U.S. Chief Supreme Court Justice Declares 'constitutional crisis'

[stevedeshazer]

Friends, when the Chief Justice of the highest court in the land says we have a 'constitutional crisis', should we, the underclass, not pay attention?

My goodness gracious, Henny-Penny, the Sky Is Falling!

Right here, in the greatest nation ever conceived, FEDERAL JUDGES FACE POVERTY like never before.

Behold, grasshopper:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/01/roberts-calls-lack-of-pay-hike-for.php

<snip>

Roberts calls lack of pay hike for judges 'constitutional crisis' in year-end report

And this:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006009150

Chief Justice Irked By Low Pay For Judges

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - In his second annual report, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. lashed out at Congress for failing to raise the pay of federal judges calling the situation, "grievously unfair."

Roberts, who earned more than $1 million during his last year in private practice in 2003, but gets $212,100 as chief justice, said pay inequity between federal judges and their non-government colleagues has become a crises that could endanger the independence of the federal judiciary. Since 1969, judges' pay has declined by 23.9 percent, when adjusted for inflation, said Roberts. Meanwhile the national average for wages rose by 17.8 percent.

----

disclaimer: I think ALL workers, including federal judges, deserve a raise in pay, but jeez.

[GeneCosta]

1. Who is he kidding?

He's getting money left and right behind the curtain.

[Benhurst]

2. He's right. I think they should all resign in protest and let less

pampered lawyers take their places.

[Cleita]

37. Maybe there might be a few illegal immigrants to take the job

for less pay. :sarcasm:

[Generic Brad]

39. They could do the judging the American judges don't want to do

You just may be on to something.

[caligirl]

47. LOL

:rofl:

[hunter]

65. I'm for a special visa program...

... we could import judges from India.

[tbyg52]

67. Let the free market work its magic!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Edited to say--you know, I think you're really onto a talking point here. Equate his complaint with unionization and a raise in the minimum wage for us peons.

[GrantDem]

3. Hmmmm....

I wonder if the Justice feels the same about the pay inequity between the working class and CEOs?

[babylonsister]

4. Boo hoo, then don't apply for or accept the job. Sounds like

he built his nest egg prior to landing the SC. Hard for those of us who are struggling along to feel any kind of sympathy for him/them.

[Rex]

5. What a total suit. I bet he runs on ten dollar bills!

Stupid judge, we've been in a constitutional crisis for 6 years! Figures, for him, it would be about money. :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

6. I now see clearly the difference between them and us.

For us we see a constitutional crisis in things like the executive branch abolishing habaeus corpus by fiat, engaging in torture, etc. For the elites, they see a constitutional crisis in having to get by on 212,100 a year plus very generous benefits. I am missing the part of the constitution that indicates that judges ought to be compensated like princes of the realm.

[stevedeshazer]

38. That's pretty much how I see it, too.

Calling it a constitutional crisis pretty much shows where Roberts is coming from.

[ShortnFiery]

7. Roberts should have stayed out of Public Service ...

He's revered as a *Supreme Court Justice,* but because MONEY is ALL to these conservative privateering Justices, Roberts is whining about their pay!?! :wtf:

Resign then, and replace yourself with someone who is HONORED to Serve His Country's Justice System. :grr: :thumbsdown:

[depakid]

8. Only a Republican would make such a claim

It's impressive how much money means to them. It's hardly a "constitutional crisis" when public service requires a little sacrifice, though I can see a dozen or more issues over the past 7 years that were and are crises.

Yet the Court was either complicit or sidestepped those.

Moreover, I doubt seriously that increases in pay would have prevented Alito from ruling on a case that involved a significant financial interest on his part- and more than they would have prevented Scalia from going on a junket with Cheney while several very important matters directly involving him were pending before the Court.

[Solo_in_MD]

42. Such as Ted Kennedy?

[nashville_brook]

9. 212K a year is POVERTY? cripes. stay in private practice...

[koopie57]

10. He's got some nerve!

Didn't he know this when he took that damn job? What is wrong with these people anyway? I suggest to him that he works for minimum wage in the local Mac and Don's Supperclub and then see what he thinks about his fat little crappy self. I bet he couldn't take it for a full day. Or go over to Iraq for 18 months. What goes on in their little bitty minds?

[Xipe Totec]

11. It's pay for performance, guys...

Dwindling Docket Mystifies Supreme Court

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — On the Supreme Court’s color-coded master calendar, which was distributed months before the term began on the first Monday in October, Dec. 6 is marked in red to signify a day when the justices are scheduled to be on the bench, hearing arguments.

