You can see the whole report here.

Related posts

• The Johnson and Johnson Junior Associate Justice (April 12, 2007)
• Judges Have Lives Too (September 22, 2007)
• Federal Judiciary Doesn’t get COLA for 2009 (December 12, 2008)

“Wrong time. Wrong place,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-Mo.) exclaimed on the Senate floor Dec. 11. “We have families all over this nation that are scared today, that aren’t buying Christmas presents. Federal judges get lifetime appointments and they never take a dime’s cut in pay. They die with the same salary they have today.” After that, it was little surprise that senators supporting the auto bailout began the process of pulling the judicial provision out of the bill. They did not want to jeopardize any much-needed votes. But then the whole thing collapsed anyway.

So, federal judges will now have another distinction besides life tenure: They are the only federal employees who will begin 2009 without a COLA.

Oh dear. I can see why it would be easy for Congress to ignore federal judges. A lifetime-appointment gives them incentive to stay on the bench but for most of them, going into private practice would be incredibly lucrative. We’ve had examples in the last few years where judges have left the bench and listed pay as a major reason. Judges of the caliber that make the federal judiciary socialize in circles what include lawyer-friends who are almost certainly making several times what they make. While positions on the Supreme Court or high-level seats on the Court of Appeals have a certain altruistic appeal, its hard to blame district judges and court of appeals judges for heading back to private practice.

Related posts

• The Johnson and Johnson Junior Associate Justice (April 12, 2007)
• Judges Have Lives Too (September 22, 2007)
• Chief Justice Asks Congress for Judicial Pay Increases (January 1, 2009)

Biden’s first major test as Chairperson came in June 1987, when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork, then sitting on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to replace the retiring Justice Lewis Powell. Within the hour, Senator Edward Kennedy had taken the floor of the Senate to share his infamous vision of “Robert Bork’s America.” Biden’s Judiciary Committee kept the pace, asking tough questions about privacy and the separation of powers. Bork’s candid testimony before the Committee earned him a reputation as an extremist, and the ACLU bolstered this idea by recommending for only the third time in its 67-year history that a Supreme Court nominee by rejected. The Judiciary Committee concurred, and recommended by a vote of 9-5 (Biden in the majority) that Bork be rejected. Shortly thereafter, Bork’s nomination failed by a floor vote of 42-58, with Biden voting nay.

Bork, who felt slighted by the media and by the Senate, resigned the Fifth Seat on the DC Circuit in 1988; Ronald Reagan soon nominated a veteran of his administration, Clarence Thomas, to fill this vacancy. In the summer of 1991, Biden would face his second test as Judiciary Chair when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court. The hearings [Biden-laden transcripts here] were notably divisive, colored by Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual misconduct. Like the American Bar Association, the Judiciary Committee was divided on Thomas’ qualifications; and, like the ABA, the Committee ultimately chose not to make a recommendation and silently sent the nomination to the full floor. Thomas was then confirmed by a vote of 52-48, with Biden again voting nay.

Beyond his Constitutional role in providing advice and consent , Biden used his position on the committee to push through quite a bit of legislation. Some of these bills have been legally dubious. (The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, for example, was ruled in part unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison 529 U.S. 598 (2000).) However, most of his legislation in this committee an elsewhere has been marked by an earnest desire to improve the lives of everyday Americans.

I would suggest that Joe Biden is one of the finer legal minds in this country, and certainly was the finest on Obama’s shortlist (although Tim Kaine did teach law at the University of Richmond for some six years). And so I guess my point is that, if elected, Biden would be an interesting asset to President Obama if he’s tasked with filling vacancies on the high court. Considering the likelihood that Obama could have as many as six nominations, maybe even liberals should be reading a little more closely into Biden’s record.

Related posts

• President Obama and the Future of the Supreme Court (December 4, 2008)
• Which Justice Will Author The Medellin Opinion? (March 19, 2008)
• Updated Humor Statistics (March 7, 2008)

And finally, I would be less than completely candid if I did not mention the uncertainty surrounding judicial pay as a factor in my decision. With three talented children approaching college years, it has been difficult for my wife and me to make financial plans. As you know, this year federal judges have yet to receive even a cost of living pay increase. Your much-appreciated proposal to raise judicial salaries has yet to be acted on by Congress. I would like to ensure that my children will have the same educational opportunities that I had. How to achieve that within the constraints on current judicial pay is more than a difficult task. My wife and I have concluded that we may not be able to do what we have always planned to do unless I make some changes.

I admire Judge Cassell for spending the last 5 years on the Court and I understand his decision. Despite the recent attention drawn to the subject of judicial salaries, Congress hasn’t done a good job of increasing the salaries it hands out to judges. Judge Cassell’s predicament isn’t unique but his decision to accept a presumably higher paying job in both the private and public sectors is an unusually public example of the thought process that many practicing lawyers must go through in order to weigh the opportunity to perform on the federal bench. Any person with sufficient qualifications to sit on the federal bench is assuredly qualified to made significantly more money in the private sector. The only way for the Federal Judiciary to attract the individuals at the top of the legal stratosphere is to increase the pay that it offers judges at all levels.

Related posts

• Initial Thoughts on Northwest Austin v. Mukasey (January 10, 2009)
• Federal Judiciary Doesn’t get COLA for 2009 (December 12, 2008)
• Chief Justice Asks Congress for Judicial Pay Increases (January 1, 2009)