Question for number crunchers re: Federal Judge Salaries

[albionmoonlight]

Federal Judges--whose salary is guaranteed for life as long as they work a certain number of years--bitch about how they don't make enough money. See http://www.uscourts.gov/judicialcompensation.htm for an example of their arguments.

I want to know how much money they actually make. (Leaving aside the idea that the job is so cushy that perhaps it should not pay as much as the private sector).

A judge makes $160,000 per year. That salary is guaranteed for life as long as the judge retires after his years of service + age = 65.

It is reasonable to assume that a judge gets appointed to the bench at 40 and works 25 years before retiring at age 65.

Because a normal person would have to contribute yearly to a 401(k) or an annuity or some such instrument in order to continue to receive full salary upon retirement, there is a hidden salary that judges make which is not reflected in their $160,000 per year.

My question for you--assuming that a judge works for 25 years. And assuming retirement at age 65. And assuming payment upon retirement of $160,000 per year with a normal life expectancy--what is the "real" salary that these judges make?

Thanks in advance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think I understand your question, so let's see what I can do with it.

Life expectancy varies by race & sex & other factors, but I'm going to go with 75 years.

So that's 10 years of pay-after-retirement, for $1.6m after 65.

Divide that by their 25 years of service, and you get an additional $64,000 a year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Also, since I had already started down this road before realizing that there was a much more direct approach --

In order to have $1.6m in the bank upon retirement,
figuring 7% interest & 25 years to save the money, you'd need to deposit $2,504.60 each month into some sort of saving plan.

[Ksyrup]

That's about what I came up with, although the time value of money will need to be factored in, since they aren't really getting $64K a year up-front. And it's not so simple as how much would you have to invest for 25 years to have $1.6M when you retire, since they don't get $1.6M up front when they retire.

I'm getting a headache. This is why the only numbers I look at are baseball stats.

[Philliesfan980]

The best way to look at your calculation is by discounting the present value of $2,400,000 (160,000 x 15 years - assume he/she lives from 65-80). We will discount this over 25 years (time of service) with a 6% discount rate (conservative).

In order for the plan (employer) to save 2,400,000 over 25 years, they would need to contribute $43,744.12 a year , earning 6% annually.

so your answer is: true salary = $160,000 +43,744.12 = 203,744.12.

Very simple way to look at it.

[Franklinnoble]

Bah. Federal judges have NOTHING to bitch about. I can't fathom why someone thought it was a good idea to hand out lifetime appointments to ANY government job, not to mention one with so much power and influence. It's a bad idea, and that part of the system is in dire need of an overhaul.

F*cking elitists...

[judicial clerk]

I think the lifetime appointment is supposed to help keep the judges impartial.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I think the lifetime appointment is supposed to help keep the judges impartial.

I may be in the minority here, but considering how hard it is to get that job, I think that its a reasonable wage for the job.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I think the lifetime appointment is supposed to help keep the judges impartial.

In theory, perhaps.

In practice, it gives them the liberty to be anything but. They have the power to impose their own political agenda on the law without any fear of repercussion. The 9th district is a perfect example.

Without being held accountable to the people, they can't interpret the law according to the will of the people...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

I may be in the minority here, but considering how hard it is to get that job, I think that its a reasonable wage for the job.

Uhh... you get appointed to that job. Hard work has less to do with it than if you happen to be politically aligned with the president who's making the nominations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

The best way to look at your calculation is by discounting the present value of $2,400,000 (160,000 x 15 years - assume he/she lives from 65-80). We will discount this over 25 years (time of service) with a 6% discount rate (conservative).

In order for the plan (employer) to save 2,400,000 over 25 years, they would need to contribute $43,744.12 a year , earning 6% annually.

so your answer is: true salary = $160,000 +43,744.12 = 203,744.12.

Very simple way to look at it.

Yep, that's just simple enough that you lost me somewhere along the way

If it isn't a pain, I'd be curious to see what your process produces if you figure life expectancy as 75 years instead of 80.

(At a glance, it looks like it'll be pretty close to my investment-over- time-method, which worked out to about another $30k/yr).

