• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mitchell, Paul Continue Efforts to Block Congressional Pay Raise

ARealConservative said:
The self importance you have placed on your profession is comical
Click to expand...

Not just my profession. I place a high value on education and competence across all areas of society, and understand that it's necessary to provide adequate wages in order to attract high quality employees.

but we clearly disagree on how badly the supreme court and the lower courts have mangled things.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense. If you think they've mangled things so badly, don't you agree that we need to get better people in there?

Crime sometimes does pay, unlike what your daddy might of told you.
Click to expand...

That's not really an answer to a perfectly logical question.

So how exactly will more money bring a more honest candidate to the table? You increased the incentive of those in it for the money, I don't see the connection.
Click to expand...

It's not about attracting more honest people. The most honest man in the world probably isn't very bright. It's about attracting more intelligent and talented people.

If you opened an engineering company but refused to pay more than $10 an hour, you might fill your positions but you'd have pretty ****ty employees. On the other hand, if you paid $2000 an hour you'd probably have the best engineers in the country clamoring to work there. It's all about understanding the market. The market for professionals of the caliber that I (and most of society) would want on the federal bench is a lot higher than what judges are currently getting paid.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
That's not really an answer to a perfectly logical question.
Click to expand...

Your question was pretty lame actually.

The logical question is what great candidates are we missing out on because of salary concerns justifying an increase. Do we have an epidemic where nominees are turning down the position of scRotus? Has it happened even once? :lol:
 
danarhea said:
Actually, NYC is right. In any debate, you just can't make wild claims without at least providing a single iota of evidence to back that claim up. It's the way we do things in America.

You have chosen wisely your forum name. You detect truth, right? So, detect some truth today, and show it to the rest of us. Where's the beef?
Click to expand...

Please elaborate for my edification what is "wild" about correctly stating that litigation in this country is the single greatest destroyer of manufacturing jobs in this nation and one of the primary reasons for the HIGH cost in medical care; it's at least good for some schits N giggles.

Then for further laughs, tell me why I need to defend someone else's wild claim that my claim is wild without them having to prove it.

Carry on. :rofl

:cool:
 
RightinNYC said:
One last question: If the skillset to become a Supreme Court Justice is only worth 50-60k, then how come law firms pay 24 year olds 195k?
Click to expand...

This sounds to me like a wild eyed claim to me. Can you share a link to support your notion that 24 year olds fresh out of law school can command a salary of $195K?

Law Firms make their money by billable hours; so let's also break down how many hours a week it would take a green law student to justify a law firm paying him $195K.

Carry on. I am still waiting for you to prove that my claims about litigation in this country are ruining the manufacturing sector and NOT the greatest reason for the high costs of health care these days.
 
ARealConservative said:
Your question was pretty lame actually.

The logical question is what great candidates are we missing out on because of salary concerns justifying an increase. Do we have an epidemic where nominees are turning down the position of scRotus? Has it happened even once? :lol:
Click to expand...

SCOTUS? Probably not. Federal judgeship? Of course. It happens with regularity that judges decline to accept or leave their posts because they can garner salaries of $3mm+ the minute they take jobs at firms.

Truth Detector said:
This sounds to me like a wild eyed claim to me. Can you share a link to support your notion that 24 year olds fresh out of law school can command a salary of $195K?
Click to expand...

Personal experience? The median starting salary for graduates of most good law schools is $160k plus bonus, which is generally $35k.

Law Firms make their money by billable hours; so let's also break down how many hours a week it would take a green law student to justify a law firm paying him $195K.
Click to expand...

Most first year associates bill at rates of around $300 - 350/hr. If you bill 2000 hrs/year, the firm is taking in $600-700k off of your work. $195k in salary isn't unreasonable at all.
 
You know, I'm actually a Ron Paul supporter...

But its amazing how much people who complain that democrats use class warfare and try to punish the successful turn around and are having a fun go at judges and lawyers for daring to make themselves successful.

True conservativism there folks, really, way to prove your point

:roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
You know, I'm actually a Ron Paul supporter...

But its amazing how much people who complain that democrats use class warfare and try to punish the successful turn around and are having a fun go at judges and lawyers for daring to make themselves successful.

