Chief Justice Roberts laments ‘constitutional crisis.’
By on Jan 1st, 2007 at 11:01 am
Chief Justice Roberts laments ‘constitutional crisis.’
He says pay for federal judges is too low. Roberts earns $212,000 per year. Judges on federal appeals courts earn $175,100.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Poor baby.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:05 amSince he feels his pay is too low, then he can resign from the Supreme Court and become an ambulance chaser attorney! Making $212,000 puts him in the top 10% bracket, so how much does he want the same as the presidents gets $400,000, or he wants a million a year like a CEO? Resign Roberts you worthless right-wing GOPer imbecile!
January 1st, 2007 at 11:08 ammaybe he’d like a warm glass of SHUT THE HELL UP.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:10 amwwwwwaaaaaaaa….
wwwwwaaaaaaaa….
- Justice Roberts
January 1st, 2007 at 11:11 amAccording to Dr. Paul Krugman only 5% of the population receives income of over $200,000 per year. According to US Census figures, approximately 16% of the population receives greater than $100,000 per year. If Justice Roberts feels his and his colleagues incomes are inadequate, they can always choose to resign and start private law practices.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:13 amHe wants 1/4 of a million a year..plus other benefits…Now how many decisions these make a year sitting on the bench? It comes down to over $10,000 OR MORE PER DECISION…Just guessing…!!
January 1st, 2007 at 11:15 amAnd how long has it been since the
January 1st, 2007 at 11:16 amminimum wage
has been increased?
Just un-freakin-believable….
Roberts believes that a federal appeals court judge should have a salary that is closer to his target profession – senior partner at a large law firm. District Judges ‘deserve’ less. This is the basic argument – the gap between private sector jobs and public sector jobs should be closed.
It is, of course, a lie. Judges take their positions for POWER particularly on the APPEALS and SUPREME COURT. It is the culmination of one’s career.
It is not likely that an appeals court (or supreme) justice would ever leave such a post – it is coveted and brings ‘respect’/recognition.
He has an argument with district judges as some do view the private sector as something they would go back to. Then again many are there after basically lobbying for the position.
It is a willing buyer willing seller market and these people self-select themselves to become judges because they find it rewarding/easier than being a law partner/etc.
Raising salaries would not improve the quality of judges as it is still political (as in who becomes one) and the same people as before would likely take the jobs, ie, you won’t entice a ‘brighter’ lawyer to become a judge.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:18 amOh boo hoo fricken Hoo!!
I bet many of US wish we’d make $212,000 per year, with a driver, security, etc. Get a frigging life, Roberts. Go back to being an attorney if you think you aren’t getting paid enough. Seems to me that used to be the Presidential Salary until Bush gave himself a raise from 212K to 400K per year. Clinton did it on less, but the Bush folks, LOVE money, so Bushy boy needed more to screw up our country and the world.
boo fricken hoo, Roberts. Worthless neocon planted Justice.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:18 amI’m with #2.
I’d add that not everyone is cut out for public service and that like any American who finds himself in an unfulfilling occupations, Justice Roberts should seek employment elsewhere. It appears he lacks sufficient awareness of the realities of American life beyond the gates of his 2% community.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:19 amRoberts asking for a big raise….How many opinions did he make? I thought he just started…!!
January 1st, 2007 at 11:20 amThe federal minimum wage has not been raised in almost a decade, and he has the audacity to complain that he is not paid enough? With all due respect, Judge Roberts, but kiss my ass!
January 1st, 2007 at 11:21 amBut, trueblue, it’s a Constitutional crisis!!
Chief Justice Roberts might have to send his little kids to public school. Oh the horror….
January 1st, 2007 at 11:21 amone of three that require impeachment
January 1st, 2007 at 11:21 amBeing a Supreme Court Justice should NOT be a lifetime appointment! It should be changed to 10 years, or maximum 20 years, then they get kicked out. Same with members of the Congress: it should be 2 terms for Senators, so 12 years max, and up to 5 terms for Representatives, so 10 years max. There is NO reason for justices and politicians to get lifetime jobs in Washington, DC, nor to retire with practically the same amount of retirement pay they received in office. They all need to seek employment in the real world like average Americans are forced to do!
January 1st, 2007 at 11:23 amone of 4. don’t forget AG the AG.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:25 amThey all once occupied such a bracket. Roberts still does. His main point (which I view as invalid) is that by raising pay more qualified judges will be found (entice a senior law partner to become a judge). It is invalid because the process is political (not meritocratic) and therefore rentseeking behavior – and because the people who become judges do so because they want to (self selection) not because they want lots of money. Most craver power, social status, less work hours than when they were a senior partner (true actually – and getting easier), etc. Money is something they generally ALREADY HAVE.
The 5% argument is really pretty pointless. Assuming that a judge should be independent (one of Roberts other arguments for raising it) and qualified then you would have to pay them somewhere around that point target because their alternative pays more (senior law partner).
No they would not have to start a law practice. They would be hired immediately by one of the large firms and made partner. Most of the judges came from firms where they 1.) made lots of money and 2.) were partners.
This is more true for appeals courts justices and the supremes. The district court judges engage in rent seeking behavior (they attract lots of controversy because they are either strongly one way or another).
It’s not ‘according to Krugman’ but according to the government – we publish such info on several different sites. Krugman is, however, entirely correct.
Hopefully you believe a surgeon should be compensated for the years spent in medical school, residency, and for general skill. I do and have no problem with them being in the top 5 (top 3 is more like it). With judges, however, I do not think that they will lose their impartiality at low pay levels (if low is not so low and they are still in the top 10).
Big egos like big salaries. The INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT however is very TROUBLESOME. Roberts never addresses it directly (just that they are independent etc) but he is saying that if you don’t raise our salaries we cannot continue to have impartial judges. That is sick. It is a particularly excuse argument for pay raises (I’m not impartial but give me a raise and I will be). He’s talking about lower court judges but still.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:30 amChief Justice Roberts might have to send his little kids to public school. Oh the horror….
Comment by Zooey
… and in Washington….
January 1st, 2007 at 11:32 am*shudder*
Totally cool. I’ve just been deleted for the first time in 2007!
Somebody’s cranky at TP this morning….Heh.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:32 amTo, more or less, quote John Edwards re: Bush…
“What planet does he live on?”
January 1st, 2007 at 11:35 amIf you remember the former chief justice always brought this up (not that often but more than once a year). Scalia is a big advocate of it (might be because he thinks that we should pay to support very large families like his own – with support being lots of support).
Term limits for judges would only be acceptable if imposed on the politicians which would be nice…but perhaps bad as well. There is some on the job training for politicians and there are a few in the House and the Senate I would not wish to see go. Their voters seem to feel the same way.
Ending gerrymandering would be a good way of having competitive primaries, etc and essentially negate the need for term limits (a truly pathetic politician would be shown the door) and the turnover rate would increase.
The problem would be that those passing such laws would rather limit such a constitutional ammendment that placed limits on judges not themselves. If they were voting 2/3 for their removal then one would think them crazy if they viewed their position of a job they want to keep (I believe more than 1/3 do).
We have tried changing the supreme court before (think 1930s) and it went over very very badly with the public. I’m not sure this would be such a great thing to do.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:37 amYou made short work of that, Zooey!
January 1st, 2007 at 11:39 amBeware the f*ck filter!
Roberts was a marginal corporate attorney in private practice, and not a very bright one either, so America basically has an idiot as Chief Justice, but hey so is our worthless dunce President George W. Bush!
January 1st, 2007 at 11:40 amYou make wonderful points, James.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:42 amThank you.
