|
Minority
Law Clerks Among the Topics By Tony Mauro As they have for several years now, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas drew the short straws and testified on behalf of the Court's $66.5 million annual budget. But the discussion, as always, was wide-ranging, and the hearing did not disappoint. Subcommittee Chair Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., chaired the hearing, and he asked -- as he has in the past -- how the Court is doing in recruiting minority law clerks and whether it is looking beyond the ranks of Harvard, Yale and Stanford law grads. "I don't think all intelligence resides in the Ivy League," Thomas agreed, noting that only one of his four clerks this term is an Ivy Leaguer -- but he added that all four are white males. Thomas singled out New York University School of Law for "doing it right" with its AnBryce Scholarship program that gives full tuition to promising students -- not only minorities -- who are economically disadvantaged. Kennedy got impassioned on splitting the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (he's for it) and on cameras in the Court (he's against it). Serrano agreed on the cameras issue, expressing fear that if they were allowed, talk show hosts like Greta Van Susteren will be analyzing the justices' body language and makeup on cable television. One other bit of news: Kennedy told the committee the Court's $122 million renovation is running at least 14 months behind schedule and won't be done until 2009. One cause has been minor "mistakes," he said, including one that is almost impossible to believe: When time came to replace the Court's windows, a worker measured the width only at the bottom of the windows, not the top. That's a serious blunder because the Court's windows happen to be slightly trapezoidal -- in other words, narrower at the top than the bottom. Back to the drawing board ...
Greedy Judges, Not Low
Pay, Undermine Our Courts
By Tony Phyrillas WEB Commentary Contributor February 14, 2007
It appears Pennsylvania judges aren't the only ones whining about their pay. If you'll recall, the infamous July 2005 middle-of-the-night pay raise for Pennsylvania politicians and judges was hatched up by Gov. Ed Rendell, legislative leaders (most of whom have been voted out of office) and Ralph Cappy, chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Cappy's court eventually ruled that the way the legislators took the pay raise (something called unvouchered expenses) was unconstitutional, but restored the 10 percent pay raises for themselves and 1,200 other state and local judges. And they also tied future pay increases to salaries of federal judges. The backlash against Pennsylvania judges began in 2005 when Russell Nigro failed to win his retention re-election for another 10-year term on the state's highest court. The other judge on the ballot that year, Sandra Schultz Newman, narrowly won her retention vote, but she ended up resigning from the court in 2006, citing the constant criticism of judges by Pennsylvania residents. Pennsylvania voters will get another chance to send a clear message to greedy judges when they get to pick three new judges for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this November. Justice Thomas Saylor is seeking retention and two vacancies on the court (Nigro and Newman) must also be filled. Voters can send a strong message to Cappy (who won't face voters until 2009) that greed is not a virtue when you decided to wear the judicial robes. Replacing three of the court's seven members would send a strong message to Harrisburg that Pennsylvania taxpayers are tired of being fleeced by politicians, whether they are members of the executive, legislative or judicial branch. At the same time Pennsylvania judges have been whining about their pay, members of the U.S. Supreme Court have been lobbying for bigger paychecks. Chief Justice John Roberts has made several public pleas for higher pay, calling the lack of a big payday for federal judges a "constitutional crisis." On Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy told members of a Senate committee that Congress has disregarded judicial pay, creating morale problems among judges and threatening to undermine judicial independence. The current salary level for judges "is insufficient to attract the finest members" of the legal profession to accept appointments to the bench, Kennedy said during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to the Associated Press. Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100. Kennedy said "$160,000 sounds like a lot of money to the average American, and it is. But it is insufficient to attract the finest members of the practicing bar to the bench," according to the Associated Press. There's no argument that lawyers can make a lot more money in private practice than they can serving on the bench. But I challenge Kennedy to find one sitting federal judge who took the job because of the money. And who says the highest paid person is always the most qualified person? If Roberts and Kennedy agreed to serve on the Supreme Court because they were expecting a big payday, they are fools. Whatever happened to the concept of public service? Nobody held a gun to Roberts and Kennedy and forced them to join the Supreme Court. Roberts and Kennedy knew what the salary was when they accepted their current positions. They also knew that they would have lifetime tenure and an opportunity to create a legacy for themselves. (And annual financial disclosures show that most of the justices on the Supreme Court have net worths of more than $1 million.) If Roberts and Kennedy think they can make more money in the private sector, then by all means, they should resign from the court today and join a corporate law firm. There's nothing in the Constitution that says a Supreme Court justice has to stay on the court into their 90s or until they die in office. They are welcome to step down any time they want and I guarantee there will be thousands of other applicants waiting in line to take their place on the court. Nobody runs for president of the United States because of the salary. The same goes for the Senate, the House or the bench. Those positions provide intangible rewards that cannot be measured in dollars. Judges are free to write books and give lectures to supplement their income. If things are that tight at the Roberts and Kennedy households, maybe their wives could get a job, like most American households, where both spouses have to work to make ends meet. Tony Phyrillas Biography - Tony Phyrillas Tony Phyrillas is a leading conservative columnist and blogger based in Pennsylvania. He is a veteran journalist with 25 years experience as a