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Uhh... you get appointed to that job. Hard work has less to do with it than if you happen to be politically aligned with the president who's making the nominations.

Eh , in the grand scheme of things, anyone who spent the time and money going to law school deserves to make 150k-200k a year.

You wanna talk about getting aligned with people without really "deserving the job", look at what the CEO's/CFO's of the bigger businesses in this nation make. Makes 200k look like a drop in the bucket.

[albionmoonlight]

Thanks for the numbers.

A few observations--I think that lifetime appointments are a necessary evil. I think that elected judges can be even worse. The legislature and executive are the political branches. I don't think that the judiciary should be as accountable to the people. The law should be interperted as written--not as the current will of the majority would have it. The founding fathers debated this exact issue. Reasonable minds can and do differ on this point.

Considering the enormous number of perks these judges get and the awesome power they have--they don't need more $$.

Considering that people still fall all over themselves to get these jobs, they don't need to raise the salary. The benchmark in a free market should be a salary just high enough to attract qualified people to the job. We have that here.

Finally, the process of appointment is too political. Both the right and the left are appointing people who are political extremists. There are not enough moderates on the federal bench.

And it's Ninth Circuit--not district.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep, that's just simple enough that you lost me somewhere along the way

If it isn't a pain, I'd be curious to see what your process produces if you figure life expectancy as 75 years instead of 80.

(At a glance, it looks like it'll be pretty close to my investment-over- time-method, which worked out to about another $30k/yr).

Sure. I think its the exact same thing that you did above.

$160,000k over 10 years= $1,600,000 needed at age 65 in the bank (assume 0 return on money at that point).

$1,600,000 discounted over 25 years (ages 40-65) = $29,162.75 a year that the employer would need to put into a 6% fund at the end of each year.

True Salary = 160,000+ 29,162.75 = 189,162.75 a year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

Sure. I think its the exact same thing that you did above.

Thanks. That's what I was thinking, but for some reason my eyes kinda glazed over there for a minute & I wasn't sure. (that'll teach me to be working on three sets of number at the same time, two of which had nothing to do with this thread)

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

Eh , in the grand scheme of things, anyone who spent the time and money going to law school deserves to make 150k-200k a year.

You wanna talk about getting aligned with people without really "deserving the job", look at what the CEO's/CFO's of the bigger businesses in this nation make. Makes 200k look like a drop in the bucket.

Please spare me the "I went to law school and it was really expensive and difficult so I deserve to bill at $200 an hour" argument. Fucking attorneys. Law school costs less than medical school, and what the hell do lawyers produce? Nothing. Litigation. Paperwork. They exist simply to re-distribute wealth, while taking a nice percentage along the way.

At least the CEOs/CFOs at major corporations are doing SOMETHING productive for their salaries... (although I am by no means endorsing corporate big-shots... they're nearly as bad, but a lesser evil than attorneys in my book).

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Thanks for the numbers.

A few observations--I think that lifetime appointments are a necessary evil. I think that elected judges can be even worse. The legislature and executive are the political branches. I don't think that the judiciary should be as accountable to the people. The law should be interperted as written--not as the current will of the majority would have it. The founding fathers debated this exact issue. Reasonable minds can and do differ on this point.

Considering the enormous number of perks these judges get and the awesome power they have--they don't need more $$.

Considering that people still fall all over themselves to get these jobs, they don't need to raise the salary. The benchmark in a free market should be a salary just high enough to attract qualified people to the job. We have that here.

Finally, the process of appointment is too political. Both the right and the left are appointing people who are political extremists. There are not enough moderates on the federal bench.

And it's Ninth Circuit--not district.

You say that everyone falls over the job, but if it was paying even $100k, whose to say that it would have the same response?

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Please spare me the "I went to law school and it was really expensive and difficult so I deserve to bill at $200 an hour" argument. Fucking attorneys. Law school costs less than medical school, and what the hell do lawyers produce? Nothing. Litigation. Paperwork. They exist simply to re-distribute wealth, while taking a nice percentage along the way.

At least the CEOs/CFOs at major corporations are doing SOMETHING productive for their salaries... (although I am by no means endorsing corporate big-shots... they're nearly as bad, but a lesser evil than attorneys in my book).

Well, I'm not a laywer by trade, but I do work in public accounting so I do know all too much about "billable hours".

To be honest, when it comes down to crunch time, lawyers are some of the hardest working people out there. Most of them are 7am to 9pm types who work their butts off for their clients. Are there going to be some that slack off? Sure. You can find that for almost every profession.

Litigation is important. While some may seem unnecessary at times, I'd rather over litigate than under litigate.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

You say that everyone falls over the job, but if it was paying even $100k, whose to say that it would have the same response?

There is a point where the salary would be too low. I just don't think that we are there.

One of the arguments made by judges who want a pay increase is that the pay is too low to attract qualified people to the job. Considering how many people want these jobs, I do not beleive that that argument holds water.

[ZXTT]

Couple of comments.

The salary - you have to compare it to what similarly qualified lawyers make. Do you really want the salary to be equivalent to, say, a mediocre lawyer's salary? Yeah, lets allow the 3rd or 4th quintile to tell us what our laws mean.

Life expectancy. A number like 75 is life expectancy at birth. By the time someone retires at 65 their life expectancy is about 18 years (2000 data). So we should be using 83 as a starting point. If you want to assume that most judges are white males, then you can knock it down to 81.

Finally, I don't want judges campaigning. I believe it leads to "popular" legal decisions rather than appropriate or correct.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

Well, I'm not a laywer by trade, but I do work in public accounting so I do know all too much about "billable hours".

To be honest, when it comes down to crunch time, lawyers are some of the hardest working people out there. Most of them are 7am to 9pm types who work their butts off for their clients. Are there going to be some that slack off? Sure. You can find that for almost every profession.

Litigation is important. While some may seem unnecessary at times, I'd rather over litigate than under litigate.

Hard working? Lawyers have 100% control over their workload, my friend. They can reasonably estimate how much time each case and client they accept will take, and they know full well ahead of time if long hours are going to be required.

If I were able to bill at $200 an hour, I would have very little trouble working 14 hours a day. It's not as if we're talking about sweatshop laborers here...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ZXTT

Life expectancy. A number like 75 is life expectancy at birth. By the time someone retires at 65 their life expectancy is about 18 years (2000 data). So we should be using 83 as a starting point. If you want to assume that most judges are white males, then you can knock it down to 81.

Very nice catch. I feel like I should have thought about that, but didn't.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Hard working? Lawyers have 100% control over their workload, my friend. They can reasonably estimate how much time each case and client they accept will take, and they know full well ahead of time if long hours are going to be required.

If I were able to bill at $200 an hour, I would have very little trouble working 14 hours a day. It's not as if we're talking about sweatshop laborers here...

Are you making this up as you go along?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by digamma

Are you making this up as you go along?

Well, it's not as if I've written a first and second draft before posting in this thread, if that's what you mean.

I have had my fill of attorneys of late, and I've become rather annoyed at the fact that the American legal system offers NO justice to those who don't pay for expensive legal counsel.

I'm in the midst of a pretty nasty probate case, and at this point, I have most of the California probate code memorized. I have a brother in law school who has researched reams of relevant case history for me. I know as much about the case and how to argue it as any attorney I could hire, yet I am forbidden from arguing in court, because I'm not an attorney, and my wife is technically the petitioner in the case. I cannot speak on her behalf. Even when she's tried to argue for herself, she gets run over in court because the judge shows clear and obvious favoritism towards the party with an attorney present. It's completely fucked up that you can't get a fair shake in court without a lawyer.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Without being held accountable to the people, they can't interpret the law according to the will of the people...

You do realize that is not a mistake, but that is the very design? They are supposed to be making rulings based on existing law, not on popular sentiment, which they might be tempted to do were they subject to election.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You do realize that is not a mistake, but that is the very design? They are supposed to be making rulings based on existing law, not on popular sentiment, which they might be tempted to do were they subject to election.

You do realize that the design is flawed... judges are people, and people aren't perfect. Instead of strictly interpreting the law in a state of utopian objectivity, they are imposing their will upon the law without any repercussion.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Well, it's not as if I've written a first and second draft before posting in this thread, if that's what you mean.

