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.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Screw California.
Curt Child, who is the Administrative Office of the Courts' top Sacramento lobbyist,
should be flayed, along with his employers.
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"
If that is one of the judges I would suggest he spend a bit more of that loot on a good makeup technician.
And who won the Kindle2?
No really, who won the Kindle2?
Tell me! TELL ME!!!
I need to know NOW!
"I need to know NOW!"
Settle down dude. Here, have a hit of this...
Maybe if everybody in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon lined up at the border and pushed reeeeal hard...
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.
One great big festering neon distraction.
To Hell with Vegetables by Curt Child
...Hello? ...Is this thing on?
Or if Superman had just gotten out of Lex Luthor's way.
Or if James Bond hadn't foiled Christopher Walken.
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.
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.
And doesn't even include bribes
James Bond isn't real.
Then why aren't we talking Batman vs. Superman?
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
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.
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?
Are you telling me that you believe Christopher Walken is real, SugarFree?
As real as you or I. Realer, even.
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.
There is nothing more real than Christopher Walken.
Never bring a Christopher Walken to a gun fight.
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.
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.
Zorin, Max Zorin
What relevance does Jerry Garcia have to the blog post?
"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.
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.