Excuse me, but didn’t this appointee know what his salary was going to be when he accepted the job. Maybe his wife should go to work or take a second job if they can’t live on his income. Pathetic whining baby. Shut up and resign!
January 1st, 2007 at 11:44 amOk, I’ll try re-posting my original comment, which was deleted from it’s #2 position. Here’s the scrubbed version:
With all due respect, Chief Justice Robert, please quiet yourself.
It’s a disappointment that the only “Constitutional crisis” concerning your jusicial mind is the amount of your paycheck. If you cannot live on $212,000 per year, perhaps some financial counseling is in order, you might consider resigning from the SCOTUS and returning to the private sector.
Yours truly,
January 1st, 2007 at 11:44 amThe Unemployed
Do you see anyone in here who cares?
***Pulling eyelid back and looking at you***
January 1st, 2007 at 11:47 amBeware the f*ck filter!
Comment by trueblue
But used the * thing! Twice! Nobody knows what you mean when you use the *. It was probably my crappy attitude. :)
January 1st, 2007 at 11:48 amHe’s right, $212,000 isn’t enough, lets give him $213,000. There. You get what we get. A “merit” increase.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:51 amNot all lawyers make big money….I know many who are struggling. But averaging of lawyers incomes here will not be appropriate,because lawyers of big successful cases can reflect big on averaging, which will not be accurate as a measure. I think they should be payed well…but what well means hers…? It is not fair not to pay them well..however..I don’t want judges who begin to seperate themselves from the average American. Just like we see now some big tv anchors and pundits….who really are very far from reality because they are no longer represent the average American. A judge must keep his link to the average person to come with the right decision in judging…I DON’T WANT TO SEE JUDGES PAID LIKE CORPORATE EXECUTIVE…then they will lose touch and feelings of the masses whom they judge.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:55 amFor Truth,
If they got what we get, there would be major whining!
“Pay for health insurance? AND deductibles?”
“Social Security?”
“Wwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaa.”
January 1st, 2007 at 11:56 amFrom the Article:
From the Annual Report:
So, what’s the crisis?
He has a valid point. We give lip service to wanting “the best and the brightest.” Lip service, because we do not pay for the best and the brightest. Although federal judges are appointed, and politics certainly plays a role, the individual candidate can always decline. It does not take a great deal of imagination to see what would happed to this country should our federal judiciary be limited to candidates such as Brown, the former head of FEMA.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:57 amWhat exactly does a Supreme Court Justice do to actually earn his pay? They all have staffs to research for them ,write their decisions for them etc,what do they really do?The only thing I see or hear of them doing is coming out of their bat caves,twice a year, to render out decisions that affect a very small amount of people!
January 1st, 2007 at 11:58 amIt does not take a great deal of imagination to see what would happed to this country should our federal judiciary be limited to candidates such as Brown, the former head of FEMA.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
I understand your point, but he knew what the pay was when he accepted the position.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pmWhen judges rise to the level of which Roberts is lamenting their wages, aren’t they political appointees? Jeez, is they don’t want to “suffer” from underpayment for their services, they they shoud remain in the lower courts, or continue as attorneys.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pmI am insulted that he refers to this as a “Constitutional crisis” when there are crises of enormous magnitude facing the nation today under the reign of King George, and he is ignoring them, allowing those illegal abuses of power to oppress the people who reside under this Constitution.
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
And he’s speaking on behalf of the entire Federal Judiciary, not just the Supremes.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:12 pmComment by trueblue — January 1, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Too long. And there are advocates for raising that as well. I agree with the need for a minimum wage increase.
But Chief Justice Roberts is obliged to advocate for the Federal Judiciary. And on this point, I agree with him. Federal judges salaries have declined in real dollars over the past 20 years. “Adjusted for inflation, the average U.S. worker‘s wages have risen 17.8% in real terms since 1969. Federal judicial pay has declined 23.9%” (Annual Report)
“Their last substantial pay raise was a 25 percent increase provided by a 1989 law, the Ethics Reform Act, under which judges lost the right to earn most types of outside income in return for the raise and the promise of regular cost-of-living increases.” Yet the promise of regular cost of living increases was not fulfilled. So, while Congressmen and women can earn outside income, federal judges are severely restricted in that arena.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:12 pmComment by James — January 1, 2007 @ 11:18 am
The article says otherwise: “For the last several years, judges discussing the pay question have pointed to a different benchmark that they regard as a more realistic indicator of how far they have lagged: the difference between judges’ pay and the salaries in legal academia.”
January 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pmI find this to be something of a strawman set up for people to argue about. Justice Roberts, and Scalia and Baby Scalia, wouldn’t be independent judges no matter how much or how little they were paid. Justice Robert’s remarks about the “independence” of the judiciary might have some sense behind them, in that competent jurors won’t want to be nominated to positions that they cannot make a decent living from. But regardless of salary, the past from 1980 to date has shown that as long as the Rethugs controlled the nomination and approval process, there won’t be any non-partisanm independent judges.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pmRaise the minimum wage to a livable wage first, then we can worry about those earning $200,000 or more.
The judges know what they’re getting into and can make a choice. Many making minimum wage or close to it have very little choice.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pmIn reading some of the earlier posts, I see excellent comments by many,and I fully understand the arguments. What bothers me is that Roberts has put this at the top of his list of priorities – he didn’t have to take the appointment – and the implication of his argument is that if you don’t pay me more, I will submit more careless decisions. So his so-called integrity is for sale?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pmI used to think that certain professions applied a more altruistic rationale for their choice of career paths; that was naively idealisltic. Many judges, journalists and health care professionals are only in it for what they can get from it.
Apparently, the bar is set so low (no pun intended) under the reign of the boy-king, with selfishness replacing selflessness becoming the rule instead of the exception.
Minimum wage is the issue, judge Roberts.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pmZooey,what happened to your last job?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pmI understand your point, Briseadh na Faire.
I guess I just feel that if they can’t raise mimimum wage, they shouldn’t be able to raise their own salary. (or in the case of judges, to request one.)
January 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pmAnd this neocon lawyer would probably rule–in true neocon fashion–that trial lawyers should be marginalized: capping injury lawsuits at $250,000, no matter how traumatizing the injury is.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:21 pmOn a gossipy note: I have always found it striking that his son, Jack, looks exactly like him. I wonder if that “adoption” wasn’t fishy. I think it’s possible that John Roberts had an affair, and this child is the result of that. They screamed when people wanted to scrutinize the adoption records prior to his confirmation.
While a single term might be commendable, it would also result in top-notch judges being removed from the bench, unable to serve again. There is a mechanism for removing incompetent and/or corrupt federal judges: impeachment. Thus far in our history, 7 federal judges have been impeached and removed from office following trial by the Senate, whereas no one from the Executive Branch has been removed from office through impeachment.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:23 pmA further point that I think is missed here is the relative value of the work one can produce for the salary one earns. If a senior partner in a law firm makes $1M, does he earn it? I would argue not, and that the gross distortion in salrary between the upper 16% and the rest of the planet is what should be addressed. I am sure that the people that pick up my garbage, which in this backwards state limits them to about $20k/yr, do a more efficienct job of earning their salary than most CEOs. The argument against this, from the conservative point of view, is that the salary levels are the free market at work. But when such huge disparities in income exist, without a gradation of comparable work delivered for income attained, I would argue that this is not the free market at work. Rather, the upper fefw percent have now redefined what work means, and their redefinition and its associated compensation are at odds with the defintion and compensation most of us use and receive.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pmMaybe Judge “Johnnie O J” Roberts is hedging…
January 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pmlooking for any easy way out of his current occupation…
He may be positioning himself to capture the astronomical fees a defense attorney can snag, what with the looming inevitability of criminal indictments for Dick, George, Alberto, Condi and Company………
Zooey,what happened to your last job?