I have had my fill of attorneys of late, and I've become rather annoyed at the fact that the American legal system offers NO justice to those who don't pay for expensive legal counsel.

I'm in the midst of a pretty nasty probate case, and at this point, I have most of the California probate code memorized. I have a brother in law school who has researched reams of relevant case history for me. I know as much about the case and how to argue it as any attorney I could hire, yet I am forbidden from arguing in court, because I'm not an attorney, and my wife is technically the petitioner in the case. I cannot speak on her behalf. Even when she's tried to argue for herself, she gets run over in court because the judge shows clear and obvious favoritism towards the party with an attorney present. It's completely fucked up that you can't get a fair shake in court without a lawyer.

Its easy to see that you're not thinking 100% clearly based on your current experience with lawyers / courts in general, and I understand that.

I do agree with you that if you want to defend yourself in court, you should get the same treatment as if you were a lawyer. Not having been in court myself, I can't say whether or not thats a true statement.

$200 an hour (actually , thats a fairly cheap lawyer) isn't what they always realize. General billable hour businesses get 70% or 80% at best. The bottom line is the rate is what it is, the market economy has dictated that.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Well, it's not as if I've written a first and second draft before posting in this thread, if that's what you mean.

I have had my fill of attorneys of late, and I've become rather annoyed at the fact that the American legal system offers NO justice to those who don't pay for expensive legal counsel.

I'm in the midst of a pretty nasty probate case, and at this point, I have most of the California probate code memorized. I have a brother in law school who has researched reams of relevant case history for me. I know as much about the case and how to argue it as any attorney I could hire, yet I am forbidden from arguing in court, because I'm not an attorney, and my wife is technically the petitioner in the case. I cannot speak on her behalf. Even when she's tried to argue for herself, she gets run over in court because the judge shows clear and obvious favoritism towards the party with an attorney present. It's completely fucked up that you can't get a fair shake in court without a lawyer.

Your story definitely puts your frustration into perspective. I'm sorry that you have had a difficult time.

There is no excuse for a judge not treating your wife with every ounce of respect he gives the opposing counsel (or any counsel, for that matter). I also respect the amount of research and work you have done. However, you are likely one of the very few who does this amount of leg work and who could possibly be prepared for an in cour appearance. Can you imagine the strain on an already overburdened legal system if a litigant could have any old person argue for them in court?

Philliesfan addressed the monetary comments pretty well. $200 an hour is fairly cheap for a good lawyer these days. You generally lop off 1/3 of your fee for overhead (i.e., office space, any administrative help, malpractice insurance, bar dues, etc.). Additionally, you may not collect all that you bill. Being a sole practitioner is one of the toughest things to do. I have a tremendous amount of respect for those who hang up their own shingle in the legal world.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

Its easy to see that you're not thinking 100% clearly based on your current experience with lawyers / courts in general, and I understand that.

I do agree with you that if you want to defend yourself in court, you should get the same treatment as if you were a lawyer. Not having been in court myself, I can't say whether or not thats a true statement.

$200 an hour (actually , thats a fairly cheap lawyer) isn't what they always realize. General billable hour businesses get 70% or 80% at best. The bottom line is the rate is what it is, the market economy has dictated that.

The market economy doesn't dictate it... what lawyers are able to charge is akin to price fixing, because the market is guaranteed for them. And legal fees are entirely unregulated.

It's a similar phenomnena to what has happened as states passed mandatory auto insurance laws. Insurance rates immediately went up, when one would assume they would do the opposite. Insurance companies knew that people HAD to buy car insurance now, and didn't have to price themselves as competitively as they did in states without mandatory insurance laws.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

You do realize that the design is flawed... judges are people, and people aren't perfect. Instead of strictly interpreting the law in a state of utopian objectivity, they are imposing their will upon the law without any repercussion.

I am not saying its perfect, but I think it is better than judges completely ignoring the law and bending to public will (i.e. trampling on the rights of extremely unpopular people) in order to get re-elected.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by digamma

Philliesfan addressed the monetary comments pretty well. $200 an hour is fairly cheap for a good lawyer these days. You generally lop off 1/3 of your fee for overhead (i.e., office space, any administrative help, malpractice insurance, bar dues, etc.). Additionally, you may not collect all that you bill. Being a sole practitioner is one of the toughest things to do. I have a tremendous amount of respect for those who hang up their own shingle in the legal world.

I never said I got a *good* lawyer at that price. But in podunk El Dorado County, that's about the going rate. We don't have too many high-priced attorneys out this way, and if I brought in a heavy-hitter from Sacramento, I'd only alienate the good-old-boy judge even more.

Again, I have no sympathy for poor Mr. Sole Practitioner. Most of the attorneys I've spoken to handle estate planning and other investment and planning services, in addition to taking probate cases. Probate law is easy money, if you asked me. With few exceptions, lawyers make a killing at this, because the state mandates that if you are the attorney for the administrator of an estate, you're entitled to 7% of the first $200,000 that the estate is worth, and something like 2% of every $100,000 after that. Those are just the "ordinary fees." Anything that comes up that might be a little unusual or require actual creative thinking on the attorney's part can be charged on top of that as "extraordinary fees." It's a bloody f-ing racket, and you MUST have an attorney to execute an estate if the person died without a living trust.

But I've digressed. Back on the original subject... I still believe judges should be elected to a limited term. Having some judge in office for life collecting a very comfortable salary from taxpayer dollars is just plain un-democratic to me.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Please spare me the "I went to law school and it was really expensive and difficult so I deserve to bill at $200 an hour" argument. Fucking attorneys. Law school costs less than medical school, and what the hell do lawyers produce? Nothing. Litigation. Paperwork. They exist simply to re-distribute wealth, while taking a nice percentage along the way.

At least the CEOs/CFOs at major corporations are doing SOMETHING productive for their salaries... (although I am by no means endorsing corporate big-shots... they're nearly as bad, but a lesser evil than attorneys in my book).

Not all lawyers are bad.... lawyers do more than simply redistribute wealth. My girlfriend works (well be working as of June 30, 2004) for the Legal Aid Society of New York, which represents those who cannot afford attorneys in criminal cases. She makes a crappy salary but has well over $100,000 in debt. She's one of the good guys. BUT -- she's getting laid off because the
city and state won't cut their contract so they can't cover basis expenses. The contract won't be increased because people assume that ALL lawyers are paper pushers who do nothing for society..... that's just an incorrect view. It's like saying all doctors are bad simply because they bill the insurance company as much as they can.

[ISiddiqui]

they can't interpret the law according to the will of the people...

Good. We don't want our judges to be campaigning for votes in their decisions. I already despise the fact that some states have elected judges.

The market economy doesn't dictate it... what lawyers are able to charge is akin to price fixing, because the market is guaranteed for them.

With that logic, the market economy doesn't dictate food prices, because the market is guaranteed for them. You have to eat. Before you say there are many different kinds of food you can buy, do you really think that there is only one lawyer per town?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Good. We don't want our judges to be campaigning for votes in their decisions. I already despise the fact that some states have elected judges.



With that logic, the market economy doesn't dictate food prices, because the market is guaranteed for them. You have to eat. Before you say there are many different kinds of food you can buy, do you really think that there is only one lawyer per town?

Well, we're going to disagree on the elected judges issue.

As for the food prices example, the government does take steps to regulate the price of groceries in this country.

[ISiddiqui]

the government does take steps to regulate the price of groceries in this country.

Only for those goods it thinks would benefit the American farmer. NOT for your benefit. In fact, far from it. You pay more because of government regulation of food prices. I'm sure that's not the regulation you'd like for the legal profession .

[Jon]

Some states try a hybrid -- the Governor appoints a judge, who then serves a one to two year term. Then, the people of the district, state, etc. participate in a tenure election, whereby the judge gets to serve for a set number of years. When that term is up, then the governor can reappoint, and then there is another vote, etc. One variation of this is a retention election after one to two years, and then a tenure election five years later.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Only for those goods it thinks would benefit the American farmer. NOT for your benefit. In fact, far from it. You pay more because of government regulation of food prices. I'm sure that's not the regulation you'd like for the legal profession .

Compare the price you pay for groceries to that of other industrialized nations, and get back to me, 'kay?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Good. We don't want our judges to be campaigning for votes in their decisions. I already despise the fact that some states have elected judges.

You went & made me curious, doggone you

There's a breakout of State Supreme Court, Civil Appeals, Criminal Appeals, and Circuit/Superior Courts at
http://www.ajs.org/selection/sel_state-select-map.asp

15 states that elect no judges: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia,

14 States that elect some judges: Arizona,California, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri*, Nebraska*, New Mexico*, New York*, Oklahoma*, South Dakota*, Tennessee, Utah*, Wyoming

21 States that elect all judges: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

NOTE: States with * indicate nomination/appointment by some commission but must be re-elected by voters.

So, 35 of 50 states elect at least some of their judges.

[Jon]

The chart, however, doesn't really tell the whole story. For example, in New Jersey, where I clerked, the choice for Appellate Division judge is actually made by the Chief Justice of the state supreme court, who elevates a judge from the trial court. After the initial seven year period, they get to serve life. In New Jersey, you can't be an appeals judge without being a trial judge first.
And, in Louisiana, until about ten to twelve years ago, you didn't have to be a lawyer to be elected (at least, according to a state appeal judge I know).

[albionmoonlight]

Another problem with electing judges is that people don't care enough to cast an informed ballot. Al Gonzalez (now Bush's White House counsel) spoke at my old firm and told us stories about his days as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. He said that when he ran for election (or reelection, I forget) he won every district in which he outspent his opponent in TV ads, and vice versa.

I beleive (though I don't have the numbers to back it up) that the vast majority of people vote for judges based either on name recognition/ads or on party affiliation. I do not think that people actually take the time to elect the best judge the way that they try to elect the best president or the best governor.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Another problem with electing judges is that people don't care enough to cast an informed ballot. Al Gonzalez (now Bush's White House counsel) spoke at my old firm and told us stories about his days as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. He said that when he ran for election (or reelection, I forget) he won every district in which he outspent his opponent in TV ads, and vice versa.

I beleive (though I don't have the numbers to back it up) that the vast majority of people vote for judges based either on name recognition/ads or on party affiliation. I do not think that people actually take the time to elect the best judge the way that they try to elect the best president or the best governor.

You're right.

However, if the judge has to face re-election every so often, it gives the public an opportunity to remove him if some of his decisions are notably egregious.

[ISiddiqui]

Compare the price you pay for groceries to that of other industrialized nations, and get back to me, 'kay?

So because other countries have high subsidies for food as well means that our food prices aren't inflated? Take some economics, please! We pay farmers to produce less, so that there isn't that much food on the market. That only raises prices (which is the point... so the 'small' farmer makes money).

For example, in New Jersey, where I clerked, the choice for Appellate Division judge is actually made by the Chief Justice of the state supreme court, who elevates a judge from the trial court. After the initial seven year period, they get to serve life. In New Jersey, you can't be an appeals judge without being a trial judge first.

Uh... in New Jersey you don't elect trial judges either, so there are no elections for judges in Jersey, which is what the chart says.

However, if the judge has to face re-election every so often, it gives the public an opportunity to remove him if some of his decisions are notably egregious.

Or, say, follows the law? I mean, I can easily imagine some Southerners during the 1950s voting out judges who tried to rule consistant with Brown v. Board of Education. A judge should not be penalized for following the law, which elections will do in some cases.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Uh... in New Jersey you don't elect trial judges either, so there are no elections for judges in Jersey, which is what the chart says.

I wasn't disputing the chart, I was just adding to the chart. The chart helps explain the basics, but doesn't really go into the nuances of the different selections schemes. I pointed out N.J. since (1) I live there (2) have worked for the court system and am quite familiar with it (even though I'm not admitted to practice law there) and (3) find it one of the more interesting court systems in the country. In fact, if one wanted to point to judicial power, we could look at N.J. as the most powerful judiciary in the country. But that's a separate topic ...

in any event, I wasn't challenging the chart, just adding to the point.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So because other countries have high subsidies for food as well means that our food prices aren't inflated? Take some economics, please! We pay farmers to produce less, so that there isn't that much food on the market. That only raises prices (which is the point... so the 'small' farmer makes money).

Hey, you were the one that started the farm analogy, and compared it to legal fees and auto insurance, not me. All I'm saying is the government has a hand in it, and the prices are low. Such is not the case with legal fees... if anything, the government enables the attorneys to get away with highway robbery.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Or, say, follows the law? I mean, I can easily imagine some Southerners during the 1950s voting out judges who tried to rule consistant with Brown v. Board of Education. A judge should not be penalized for following the law, which elections will do in some cases.

Interesting example, but I'm curious about how many of these cases were really heard in a court where the influence of racism in the south could have made a difference... Brown v. Board of Education was heard in Kansas... hardly a hotbed of KKK activity or anything...

I don't dispute the theory behind judicial appointments, but the model has failed in practice, and I think it needs to change.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Interesting example, but I'm curious about how many of these cases were really heard in a court where the influence of racism in the south could have made a difference... Brown v. Board of Education was heard in Kansas... hardly a hotbed of KKK activity or anything...

Actually Brown was a compilation of five or six cases, one of which originated in South Carolina and maybe one in Virginia, places where racism certainly could have made a difference. Topeka was the lead case and got the name, but they were all part of the SC decision.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by digamma

Actually Brown was a compilation of five or six cases, one of which originated in South Carolina and maybe one in Virginia, places where racism certainly could have made a difference. Topeka was the lead case and got the name, but they were all part of the SC decision.

Eh.. wouldn't have made a difference. If they had kept everything separate, the white kids would all think it's cool to drink from the colored water fountains by now anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Eh.. wouldn't have made a difference. If they had kept everything separate, the white kids would all think it's cool to drink from the colored water fountains by now anyway.

LMAO, great one.

[ISiddiqui]

All I'm saying is the government has a hand in it, and the prices are low.

:wall: (do we have that smily?)

The prices of food is HIGHER than it would be if left to simply supply and demand. The government regulations raise the price of food, such as setting quotas on grain so the market isn't flooded, etc.

If the government did the same thing with attorney fees as they did with food, the rates would go UP, not down.

the government enables the attorneys to get away with highway robbery.

No one tells you to sue. The reason the attornies make so much money is because the demand is so high for them. Don't blame them for the market .

I don't dispute the theory behind judicial appointments, but the model has failed in practice, and I think it needs to change.

The point is that it HASN'T FAILED in practice! The system of judicial appointments is the best system in the US. It allows the judiciary to be free from the common politics and allows them to rule on the law as they see it (there are different ways to interpret and read the law.. and it is best that judges can do that without some politician reaching in and messing around in it).

Our politicians are corrupt enough as it is because of the election process. I don't want to make judges the same way.

In fact, if one wanted to point to judicial power, we could look at N.J. as the most powerful judiciary in the country.

TOOO Powerful . I point to Mount Laurel

But, even though they make bad decisions at times, I'd NEVER want to replace them with elected judges.

[Franklinnoble]

Hey, read my earlier posts. I never sued anyone. I never want to sue anyone. I just want to be able to speak in court without having to hire a $200 an hour f*cking bloodsucking lawyer, okay? I also want to be able to get the f*cking pompous-assed judge who clearly favors the opposing party in my case (who has retained TWO bloodsucking f*cking attorneys) out of f*cking office before he dies in another 20 years, all the while collecting a paycheck with MY F*CKING TAXPAYER DOLLARS! This is America, for shit's sake, and I'M GETTING F*CKED BY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT FAVORS $200 AN HOUR F*CKING ATTORNEYS!!!

Can I be any more f*cking clear?

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I get it. How much more can I indicate that I don't care about your specific legal problems. The system works fine, no matter what your specific problems are. Wow, you have one (what you percieve) biased judge and you don't want to pay for a lawyer. Whoop-dee-do.

Besides, like you said, your wife is the PETITIONER in the case.

Yes, this is America, where the law has always been preeminent and where lawyers have always been important to society. And you are bitching because they are paid so much?

You want a free doctor as well?