MAP 17 '89 14:33 US SUFFENE COURT F.5 1958 to 1988. And if you notice on the left hand column from 1958 to 1973, those 15 years it runs one, zero, one year its two. Starting with 1974 going to 1988, its getting up to where you get 4, 3, 7, 5 a year so that as a percentage of the entire federal judiciary, it's not a large number. But its increasing and its going to increase more if we can't do something about this pay situation. 2: How did the Judicial Conference decide on 30 percent as a figure? A: The 30 percent figure was adopted because Speaker Wright mentioned the desirability of a 30 percent pay raise during the debates over whether the quadrennial commission report should be accepted. I think most judges feel that the quadrennial salary commission's recommendation of 50 percent was entirely justified but we also accept the lessons of history and the 50 percent raise was voted down by Congress. an equitable figure. A: So we felt that 30 percent was Q: Who is going to sponsor the pay raise bill in Congress? Since we just authorized proceeding with this in our meeting yesterday, I don't think that has been determined. Q: Mr. Chief Justice, do you think the public would be more inclined to endorse a pay raise for federal judges if they were more familiar with what judges do? If there was television in the courtroom, for instance? A: Your questions are supposed to be confined to this general topic. Now I admit you've taken a very clever way of bringing in another subject. Perhaps they could be. Q: Do you think there should be cameras in the courtroom? A: Now you're not talking (about the pay raise). Now you're not even on the border; you've gone off the reservation. Q: Are the judges confident Congress is on their side on this? A: I don't think the judges feel that the chances of Congress passing it are necessarily guaranteed at all. But this is the body that represents some 900 federal judges and judicial officers and we feel we have a very very strong claim in equity and in justice to get this sort of treatment. And we felt we would be remiss in our obligations to these judges if we did not press it at the present time. We hope Congress will look favorably upon it. We hope the President will look favorably upon it. But even if they turn out not to, we feel we would've been remiss not having pressed it. 1789 14:38 US SUFFEME COURT P.8 Q: What is wrong with turnover in the judiciary? A: Well, it's given a different cast to the federal judiciary. The federal judiciary has not been thought of as a stepping stone to something else. It's kind of the place where you end, not an interim step that you take in pursuing a career in public office. And I think those who were acquainted with both the state judiciary of the kind that I've mentioned and the federal judiciary realize that it does make a difference. If you have judges who are there for a lifetime career, it gives you a different kind of judge, someone who is simply devoted to judging rather than always looking out of one corner of his eye for the next political opportunity that comes along. Q: Does this proposal apply to senior judges, does it address possible abuses of their status? A: This proposal is simply a very straight forward proposal for an increase in compensation. The senior judge situation has certainly been discussed by members of the conference and it's the feeling that the tools are in place to deal with any abuses of senior status. Each circuit council in the various circuits allocates space, allocates secretaries, allocates law clerks to senior judges on the basis of the work that they do. We don't feel that there's any necessity for legislation on that point. Q: Are you concerned about judges taking outside jobs or collecting honoraria as a way to supplement their income? A: To say that I'm concerned about it, would perhaps be the wrong way to put it. Many judges supplement their incomes by teaching in law schools; not a majority of judges at all. I regard that as a good thing, so long as it can be done consistently with the Canons of Ethics, which provide that judging comes first and no outside occupation can be undertaken which in any way interferes with a judge's ability to perform his work. I suppose that just as a matter of course, judges who have children to educate and are receiving a salary of $89,000 a year and who had thought they were going to get a raise, and felt their earning power had been greatly decreased maybe more of them will go into teaching now. But I certainly don't think that is the answer; that judging ought to be regarded as a job where you have to moonlight in order to make ends meet. Q: To reflect the comments of some of your critics, they say people in public service should derive satisfaction from their service and not be in it for the money. A: I agree completely that judges ought not to be in it for the money. And I know of no judge in the federal system that is in it for the money. They would have to be out of their minds! And Certainly judging is a public service. Everyone who takes on KF 17 '89 14:34 US SUPREME COUPT P.T judicial responsibilities knows that he or she is giving up more in the way of income (than they would earn) in the private sector. But unlike many other positions, judging requires someone to be a lawyer. To be a lawyer you have to not only have gone to undergraduate school, you have to have spent three years in law school. Lawyers are compensated. Many people feel that lawyers make too much money, but that is a fact of life so far as recruiting federal judges is concerned. Federal judges are recruited from people who are lawyers. And in order to get lawyers to come from jobs where they may be making $2000,000 to 300,000 a year, we're not saying offer them the same amount that they get in private practice. We're saying offer them enough so they will be able to educate their kids. A: Q: Do you think public sentiment supports a judicial