Well, heck -- I thought the problem was that too many people in the U.S.(12.5%) live below the (artificially determined) poverty line. Roberts, however, believes that the true injustice in America is that...well, jump with me to find out what Roberts thinks. Ready? Set? JUMP!!
The headline reads:
Chief Justice calls for judges' pay hike
Yup. It's not the working poor or even the struggling middle class. It's those well off white professional men don't make enough money, stupid.
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.
. . .
Issuing an eight-page message devoted exclusively to salaries, Roberts says the 678 full-time U.S. District Court judges, the backbone of the federal judiciary, are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools.
. . .
Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.
The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."
The article goes on to say that,
Over the past 16 years, Congress has provided the judiciary occasional cost-of-living adjustments, but Roberts said the absence of salary increases is "grievously unfair."
"Constitutional crisis," eh? "Grieviously unfair," eh? How about those Social Security recipients who get only cost-of-living adjustments and are barely able to make ends meet? How about those low wage workers who would be grateful to get a cost-of-living adjustment -- and maybe a little extra so they could afford child care or health insurance? I think the social injustice of the widening gap between the haves and the have nots is more correctly described as "grieviously unfair" than 678 people making $165K-$175K instead of $330K-$350K.
It is the first time in the two-decade history of year-end reports by Roberts and his predecessor, the late William Rehnquist, that the chief justice's message has focused entirely on a single subject.
Why is it that artists, like myself (CAUTION -- shameless plug for me and my company: visit Tennessee Women's Theater Project), do what we do for love of their work, not for the money -- and no one high up the food chain is demanding more money for us, lest the country lose good artists to the "private sector"? Why is that good veterinarians (who, I believe, are some of the most talented, dedicated, underpaid professionals in science) do what they do for love of their work, not for the money -- and no one high up the food chain is demanding more money for them, lest the country lose good veterinarians to the "private sector"? Why is it that our elementary school teachers (who will NEVER make in a year what federal court judges are paid annually) do what they do for love of their work, not for the money -- and no one high up the food chain is demanding more money for them, lest the country lose good teachers to the "private sector"?
So, let me get this straight -- we can find tens of thousands of people willing to be artists and work for next to nothing because they love what they do and recognize the importance of their work; we can find tens of thousands of people willing to be teachers and work for an insultingly low salary because they love what they do and recognize the importance of their work; we can find tens of thousands of people willing to be veterinarians and put in long hours and risk bodily injury because they love what they do and recognize the importance of their work -- but we can't find 678 (the number of full-time District Court judges currently servint) individuals willing to make a 6-figure salary (that would, admittedly, be less than they could make as a dean in a law school or possibly in private pracice) because they love what they do and recognize the importance of their work??
I'm sorry -- was I shrill? Tennessee Women's Theater Project is about to produce Joan Holden's play, "Nickel and Dimed," based on the book "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America," by Barbara Ehrenreich. Besides my regular sensitivity to social justice issues, I'm directing this show and the problems of the working poor are much on my mind these days.
I understand that the judiciary needs "the strength and independence. . . to uphold the rule of law — even when it is unpopular to do so." But can we not find some 700 talented legal minds willing to do the job because they desire to make a positive difference in society -- not to mention earn a pretty decent pay? Can we really not find a relative handful of patriots who love the law enough to serve their country as judges?
Stay strong!
P.S. Support the arts!