Monday, Dec. 18, 2006 | 7:24 a.m.
With his ultra-conservative philosophy, you wouldn't expect U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to come out publicly in strong support of spending more taxpayer money on salaries for a group of federal employees.
Yet that is what he did last week during a talk in McLean, Va., before members of a technology trade association. And while we rarely agree with his positions, we understand his point of view in this instance.
"If you become a federal judge in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), you can't raise a family on what the salary is," Scalia told his audience.
The example he gave was in support of his view that federal judges, who earn $165,200 a year, plus generous federal benefits, are underpaid. "More and more, we cannot attract the really bright lawyers," he said. "It's too much of a sacrifice."
Federal judges hold highly responsible positions in society and their work every day affects people for their whole lifetimes. In exchange, they are entitled to salaries commensurate with the social worth of their jobs.
Now let's do some substitutions in Scalia's speech.
"If you become a teacher in the Clark County School District, you can't raise a family on what the salary is." We believe that is as fair a statement as the one Scalia actually made. "More and more, we cannot attract the really bright teachers. It's too much of a sacrifice."
While we have many bright teachers willing to make the sacrifice of earning about $130,000 less than a federal judge, the district is coming up several hundred teachers short at the beginning of every school year.
We believe the same logic that Scalia is applying to federal judges' salaries should be applied to teachers' salaries. After all, teachers hold highly responsible positions in society and their work every day affects people for their whole lifetimes.
And there is one more point - if it weren't for teachers, there would be no federal judges.
archive