True conservativism there folks, really, way to prove your point

:roll:
Click to expand...
My only gripe is that these politicians and judges willingly accept the post knowing what the pay is, then try to renogotiate during their tenures, the fact is that many, not all of the laws and decisions passed lately have been very sketchy and don't merit a raise, hell, if many of these guys were private sector they'd be fired.
 
LaMidRighter said:
My only gripe is that these politicians and judges willingly accept the post knowing what the pay is, then try to renogotiate during their tenures, the fact is that many, not all of the laws and decisions passed lately have been very sketchy and don't merit a raise, hell, if many of these guys were private sector they'd be fired.
Click to expand...

It's not that they're trying to get things renegotiated to double their salaries, they are just expecting the COLA that have been promised to them and are long overdue. Judges in NYS had their salaries frozen for over a decade because the legislature couldn't get their act together, and had to file a lawsuit to get the matter resolved.

It's also not a matter of judges taking the job and then threatening to quit, it's a matter of judges actually leaving:

Law.com - Federal Judge Rejoins Law Firm for 'Financial Reasons'

U.S. Chief District Judge to resign from Tulsa federal bench for top | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET

Judge Paul Cassell is Resigning | ConfirmThem

U.S. District Judge Kelley will resign, work for D.C. law firm | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Federal district judges are appointed for life and typically stay on the job well past retirement age. Of 45 current vacancies in federal district and appeals courts across the country, four are due to resignations, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

"It's unusual, but it's been happening increasingly, partly because the federal judges have not had a significant pay raise in a long time," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

The Administrative Office says on its Web site that in the 1970s, 22 federal judges departed from the bench. That number rose to 55 in the 1990s and this decade there have been 48 resignations so far. The office expects 68 departures by 2010.

Federal district judges earn $165,200 annually, about $20,000 less than a senior attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission and about $265,000 less than the dean of a top law school.
Click to expand...
 
RightinNYC said:
It's not that they're trying to get things renegotiated to double their salaries, they are just expecting the COLA that have been promised to them and are long overdue. Judges in NYS had their salaries frozen for over a decade because the legislature couldn't get their act together, and had to file a lawsuit to get the matter resolved.

It's also not a matter of judges taking the job and then threatening to quit, it's a matter of judges actually leaving:

Law.com - Federal Judge Rejoins Law Firm for 'Financial Reasons'

U.S. Chief District Judge to resign from Tulsa federal bench for top | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET

Judge Paul Cassell is Resigning | ConfirmThem

U.S. District Judge Kelley will resign, work for D.C. law firm | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
Click to expand...
If it's just what was promised I completely understand that, and that is fair, I thought there was a overall pay raise issue though.
 
LaMidRighter said:
My only gripe is that these politicians and judges willingly accept the post knowing what the pay is, then try to renogotiate during their tenures, the fact is that many, not all of the laws and decisions passed lately have been very sketchy and don't merit a raise, hell, if many of these guys were private sector they'd be fired.
Click to expand...

I have a question - should judges be denied their COLAs while all Congressmen and Senators get it each year? Because that is what's happening.

There is a reason they can't be fired for political reasons - they are independent from the other branches. They can be impeached if they make a bad legal decision, but that just doesn't happen, and nor should it. Judges are there to apply the law, not reaffirm our politics.
 
ARealConservative said:
Your question was pretty lame actually.

The logical question is what great candidates are we missing out on because of salary concerns justifying an increase. Do we have an epidemic where nominees are turning down the position of scRotus? Has it happened even once? :lol:
Click to expand...

From a NYT's article:

"By statute, a sitting federal trial judge makes $165,200 a year. That’s a lot of money, the same pay as a member of Congress. But as the chief justice notes in his report, judges have fallen well behind the American labor force as a whole in keeping up with inflation. Since 1969, a judge’s pay has declined by 23.9 percent, adjusted for inflation, while the national average for all wages rose by 17.8 percent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/opinion/05fri2.html

I point to the John Robert's chart detailing judicial pay falling in comparison to everyone else.

Judicial Compensation - U.S. Courts
 
danarhea said:
Looks like Ron Paul is still practicing what he preaches, unlike a President, a President to be, and the new President's former campaign opponent.

Kudos to Ron Paul, who never compromised his values. Stuff that pay raise up their collective asses, Ron. They don't deserve it.