reporter, editor and columnist for several newspapers. Phyrillas received recognition for column writing in 2007 from Suburban Newspapers of America and in 2006 from the Society of Professional Journalists, Greater Philadelphia Chapter. A graduate of Penn State University, Phyrillas is the city editor and political columnist for The Mercury, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning daily newspaper in Pottstown, Pa. In addition to the newspaper's Web site (www.pottsmerc.com) and (www.AllAroundPhilly.com) the Web site for the Journal Register newspaper group, Phyrillas' columns are featured on more than two dozen political Web sites and blogs. Phyrillas is a frequent guest on talk radio and has been a panelist on the "Journalists Roundtable" public affairs TV program on the Pennsylvania Cable Network (PCN). Justice Kennedy Says Judicial Morale Low Over Pay By Mark Sherman "In more than three decades as a judge, I have not seen my colleagues in the judiciary so dispirited as at the present time," Kennedy said during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The blunt fact is that the past congressional policy with respect to judicial salaries has been one of neglect." Kennedy picked up on an issue that Chief Justice John Roberts recently called a "constitutional crisis." Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100. Those figures are far less than what lawyers at private firms earn. District judges are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools. Nineteen federal judges left the bench since the end of 2004, many of them to take higher-paying jobs. Meanwhile, first-year lawyers at leading firms in large cities are earning almost as much as district judges. "Something is wrong when a judge's law clerk, just one or two years out of law school, has a salary greater than that of the judge or justice he or she served the year before," Kennedy said. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker recently called for a significant pay raise for judges, pointing out that they would be earning $261,000 a year if their salaries had risen at the same pace as U.S. workers generally since 1969. Legislation languished in Congress in 2006 that would have provided a 16 percent increase in federal judges' salaries. ABA Backs Pay Boost for Federal Judges By Mark Sherman The 420,000-member American Bar Association came to the defense of judges during its Miami meeting, expressing support for a pay raise for federal judges and pledging to defend aggressively against ballot measures that compromise judicial independence. ABA President Karen Mathis told her membership Monday that district judges, who earn $165,200 a year, certainly should be paid more than first-year lawyers at New York City firms. Starting annual salaries there now are $160,000. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker recently wrote that district judges would be making roughly $100,000 a year more today had their pay risen at the same pace as U.S. salaries generally. Chief Justice John Roberts also highlighted judicial pay in his year-end report, noting that judges were leaving their lifetime-tenure jobs at an alarming rate for much better-paying jobs in the private sector.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice By Deborah Charles WASHINGTON - The Sept. 11 attacks on America underscored the need for an efficient U.S. court system to enforce the law, a goal that could be better achieved with higher judicial pay and a speedier Senate approval process, Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist said Tuesday. In his 2001 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Rehnquist repeated a call to Congress to keep adequate staffing levels at the courts and ensure competitive salaries to make sure the courts function well. "During times such as these, the role of the courts becomes even more important in order to enforce the rule of law," Rehnquist said in his 16th annual report. "To continue functioning effectively and efficiently, however, the courts must be appropriately staffed," he said. "This means that the necessary judgeships must be created and judicial vacancies must be timely filled with well-qualified candidates." Rehnquist said it was becoming "increasingly difficult" to find qualified candidates for federal judicial vacancies -- particularly among private practice lawyers. "There are two reasons for these difficulties: the relatively low pay that federal judges receive, compared to the amount that a successful, experienced practicing lawyer can make, and the often lengthy and unpleasant nature of the confirmation process," he said. Rehnquist regularly calls on Congress to increase the pay for federal judges. The low pay restricts the number of private practice lawyers who are willing to be nominated for a federal judgeship, he said. "On behalf of the judiciary, I ask Congress to raise the salaries of federal judges, and I ask the Senate to schedule up or down votes on judicial nominees within a reasonable time after receiving the nomination," Rehnquist said. Rehnquist said the U.S. Senate confirmed only 28 judges during 2001. When the Senate adjourned on Dec. 20, 23 court of appeals nominees and 14 district court nominees were awaiting action by the Senate Judiciary Committee or the full Senate. "The Senate is not, of course, obliged to confirm any particular nominee," he said. "I recognize that the Senate has been faced with many challenges this year, but I urge prompt attention to the challenge of bringing the federal judicial branch closer to full staffing." He said the current session of Congress has not acted on a request to establish 10 new court of appeals judgeships, 44 new district court judgeships and 24 more bankruptcy judgeships. Rehnquist said the temporary closing of the Supreme Court due to anthrax exposure did not delay any scheduled arguments. But interruption in mail delivery in the Washington area could impact the number of cases heard by the court this term. After anthrax was discovered in its basement mail room, the Supreme Court was convened away from the building for the first time since it opened in 1935. Five people died and 13 have been infected with anthrax in a spate of incidents since October. But neither the Sept. 11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,300 people after airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, nor the anthrax scares could shut down the U.S. court system, Rehnquist said. "Once again the judiciary can look back upon the year ended as one of accomplishments in the face of adversity. In spite of the terrorist attacks that have affected the entire country, our courts continue to conduct business, day in and day out."
|
|
A Feast
|
