I don’t normally write about things that randomly appear on other law blogs, but UT’s own Sandy Levinson has written a hilarious piece over at Balkanization that brings up an interesting point that was the hot topic all over the blogosphere a few weeks ago.

Chief Justice Robert’s Year-end Report on the state of the federal judiciary this year focused on the unacceptably low pay that judges and justices receive. The Chief Justice warns that the US faces a ‘constitutional crisis’ if it cannot keep judicial pay up to par with the private sector. The most striking statistic is his comparison between judges and the deans of top law schools: in 1969, district court judges made 21% more than the deans of top law schools, today they make half as much as the same deans. The comparison between judges and law school graduates in the private sector is even more dire.

This isn’t the first time that the Court has called out for a pay raise and politicians still have little incentive to raise pay for anyone but themselves. One again Congress has proven unresponsive to recent pushes to raise judge’s pay.

The most serious implication of relatively low judicial salaries is the brain-drain that is likely to occur as real wages decrease. For now, the Supreme Court is still prestigious enough to be immune from a brain-drain, but the lower courts are unlikely to be as fortunate. Any lawyer distinguished enough to serve in the federal judiciary is likely to be reasonably wealthy (TimesSelect needed), but it can be hard for anyone to turn down a seven-figure salary or cushy tenure for a wage cut and the high honor of getting to read briefs and write opinions.

Sandy Levinson, the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, suggests that we sell Courtships out to companies. Instead of the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, Tostitos could buy advertising space with Tostitos Associate Justice. Levinson’s plan would avoid moral entanglements between companies and Justices by forcing companies to pay one lump some up front. It sounds like a crazy idea, mostly because it is, but why not? I for one can imagine dozens of companies with unfortunate names that could combine with tenures on the court for hilarity.

The year-end report is sprinkled with the Chief Justice’s wonderful humor that I have become so smitten with lately. You can read the Chief Justice’s report here.