Justice Roberts: WAHHH! Just 217k? I NEED A RAISE.

[SirNitram]

Link

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday that Congress should be as generous to judges as it already has been to itself, by approving an inflation-related increase in their pay.

"I must renew the judiciary's modest petition: Simply provide cost-of-living increases that have been unfairly denied," Roberts said in his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary.

Alone among federal employees, judges will not receive a cost-of-living allowance in 2009. Members of Congress are getting a 2.8 percent boost, worth $4,700. But they refused before Christmas to give an identical increase to judges.

Federal trial judges are paid $169,300 a year. Appellate judges make more, ranging up to Roberts' salary of $217,400. The salaries pale in comparison to what top lawyers earn in private practice.

Roberts also has pointed out that the 678 full-time trial judges who form the backbone of the federal judiciary are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools.

But the job has its advantages: Judges have lifetime job security and can retire at full salary at age 65 if they have 15 years on the bench.

Judges last received a substantial pay raise in 1991, although they have been given increases designed to keep pace with inflation in most years since then.

On the six occasions before now that lawmakers denied judges a COLA, they also declined one for themselves.

It had been a long-standing practice for members of Congress and district judges to make the same salaries. Under ethics legislation enacted almost two decades ago, members of Congress get a cost-of-living raise automatically, but they have to vote to give judges an identical raise.

"Judges knew what the pay was when they answered the call of public service. But they did not know that Congress would steadily erode that pay in real terms by repeatedly failing over the years to provide even cost-of-living increases," Roberts said.

The chief justice also lamented Congress' failure to pass larger salary hikes for judges. Committees in the House and Senate voted nearly 30 percent increases for federal judges, but neither house of Congress acted on the measure.

In prior reports, Roberts has focused on the need for the larger increase, which would take his pay to around $280,000 a year and increase trial judges' annual salaries to $218,000.

Two years ago, he said pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence.

This year's version employs a gentler tone. The report takes account of the economic downturn and evokes the Smithsonian Institution's recent repair and preservation of the American flag that flew over Fort McHenry during an attack by the British in 1814. The flag was the inspiration for the national anthem.

"The flag bears scars from the pitched battle, but it also shows blemishes, regrettably, from later neglect," said Roberts, who also is the Smithsonian's chancellor.

Likewise, he wrote, "the judiciary's needs cannot be postponed indefinitely without damaging its fabric."

Honestly, if lower rung judges need a raise, you don't automagically get one. Love, the guy living on 300-a-month disability.

[frigidmagi]

At 217,000 he could hand me 10% of his yearly earnings and not only met all my needs from that alone but boost me into another tax bracket. Seriously he's doing better then at least 60% of his fellows Americans even without the addition of health good benefits and life time security.

Color me unsympathetic.

[LadyTevar]

Add me to the pile of 'fuck you', since I'm making only 20K/year.

[The Cleric]

Depending on area, $217k really isn't that much, and especially compared to what he could make in private practice as a lawyer (hell, even as a consultant).

[General Havoc]

Fuck him and his 217K per year. I make less than a fifth of that in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Not the country, the world. He can go fuck himself if that's not enough.

[The Cleric]

And when did you graduate summa cum laude from Harvard in only 3 years? And take a paycut of almost 1 million annually for your current position?

[Cynical Cat]

And when did you graduate summa cum laude from Harvard in only 3 years?

Are you saying more than 200K a year plus very good benefits (particularly health care) isn't a lot of money? Lots of Harvard grads don't make that kind of money.

And take a paycut of almost 1 million annually for your current position?

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a Supreme Court Justice was a university professor earning 70K or the head of a powerful law firm making 2 million a year. The issue is weather or not more than 200K plus very good benefits is a suitable salary for a Supreme Court justice.

[LadyTevar]

My question is what's he spending it on that he needs more?

[General Havoc]

And take a paycut of almost 1 million annually for your current position?

His current position as one of the most powerful men in the country? One where the salary of $217,000 was well-advertised long before he got into it, one which he was free to refuse if he did not like, and one incidentally that is being funded by taxpayer dollars?

I've never claimed that John Roberts is not qualified to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He is. I'm claiming that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court makes FAR more money than most people, including myself, by several orders of magnitude. The fact that there exist in the world people who make more money than him does not change that fact. Him whining for a raise under the current economic conditions, when it is those very people who make less money than him that are going to have to foot the bill, is simply disgusting.

[Hotfoot]

To play a bit of the Devil's Advocate here (DA, hehe), I know that a lot of high-paying positions like doctors, lawyers, etc. have to spend a fair bit of money on insurance, especially the legal kind.

Also, depending on where you live, the cost of living is insane. A lot of people forget that, even up in those high paying jobs. I know of a few people who moved out of urban areas like Manhattan and threw a fit over the lower pay they were getting, despite the drastically reduced cost of living which, if you did the math, resulted in MORE money in the bank at the end of the day.

