Sunday, Feb. 25, 2007 | 7:20 a.m.
In the words of John J. Arbuckle ...
When I was much younger, there was a coffee commercial that has stuck with me to this day. It wasn't because of the particular brand of coffee - which I do not remember - but rather because of that very distinctive name and the actual words he said, or didn't.
The commercial started out, "In the words of John J. Arbuckle, 'You get what you pay for.' " It went on to suggest that while that particular brand of coffee was more expensive, there was a good reason. It was a better coffee!
I am struck time and again by that simple logic, knowing sometimes it is not always the most expensive brand that determines the best product. But, more times than not, there is truth to that statement.
And while I by no means want to compare public servants - specifically federal judges - to coffee or any other commodity, I am convinced that Mr. Arbuckle knew what he was talking about.
Not long ago the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, gave his annual report on the judiciary. It was his first such report since being nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. His report was unusual because it dealt with just one topic, the compensation of the federal judiciary. He echoed the strong concerns of the former chief justice, William Rehnquist, and his colleague, Justice Stephen Breyer.
In each and all cases, the message was clear. Judicial salaries were too low and, in an increasing number of cases, were becoming a major factor in the early retirement or resignation of federal district and appellate judges.
I know there are some who would make light of this situation, especially since federal appointments are for life. Some of those people don't believe in government at any level so, in their minds, there is no reason to support judges at any price. There is little I can say to those folks that common sense and logic haven't already tried and failed to convey.
There are many others who don't support adequately compensating judges because they are either just cheap or they are opposed to the lifetime nature of the judges' tenure. Many of those people actually believe they are smarter and more visionary than the Founding Fathers of this country, who came up with this brilliant plan called democracy. I have yet to meet one of those people who actually is!
So that leaves us with the reality of today. And that reality is that the last time there was a comprehensive review of judicial salaries was almost 20 years ago. And it was 20 years prior to that time, 1969 to be precise, that their salaries were adjusted. So twice, in almost 40 years, the compensation of our federal judges has been increased.
When was the last time your salaries were adjusted? This year? Last year? Three years ago? Raise your hand if you have had a raise in the last 20 years? Get the point?
As a lawyer, who thankfully is no longer practicing, I know that the pinnacle of many legal careers is the public service commitment that comes with being appointed to the federal judiciary. As an equal branch of government dedicated to the principle of justice for all, it is often the last and only bastion of hope for the regular citizen against the oppression of the government or the powerful. To sit in those chairs, to make those rulings, to stand between the little guy and all those who seek to take advantage, requires a special person.
We want the best and brightest minds making the kind of legal decisions that affect our lives. Most times, the people with those qualifications seek the big bucks of private law practice. And who can blame them? But, there are those who are imbued with the need and seek the satisfaction of public service. They are the people we want to rule on our cases, on our lives.
It is true that federal district judges, for example, earn $165,200 per year. That sounds like a lot of money. It is a lot of money. But when you consider what those judges could make in private practice - upward of a million dollars a year - then the sacrifice for public service is significant. Put another way, would any of us want a lawyer who could barely make a living, judging our cases just because he is thrilled with the increase in pay?
I agree with the chief justice - maybe the only time this year - that it is in our own interests to pay our judges what they are worth. Right now their salaries have stagnated to the point that their real pay, adjusted for inflation, has declined 10 percent over the past 20 years while the average worker in this country has seen his salary increase almost 20 percent.
The greatest shame would be that people with integrity, experience, ability and judicial temperament, which often comes only from years on the bench, quit their jobs because they cannot maintain their own financial security after giving up the promise of lucrative private careers.
If John J. Arbuckle was right and we truly get what we pay for, then we should be paying these judges responsible salaries so that we continue to get responsible judicial decision-making. Not that these judges don't do their best regardless of what they get paid, it is just that we should never put them in a position to be questioning the value their fellow citizens place on that work.
One of the problems is that the judicial salaries need to be set by the legislative branch and approved by the president. If the people are upset with their senators and congressmen - when does that ever happen? - one of the last things the Congress votes for is their own pay raises, which would include those for judges. Thus, nothing ever happens.
It is time for something to happen. It is time to tell your senators and representatives to take care of the people's business by taking care of the people's judges.
And, once we get the judges straightened out, then we can go to work on the teachers. That seems like the American thing to do.
archive
