No Soup for You, Article III Judges:
Over at The BLT, Tony Mauro has an interesting post on the proposed Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for federal judges that would let judicial salaries adjust for inflation. The COLA increase was originally inserted into the auto bailout bill, but it was pulled because it became controversial:
[E]ven before the Senate killed the bailout, the judges' COLA got into unexpected trouble. Some press reports on the House action portrayed it as a judicial "pay raise" that had been tucked into the House bill — rather than an adjustment that barely keeps them even with inflation. The news reports, apparently, scared off the Senate.Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts should edit his year-end report on the federal judiciary to make the case that the subprime market decline has caused a liquidity crisis in the federal judiciary. The federal judiciary needs a bailout, because is too big to fail. The report should admit that federal judges have made mistakes before, but say that the only way to get the judiciary back on its feet is to look forward. Plus, I'll bet the federal courts would be okay with a bailout in the one or two billion range. That's a bargain these days.
“Wrong time. Wrong place,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-Mo.) exclaimed on the Senate floor Dec. 11. “We have families all over this nation that are scared today, that aren’t buying Christmas presents. Federal judges get lifetime appointments and they never take a dime’s cut in pay. They die with the same salary they have today.” After that, it was little surprise that senators supporting the auto bailout began the process of pulling the judicial provision out of the bill. They did not want to jeopardize any much-needed votes. But then the whole thing collapsed anyway.
Nice irony.
If anyone needs to go under, it's the federal judiciary. Let them eat cake.
Let's take McCaskill's pay and spread it among the Supreme Court justices.
There is a similar case underway for New York state judges. Unlike the federal case, the initial ruling was favorable, although I'm sure the judges would much prefer to have the legislature make this moot rather than having to go through the judicial process with the obvious conflict of interest by any judge ruling on the matter.
The size and scope of the Federal judiciary (which is of course simply reflective of the size and scope of the Federal gov't overall) is certainly way beyond anything this libertarian wants, but at least the court system is something the Federal government is supposed to have in some form.
Well, I do not believe the Senate is voting itself a pay raise or cutting the judiciary's staff, so if your point is that the Senate is treating itself differently from judges, I don't think that's right.
Senators are paid less than appellate judges (and the same as district court judges), despite the fact that it is considerably more difficult to become a Senator than a district court judge.
Many high-level officials in the federal government (including most federal judges and Senators) could be paid more in the private sector than in the public sector. Nevertheless, the demand for these positions far outweighs the supply.
I have no objection to giving federal judges pay raises, but I do think the sense of indignation and urgency that is often expressed is misplaced.
Oops, it looks like the Senate is allowing itself to get a pay raise (though it is not voting itself a pay raise.) My mistake. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to block their own raises in the next couple of weeks.
The broader point stands. Federal judges are not significantly more underpaid than many other federal officials and their claim for a raise, while reasonable, is hardly overwhelming.
Of course, judges should get COLA, and I think that they should get a raise sometime soon, but if this auto industry business is as dire and dramatic as everyone says, it seems inappropriate to me for legislators to start tacking on riders that have nothing to do with it.
Why not throw in a bridge to nowhere or a Terry Schiavo memorial on a patch of federal land in Florida?
Senators are paid less than appellate judges (and the same as district court judges), despite the fact that it is considerably more difficult to become a Senator than a district court judge.
My understanding is that there is already a law that automatically gives members of congress the same COLA that district judges would have received if the bill had passed. So, although senators are paid the same as district judges now, district judges will be paid less as of January 1. If all this is right, then, yes, McKaskill's a hypocrite and a demagogue.
Also, I'm not sure why it should matter that it's more difficult to become a Senator than a district court judge, or at least that's not all that matters.
Regardless of how much we may be frustrated by judges at times, I think for the most part they're serious people who do a very good job. Beyond that, virtually every one of them could make much more in private practice. It's shameful that their compensation hasn't at least stayed even with inflation.
Also, Christmas present comment is comedy gold.
Then why don't they? Right, prestige and power matter. Also, judges have life tenure.
Incidentally, how much money could Barack Obama have made in the private sector? A lot more than he's made thus far, that's for sure.
This is a tired debate. Judges get paid more than 99% of Americans for doing a job most lawyers (even those making mid-six figures and above) would love to have.
That's pretty much on pace with the presidential salary. That peaked about 1900 in real dollars and has dropped by 75% or so since then. 24% over 40 years is actually better than the presidential average.
You have to say that. There has to be some unit of account that is held to be stable even if it isn't, or otherwise there is no way to keep pay the same.
You could only say it is not a pay raise if Dollars were not "real" money but something else was real money.
You have to say that. There has to be some unit of account that is held to be stable even if it isn't, or otherwise there is no way to keep pay the same.
You could only say it is not a pay raise if Dollars were not "real" money but something else was real money.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.