In fairness to the Times, more money for greedy private sector workers means less money for noble public servants.
Skip Oliva | Homepage | 01.01.08 - 8:59 pm | #

Relatively speaking, judges ARE underpaid. Even at low levels, the nomination process reaches an absurd loss of privacy and subjection to media prying and intense Congressional hearings. I don't have any statistics about the average hours worked by a federal judge, but I'm quite certain the workload is anything but light. Also worth keeping in mind is that judges - especially at the district court level - wind up spending most of their time dealing with ridiculous motions and complicated discovery battles requiring review of hundreds or thousands of pages of documents and briefs. Having been on the giving end of some of those motions, that is a fate I would not wish on my worst enemy (unless he was getting paid a boatload of money, of course).
Mark | Homepage | 01.02.08 - 1:09 am | #

Bullshit. When someone turns down a nomination to a federal bench because the pay is too low, then I'll believe they need a raise. As long as the supply is as high as it is (maybe even excessive), tinkering with price seems inappropriate.

Now, if he had tried to make the argument by saying that current judges are inept, and they need to pay more to attract better candidates, I would listen.
mike | 01.02.08 - 12:40 pm | #

"Bullshit. When someone turns down a nomination to a federal bench because the pay is too low, then I'll believe they need a raise."

I know there's a few judges who've left the bench citing money as a factor, most famously Michael Luttig departing the Fourth Circuit for a nice general counsel job.

The more interesting argument is that all federal judges shouldn't be paid the same. The costs of living vary wildly across the country, so why shouldn't judicial salaries reflect this?
Skip Oliva | Homepage | 01.02.08 - 5:15 pm | #

Skip- I agree with your "more interesting argument" that perhaps judges should not be paid the same salaries across the country as living expenses vary wildly. This to me points to the inherent unfairness in the IRS code which at $150K makes the filer lose almost all deductions except for mortgage interest. $150K in Manhattan is a lot different from that same amount in (hated) Iowa.
Leonardo | 01.02.08 - 6:31 pm | #