Federal Judiciary

The case for judicial pay raises

Chief Justice Roberts has advocated for a judicial pay raise since he ascended to the high court in 2005. He has been unsuccessful thus far, but here is a new argument he can make in his case to Congress.

Federal judges deserve a pay raise because they occasionally have to something as inane as this:

[W]hile the challenged packaging contains the word "berries" it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term "crunch." This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a "crunchberry." Furthermore, the "Crunchberries" depicted on the [box] are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the [box] clearly states both that the Product contains "sweetened corn & oat cereal" and that the cereal is "enlarged to show texture." Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist...So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world.

Yes, you read that correct. Some freaking nutjob brought suit against Quaker Oats for false advertising in its Cap'n Crunch Crunch Berries cereal. When a trained and accomplished legal professional has to explain in a written opinion that crunch berries do not, in fact, exist, that judge deserves a raise!!!

A grateful hat tip to Lowering the Bar.

Full post as published by Supreme Dicta on June 05, 2009 (boomark / email).