Comment by just curious
My employer and I mutually agreed that I should leave. :)
Thanks, employer!!
I’ll start college full time later this month.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm#46 BnF
January 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pmWhile a single term might be commendable, it would also result in top-notch judges being removed from the bench, unable to serve again. There is a mechanism for removing incompetent and/or corrupt federal judges: impeachment.
Good argument for lifetime appointments — considering the administrations of the past 25 years, forced retirements might have given us an total arch-conservative SCOTUS now.
I suspect it would be extremely difficult to impeach a Justice, much like that for a president, but at least the mechanism is in place. Maybe there is another way to resolve this debate while keeping a balance in philosopy on the SC.
Earning $17,000+ per month. Damn he’s downright poor compared to what he could be making in the private sector. But he’s not doing badly considering average median household income in the United States is $46,000+ (according to US Census). I wonder if he thinks there’s a crisis in the United States since there are so many more poorer households?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:32 pmSo in today’s dollar, justices were getting $263,000? Wow! And if their real wages rose with the average – then justices would be getting over $300,000? Has someone fact checked this claim from Roberts?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pmThere is another mechanism for “controlling” the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not specify how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court. It used to be 5, then was increased to 9. Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court by adding more Justices back when it was continually ruling against his New Deal legislation.
So there is some checks and balances there.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:36 pmZooey–Why?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:36 pmJanuary 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Further proof we are run by a group of rich elitists so detached from reality that $121,000 a year isn’t enough money. What the hell does he buy that $121,000 isn’t enough?
Don’t like it Johnny – then quit. We didn’t want you to begin with.
By the way, how do judges get that much from the government when we pay teachers, fire fighters and police slightly above the poverty level?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pmodd…my comment on 56 was……”begging for an NSA folder eh?” Creepy…..
January 1st, 2007 at 12:44 pmWell, considering he was making $83,000 per month before going into public service….in Chief Justice Robert’s case, the value of the prestige of being the Chief Justice of the United States is some $66,000 per month. Would you be willing to give up that kind of money just for a job title?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:44 pm$212,000
Too much partying last night, unbelievable?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pmFaire > my opinion about there NOT being life-time appointments to Supreme Court is based on fact that average Americans are forced to retire from most jobs around 65 to 70 years of age, so why should somebody 80+ be allowed to remain in the Supreme Court, or in the Senate like Byrd. Since average Americans are forced to retire, than so should those in public service. If this was to take place, then creeps like Sen. John McCain would already be gone from DC, and NOT trying to run for president in 2008. The founding fathers never intended for elected politicians to remain in DC till they died in office. Representatives were supposed to serve a couple of terms, then return to their prior jobs in their states. A Supreme Court Justice back at the beginning of this nation did not live as long as those now. I believe 20 years max. would be appropriate for a justice and for regular judges too. Sen. Byrd is so frail that NOT even Wal-Mart would hire him as a greeter > he must retire!
January 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pmComment by unbelievable — January 1, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
They’re drawn from a different candidate pool.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pmZoooette – - You should enjoy the college “experience” – you’ll feel right, I mean, left at home……
January 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pm#17, Would it be acceptable to you if I wrote “according to a recent article by Dr. Krugman?” I don’t believe Dr. Krugman collects his own income statistics. Geez!
I am not sure I made a 5% argument. If you infer one, please let me in on it.
Are you sure he wouldn’t choose to start his own practice? How do you know what he would do? Do you know the future? Do you know him? Does he call you on the phone? Do you have a dorsal fin?
Last, I can do without your pedantry. Save it for someone who asks for a lecture.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pmZooey–Why?
Comment by just curious
Why do you ask? Do I know you by another name?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pmWhy are the learning institutions liberal leaning Mighty?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pmBNF – The point is that he knew what he was giving up when he took the job. There is no compulsory service here. If he is so brilliant that he was making $1M prior to taking the bench, he should be smart enough to have calculated whether his family could live on that reduced income.
I have no sympathy for them. My sympathy lies with the millions of unemployed, underemployed, and underpaid!!!
January 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pm61 – I understand your point. But there is no good reason for mandatory retirement in any case. Why should a good and competent employee be forced out of his or her job merely by having survived a set number of orbits around the sun?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pm$212,000
Too much partying last night, unbelievable?
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Oops… Certainly not that much… :)
Just this dyslexic problem I have with numbers… Probably because they aren’t real things. Not sure. I do it with zeros as well (as in not adding enough or adding too many). Oh well…
This issue is really obnoxious that someone like Roberts is so far removed from reality that a quarter of a million dollars isn’t enough when most people live off less than a quarter of his salary. The legal system is way over paid as it is. The richest people in this country are lawyers. Not doctors, scientists or engineers – but lawyers. Seems out of balance to me tha.
I totally agree with you – he knew what he was getting into before he accepted and so he should stop whining publically about this and start whining about real issues – like Bush violating the Constitution…
January 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pm“By the way, how do judges get that much from the government when we pay teachers, fire fighters and police slightly above the poverty level?
Comment by unbelievable — January 1, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
They’re drawn from a different candidate pool.”
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
**********The earth must have slipped it’s axis – we AGREE on something!!!!!!! Don’t worry – I don’t expect such an event to occur again….
January 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pmZooey–Why did you get fired?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pmSen. Byrd is so frail that NOT even Wal-Mart would hire him as a greeter > he must retire!
Comment by Jay Randal — January 1, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
That is hilarious…
We took inspiration for our system from the Greeks and Romans. Jefferson frequently references them as such. The thing we have gotten away from that seems to be allowing this type of corruption in the system is that the average citizens are supposed to take turns serving as elected representatives for a fixed amount of time, so that the ideas are fresh, the average person truly has representation, the government really is We the People, and there are no career politicians in the house of representatives.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pmFaire > if average Americans were allowed to keep their good paying jobs past the age of 70, then this would NOT be an issue, but since forced retirement is a reality for average Americans, then so it should be for politicians in DC too. Having them retire would open the Congress up to new blood, and new ideas, and NOT be filled with people who have become clueless and to old to think anymore.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pmThey’re drawn from a different candidate pool.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — January 1, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
They shouldn’t be.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pmLong live the aristocracy, down with the plebes!
-GSD
January 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pmZoooette – - You should enjoy the college “experience†– you’ll feel right, I mean, left at home……
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
It isn’t even slightly possible for you to actually contribute to teh dialog rather than attack people is it?
You must be a sado-masochist who gets off on this – because you really can’t seem to get enough of behaving in this perverted manner.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pmA Blessed New Year to us all…
I can’t remember now all the reasons I was against Robert’s appointment….Sent out ton’s of emails to representatives to stop his nomination..Some of the reason’s were by case judgement’s that I did not agree with..
One word came to mind then and now in discribing the man..Insipid….I was not famalier with their pay scale untill reading all the post’s,,,my comment is this, the working class is getting screwed the poor are among this group…Why do we continue to raise all these people to king status and send further down the ladder of destitution our working public…Those of us that are retired recieved a pittence of $25.00 a month before the ajusted increase of a miserable Medicare bill, then reduced to $19.00 a month….Million’s of our citizen’s are working more than one job at $5,00 an hour, our state of Washington is number one at almost $8.00 an hour min. wage, Oregon is 2nd…..I personaly think the supreme court should not be a life time appointment and I also think they should be voted in like the President..If only a mandatory retirement were installed in the supreme court, house and senate many of our problem’s with old, no neck intrenched white men would end….Our country need’s younger, better educated constitutionalists to fix many of our problem’s..I don’t believe a higher wage at the top is helping anything on any scale….Look what bull shit bush’s giving to the rich and robbing the poor has done to date…….Blessings
January 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pmZoooette – - You should enjoy the college “experience†– you’ll feel right, I mean, left at home……
Comment by mighty aphrodite
That’s as sweet as it gets in Hagette World!