The courtroom, however, was empty on Wednesday, and for a simple reason: The court was out of cases. The question is, where have all the cases gone?

Last year, during his Senate confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he thought the court had room on its docket and that it “could contribute more to the clarity and uniformity of the law by taking more cases.”

But that has not happened. The court has taken about 40 percent fewer cases so far this term than last. It now faces noticeable gaps in its calendar for late winter and early spring. The December shortfall is the result of a pipeline empty of cases granted last term and carried over to this one.

The number of cases the court decided with signed opinions last term, 69, was the lowest since 1953 and fewer than half the number the court was deciding as recently as the mid-1980s. And aside from the school integration and global warming cases the court heard last week, along with the terrorism-related cases it has decided in the last few years, relatively few of the cases it is deciding speak to the core of the country’s concerns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/washington/07scotus.html?ei=5088&en=21659842c86af8a6&ex=1323147600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1167706954-sbylJLKD+qcMU4X+jEqsAA

Get to work, then we can discuss a raise.

[stevedeshazer]

14. You've raised an excellent point here

Every right wing boss on the planet would argue that a 40% loss of productivity makes one not only ineligible for a pay raise, but newly unemployed.

[LiberalFighter]

29. I like that idea... newly unemployed... 60% of 9 is 5.4 therefore

the last 3 that were appointed should be eliminated

[katsy]

26. Fewer cases?

Sounds like a pay cut is in order.

We'd be better off outsourcing these overpaid rw whores.

:rofl:

[SeaBob]

12. J. Roberts

some how I cant feel sorry for him nor do I believe his arguments regarding the 17% wage in crease in this country. He was obviouly not talking about the people at the bottom end of the wage scale.

[Fridays Child]

13. May Roberts be remembered for this great contribution to...

...upholding our constitution.

[Canuckistanian]

15. You go to the Supreme Court with the salary you have...

..not the salary you wish you had.

Or didn't they explain that to you, Johnny?

[no_hypocrisy]

16. Y'know, for someone who has to chose his words very carefully when

he writes opinions that affect the lives of the rest of us, I think Chief Justice Roberts unduly chose to employ the literary device of rhetorical hyperbole, that is, he exaggerated.

My concept of a constitutional crisis or two would be that * is still making decisions from the White House when he wasn't duly elected to the office. Or this country is engaged in an invasion masked as a war, which was never declared by Congress as mandated in the Constitution.

[kanrok]

17. Wahhhhhhhhh!!!!

Douchebag.

[stillcool]

18. Maybe if they didn't cow-tow

to their corporate masters, there'd be more money in the kitty. They should ask W.R.Grace, and Exxon Mobil for a fraction of what the good justices have saved them in reduced fines for their illegal actions.

Roberts said the judiciary will not properly serve its constitutional role if it is restricted to people so wealthy that they can afford to be indifferent to the level of judicial compensation, or to people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase.

[aquart]

19. IOW, pay him or he sells to the highest bidder?

Eh, Roberts. We already knew that about ya.

Maybe he can apply for foodstamps, like our soldiers' families.

[Jim Sagle]

20. For him I guess the Constitution is all about gettin' paid.

[originalpckelly]

24. No, it's a blatant attempt by Congress to control the courts.

Their wages have fallen in real terms by 21%. The Constitution actually outlaws lowering the pay of judges outright, because it can affect the independence of the judiciary. (Congress would simply be able to lower the pay of judges if the court were to make a decision they didn't like.)

This is an issue of checks and balances more than an issue of greed.

[Redstone]

21. "Has become a crises?" Jesus, are there NO editors left?

Redstone

[originalpckelly]

22. He's right, Congress knows lowering their pay is unconstitutional...

and they know that such a blatant tactic would cause an uproar, so they just let inflation devalue their wages. It has the same effect, but no one is the wiser.

The Republicans started attacking the Judiciary right about the same time the pay raises stopped. Old President Ford even lead an impeachment effort to get one of the justices of the SCOTUS out of office.

Judges hold the lives of human beings in their hands, their pay should be high because of that. Teachers have the same crucial impact on people, yet they are still paid a fraction of what lawyers or judges make.

He's not being greedy, he's being honest. As a Republican he's making himself a target by asking for this pay raise. He and Scalia are being brave in their own little way. Just think about how much Republicans hate judges, and keep that in mind when you read these stories.

[Solo_in_MD]

23. Ted Kennedy support increased judicial salaries too (see prior thread)

and its for the district and appellate courts more than SCOTUS.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2651259

[originalpckelly]

25. I know, it's a very very important matter, the Constitution forbids Congress from doing this...

so that the Judicial Branch can remain independent.

"receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

If you think about it, it does make sense. If the Judicial branch decided a case in a way the Congress didn't like, they could simply lower their pay to punish them.

This is very much the same thing, because instead of raising their pay just to keep up with inflation, the Congress has allowed their pay to devaluate. The net effect is a 21% decrease in their pay. No one would allow that to happen all at once.

Interestingly, the refusal to raise their pay directly coincides with the Republicans starting their assault on the independent judiciary.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Not at all! I would like to believe that true patriots and intellectuals

can get by very well, thank you, on the present salary. If we continue to appease our Legislators AND Judiciary, WE THE PEOPLE will end up serving these ELITES. Remember, many of our representatives put the ultra-wealthy and corporate conglomerates FIRST when it comes time to vote.

NO more incentives for our public servants to be greedy!

[originalpckelly]

31. No, it's not about them v. us, it's them v. them...

The judicial branch is being bullied by Congress.

[ShortnFiery]

52. Solution: Lower the Congressional Pay to be in accord with the Judiciary!

No raises, boys and girls in Congress. I love the Democrats, but to date, neither side has truly stood firm against "The Unitary Executive" wannabe. :(

[ShortnFiery]

27. It's all wrong, until we can bring all people up. No increase for

Government Servants! Ted, you're wrong on this one. :thumbsdown:

[Solo_in_MD]

40. Only those that are already wealthy can afford to be a federal district court judge.?

which is what is at risk. With only fat cat already wealthy attorneys will be able to afford to be a Federal judge, what will the color of justice be? What will be the pool from which future members of SCOTUS are selected from? Are we really sure we want to go there?

I don't know any judges, have no prospect of ever being one, and are generally suspicious of lawyers, especially those who go into politics. I do know that justices needs to be independent and free of bias, and am concerned that the massive effective cut in federal judicial salaries is impacting the administration of justice in this nation. When you look at the massive erosion in buying power, they have had a large scale pay cut, and there is good cause to wonder if justice has suffered as a result. In the greater scheme of things its not a lot of money, and taking the long view, I think it would be well spent.

Obviously some here disagree, but thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

[ShortnFiery]

51. If they are already wealthy, they can afford to GIVE as public

servants. I'm sickened of MANY career politician's greed and love for only big money donors and corporations.

Our founding fathers did NOT form the Government Service to MAKE MEN WEALTHY. They formed a government of checks and balances for "settled and successful people" to SERVE the PUBLIC.

Ask the troops who are truly providing a SERVICE to our country what they think of their counterparts and PAY-SCALES in Halliburton, Caci, etc.?

No, if someone runs or wishes to serve as a sitting State or Federal Judge, they should do so for THE HONOR of serving their Constituents and Country, NOT to be *gifted* an obsessive CEO pay scale.

[Solo_in_MD]

53. So you are willing to risk a judicial class made up almost exclusivly of rich lawyers

I for one am not

[ShortnFiery]

55. You jest! 212,000 and some chump change is more than enough!

No, you don't have to be dripping with wealth to serve. But you do have to realize that THE REWARD is the HONOR of the POSITION. That is, serving is the highlight of your career, not a means to become FILTHY RICH.

No, I don't buy your argument for a minute. You serve for the honor and won't be put out on the street (far from it!) at the present pay scales.

Stop the Greed! ===> lower the pay of both houses of Congress AND the Judiciary. THEN we'll get public servants who truly CARE about THE PEOPLE instead of far too many greedy A**holes who serve only corporate masters not their constituents. It the foregoing was realized, the vast majority of these representative would be, IMO, Democratic. :dem: :hi:

[LiberalFighter]

30. Has Roberts given an amount that he believes it should be?

[w13rd0]

32. I'm certainly glad...

...Bush appointed a level-headed moderate who isn't given to overblown hyperbole in the Chief Justice seat...

Awwhh, who the f'k am I kidding...

[ShaneGR]

33. Constitutional crisis, probably not, but it is a problem....

If a non-government judge earns five times as much as a federal one, where is the incentive to public service?

[Vogon_Glory]

34. If Those Financially-Strapped Conservative Jurists Resign, Then

If enough of those financially-challenged conservative jurists resign, then an incoming Democratic administration with a Democratic-controlled Senate can fill those seats with judges of a more liberal bent, THEN institute pay raises.

[Imagevision]

35. Chief Justice John Roberts must stand in line, minimum wagers will be dealt with first...

[Nite Owl]

36. Well one way to solve this would

be to make the pay more equitable for all and lower the pay of those not in governmental service. $212,000 seems like more than enough to live on and what this really does is reinforce the fact that those who have been the 'winners' have taken far too much at the cost of the people who really work and scrounge for enough for pay the bills.

[Stephanie]

41. Good Lord

Fucking QUIT then.

[Stephanie]

43. I got the 5th K&R and the whole world needs to see this

In case anyone has any doubt what the GOP's all about.

[stevedeshazer]

44. Thanks

I think this needs to be seen, appreciate your help.

[Stephanie]

45. Next he will want gold doodads on his costume.

He's as big a joke as his appointer, the Decider.

[Disturbed]

48. Oh, I feel so sorry for him.

Isn't his wife a high priced RWing Attorney?

[Donnachaidh]

46. Solution -- STEP DOWN

You aren't chained to the desk. Step Down.

Then the Dems can put in someone who is more focused on the LAW, rather than their wallet.

Problem solved!

[TahitiNut]

49. Yep. I think they should be paid as much as public defenders.

Let's see. Minimum wage is $5.15/hour. Let's say they work 2,000 hours per year. That's $10,300. Now, if they were worth ten minimum wage workers, that'd be $103,000/year. Any more than that would be obscene, though. After all, when the pay is increased, then fewer people can get employed. We wouldn't want that. We want full employment for these people, right? It's just like the right-wingers say - if you raise the pay too much then their employers can't afford them. So, let's be reasonable. Ten times the minimum wage seems reasonable. I'd be happy to raise the pay of judges and public defenders to, say, $103,000 per year. After all, we gotta pay for what we get, right?

:eyes:

Now, if they raised the minimum wage to $7.25, then they'd get paid $145,000/year. That'd be fair too.

:puke:

[w4rma]

50. Then quit you never - should - have - been - confirmed - and - this - hyperbole - proves - it POS.nt

[madmusic]

54. Only prison guards deserve that much you whiny brat...

Because they are in a union and you're not. Nanner, nanner.

[madeline_con]

56. "a crises that could endanger the independence ...

... of the federal judiciary."

Did he just say the SCOTUS might be easily bribed, due to their "low" salaries?

[flyarm]

57. THE ONLY ONES BITCHING ARE BUSHES APPOINTEES!!

FUCK THEM!

guess the rich * boys don't like to live like other americans eh??????

[The Backlash Cometh]

58. Republicans are such degenerates.

Enough. It's time to put an end to the era of greed.

[Straight Shooter]

59. Everyone knows the position isn't about the pay, it's about the power.

This is just what we need, an imbecile as Chief Justice. :eyes:

[treestar]

60. He is so full of crap

It's the power. They love the POWER. If he made that much before, he's set for life and doesn't need money. But you don't see him quitting to go back into private practice, do we?

Also goes along with the riduculous notion that "the best" will always go where the most money is, with no other consideration whatsoever. How ignorant this man is for one who has been put in such a high position.

[dogday]

61. Ooh Poor Babies

Well just join the crowd of the rest of the Americans in the country who make 200% less and work 200% more.... I would like to feel sorry for them if it wasn't so damn ironic...

Take a look at American workers and their pay, then you might think you have it pretty damn good...

[Czolgosz]

62. Corporate Asskissers like Roberts see judges as lobbyists and the idea of public service is foreign

to them.

Roberts sees how all the Federalist Society Corporate Asskissers are having to talk pay cuts to better serve their paymasters and it strikes him as unfair because he doesn't even understand the concept of a public-directed service for the good of society in light of the fact that he doesn't even comprehend how his job is related to promoting the good of society.

I think Roberts (more than even Alito) will be remembered as Bush's biggest insult to the country after the post-war relations between the US and Iraq have normalized.

[Hubert Flottz]

63. Outsource him!

[kevinbgoode]

64. He could have turned down the appointment

if greed is more important than serving your country, then don't accept the appointment.

[Hubert Flottz]

66. He still can...

Nobody is forcing him to be there. The man is unpatriotic. Besides Bush will be selling the Court, like the ports, to some Rich Arab hucksters overseas soon anyway!