Supreme Court wants higher pay

[goozebump]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/us/01scotus .html

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: January 1, 2007
"WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made judicial pay the sole topic of his second annual report, issued on Sunday, declaring that the failure by Congress to raise federal judges’ salaries in recent years has become a “constitutional crisis” that puts the future of the federal courts in jeopardy.

He noted that judges had fallen well behind the American labor force as a whole in keeping up with inflation over the past 25 years, with judges’ pay having declined by 23.9 percent since 1969, adjusted for inflation, while the national average for all wages rose by 17.8 percent.

Given such a “dramatic erosion of judicial compensation,” the chief justice said, it was “clear that the time is ripe for our nation’s judges to receive a substantial salary increase.”"::

Oh i find this hilarious. he makes 165,000 thopusand a year but complains that its not enough moneya nd not keeping up with inflation, yet minimum wage has not been increased but he finds no problem with that. Just shows the hipocracy of america.

[ReiperX]

I agree. First of all you shouldn't be in that position of a job for the money. Its not like there aren't enough perks as it is. Personally I don't think the President, Congress, or Judges should ever get a pay raise without it being voted on by the US public.

[Der-Ubermensch]

Purity of heart is beyond many politicians and their bureaucratic puppets. Avarice is a capital sin that should be wiped clean of institutions supposedly representing justice, morality and integrity.

Off with their heads!

[qygibo]

Him calling it a constitutional crises for not getting raises is just BS, IMO. However, I'd wonder what sort of expenses justices might encur--I'd imagine it's just as much as a Congressman or Senator, in which case it probably would be shit that Congressmen get to vote on their own yearly raises whereas Justices don't. Especially since they don't make a lot compared to those in other parts of the higher up government: http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/01/news/newsmake rs/salary/

[packow]

For a job like that, $165,000 a year is NOTHING.

If you guys actually think that's a big number, you seriously have not lived long enough. Or you're just very poor. That's about half of what they'd make as a regular lawyer. A supreme Court Justice is shitload of work, and $165,000 a year is barely enough to raise a family in a nice neighborhood.

Although I think they've done an ass job so I'd kind of like to see them on strike.

[Memorize]

At 1/3/07 12:32 AM, packow wrote:

Although I think they've done an ass job so I'd kind of like to see them on strike.

That's $165k a year... by yourself... as just 1 person.

You must be one rich ass mother fucker to call that "barely enough".

[Draconias]

At 1/3/07 12:37 AM, candymancan wrote: Why should they get higher pay when they're not even doing their job?

I can't even count the number of unconstitutional laws they've let go by in the past couple of years, not to mention the fact that they legalized gay marriage, which was none of their business to begin with, because it wasn't a legal matter.

What the hell are you talking about? They can only declare things unconstitutional if they arrive as a case in front of the Supreme Court. They don't have a choice about those laws until that point. They never legalized gay marriage, either.

So what are you talking about?

[JoS]

Oh God, only 165k a year and you get the summers off! The horror.

[fahrenheit]

At 1/3/07 12:32 AM, packow wrote: and $165,000 a year is barely enough to raise a family in a nice neighborhood.

Could you give it anymore away?

[ReiperX]

At 1/3/07 12:32 AM, packow wrote: For a job like that, $165,000 a year is NOTHING.

If you guys actually think that's a big number, you seriously have not lived long enough. Or you're just very poor. That's about half of what they'd make as a regular lawyer. A supreme Court Justice is shitload of work, and $165,000 a year is barely enough to raise a family in a nice neighborhood.

Although I think they've done an ass job so I'd kind of like to see them on strike.

First, they can't strike, they aren't Union. Congress could force them to go back to work. Its basically the same as if the military decided to go on strike.

Second, they are making more than a vast majority of the people in the United States at $165,000 a year for federal judges. The person complaining is in the Supreme Court if I'm not mistaken, and they make well over $200,000 a year. On top of that this is a position not a lot of people in our country's history has held, so it is an honor to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Third, my wife and I together barely break $60,000 a year. We live decently in a fairly good neihborhood. We are buying a nice, brand new home. I'm sorry if a judge can't afford to live in the top 2% of the country, but they can afford a damned good home, in a damned good area. They aren't going to be living in the ghetto, or anywhere close to it. But if you can barely afford to raise your family in a nice neighborhood for $165k a year, then you have your priorities totally mixed up.

Personally I think it would do all of the Supreme Court Judges, Congress, and the President a lot of good if they had to actually struggle to make it for a few months. While some of them may have known what it was like to struggle, a lot of them were born with silver spoons in their mouths, and they are so disassociated with your lower and middle classes thats its pathetic. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have little idea what the average person is going through right now.

[Imperator]

and $165,000 a year is barely enough to raise a family in a nice neighborhood.

I know my father doesn't make that much, and he manages to support a wife, a kid in a private high school (paying tuition there), as well as myself and U of M's tuition......

......and we live in a nice little suburb in Oakland County, one of the riches counties in the US...

Conclusion:

You are one rich motherfucker to be saying $1.65 a year is pebbles......I guess not everyone can dip their Ego's in caviar.....

[Jose]

It is times like this when I wish G.W. would pull an FDR and try and load the supreme court. It has no limit to justices. Shit, it could have 100 if they wanted to.

Congress controls the supreme court's wage. I hope they lower the income.

LOL, checks and balances.

[qygibo]

Why would you want Bush to stack the court? The person whining is one that Bush picked out, just imagine if there were more that he picked out on the bench... they'd all be whining about raises!

