country and should reward them well for doing so. But we should not have a system that pays them well and allows for legalized bribes in the form of such things as paid speaking engagements or other corporate kickbacks.

[priller]

22. I seriously doubt "losing diversity" is foremost in Rendquist's mind

And while many lawyers can do better than $154K a year, there are many who don't. Also, it's not necessarily true that the best judges come from the ranks of the best-paid lawyers. And I would think that almost any lawyer or judge would jump at the chance to sit on the Supreme Court, regardless of the salary -- that's not simply a job, it's the chance to put your mark on history.

[pfitz59]

23. Which top lawyers?

1) Ambulance chasers
2) Corporate apologists
3) Class-action extortionists?
Top lawyer in my home county makes about $200,000 while prosecuter makes about $75,000. Rhenquist thinks only the Baker-Botts and Ken Starr greed-meisters should be judges? Plenty of super-qualified folks would jump at the chance for $154K FOR LIFE! Stop nominating political hacks for judgeship and there'd be a 100% improvement in the judiciary!

[Rose Siding]

24. No shame

They have no shame

[tomp]

25. is that 180k before or after bribes? nt

[Clyde39]

26. So many are struggling just to live

This emphasizes the difference between the HAVES and HAVE NOTS! How many out there have given up looking for a job or how many have had to take any job they can find? It would be nice if the SC showed an ounce of compassion.

[TahitiNut]

27. Myths and misrepresentations.

Let's begin with the facts:

Starting: $48,000
Mid-level: $96,000
Top: $155,000
Growth Potential: 223%

Salaries for lawyers vary widely depending on legal specialty, academic and professional qualifications, and type of employer. Graduates from top law schools who are hired by large law firms in major cities, large corporations and financial institutions command extremely high starting salaries. For those with degrees from less prestigious schools, those working for local or state governments, or those in smaller practices, salaries will be lower. Establishing a private legal practice may take several years, and beginning lawyers who choose this path must often supplement their income with other work.

The BLS reports that the mean hourly earnings for a lawyer was $38.76 in 2000. Multiplied by the mean hours worked of 2,062, we get a mean income of $79,923.

Let's try to remember the "myth of the average" -- that a few very large incomes raises the "average" without benefitting the rest. (Bill Gates walked into a room ...)

Now let's make some observations about income and expenses. An attorney in private practice must pay for office space, paralegal support, supplies, all benefits, association fees, pro bono work, and other expenses out of that income. A judge on a public salary does not pay these expenses; they're additional expenses to taxpayers. Furthermore, if there's competition for attoneys, raising the government salary will lead to increases in private salaries, merely to compete for that "talent."

When Rehnquist talks about "diversity," check your wallet. If he's talking about anything, he's talking about fewer white, well-connected, patrician, privileged, crony capitalist attorneys -- legal whores. Good. Lower the salaries then.

Let's hear Rehnquist talk about increasing the pay of the USSC janitors, clerks, drivers, and hourly workers!

[dansolo]

28. Translation

The administration won't be able to convince greedy Republican lawyers to take a pay cut in order to further their agenda.

[jus_the_facts]

30. GUESS THE *BONUSES* THEY GOT FOR GIVING (*) THE WH...

.....JUST WEREN'T BIG ENOUGH....GODDAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!!! :evilfrown: