It's Not Supposed to be about the Money, Your Honor

by Andrea M. Newton
January 7, 2007

This article is protected by copyright. Although you may link to this webpage, it is illegal to otherwise reprint this article without prior written permission. For reprint information, please contact andimn@gmail.com.

It's a new year and I'm dusting the cobwebs out of the corners here at Rejected Reality, so it seemed like the perfect time to introduce a feature I've wanted to add for awhile -- the Reality Rant.

I had some pretty good fodder to choose from, too. Like the MySpace twit who hotlinked to one of my images, so he not only violated my copyright but also stole my bandwidth. Or the homeowners association that demanded a woman remove a peace sign from her Christmas display because they felt other residents would find it "offensive". Or even Saddam Hussein's execution. The Iraqi court hung him so fast after the sentence was handed down that it makes Texas look downright reticent about applying the death penalty!

But the honor of being the first reality-challenged individual featured here goes to none other than U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who rang in the new year by announcing that federal judges are woefully underpaid -- so much so that it verges on a constitutional crises. In fact, Roberts devoted the entire judicial end of year report to the subject. If judges continue to be paid so little, Roberts contends, only the wealthiest members of the legal community -- or those for whom the salary would in itself be a pay raise -- will accept appointments to the federal bench.

The judicial independence the courts rely upon to maintain the rule of law would be threatened, Roberts warns, as judges leave the bench for the more lucrative private sector and the majority of new federal judges come from that same private sector instead of a balance from both public and private legal practice.

So what exactly is the paltry sum our impoverished justices are paid?

$165,200. A year. With a lifetime appointment.

Roberts says this is "grievously unfair". I can agree with that -- though hardly for the same reason.

Actually, only federal district court judges make $165,200 a year. Appeals court judges get $175,100; associate justices make $203,000. And as chief justice of the Supreme Court, Roberts himself earns $212,100. A year. For life.

Ignoring Roberts' contradictory assertion that neither lawyers who already make more OR less than the current judicial salary are good candidates for the federal bench; and ignoring the fact that Roberts is asking taxpayers who make significantly less than he does to foot the bill for the 16% pay raise he and his fellow justices are demanding; and ignoring the reality that American taxpayers can never hope to compete with the salaries that major corporations pay their legal hired guns, I can understand the chief justice's concern. A similar problem has plagued the education system for decades. Of course, with teachers we're talking about someone leaving a job that pays $35,000 a year for a corporate position where he'll start at about $50,000 -- still a far cry from the "grievously unfair" $165,000 to $212,000 that federal justices make.

I understand that Roberts is feeling a financial pinch because he took a big pay cut when he accepted his position as chief justice, but let's put things into perspective. My husband and I are saving money, hoping to buy a house this year. Although we have a pretty low debt-to-income ratio -- no car payment, just his college loans and a couple of credit cards, one of which will be paid off soon -- based on our combined salaries, we qualify for a home loan of $162,000. That's $3200 less than the lowest paid federal justice makes in a single year -- and $50,000 less than Roberts is paid.

I'm not sure I want a Supreme Court chief justice who is so concerned with money that he'd ignore every other current legal issue to devote the judicial end of year report entirely to a demand that Congress give him and his fellow justices a pay raise. But I'll make a deal with you, Chief Justice Roberts. When your salary is less than my house costs, give me a call. Until then, if my taxes are going to be used to give any government employees a pay raise, I'd like to see it go to some of those teachers who make a fifth what you do -- and have to work a second, or even third, job just to make ends meet.

Source: "Low pay threatens judiciary, Roberts warns", cnn.com, http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/01/judges.pay.ap/index.html