Final word - Hey GOP, you picked the wrong guy.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I think Ron Paul has the right idea. Personally I think politicians just like any other employee on earth who wants a raise should ask their employer for a raise. Politicians seem to be about the only tax payer funded employees who get to give themselves pay raises.
 
ShamMol said:
I have a question - should judges be denied their COLAs while all Congressmen and Senators get it each year? Because that is what's happening.
Click to expand...
No one should be denied anything promised as part of the job, but anything extra during a term of service, changing the rules midstream so to say, is not okay.

There is a reason they can't be fired for political reasons - they are independent from the other branches. They can be impeached if they make a bad legal decision, but that just doesn't happen, and nor should it. Judges are there to apply the law, not reaffirm our politics.
Click to expand...
It's not about my politics, and I agree, a politically controversial opinion shouldn't be grounds for impeachment, but something that can arguably be a misrepresentation of the constitution should be, I think we can agree on that part. Also, I do understand the reasons for judicial immunity and they are very logical, but there needs to be a check for their check in cases of bad faith decisions.
Click to expand...
 
ShamMol said:
From a NYT's article:

"By statute, a sitting federal trial judge makes $165,200 a year. That’s a lot of money, the same pay as a member of Congress. But as the chief justice notes in his report, judges have fallen well behind the American labor force as a whole in keeping up with inflation. Since 1969, a judge’s pay has declined by 23.9 percent, adjusted for inflation, while the national average for all wages rose by 17.8 percent."
Click to expand...

just desserts!

If federal judges weren't so complacent in allowing the gross expansion of government funded activity, inflation wouldn't really be an issue. :lol:
 
ARealConservative said:
just desserts!

If federal judges weren't so complacent in allowing the gross expansion of government funded activity, inflation wouldn't really be an issue. :lol:
Click to expand...
That's a cold way to look at it, but there is some truth in that.
 
Zyphlin said:
You know, I'm actually a Ron Paul supporter...

But its amazing how much people who complain that democrats use class warfare and try to punish the successful turn around and are having a fun go at judges and lawyers for daring to make themselves successful.

True conservativism there folks, really, way to prove your point

:roll:
Click to expand...

I remember you more as the fence sitter that liked some of his positions but were too turned off by his supporters to go all in.

We have several issues here. First off, our government officials have performed poorly and really have no business seeing an increase in pay. Secondly, no solid evidence exists showing that current pay structure is a hindrance in getting or retaining qualified individuals, and lastly I have little regard for the "skills" needed to be a modern lawyer or judge anyway.

The claim is that this is a way to pander to his supporters, which isn't accurate. In fact, he doesn't really need to pander to his actual supporters, what he is doing is using every opportunity that comes along to gain new supporters by pointing out the largess of government at all levels.
 
ShamMol said:
I point to the John Robert's chart detailing judicial pay falling in comparison to everyone else.

Judicial Compensation - U.S. Courts
Click to expand...

Robertson is right about the pay scales. The private sector is getting most of the talent. If we want a good judicial system, we're going to have to offer incentives to get the talent we need.
 
ARealConservative said:
just desserts!

If federal judges weren't so complacent in allowing the gross expansion of government funded activity, inflation wouldn't really be an issue. :lol:
Click to expand...

if you weren't so complacent in giving judges ****ty raises, maybe you'd get judges good enough to see this problem.
 
ARealConservative said:
I remember you more as the fence sitter that liked some of his positions but were too turned off by his supporters to go all in.
Click to expand...

You must've missed the post detailing why I was actually voting for Ron Paul, and the different times defending him against some on the right that would go after his views. It just happens that because I didn't look at "Dr Paul" as the messiah that could do no wrong and dared to say I disagreed with him in some ways or that there were significant flaws with his campaign and likihood of ever actually reaching the Presidency some of the more extreme Paul fans decided that I wasn't "really" a Paul voter and that I was just another "sheeple"

As to the rest, I can understand and agree with his feelings about the congress and senate themselves. My issue wasn't with disagreement there. It was more the comments by some basically sneering at, slamming, and insulting people for daring to actually succeed and want to do well in a capitalist society.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It's not about my politics, and I agree, a politically controversial opinion shouldn't be grounds for impeachment, but something that can arguably be a misrepresentation of the constitution should be, I think we can agree on that part. Also, I do understand the reasons for judicial immunity and they are very logical, but there needs to be a check for their check in cases of bad faith decisions.
Click to expand...

