Seriously??

[AngelsSix]

Pay raise for judges tucked into bailout plan
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer Wed Dec 10, 5:13 pm ET

WASHINGTON – If the $14 billion bailout plan for U.S. automakers passes, it will help more than just Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. Federal judges would get a pay raise, as well.
The raise — an annual cost of living adjustment, or COLA — would bring U.S. District court judges up to par with members of Congress, who will receive an almost $5,000 boost on Jan. 1. District judges and lawmakers now earn $169,300 a year but are expected to be awarded a 2.8 percent raise next year, said Dick Carelli, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted that the judicial pay raise go into the automaker loan measure, which is the only item of business on Congress' lame-duck agenda.
Under ethics legislation enacted almost two decades ago, members of Congress get a cost of living raise automatically, but they have to vote to give judges an identical raise. Because the spending bill covering U.S. courts has not passed, the step is necessary if judges are going to get their COLA.
The Senate passed the judicial pay measure as a separate bill in November, but the House never acted. A House Democratic leadership aide said that while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., supports the pay raise, it was difficult for the House to hold a stand-alone vote in the midst of a recession to increase the pay for people making far more than most workers.
As a result, Reid has taken the unusual step of linking the obscure but important judicial pay issue to the unpopular auto bailout.
There is concern among many policymakers that judges are not paid enough relative to the importance of their offices, and in six of the past 13 years, judges have been denied their pay raise as lawmakers opted not to take their own COLA.
Even with the raise, judges earn far less than lawyers at big firms, just as members of Congress make less than many lobbyists. If the pay measure fails to go through this year, judges are likely to get the increase as one of the first pieces of business next year

[Ret10Echo]

Even with the raise, judges earn far less than lawyers at big firms, just as members of Congress make less than many lobbyists. If the pay measure fails to go through this year, judges are likely to get the increase as one of the first pieces of business next year


I thought this was supposed to be about service to country....not making bank. :mad: Guess everyone wants to get on the Illinois plan

News flash genius.....The military that defends you makes a lot less than just about everybody.

[Jgood]

I believe Congress should be paid based on their approval rating, maybe they will remember who they work for.




Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted that the judicial pay raise go into the automaker loan measure, which is the only item of business on Congress' lame-duck agenda. Go figure :mad:

[The Reaper]

I believe Congress should be paid based on their approval rating, maybe they will remember who they work for.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted that the judicial pay raise go into the automaker loan measure, which is the only item of business on Congress' lame-duck agenda. Go figure :mad:

Do you really believe that Congresscritters really care about their salaries? The majority of their incomes are not from their day jobs.

IIRC, the Senior Executive Pay Scale is tied to Congressional pay. If you want a Federal judge or an Army general to make anywhere near what they would be paid as senior partners in a law firm or as a CEO in the civilian world, you have to raise the federal wage for everyone at that equivalent pay grade. For example, the Chief of Staff of the Army has roughly 500,000 uniformed employees and additional civilian workers. If the Army were a corporation, it would be among the largest in the United States. In return, he makes about $180,000 per year. While we can joke about whether the holder of the office is worth it or not, it would be difficult to find a competent replacement leader with his responsibilities for that amount of money.

You are right, we should all be more altruistic and giving in our public service. At the same time, we ask our families to make some significant sacrifies as well, and most of us (and our spouses) have asked ourselves from time to time if we might not be better off in the civilian sector.

It would appear that this was an attempt to increase the compensation for these judges (who could be earning a lot more in private practice) without raising their own pay. I see no issue with it, other than the whole issue of whether unrelated legislative measures should be permitted to be attached to bills like this.

TR

[AngelsSix]

It would appear that this was an attempt to increase the compensation for these judges (who could be earning a lot more in private practice) without raising their own pay. I see no issue with it, other than the whole issue of whether unrelated legislative measures should be permitted to be attached to bills like this.


I agree TR. But I do want to ask one question. Are those federal judges appointed or elected? Because we military folks volunteer and I do not see anything about raises for us in there. While I understand that we all raised our hands and took an oath to defend the country, that doesn't mean that we should be taken advantage of......some of us would also make a hell of a lot more in the private sectors. We are all held to our contracts with no guarantee of a pay raise.

These judges took these jobs knowing full well what the job entailed, just like we all did. Put up or shut up.

The point here is that the raise looks like the Congress is putting judges in their pockets.

I am sick to death of political drug deals and the fools that feed into it to further their own agendas.

Just my .02...........

[Airbornelawyer]

Judicial pay, except for certain types of courts not created under Article III of the Constitution, is not tied to the Federal Executive schedule, since the judges and court employees are not part of the Executive Branch. Generally, there is separate, but often concurrent, legislation to raise judicial pay when executive branch pay raises are authorized. However, my understanding is that there has been a lag in passing legislation and as a result, Judicial Branch pay raises have fallen behind. So it's not simply a problem of judges getting paid less than they could make in the private sector - which as several of you have noted also applies to soldiers and others - but judges not getting a raise when Executive Branch officials did.

A District Court judge is paid $169,300, the same as a Senator or Congressman. A Court of Appeals judge is paid $179,500. Cabinet level officials are paid $191,300. Executive Level II officials - deputy secretaries of
departments, secretaries of military departments and heads of major agencies - are paid $172,200 (this is the cap on military pay for generals and admirals, also).

An Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is paid $208,100. The Chief Justice gets $217,400, the same as the Speaker of the House.

It should be noted that judges are never going to make "anywhere near what they would be paid as senior partners in a law firm...". They don't even make what associates make. A first year associate at a top firm in New York and most major US cities makes $160,000. Bonuses this year are down, but a first year billing 2,000 hours at a NYC firm will likely get $17,500, based on recent announcements. So a District Court judge will make less, and an Appeals Court judge only slightly more, than a first year lawyer barely out of school. A mid-level associate can make more than the Chief Justice (a lot more, actually). A typical first-year partner may receive around $300,000.

We've had this discussion with regard to competition between the military and PMCs. The Army can raise pay and bonuses for Special Forces soldiers, but still wouldn't be able to pay what many a PMC could pay. But serving in the military is about more than having a good salary. The military can't pay fully as well as a PMC, but it can try to make the sacrifice inherent in public service a little less of a burden. Similarly, judicial salaries aren't going to approach private sector legal pay, but the burden can be lightened somewhat. It's basically about finding the right balance between what we must pay to get good public servants and what we can afford to pay.

[Roguish Lawyer]

A typical first-year partner may receive around $300,000.

Depends on the type of firm and the city. Can be much higher or lower.

[Guy]

Depends on the type of firm and the city. Can be much higher or lower. Same for PMCs...type of work and location.

Stay safe.