By the way dear, I’m glad you took my suggestion not to hang back on the older threads. That was just too sad….even for you.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm**********The earth must have slipped it’s axis – we AGREE on something!!!!!!! Don’t worry – I don’t expect such an event to occur again….
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
You agree because you are a self-absorbed elistist who thinks some people are this much better than others and that one day you might actually be one of them. LOL. Trust us – you won’t. You aren’t competent enough.
I work with many brilliant people who hold Master’s degrees and Phds. They are just as deserving, if not more than the legal profession, because they actually contribute a greater service to this country.
Let teachers, firefighters and police officers strike for a couple months. Then let lawyers. Let’s see who is missed the most.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pmZoo- what are you going to study?
January 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pmZoo- what are you going to study?
Comment by unbelievable
Sociology/Anthropology
January 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pmRoberts, just STFU, boo frickin’ hoo, $212,000 is aabout 10x what I make. If you don’t like the pay, resign and become a corporate CEO for $85,000,000/year.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pmSociology/Anthropology
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Very cool…
January 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pmComment by Jules — January 1, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
I share the same feelings, Jules. But that doesn’t mean I cannot be concerned over the quality of the federal judiciary. The Federal Judiciary is our last hope in protecting our civil liberties and the Constitution. My concern here is that we are heading towards a Federal Judiciary on par with FEMA under Michael “heck of a job, Brownie” Brown.
Nearly all the discussion here is on Chief Justice Robert’s salary. He is the advocate for the entire Judiciary. The concern lies with the hundreds of District Court Judges around the country. Odds are I’ll make as much or more than them my first year out of law school.
Over the years we have not valued the Judiciary as much as perhaps we should. Judges, by the very nature of their job, must displease half of the people who come before them. Although they receive death threats, most do not have round-the-clock security details.
Politicians and pundits are free to rail against “activist judges” while the judges must remain silent, and let their rulings speak for them.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pmZoo- what are you going to study?
Comment by unbelievable — January 1, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
“They are just as deserving, if not more than the legal profession, because they actually contribute a greater service to this country.
Let teachers, firefighters and police officers strike for a couple months. Then let lawyers. Let’s see who is missed the most.”
Comment by unbelievable
*******How interesting you think “non-teaching” of children (look at those needing remedial help as college freshmen) is more important than protecting an individuals’ Constitutional rights…..
January 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pmOk, this one jumped out at me, Hagette:
It’s a “quality of life†issue for those types.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
So someone else’s “quaility of life” might differ from yours, why the attitude, Haggie?
January 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pmLOL unbelievable > if lawyers went on strike, then nobody would notice, nor would we care either, so they would not be missed if some of them never returned to their positions.
Faire > I think you are or will be one lawyer that would be missed, so above does not apply to you.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pmZooooette – Sounds like the perfect course of study for an up and coming Social Worker……or Correctional Officer……
January 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pmThere was an article a couple of months ago showing Lawyers at number three, behind CEOs at number 1 and Surgeons at number 2.
He is precluded from making public statements about Bush violating the Constitution. After all, if there’s an Impeachment, Chief Justice Roberts will preside over the Senate Trial.
And again, if you read his Annual Report, you’ll not he is not “whining” about his salary, but advocating on behalf of the entire Federal Judiciary.
You’ll find the Annual Report here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.html
January 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pmHow not to get fired would be a start.
Comment by just curious
Nice. I was polite to you. I see my mistake. Go f**k yourself.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pmBNF – back in the early 80’s congress voted itself a HUGE raise. They said this was needed so the government would remain in the hands of the people not the wealthy. The arguement went much like yours. If we do not pay for quality, we will have unqualified, wealthy people making our laws, etc.
Now that worked out well didn’t it?
January 1st, 2007 at 1:25 pmHow not to get fired would be a start.
Comment by just curious — January 1, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Stop being a brat.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pm73 – and having Congressional districts that aren’t gerrymandered would have the same effect. I agree with your underlying theme.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pmHow not to get fired would be a start.
Comment by just curious
Nice. I was polite to you. I see my mistake. Go f**k yourself.
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Zoo – I liked your comeback so much I believed it deserved to be posted twice!!!
January 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pmNot any new threads on TP yet, so the TP staff must have partied too much last night. Me, I just had a small glass of plum wine and went to bed before 3:00 AM.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pmZooooette – Sounds like the perfect course of study for an up and coming Social Worker……or Correctional Officer……
Comment by mighty aphrodite
I’m so pleased you approve, Hagette. I live for your approval.
Hey, you got any funny kid stories from Christmas or New Year’s? Make sure you include all the kids.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pmHow interesting you think “non-teaching†of children (look at those needing remedial help as college freshmen) is more important than protecting an individuals’ Constitutional rights…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
This is exactly why you cannot be a lawyer. You lack reading comprehension skills, an ability to properly paraphrase, and any critical thinking skills.
First of all – it is the government who dictates what teachers in public school are to teach. Therefore, the problem is firstly the poor standards that are set, and secondly, the fact that because the pay is so low, you have a hard time attracting quality.
An educated public is way more important than ambulance chasers and corporate attorneys. There are lawyers who are beneficial to the system – but a very small fraction of them. We have 100 lawyers for every engineer in this country. That’s far too many.
Bottomline – if we don’t have an educated public – then we won’t have a Constitution to uphold. No surprise that escaped you.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pmZooooette – Sounds like the perfect course of study for an up and coming Social Worker……or Correctional Officer……
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Something YOU personally know about sooooo well.
Is your correction officer as nice as Zoo?
January 1st, 2007 at 1:34 pmZoo – I liked your comeback so much I believed it deserved to be posted twice!!!
Comment by Jules
Too funny, Jules. :)
I’m hoping your holidays were the best.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pmSponge Cake – What paranoid cocktail have you been tipping? I don’t attack Social Workers or Correctional Officers. I merely pointed out to Zooette her career options with such a degree.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pmComment by Jay Randal — January 1, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Thank you. I am reminded of something said by Alex Trebek when he had a lawyer as a contestant….”I hate lawyers…..UNTIL I need one!”
That seems to be a prevailing attitude. We all want an advocate on our side who is ruthless in pursuing our case, and we all hate it when the other side has an advocate who is ruthless in pursuing the other side’s case. That’s why attorneys subscribe to a Professional Code of Ethics, and can be sanctioned – fined or disbarred – for violating those ethics.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pmAnd again, if you read his Annual Report, you’ll not he is not “whining†about his salary, but advocating on behalf of the entire Federal Judiciary.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — January 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
We must have seen different studies. The one I saw had the top 15 richest individuals as laywers, and a couple of CEOs. No doctors on the list.
He is whining about his salary – he is part of the judicial system. But it makes no difference to me if he’s whining about all legal salaries or just his own. I don’t want people on the job who care this much about this much money. If the salaries are too high, it will attract the corrupt – just as if it is too low it will attract the incompetent. It should be fair. And $212,000 is that.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pmNow that worked out well didn’t it?
Comment by Jules — January 1, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Well said!
January 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmUnbelievable – I await your response re: increase in necessary remedial assistance for College Freshmen – - Seems like a few teachers are dropping the ball……
January 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pmI merely pointed out to Zooette her career options with such a degree.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Thanks, I’ve got it handled, Hagette. You certainly have a limited worldview, don’t you? Maybe your only capable of thinking within your own life experience. How sad…
January 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pmI merely pointed out to Zooette her career options with such a degree.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
You were patronizing about it. Because you believe that some people are better than other people based on their choice of profession.
I assure you, the janitor who cleans my classroom is a far bigger person than you’ll ever be. And it has NOTHING to do with his job – but with his respect for other people. He’s a wonderful human being. You are not.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pmThey shouldn’t be.
Comment by unbelievable — January 1, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
It’s a different candidate pool for a reason. Ever since becoming a teacher back in the mid ’80s I was getting nudges to become a lawyer…told that I think like a lawyer. Now that I’ve finished law school I understand why. People that think like a lawyer don’t fit well within the educational system.
If anybody thinks we truely want the best and the brightest in education, then please explain to me why someone with an Master of Arts in Education and a Juris Doctor cannot get an interview for a vice-principal position.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pmZoo – I spent the holidays in Cincinnati – at the Shriners Hospital. 2006 was not a good year for the Jules family. My sisters home exploded in October 2006 and my nephew was burned over 90% of his body. Thankfully after many operations, and care from the most wonderful doctors and nurses in the world, he is doing so well they expect him to be able to leave the hospital by the end of January. He will have minimal to no scarring on his face and he will one day be able to play sports again. He is 14.
I write this because we are having this big debate about whether these judges should be paid more money. The surgeons who operate on these burn victims at Shriners VOLUNTEER their time and talents. That is correct, they do not get paid one dime for the amazing work that they do. What the hell has Roberts ever done to assist anyone besides his wallet?
Serving your country must be about something other than money. If it is not than you will never do it well. I am a good teacher because I am not in this for money. I love my kids and I love the impact I have on their lives. If Roberts feels otherwise then he should return to the private sector!!!
January 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pmI hope the GREAT teachers out there are recipients of my suggestions in #86 – and the rest are FIRED PDQ.
Happy New Years….
January 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pm*******How interesting you think “non-teaching†of children (look at those needing remedial help as college freshmen) is more important than protecting an individuals’ Constitutional rights…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
You can’t make people learn, which is a point that is proven over and over by your ignorant posts. Teachers only have children a few hours a day. What about the rest of the day? Why aren’t students opening their books when they get home? Why aren’t their parents overseeing their homework to make sure they are doing it? Why aren’t their parents encouraging them to read? Is that all the teacher’s fault? Just sitting back and blaming teachers for everything is a copout by parents and neocons, and just teaches children that they don’t have to take any responsibility for themselves.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pmThat’s Roberts ‘New Year’ resolution….
January 1st, 2007 at 1:53 pmUnbelievable – AND I have greater respect for the maintenance professional (janitor sounds soooo mundane) that cleans my building. And his Christmas bonus and raise showed my respect. That’s probably because could teach you a few lessons – if you were teachable. He’s a wonderful human being. You are not.
Merry Orbit…or whatever atheists wish each other…..
Tooodles……..
January 1st, 2007 at 1:53 pmSponge – I guess you’ve never seen anyone look back fondly and wave….you poor thing….
January 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pmZooey-Why would an employer dismiss such a good employee such as yourself? And so good with computers and posting on blogs as well.
HHHMMM-maybe I just answered my original question.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pmPerhaps a few credit hours in Obsessive Compulsive Behavior might fit right in with your Sociology studies.
When you try to denigrate atheists you only denigrate yourself. What an ingnoramus.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:56 pmComment by unbelievable — January 1, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
The point of his Annual Report is that it is not fair. A law school professor makes more than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I know we’re comparing these numbers to the median income, and it seems all out of proportion. Maybe it is. But the comparisons being drawn are valid…in fact, he is not even drawing the comparison to private sector attorneys, which is far higher than law school professors.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm#114 —Jules, right on the penny…
January 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm#114 – Jules
I’m so sorry to hear the news about your nephew’s injuries — and the house exploding. Jeebus…
I’m glad he’s going to be alright. The Shriners Hospitals and their surgeons are the greatest.
You’re right, Jules, what you do must be about something more than money. It’s that quality of life issue, and our obligation to contribute to society, that has poor Hagette so confused.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pmMA is the only troll that Karl Rove could find to hang on TP threads for New Year’s Day > lol.
I am off to go work in my yard. Nice day in Georgia today after all the rain yesterday. Bye all and take care.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pmComment by Republicans Are The Fear And Smear Party — January 1, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
What he said!!!
I had a parent conference about a week prior to the break because a parent was upset that I was mean to her daughter. This is basically what it amounted to. I had spoken with the daughter numerous times about attending tutorials. I emailed the parents numerous times about her lack of studying. It all came down to the fact that I was mean to her and she could not learn from me because of that. Thankfully I have an incredible administration that stands behind us 100% and these parents left without my head on the chopping block. But what about those teachers who do not have good administrators? They are hung out to dry in the hands of irresponsible parents!!!
January 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pmPerhaps a few credit hours in Obsessive Compulsive Behavior might fit right in with your Sociology studies.
Comment by just curious
Thanks for your kind concern. Run along…
January 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pmSee Roberts is not a conservative.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pmUnbelievable – I await your response re: increase in necessary remedial assistance for College Freshmen – - Seems like a few teachers are dropping the ball……
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
I already explained this once before to you… The problem is standardized testing (NCLB) in which children are taught to memorize useless facts to pass these tests. So, that is what they do – memeorize to pass the test and then forget – never having learned anything useful.
It’s not the teachers – their hands are tied.
I’m not forced to strictly adhere to a curriculum because I’m at a Charter School. Therefore, I have actually taught my students useful things. If I taught the curriculum that would be required of me in a regular school, my students would not have gotten the same level of quality education. It’s a fact. Teachers are hobbled int their effectiveness by what they MUST teach – and by how.
I am forced to teach by certain methods – and am evaluated 3 times a school year on it. It’s the latest theory that is seen as the ‘right way’ rather than allowing a teacher to decide what is right for his or her students.
Teachers are not the problem. To suggest that it is shows how little you know.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:03 pmThe point of his Annual Report is that it is not fair….
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Ok, so it’s not fair. I’ll give you that.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:03 pmBut is it a “Constitutional crisis?”
Sponge – I guess you’ve never seen anyone look back fondly and wave….you poor thing….
Comment by mighty aphrodite
MA your stuck in catchism, group think hate world. Can you ever find your way out?
January 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pmMighty A…. care to entertain us once more with a joke about your dead daughter?
January 1st, 2007 at 2:09 pmPeople that think like a lawyer don’t fit well within the educational system.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — January 1, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
I’ve been repeatedly told that I would have been a good attorney by lawyers because I am logical. But I would rather be a teacher. I think the kids are more important that the buracracy. I clash with my principal all the time just as I clashed with supervisors in Corporate America for questioning them. But I won’t give up just because they have issues. It’s why the system is such a mess. Because we’ve allowed it to become this way.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:10 pm#142, BnF Very funny…ROFL…
January 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pmWhat the freak does “fair” have to do with this? It is not fair that I am paid so little that I need to get a 2nd job to support my family. It is not fair that 3,000 men and women have died for an unjust cause. It is not fair that the oil companies are allowed to gouge us and then get corporate welfare. It is not fair that Halliburton has robbed our fisc. It is not fair that we have an incompetent government.
It is not fair that this incompetent boob is the chief justice of the supreme court!!!
Dang I could go on all day about the things that are not fair.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pmComment by Jules — January 1, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Damn Jules… that sucks… sorry to hear about your nephew.
Here’s hoping 2007 is a better year for you all!
January 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pmRun along…
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Atleast I have that option.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pmJust sitting back and blaming teachers for everything is a copout by parents and neocons, and just teaches children that they don’t have to take any responsibility for themselves.
Comment by Republicans Are The Fear And Smear Party — January 1, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Well said. Excellent post. I would add that when you have 28 kids in a classroom it is hard to give much or quality personal attention to each of them every day.
You should hear the groans in my classroom whenever I suggest they turn off the television and read something. They are 17 and 18… hardly anything I had a hand in.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pmUnbelievable – AND I have greater respect for the maintenance professional
You respect no one.
(janitor sounds soooo mundane) that cleans my building.
He calls himself the janitor. And he does clean my classroom. You see those things as derogatory, because you see reality as such. I am not offended by reality. And the reality is that his title is janitor.
And his Christmas bonus and raise showed my respect.
You think money shows respect? LOL… It does no such thing.
That’s probably because could teach you a few lessons – if you were teachable. He’s a wonderful human being. You are not.
Unlike you, I think just about everyone has something to teach me. You teach me how sad it is to be you.
You can’t think of anything clever to say, so you repeat what I said first? LOL
Merry Orbit…or whatever atheists wish each other…..
Tooodles……..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Nothing. Other than have a nice day everyday. Unlike you and your need for Christianized pagan rituals, we don’t need one day of teh year to be nice to our fellow human beings…
January 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pmPerhaps a few credit hours in Obsessive Compulsive Behavior might fit right in with your Sociology studies.
Comment by just curious — January 1, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
And perhaps a few months in isolation would help you with your lack of social etiqutte.
Go away.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pmRe: #128 -
******Wouldn’t it just been easier to write:
“Dear mighty – Thank your fellow BLUE State voters and the Public Employees Unions who try to run your state for the inadequate curriculum in CA.”
(Thank you for your nonsensical argument characterizing “ME”. You have once again allowed me to take YOUR words and show why some people are teachers and others are lawyers…..)
Football Food to make…..
January 1st, 2007 at 2:28 pmComment by Jules — January 1, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Tell me! I had an administrator “ask” me to allow kids to make up a failing term grade! He said if I didn’t, it would “put [my] position in question.”
I acquiesed, but the next year he didn’t enroll anyone into my band class, then the Board voted to end the entire music program. I was reassigned to teach remedial reading, language arts and social studies. My students balked at every assignement, and I kept referring them to the administrator. If he would give me something in writing telling me to lower my standards, I would. By that time, we had State evaluators in, because we are an underperforming school district. I never did get any directive telling me to lower my standards, and my students ended up doing better than any class that school had ever known. But if I didn’t have permanent status, I would have been let go at the first parent complaints.
That’s the way it goes now in public education. If you are probationary and you get a parent complaint, you will most likely not be re-elected to the next school year. And once you have been non-re-elected, you’re blacklisted. You’ll have gone to college for 7-8 years for a 1-2 year stint as a teacher.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:30 pmThe point of his Annual Report is that it is not fair. A law school professor makes more than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — January 1, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
They can manipulate the scales to judge it against whatever they want, but it is fair compared to what other people make in contrast.
I suggest they re-evaluate their scales and judge what they are paid against what they do – and not against others. As long as you compare your salary to others in this fashion, you will never be satisfied.
Besides, in essence he is saying that because the salary is too low to attract quality that he himself is not highly qualified. Now there’s where he might actually have a valid point…
January 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pmUnbe – I thought you might “get” the irony of this. My sister lived on the second floor of a building that housed a christian bookstore that was set for its grand opening the day following the explosion (gas). My sister and I are now wondering if they were saved because of this or in spite of it!!!
Well – this is way more fun than painting my office, but it has got to be done!!!
See MA – this is how you do it, you say goodbye and then you actually leave. How can we miss you if you just won’t go away?
I wish everyone a safe and happy new years day. Here is hoping that 2007 brings us all good tidings and great cheer!!! See you after the Rose Bowl – GO Michigan!!!
January 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pmThe constitutional crisis is because of right wing nuts like Roberts, Alito and Scalia. They should retire and then we’ll talk about more money.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pmI thought you left three times now. You are like a roach.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — January 1, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Now you’ve insulted cock roaches…I won’t stand for that…
Hi MA,
Pustules…
January 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pmThey are hung out to dry in the hands of irresponsible parents!!!
Comment by Jules — January 1, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
I never ceased to be amazed by some of these parents.
One of my students burned another – intentionally – with hot glue, and to try to get himself out of trouble, he told his father that I called him a name. The father was a total ass (yelling and threatening my job with lawyers) and tried to excuse his son’s behavior because I, after the fact, repremanded his son harshly.
Like you, I am also fortunate to have a great Administration who took my side, and in the end the parents left telling me how much the students like me as a teacher…
Our society has become a system of those who blame. And I do partly blame the over abundance of attorneys. If we were to raise the requirements for them graduating law school – or limit the number of law schools – we might reduce the litigious nature of our system.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:41 pmLawyers make terrible teachers because they are rhetorocists. Could you imagine a world full or know it all Orwellian Exleys?
January 1st, 2007 at 2:44 pmOur society has become a system of those who blame. And I do partly blame the over abundance of attorneys.
And congress is mostly made up of these rote trained liars, err rhetorics.
I say we give the lying lawyers jobs digging ditches twice a year to keep their self-serving asses in check with reality and welfare wages.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:47 pm******Wouldn’t it just been easier to write:
“Dear mighty – Thank your fellow BLUE State voters and the Public Employees Unions who try to run your state for the inadequate curriculum in CA.â€
Only if I were a habitual and lazy liar like you.
(Thank you for your nonsensical argument characterizing “MEâ€. You have once again allowed me to take YOUR words and show why some people are teachers and others are lawyers…..)
As long as you think lawyers are better people than teachers, the public education system will be sub-standard. And we’ll have too many lawyers. Signs of that being bad can be seen in our corrupt system.
The reality is, if you were a lawyer and I was as well, I’d be a better one. The fact that you can’t refute my arguments with facts is proof. Oh, and, by the way, your opinions are not facts.
Football Food to make…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Sure… I bet you even lie about that – considering how many times you’ve toodled already and haven’t.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pmI thought you left three times now. You are like a roach.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — January 1, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Like? :D
January 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pmIt’s been the same for teachers. Not the pay rate, but the lack of pay increases to match inflation. Whereas making $200,000 won’t impact lifestyle, hovering around $40,000 /yr in California does determine where and how you live (not enough to buy a house).
January 1st, 2007 at 2:57 pmOk, so it’s not fair. I’ll give you that.
But is it a “Constitutional crisis?â€
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Chief Justice Roberts, “That is important because the issue has been ignored far too long and has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary.”
“Constitutional crisis” may be in the eye of the beholder. But the plight of the Federal Judiciary is not a happy one at this stage. This is certainly significant: “In the past six years, 38 judges have left the federal bench, including 17 in the last two years.” There are currently 46 vacant seats. Each vacancy creates more of a backlog in cases, delaying justice for the parties involved.
And there’s a saying, “justice delayed is justice denied.” Is this backlog sufficient to be called a “constitutional crisis?” From the view of Chief Justice Roberts it is. From the view of a recent law school graduate, it may well be.
And if you’re a criminal defendant in Federal Court, the average length of time you’ll spend in jail (if you can’t make bail) is 9 1/2 months before your trial. Square that with the 6th Amendment Right to a speedy trial. Even by statute, trial is supposed to commence within 4 months after the arrest. (waivers increase that time.)
Now, for the felony cases that went to trial, 20% were acquitted. If it were you, and you just spent 9 1/2 months in jail before being exhonorated… you might end up sharing Chief Justice Robert’s view.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:58 pmUnbe – I thought you might “get†the irony of this. My sister lived on the second floor of a building that housed a christian bookstore that was set for its grand opening the day following the explosion (gas). My sister and I are now wondering if they were saved because of this or in spite of it!!!
That is ironic… Well, you know I think it was just a result of a series of events rather than anything else… That sometimes you win, sometimes you don’t – and most times you get something in between.
Just glad he will be okay eventually.
Just keep thinking about Oregon Jules : )
Well – this is way more fun than painting my office, but it has got to be done!!!
Don’t have too much fun!
Happy 2007!
I wish everyone a safe and happy new years day. Here is hoping that 2007 brings us all good tidings and great cheer!!! See you after the Rose Bowl – GO Michigan!!!
Comment by Jules — January 1, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
You as well. Good to see you – as always. Don’t be a stranger :)
January 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pmJust curious (and apologies if someone has addressed this…I didn’t take time to read all responses):
Can anyone cite any circumstances in which someone has turned down a judgeship based on the amount of income they will be receiving?
January 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pmLawyers make terrible teachers because they are rhetorocists. Could you imagine a world full or know it all Orwellian Exleys?
Comment by Zep Tepi — January 1, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Sounds like Jules made the transition just fine. But, she is a liberal.
January 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pmNow, for the felony cases that went to trial, 20% were acquitted. If it were you, and you just spent 9 1/2 months in jail before being exhonorated… you might end up sharing Chief Justice Robert’s view.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Oy. I give.
Geez…I kvetched myself into the proverbial corner.
January 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pm**runs sobbing from the room**
WC,
I can’t site any of those circumstances, but I know a few excellent lawyers who would make exceptional judges, but don’t want to take the cut in pay.
January 1st, 2007 at 3:06 pmComment by Jules — January 1, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
According to Professional Rules of Ethics, lawyers are encouraged to do pro bono work. Those services are not advertised, nor glorified. We most likely won’t know whether or not Chief Justice Roberts did any pro bono work while he was a practicing attorney. If anyone finds out, please post.
January 1st, 2007 at 3:06 pmAccording to Professional Rules of Ethics, lawyers are encouraged to do pro bono work….
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
And sometimes that work becomes pro bono entirely unintentionally.
Fair warning….
January 1st, 2007 at 3:11 pmGeez…I kvetched myself into the proverbial corner.
**runs sobbing from the room**
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
If lawyers are going to demand high salaries, then we should demand they earn it…
Quality over quantity.
I have some thoughts about the correlation between number or attorneys as the high incarceration rate as well as high litigousness in our country, but they will have to wait… I need to run for now.
Happy 2007 everyone!
January 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pmComment by WC — January 1, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
I haven’t found any statistics on people who have turned down nominations for any reason…I doubt those figures are compiled.
January 1st, 2007 at 3:31 pm“All kinds of studies show that people value respect more than bonuses.” Comment by…..
******Except when they are go shopping…..Which studies were you citing? Go USC!!
January 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pmIt’s all about the money. Everyone on this site is right. The seat isn’t warm and he wants more money. To bad Roberts didn’t get in when the rubber stamp 109th Congress he would would gotten the million a year with no problem. To bad now the stealing is over and the Congress will do checks and balances. Someone tell Roberts that the job isn’t worth what he asking so please step down and move on. Yes the Bush/Cheney free for all was working good for many of the friends and follow crooks. Roberts might want to join in the the Middle East corruption party with Bush. He could be appointed by Bush as the new Supreme Court Judge in Iraq and ask for that 10 million a year sounds like a plan. One could only wonder why Roberts needs more money isn’t his wife a lawyer or is it the hookers that cost more money as he has gone to up scale ladies of the night for his relaxation.
January 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pmMA,
What would you know about respect? You tell jokes about your dead child!!
But a funny thing happened on her last birthday – I was outside gardening and two of my children came up. I had been crying and they could see my eyes were a mess. One of my sons said, †You know Mom, I know you’re sad because it’s our sister’s birthday…but maybe it’s better she died early – I mean what if she grew up and became a bank robber and was not allowed to go to heaven??†His sister just ahead of him, chimed in, “Or worse, Mom,…what if she grew up to be a DemoRAT???†I went on to tell them I was a recovering DemoRAT….Aren’t some kids just too precious????
Wishing you and yours a wonderful Easter!!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — April 15, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Pustules…
January 1st, 2007 at 5:13 pmBriseadh na Faire,
January 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pmI understand your arguments concerning paying for quality judges. But frankly as long as Dumbya Bush is in the position to make such appointments, you’ll most likely be seeing candidates of dubious quality no matter how high the pay rises. And, by the way, if my memory is correct, “heckuva-job” Michael Brown of FEMA was earning more than $100,000.
BnF,
I can agree with your logic on all of your points and I agree with CJ Roberts’ report.
However, there are voices here that need to be listened to, understood and addressed by the legal profession.
1) Most judges come off as arrogant and pompous in both the courts and in their privates lives. I’ve met many and they all sucked. Lawyers are too arrogant too!
2) Prosecutors must be made to be held personnally accountable for misconduct. Until prosecutors are put on something of an equal footing with the other advocates before them then justice is a crap shoot. (i.e. Nifong!)
3) Lawyers should never become judges. Period. Or legislators. Is is a conflict of interest to spend years building relationships with other lawyers and politicians and then proceed to the bench!! It is also a conflict of interest to remain on the bar while writing law and appointing others to the bench whom they may appear before later after leaving public office.
4) We need QUALITY CONTROL in the Judiciary!!! This is the only profession in America where QUALITY CONTROL is still based in 17th century processes!!!
Sorry BnF but I’ve seen too much to have much respect for the courts and their inhabitants.
January 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pmdixie,
I can empathize. I was in high school during the Watergate hearings, when lawyer after lawyer stood up before Congress and lied. I didn’t think it was possible to be ethical and be a lawyer. It took me some 3 decades to change that opinion and go to law school.
And, just to show you how naive I was, I was somewhat stunned during my 2nd year of law school, when we read cases that were decided just flat-out wrong!
I have heard it said we have the finest judicial system money can buy. And of course “tort reform” has everything to do with restricting the common man’s access to the courts and everything to do with protecting Corporate America from liability.
Most of this thread has been focused on a side issue. The point is, do judges deserve a cost of living increase? Yes. EVERYBODY deserves a cost of living increase. That’s the point. But until We the People wrest power and control away from Corporate America, the Wealthy Elite will continue to line their pockets at our expense. And they will continue to use Religion to get people to keep them in power.
January 1st, 2007 at 8:26 pm******Except when they are go shopping…..Which studies were you citing? Go USC!!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 1, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Only shallow and materialistic frauds like you value money more than anything else. We know. We have known. The only person you are fooling is yourself into thinking we believe you are a fraction of the things you claim.
I’ll tell you what – I’ll post my links when you post yours. You first. I asked you first for links to support your positions and so far – zero.
I bet you decide to go back to ignoring me now… LOL
January 1st, 2007 at 8:37 pmThe fact that Justice Roberts apparently made judiciary compensation the SOLE subject of his annual report speaks volumes in my opinion for where his priorities truly lie. Someone should remind him that there are more than a few occupational sectors in this country which people are strongly advised not to enter if their primary goal is to increase their net worth — and public service is one of those occupations! If you want to make a ton of money, you don’t become a public servant — at least theoretically, one chooses such an occupation because serving the common good is a noble and important endeavor. While I might be willing to consider cost-of-living increases, the fact nevertheless remains that a six-figure compensation is more than respectable by anyone’s reckoning — and especially in light of the fact that those living on minimum wage haven’t had a cost-of-living increase in even longer time than the judiciary has. If it comes to that, most employees in the private sector earn their wage increases by demonstrating an increase in their efforts and/or results. If Justice Roberts wants to be paid as if he were in the private sector, then any wage increases should at least be partially based on merit just as it is in the private sector.
January 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pmSorry, I find it difficult to empathize with someone in the top 5%. Especially when he is bad at his job. He could use a firing…not a raise.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:09 pm#190 Yeah, you find a lawyer that doesn’t brag about his pro-bono work and I will find one who actually believes his clients are innocent.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:27 pmA typical example of Bushite me-firsters.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:29 pmWhat the hell happened to the concept of public service?
Only $175,000 a year? Wow, what a freakin burden!
Get back to work on issues of law and constitutionality, Mr. Chief Justice, sir.
http://www.oyez.org/justices/justice/?justice=chief-justices/john_g_roberts_jr
“…After a two-year hiatus from government service between 1986-1988, Roberts returned to a Republican administration to take the post of Deputy Solicitor General. In this capacity he argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government, winning well over half of them. When Democrat Bill Clinton won the 1992 Presidential election, Roberts returned to private practice. He became a partner at Hogan and Hartson, a prestigious Washington, D.C. firm, where he ran the appellate division and continued to argue cases before the Supreme Court.
Roberts worked for Hogan and Hartson for the next decade, earning a yearly salary of more than $1 million…”
Oh, I see. He took a pay cut, now want’s pack pay…
January 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pmer, I sound like Doc, back pay!
January 1st, 2007 at 9:32 pmBNF – Here’s something I found
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/roberts.html
In 1992, when Chief Justice Roberts was 37, President George H.W. Bush nominated hom to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The nomination languished without action by the Senate.
In January 1993, Justice Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson and resumed his appellate practice.
Including his tenure as a government lawyer, Chief Justice Roberts argued 39 cases before the United States Supreme Court, placing him among the country’s most experienced Supreme Court litigators.
Chief Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court arguments alone span a vast set of issues within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, including admiralty, antitrust, arbitration, environmental law, free speech/religion, health care law, Indian law, bankruptcy, tax, regulation of financial institutions, administrative law, labor law, federal jurisdiction and procedure, interstate commerce, civil rights, and criminal law.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:35 pmIn addition to representing business interests, Chief Justice Roberts at different times represented the States of Hawaii, Alaska, and Nevada in defending diverse state social, health-and-welfare, and environmental policies before the United States Supreme Court.
He was retained by the various state attorneys general pursuing antitrust claims against Microsoft to defend the district court’s remedial orders before the D.C. Circuit.
From time to time he also represented criminal defendants and indigents on a pro bono basis.
BNF, as an accountant I just have one thing to say…opportunity cost. If he wants to go back to private practice…he can. Nobody is stopping him. He chose to become a Supreme Court Justice knowing he would make peanuts (yeah, right). He now has power instead of money and that is what he chose.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:40 pm#197 Nice try MA. You can’t unring a bell. You already disparaged your mainenance man. You don’t think he deserves to be paid squat. Sorry, you are on record.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pmMA, you rip unions while Roberts whines about $200,000+? What is your definition of elitist?
January 1st, 2007 at 9:55 pm#197 – Nice rant Hagette, but unbelievable doesn’t teach in California.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:57 pmHave a cookie.
Actually, that’s part of his point. Good judges are leaving the bench. That creates vacancies. Vacancies create backlog. Backlog means justice – our constitutional rights, not being enforced.
Nearly all the posters here seem to be taking the attitude that it’s his pay at issue. He is advocating for the bottom rung on the judicial ladder. That’s where the judges are leaving. That’s where the lack of a cost of living raise year after year takes its toll, and makes returning to the private sector more and more attractive.
Think about it this way: There’s a large Corporation. It’s bylaws provide that every pay raise, including cost of living increases, must be approved by the shareholders. For 20 years the shareholders have refused to give a cost of living increase. The Chief Executive Officer notices the attrition in the work force and sounds the alarm. The shareholders respond by noting the CEO makes plenty. And so the situation continues, with more and more workers leaving, and fewer people willing to work for what the Corporation will pay. Eventually, there are not enough workers left and the Corporation collapses.
The Legislative Branch can starve out the Courts.
The Executive Branch can refuse to enforce Judicial Decisions.
But it is to the Courts that We, The People, turn for protection against the Executive and Legislative Branches when they attempt to deprive us of our Constitutional Rights. If we don’t support the Courts they won’t be there when we need them the most.
And if we keep heading down the path we are on, we are going to need the Courts. A lot.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:33 amWhats causing the crisis is not the lack of funding of the judges, its lack of funding of THE COURTS. The less money they have to operate, the less they can interfere with the decisions of the bought and paid for senators and the redneck kneejerk flaghumping average american redneck. Lets face it.. basically, the judicial branch is all that stands between democracy and tyranny, and the reichwingers who want to turn this country into a fascist ubertopia have done everything in thier power to undermine the power of the judiciary branch. Without the judiciary branch, little georgie could keep claiming we are at war eternally and no one with any power would have the balls to tell him that his wartime powers arent going to last forever and let him do anything he pleases. By cutting funding to the courts, you slow thier ability to interfere with the immoral desires of the power hungry and the ignorant.
So Roberts isnt barking up the wrong tree but he is barking up the wrong branch.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 amI feel soooooo bad for Justice Roberts and his pitiful $200,000/year job. Maybe he can file for welfare benefits.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:43 amA corporatist judge nominated by a corporatist president and confirmed by a corporatist congress and he wants a raise???
You mean making money is the primary concern of a corporatist???
Say it ain’t so!!!
Whodathunkit?
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 amI disagree. I’ll put my anti-Roberts credentials against anyone, but I want all these judges to be well-paid, and without ANY reason to seek money by granting judicial favors to any of their cronies.
Plus, they have not been given adequate raises for a long time. And we’re not just talking about the SCOTUS. This involves all federal judges, who would seemingly be more susceptible to unscrupulousness, having less spotlight and all.
My two cents.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:44 am$212K!!! hore pay is pretty damn good, I’d say!
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 pmI’m not in the legal profession; I’m a doctor. So, I’m interested that none of you pointed out the the top judge of the land did not make any compelling arguments for his point. Is that not concerning? He had a flippant, arrogant tone similar to some of his writings we saw from high school and college. Perhaps he’s the only one in the country who can be an a-hole when requesting a raise. And I’m not sure he’s been a friend to the Federal Judiciary given the response to this report.
I can believe that judges deserve a raise, but not based on Justice Roberts’s evidence, which is weak and not very well argued. And I guess I have to accept that it’s understood within the legal profession that those lawyers who serve the public are not as bright as those in private practice. I think that you all need to prove that to the rest of us who might be skeptical of that belief. There was no evidence for that assertion. I could possibly believe it based on my own short-lived experience working in government, but you do have to prove it. I guess it’s based solely on the notion that bright people clearly want to make more money. The most money, in fact. Well, sometimes that’s true, sometimes it’s not.
As for judges, perhaps their spouses can go to work. Many low and middle class households cope with an excess of expenses in this way. I suspect that many judges do have a second household income already, so their judicial salary is not entirely what they live on.
And by the way, I’m a primary care provider and I wish that preventing illness garnered as much money as treating conditions once they already occur, e.g. surgeons. But the health care financing incentives seem not to go that way. Surgeons aren’t better paid because they’re brighter than the rest of us.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:17 pmRaised Bed Gardening
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:42 amCock Very Young Boy Cock Small Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 6:24 pmbuyer first home teacher time
Didn’t realise there was this type of information out there
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pmCock Massive Cocks Cumshots Big Gay Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 4:40 amDolly Williams
I think God approves of you.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:07 am