[Jose]

At 1/3/07 06:29 AM, qygibo wrote: Why would you want Bush to stack the court? The person whining is one that Bush picked out, just imagine if there were more that he picked out on the bench... they'd all be whining about raises!

It would shake up the system. Besides, I think it would be funny.

I wish for it to happen just because it will show Americans how little power they have.

The Republicans can do whatever they want. The Dem's can do whatever they want. Usually, it involves fucking America up the asshole. I just want people to see how power hungry the government truely is.

[fli]

At 1/1/07 02:35 PM, ReiperX wrote: I agree. First of all you shouldn't be in that position of a job for the money. Its not like there aren't enough perks as it is. Personally I don't think the President, Congress, or Judges should ever get a pay raise without it being voted on by the US public.

Well...
that wouldn't be fair either--

because people would vote no on it.

Wages, in governmental positions, should be fair. Now people know me for not sticking up for "the Man" on NG, but if that judge is working hard, hasn't had a raise in a long while, appear to deserve a raise...

Why not?

Just as long it's not a wage that puts a strain on people, economy, and all that. If he's expecting a lap of luxury, then we have a reason to bitch him out.
But otherwise,
I mean, he did go to school and all that.

[Leeloo-Minai]

I'd opt for responsible and sensible government spending over any penny-ante salary they give themselves.

I know the judiciary doesn't fall into that particular category, but congress does, and apparently that's part of why the judges feel 'left out'.

They should have better things on their minds, especially to the public.

[ReiperX]

At 1/3/07 06:37 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/1/07 02:35 PM, ReiperX wrote: I agree. First of all you shouldn't be in that position of a job for the money. Its not like there aren't enough perks as it is. Personally I don't think the President, Congress, or Judges should ever get a pay raise without it being voted on by the US public.

Well...
that wouldn't be fair either--

because people would vote no on it.

Wages, in governmental positions, should be fair. Now people know me for not sticking up for "the Man" on NG, but if that judge is working hard, hasn't had a raise in a long while, appear to deserve a raise...

Why not?

I think 165k for federal and 200+ for Supreme Court Justices is more than fair. You shouldn't be in this job for the money, if you are get out. You are in politics to make a difference, the money should always be secondary. Now if the judges weren't making more than twice, almost 3 times what the Average American household income is <roughly 70k a year> then I would say a pay raise would be suffice. I do understand their job is very important, but at the same time there has to be a limit somewhere.

How can our government represent the US population if it has almost no idea what it is like for the average american?

I think 140k to 180k would be a great income for Judges, it is well above the national average, this is a job they cannot be fired from or have to worry about other problems most americans have to deal with. They recieve free health care, and if their perks are anything like the perks the President and Congressment get, then you could easily add that into their income putting them even higher.

[fli]

I don't know the perks of being a judge, and I didn't want to be unfair by believing that they have the best wages possible and etc, etc, etc.

Sort of like CA teachers back in the early 90s.
People thought, "Oh-- teacher... they must gain big bucks." When really, many of them couldn't afford their own homes (or food... because it's either sheltor or food) even with combined incomes.

Didn't want to make the same mistake by assuming too much.

[Arktaran]

In the end, anyone who is really in charge of something is somehow corrupt. There is no such thing as 0.00% corruption within a government, especially one the size of the United States. But Checks and Balances keeps the corruption as far down as it can; even more so when the three powers are spread out over the two majority parties.

The first of bills to pass through Congress when the next session opens with Democratic majority will be one to raise the minimum wage nationally to $7.00. It will pass, but the Democrats probably will provide small-business owners with some form of tax relief to keep Republicans satisfied.

[packow]

At 1/3/07 12:37 AM, Techware wrote:

At 1/3/07 12:32 AM, packow wrote:

Although I think they've done an ass job so I'd kind of like to see them on strike.

That's $165k a year... by yourself... as just 1 person.

You must be one rich ass mother fucker to call that "barely enough".

Put it this way. This is very rough, but it will give you an idea.

Income Taxes - 30% = $45,900
For a 20 year Mortgage on a $500,000 home (very inexpensive for a home) = $25,000
Let's say they have 3 kids. Let's say one is in college. that's...
$30,000 a year for private school for 2 kids

and $40,000 a year for a kid to go to college.

This is not even taking into account service and utility bills, local land taxes, insurance of all types, and countless other expenses associate with living an upper-middle class lifestyle.

The average income for an American family was I think some $70,000 a year.

The average family is lower-middle class and does not have these expenses.

For a supreme court justice, one who has trained their whole lives in law and has made countless public contributions necessary to acheive their honored position, I think, personally, that $165,000 a year is pretty damn low.

I don't think it's a constitutional crisis, nor do I think that the present supreme court justices have done a good job.

But speaking from a occupational perspective, $165,000 a year is a shitty deal.

[Proteas]

... then again, you could just feed 160K through a Cost of Living calculator, compare it to your are in the United States and see how much that compares.

[Memorize]

At 1/3/07 06:51 PM, packow wrote:

The average income for an American family was I think some $70,000 a year.

$30,000.

And, college (many times) is not soley paid by parents.

[goozebump]

Oh by the way, John Roberts was aleady an established MILLIONAIRE before he decided to take the nomination. So its not like he's baely keeping his head up in the water. Also, supreme justices don't really do that much work, thats what LAW clerks do. The justices just read all the information the law clerks give them then decide the outcome. Its not to differcult. If mr. john doesn't feel hes making enough money, then he can always quit and go back to work for the private industry. If he feels he might be "corrupted" becuase he doesn't get enough pay, he shoul be impeached because anyone like that should not be in office. The man gets the ebst healthcare, I doubt he pays taxes, yet he still is complaing?