Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Factoid of the Day
Number of Los Angeles County judges who make more money than U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts? Four hundred.
From an AP story about budget priorities in the "cash-strapped" state of California:
Judges in Tulare County still get free health club memberships. Those in Kern County can count on a $600-a-month car allowance. And colleagues in other counties get perks such as funds for "professional development" and money to buy extra health insurance. [...]
The heftiest perks go to Los Angeles County judges, who get $46,000 a year from the county on top of their state salaries, giving them a total of $225,000. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts makes $217,400 per year, and associate justices bring in $208,100.
An appellate court last year ruled that the Los Angeles County perks, which cost $21 million annually, were unconstitutional. But the judges fiercely resisted attempts to do away with the extra funds, hiring a law firm and Sacramento lobbyist to resist challenges to the benefits. [...]
Curt Child, who is the Administrative Office of the Courts' top Sacramento lobbyist, said the legislation was necessary to stave off legal chaos and defections from the bench while judicial officials figure out an equitable salary scheme for all superior court judges.
"Quite frankly, many of these judges went on the bench understanding and relying that these benefits were there," said Child[.]
Reason on California's self-inflicted budget nightmares here. Link via LA Observed.
|4.1.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Curt Child, who is the Administrative Office of the Courts'
top Sacramento lobbyist,
should be flayed, along with his employers.
Taktix®|4.1.09 @ 12:45PM|#
I pine for the days when I could say "not my state, not my
problem."
But since so much of my tax money goes to other states, I must say
"fuck you, CA"
NolongerTofuSushi|4.1.09 @ 12:46PM|#
If that is one of the judges I would suggest he spend a bit more of that loot on a good makeup technician.
Xeones|4.1.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Maybe if everybody in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon lined up at the border and pushed reeeeal hard...
|4.1.09 @ 12:54PM|#
Maybe if everybody in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon lined up
at the border and pushed reeeeal hard...
Or if Superman had just gotten out of Lex Luthor's way.
Warty|4.1.09 @ 12:59PM|#
Or if Superman had just gotten out of Lex Luthor's
way.
Or if James Bond hadn't foiled Christopher Walken.
|4.1.09 @ 1:03PM|#
I'm sure the solution will just be to raise the pay of the SCOTUS justices, and other judges in CA. Pay cuts rarely, if ever, happen in government.
|4.1.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Or if James Bond hadn't foiled Christopher
Walken.
James Bond isn't real. Try and keep your flights of fancy to
yourself, we're trying to have an adult discussion
here.
NolongerTofuSushi|4.1.09 @ 1:10PM|#
James Bond isn't real.
Then why aren't we talking Batman vs. Superman?
SpongePaul|4.1.09 @ 1:10PM|#
i long for the days when the house and senate and every other elected postion was paid a minimal stipend for travel to and fro and for living expenses. it was very small. thats why the house or senate, one of em, maybe both, but for sure one of them has a barracks even to this day. It used to be an honor to be able to serve. the pay was nominal, because it was understood to be a voulenteer elected postion. it was your honor to repersent the people. we need to go back to the stipends. Or at the very least. pay the senate congreess judge or whoever. Pay them the avg mean salary for the district. since it is now a full timew job, thats fair. you make the same as the avg person in your district WTF is wrong with that
Alan Vanneman|4.1.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Hmmm. So bitching about $1 million bonuses to incompetent Wall
Street bankers is wrong, but getting mad because judges make around
$250,000 a year is good? Don't first-rate lawyers in LA make more
than $250,000? Isn't it, you know, the marketplace that should
determine these things, that if we want first-rate lawyers for the
bench we should be willing to pay the going rate?*
*What about the "unconstitutional" perks? Convert them into salary
and I don't have a problem. What about U.S. Supreme Court justices?
Why, exactly, should they take a pay cut to go into government
work? Presumably, they all could be making $1 million a year in the
real world.
|4.1.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Oops, I forgot that people only go into certain careers because of the money to be made. Why even do anything if there's not a lot of money in it?
|4.1.09 @ 1:58PM|#
So bitching about confiscating
$1 million bonuses to incompetent Wall Street bankers paid
under legally binding contracts approved by Congress is
wrong, but getting mad because judges make around $250,000 a year
in violation of a judicial determination of
unconstitutionality is good?
Yes, indeed.
ed|4.1.09 @ 2:26PM|#
Isn't it, you know, the marketplace that should determine
these things
Civil service exists apart from the "marketplace." That's what
"service" means, or used to mean. Want to make 200 boxes of ziti?
Then go into private practice, you tit-sucking sack of shit.
ev|4.1.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Warty, why Christopher Walken? A View to a Kill? Wasn't his name something fucked like Zaxx Or Xaxx or something? Movie blows. Or rather, Roger Moore blows.
hmm|4.1.09 @ 5:18PM|#
"Quite frankly, many of these judges went on the bench
understanding and relying that these benefits were there,"
The joy of right to work. You came in under a pay scheme, the
scheme changes, you leave. They should find another job with the
benefits they want.
|4.1.09 @ 9:20PM|#
Isn't it, you know, the marketplace that should determine
these things, that if we want first-rate lawyers for the bench we
should be willing to pay the going rate?
You want the big bucks and the power and prestige that
comes with a judgeship? Methinks you ask too much. It used to be
that civil service had tradeoffs.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245