I guess that I, and the Federalist and Constitution Societies, and all the Senators who are on the Judiciary Committee are mistaken as to what judicial politics is then. I think that it is fairly commonly agreed upon that the view of the applicaiton of the constitution, from strict constructional to living document, is political, and falls upon political lines. I assume, thus, that is where your argument about what is wrong comes down,a nd thus is political. Thus, they shouldn't be fired for interpreting the constitution a way that we don't like, because they are allowed to.

ARealConservative said:
just desserts!

If federal judges weren't so complacent in allowing the gross expansion of government funded activity, inflation wouldn't really be an issue. :lol:
Click to expand...

You are conservative, you should know that what you just said is complete bs, unless you are an econ-challenged individual.

Federal judges have no control over the markets, nor have the markets demanded that the federal government leave. In fact, they encourage it - look at the NSE when TARP was announced.
Click to expand...
 
ShamMol said:
I guess that I, and the Federalist and Constitution Societies, and all the Senators who are on the Judiciary Committee are mistaken as to what judicial politics is then. I think that it is fairly commonly agreed upon that the view of the applicaiton of the constitution, from strict constructional to living document, is political, and falls upon political lines. I assume, thus, that is where your argument about what is wrong comes down,a nd thus is political. Thus, they shouldn't be fired for interpreting the constitution a way that we don't like, because they are allowed to.
Click to expand...
Yes, decisions are political, I am talking about very extreme cases in bad faith, we are going past interpretation and politics, but an actual ignoring of the founding document etc.



You are conservative, you should know that what you just said is complete bs, unless you are an econ-challenged individual.
Click to expand...
What he said is a little over dramatic, but there is a small amount of truth in it, some judges decisions have allowed regulations that are burdensome, some suits that are frivolous, and other economic damages that have put dents in markets and strained monetary systems, but these are negligible damages in the grand scheme of economics.
Click to expand...
 
danarhea said:
Looks like Ron Paul is still practicing what he preaches, unlike a President, a President to be, and the new President's former campaign opponent.

Kudos to Ron Paul, who never compromised his values. Stuff that pay raise up their collective asses, Ron. They don't deserve it.

Final word - Hey GOP, you picked the wrong guy.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Hear-hear!
 
LaMidRighter said:
]

What he said is a little over dramatic, but there is a small amount of truth in it, some judges decisions have allowed regulations that are burdensome, some suits that are frivolous, and other economic damages that have put dents in markets and strained monetary systems, but these are negligible damages in the grand scheme of economics.
Click to expand...

They are negligible, yes. But, here is the thing. These judges are required to hear these cases and make a judgement, and it is largely on precedent. That means that about 800 district court judges have little choice in how they make a decision because of past rulings. Yes, you will get an uber-liberal or ultra-conservative judge, but ultimately, almost all the rulings are predetermined, especially in what many call frivilous law suits because the burden to bring suit is so low.
Click to expand...
 
danarhea said:
Looks like Ron Paul is still practicing what he preaches, unlike a President, a President to be, and the new President's former campaign opponent.

Kudos to Ron Paul, who never compromised his values. Stuff that pay raise up their collective asses, Ron. They don't deserve it.

Final word - Hey GOP, you picked the wrong guy.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Ron Paul donates all the extra money his paycheck goes up by to some charity. He's been in congress for what? Like 20 years now? That's easily what? 60-70 grand a year to charity?

Representative Ron Paul (Texas) - Staff salaries from LegiStorm

Seems like he makes about $174,000USD a year. Anybody knows what he does with the extra money he's been getting? Does he throw it away? Give it to poor kids? Return it? What exactly has he been doing with the extra money in his paychecks? I mean obviously Ron Paul's opposition to pay raises can't be a new thing so what does he do with it? Any Paul Supporters care to answer?
 
Last edited:
ShamMol said:
They are negligible, yes. But, here is the thing. These judges are required to hear these cases and make a judgement, and it is largely on precedent. That means that about 800 district court judges have little choice in how they make a decision because of past rulings. Yes, you will get an uber-liberal or ultra-conservative judge, but ultimately, almost all the rulings are predetermined, especially in what many call frivilous law suits because the burden to bring suit is so low.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but there needs to be some reform from the top down in my opinion, because even though the overall economic effects are negligible admittedly, someone still has to pay it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom