Miscellaneous

Cameras and Pay Raises: A Solution for the Federal Judiciary

By Anne Skove, Esq.

This week the SCOTUS approached Congress to try to remedy low federal judicial salaries and oppose starring in their own reality show.

Article III judges do get perks that most people don't, such as lifetime appointment, no concrete qualifications, and fabulous benefits. But Justice Thomas pointed out that federal judges make as much as first-year associates in crazy big firms (*not* to be confused with most law school graduates, many of whom will never see that kind of money!).

That's not right, but a better solution might be to pay those whippersnappers a bit less. Some have never held a "real" job, heading straight to law school after college. (No, we're not bitter! We purposely spent most of our working life in the public sector, before, during, and after law school. It's a lifestyle choice, as is big firm life. Just saying.)

As for the least dangerous branch being televised, Justices Thomas and Kennedy urged Congress to avoid legislation that would give judges the discretion to televise proceedings.

Odd, because usually judges seek *more* discretion. But Justice Thomas has a particular interest in this. His non-speaking role on the Court has been mischaracterized and misunderstood. Justice Thomas explains that he is listening. Surely he (nor any other Justice) does not want his legacy to involve YouTube.

How can both these problems be solved? Pay-per-view!

See Justices Back Pay Raise, Oppose Cameras, AP (May 13, 2008), and Independence of the Judiciary: Judicial Salaries, ABA Legislative and Governmental Advocacy Governmental Affairs Office (no year provided, sorry).

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on March 14, 2008 (boomark / email).