I am skeptical that increases in federal judge pay is lagging the pay of other federal workers, though I could be wrong (and thus your suggestion might solve the problem). Note that, in my original post, I showed that federal judges are actually doing better, in terms of real pay increases, than prototypical law partners 25-29 years into practice. That is a pretty good reference good.

But I definitely could be wrong that federal workers are doing better than judges. It it unclear to me whether that would address the Chief Judge’s concerns. bh.

The current pay of federal judges could easily produce asymptotic levels of jurist abilities. If that this true, then higher judicial pay would have zero marginal benefit to the public–though the sitting judges would be happier. Further, realistically quantifying “good” versus “better” judges may be an insurmountable technical issue.

So we may be back, in the end, to our own prejudices and intuitions. That is why this is such a devilish issue.

In my mind, the truth of that assertion seems indisputable (upward sloping supply curves and all) though you are certainly right that reasonable minds can disagree over whether the quality of the current stock of judges. As I write in the post, I think answering the “what would happen if” question turns on understanding how the composition of possible candidates might change in response to such a pay increase. I do think that is an interesting question, but don’t think we have data that helps answer that question.

To Keith Sharfman, at least for the last two decades, federal judges have handily beat inflation, though the incomes of many lawyers have not. The Chief Justice is asking for a substantial real pay increase on par with elite private sector practitioners.

To Josh, with all due respect, the “independence” question is a red herring. After an FBI investigation and congressional hearings, we have vetted some pretty sound jurists. If they were interested in maximizing their income, they never would have accepted the nomination. The burden is on the Chief Justice to spell out the mechanism by which “independence” will be compromised, and I don’t think he can articulate one that does not insult every sitting federal judge.

Only the “strength” question has any (plausible) traction. That is a difficult empirical case to make, though I readily concede that reasonable minds can definitely disagree on the pay gap’s putative effects. bh.

Bob, of course, it is also true that judges face non-pecuniary costs that those in private practice are less likely to face as well. In any event, the question is not whether they should make as much as judges. The question is whether we should be worried that the size of the gap in pay threatens judiciary independence. I don’t claim to know the answer to that question, nor the size of the gap that would trigger such a threat if any.