pay raise? I've seen a number of newspaper editorials that have supported the idea of a pay raise for judges, in fact a pay raise across the board for all officials that were concerned with the quadrennial commission report. I've certainly gotten individual correspondence both pro and con. It's such a small amount I could not say it really represents public sentiment. Thank you very much. MEMORANDUM TO ALL: UNITED STATES JUDGES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATES At the direction of the Judicial Conference, its Executive Committee has approved the attached proposed pay increase bill. We hope that this or similar bills will be introduced, soon after Congress returns from the current Easter recess on April 4th, by key congressional leaders or members of the committees having jurisdiction over pay. Preliminary contacts with Congress reveal a diversity of positions. Some are opposed to any pay increase at this time. Others insist that Judicial and Congressional pay be linked. Some favor an increase solely for the Judiciary. Still others favor an Executive-Judicial increase. Since the Judicial Conference continues to support an increase for all three branches, we will work with all those who favor an acceptable bill. The purpose of the Judicial Conference bill is to get the pay process off "dead center" and secure a pay increase as soon as possible. We hope that President Bush and Congress will join with us in this vital effort. We understand that all judicial officer groups support the Conference bill. Therefore, judges and magistrates may wish to cooperate in addressing this issue. We shall advise you when bills are introduced. The important goal right now is to gain congressional support. Please let Bob Feidler of our Legislative Affairs Office know of any Malph L. Ralph Mecham Attachment cc: All Circuit Executives WASHINGTON, May 8- To all appearances, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist came as a supplicant to testify before the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee last week. The subject was judicial pay. The Chief Justice accepted the committee's invitation to make his case for the 30 percent raise that the Federal judiciary is seeking from Congress after being bitterly disappointed by the Congressional rejection three months ago of a proposed 51 percent increase. But it gradually became clear, in the two-hour hearing that the committee members persisted in calling "historic," that something else was going on. Chief Justice Rehnquist, who became the first sitting Chief Justice in memory to testify before a Congressional committee, was not the only one with his hat in his hand. He possesses something that the committee members want very much and evidently believe that on their own they can never achieve: credibility. Members of Congress are still reeling from the raise debacle of last February, Substantial increases for members of Congress, judges and senior executive branch officials that had looked like sure things a month earlier went down to a 380-to-48 defeat in a House of Representatives panicked by negative public reaction. Many members wanted their raises then and want them still. The question is what on earth to do now. The only answer on the horizon, apparently, is to run for cover behind the nearest Federal judge. Congress has traditionally paid the same salary, now $89,500 a year, to its own members and to Federal District Judges. That is why Chief Justice Rehnquist, whether he realized it or not, was much more than a supplicant last week. He was a potential lifeline. Since the defeat of the 51 percent raise, he has been remarkably assertive in pleading the judges' cause. He even invited television cameras into the Supreme Court for a news confer. ence in March at which he put for. ward the alternative 30 percent proposal. It was the first news conference any Supreme Court Justice ever held at the Court to announce any. thing other than his own retirement. The Chief Justice's approach is uncomplicated. Given the escalating earnings of top lawyers and the stag nant salaries of judges, he says, the prospects for recruiting and retaining the profession's finest for the Federal bench are growing dim. The need is critical, he told the committee. At stake is the quality of the Federal judiciary. Whether this message has a chance of swaying the public, members of the Rehnquist plea for a judicial raise helps Congress's drive for a rise in pay. House committee appeared to believe that it represents their best hope. "You give us credibility, sir, in a way that scarcely anyone else could do," said Representative William D. Ford of Michigan, the committee's chairman, who was one of the few who voted for the raise in February. In the two hours of questioning, a number of the committee members tried to secure Chief Justice Rehnquist's commitment to "coupling," the concept that judges' pay and Congressional pay should rise together and remain identical. "We have to stay coupled," Representative Gary L. Ackerman, a Queens Democrat, told him. "The problem is political." Wouldn't it be "demoralizing" to members of Congress and senior executive branch officials if judges alone got raises, asked Representative Constance A. Morella, a Maryland Republican. Through it all, Chief Justice Rehnquist was a supreme diplomat. "We hope that there will be pay raises across the board," he told Mrs. Morella. He never said the judges were uniquely deserving. But he also never endorsed the notion of coupling for coupling's sake. Throughout the hearing, committee members praised the Chief Justice for his "courage" in testifying. That word was puzzling: Given the friendly atmosphere and the comfort of life tenure, there did not appear to be anything particularly courageous in the visit. Perhaps the members were hoping that if they repeated the word "courage" often enough, some might rub off on them. Washington Talk col |