Anyway, is he whining? Yeah, he is. There are legitimate cases, he doesn't appear to be one of them.

[The Cleric]

Are you saying more than 200K a year plus very good benefits (particularly health care) isn't a lot of money? Lots of Harvard grads don't make that kind of money.

Yes. That is what I"m saying.

His current position as one of the most powerful men in the country? One where the salary of $217,000 was well-advertised long before he got into it, one which he was free to refuse if he did not like, and one incidentally that is being funded by taxpayer dollars?

He's asking for a cost of living increase, something that to me feels semantically different than a raise.

I'm claiming that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court makes FAR more money than most people, including myself, by several orders of magnitude.

And? The fact that there exist in the world people who make less money than him does not change anything. Is he pay commensurate to his skills and position? I do not feel so.


[edit] Didn't close a quote box right.

[SirNitram]

Maybe Cleric. Then again, is Paul Krugman's pay commiserate with being a nobel laurete of economics, vs. say the average incompetent CEO that's on Wall Street?

If Roberts truly is outraged at being paid under the wages of a private citizen, I believe he is free to resign and seek private practice. The opportunities for a former SCOTUS justice are very well paying.

[The Cleric]

Maybe Cleric. Then again, is Paul Krugman's pay commiserate with being a nobel laurete of economics, vs. say the average incompetent CEO that's on Wall Street?

Wall Street CEO's are overpaid, and educators are underpaid. I have no argument there. I would point out that competent Wall Street CEO's do generate staggering amounts of revenue though. I would prefer that most of their pay be performance based bonus', assuming there's enough oversight to prevent wholesale gouging (oil companies, I'm looking at you). But that's a whole different story.

If Roberts truly is outraged at being paid under the wages of a private citizen, I believe he is free to resign and seek private practice. The opportunities for a former SCOTUS justice are very well paying.

He isn't truly outraged. But asking Congress nicely doesn't get you anywhere; making a scene the paper might.

[SirNitram]

He gets a CPI adjustment, just like the rest. Again, taking a job with a clearly posted salary was his own lookout.

As for 'generating revenue', I refer to the post I put up with the article 'A Crack In The System'. GOBS of revenue. Did not equal competence.

[The Cleric]

He gets a CPI adjustment, just like the rest. Again, taking a job with a clearly posted salary was his own lookout.

Has he? I was unaware. Do you know what his yearly salary has been the past, say, 3 or 4 years and what the CPI adjustment looks like this year? Just wondering how much more he's asking for.

As for 'generating revenue', I refer to the post I put up with the article 'A Crack In The System'. GOBS of revenue. Did not equal competence.

Which is why I specified the whole "without gouging," which I meant as a "ethical standards" kinda deal. Making money by exploiting the system in ways that are unsustainable and bad for everyone else isn't being responsible.

[SirNitram]

He gets a CPI adjustment, just like the rest. Again, taking a job with a clearly posted salary was his own lookout.

Has he? I was unaware. Do you know what his yearly salary has been the past, say, 3 or 4 years and what the CPI adjustment looks like this year? Just wondering how much more he's asking for.

Fairly sure everyone gets a CPI adjustment except for Administrative staff(That was recently adjusted, triggering some legal bruhaha given the constitutionality of Senators and admin pay). It's 5% this year; I know this because I, too, got a CPI adjustment to my federal disability.

As for 'generating revenue', I refer to the post I put up with the article 'A Crack In The System'. GOBS of revenue. Did not equal competence.

Which is why I specified the whole "without gouging," which I meant as a "ethical standards" kinda deal. Making money by exploiting the system in ways that are unsustainable and bad for everyone else isn't being responsible.

CDS was, strictly speaking, not gouging. It was a simple insurance method. It was incompetent, because no one stored collatoral near to the amount paid.

[Cynical Cat]

Are you saying more than 200K a year plus very good benefits (particularly health care) isn't a lot of money? Lots of Harvard grads don't make that kind of money.

Yes. That is what I"m saying.

Funny, 200+K puts him in the highest US tax bracket. Everyone else in this thread and the Federal Government disagrees. You don't have to making millions every year to be very well paid.

I'm claiming that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court makes FAR more money than most people, including myself, by several orders of magnitude.

And? The fact that there exist in the world people who make less money than him does not change anything. Is he pay commensurate to his skills and position? I do not feel so.
[/quote]

Government employees don't get paid like corporate execs or the senior partners of successful law firms nor do academics for that matter. They do tend to have better job security and fairly good benefits. Most people in government service make only a fraction of that despite long careers and impressive qualifications. If he wanted to make obscene amounts of money he should have stayed in private practice.