Constitutional Crisis. The phrase has been invoked so often during the current Presidency that it’s almost lost all meaning.
The phrase has been used to describe illegal wiretapping, the war in Iraq, the administrations own theory of the unified executive and presumably, the heartbreak of cirrhosis.
Most of those charges came from liberals, of course. Predictably, right-wingers join the fray to declare that any notion of a crisis was purely a figment of fevered Democrats’ imagination.
But if federal employees who were appointed by Republicans aren’t taking home a fat enough pay envelope, that’s crisis. So says Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who issued an eight page message bemoaning federal judges’ take-home pay.
"Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence judges need to uphold the rule of law — even when it is unpopular to do so — will be seriously eroded," Roberts wrote according to the Associated Press.
Now wait just a minute. Is the Chief Justice actually suggesting that federal judges – these black-robed paragons of Solomonic wisdom – could possibly be bought because they can’t pay their light bills?
Roberts’ message does not suggest any actual numbers for a judicial salary increase but he does note that, adjusted for inflation, judges’ pay has fallen 41.7% since 1969. One can easily infer then, that Roberts is proposing a pay increase somewhere in the neighborhood of 42%. For the typical US District Judge that would mean a pay increase of $69,384. For Roberts himself a 42-percent bump would result in an annual pay of $301,182 – up almost $90,000 from his current salary.
Talk about your enlightened self-interest.
It is almost too easy to point out that many families across the United States are managing to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads with just the amount of money that judges would gain from this suggested increase. There was a time when people who were employed by the federal government in whatever capacity – from the President on down to the lowliest janitor – understood that working for the government entailed certain sacrifices. If the take-home pay didn’t always match the private sector, then the prestige of the job usually offset that somewhat.
The issue is complicated somewhat by recent conservative complaints over so-called activist judges. Perhaps low pay was a ploy to keep some opportunist off the bench.
But if federal judges truly can’t make ends meet on their salaries, I suggest you put them on the food stamp program. But I want to see them wearing their robes when they are in the checkout line at the local grocery store.