Low pay threatens judiciary, Roberts warns
POSTED: 2:31 p.m. EST, January 1, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence, Chief Justice John Roberts says in a year-end report critical of Congress.

Roberts said the judiciary will not properly serve its constitutional role if it is restricted to people so wealthy that they can afford to be indifferent to the level of judicial compensation, or to people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase.

Issuing an eight-page message devoted exclusively to salaries, Roberts says the 678 full-time U.S. District Court judges, the backbone of the federal judiciary, are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools.

In the 1950s, 65 percent of U.S. District Court judges came from the practicing bar and 35 percent came from the public sector. Today the situation is reversed, Roberts said, with 60 percent from the public sector and less than 40 percent from private practice.

Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100.

Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.

The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."

"Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence judges need to uphold the rule of law -- even when it is unpopular to do so -- will be seriously eroded," Roberts wrote.

Legislation languished in Congress in 2006 that would have provided a 16 percent increase in federal judges' salaries. The bill was introduced by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Leahy, incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Roberts "is right that the issue of judicial compensation relations to the issue of the independence of the judiciary." Leahy said the chief justice "has tackled a touchy but timely topic that has been a chronic sticking point between the judicial and legislative branches."

Over the past 16 years, Congress has provided the judiciary occasional cost-of-living adjustments, but Roberts said the absence of salary increases is "grievously unfair."

Leahy pledged "to do what I can to convince Congress to fairly evaluate this issue and the chief's arguments so that we can see what solutions may be possible."

It is the first time in the two-decade history of year-end reports by Roberts and his predecessor, the late William Rehnquist, that the chief justice's message has focused entirely on a single subject.

There are "very good judges" in both of those categories, said Roberts, but a judiciary drawn more and more from only those categories "would not be the sort of judiciary on which we have historically depended to protect the rule of law in this country."

"It changes the nature of the federal judiciary when judges are no longer drawn primarily from among the best lawyers in the practicing bar," Roberts wrote.

The number of cases filed in the Supreme Court increased for the court's 2005 term, according to an appendix to the report. Supreme Court case filings rose by more than 1,000 to 8,521 from the previous term. Appeals court filings dropped by 3 percent to 66,618 in 2006 compared with 2005.

In federal district courts, the number of criminal cases filed in 2006 declined by 4 percent to 66,860 cases and 88,216 defendants, due to changing priorities directing more resources to combating terrorism.

The civil caseload rose 2 percent to 259,541.

Excluding a jump in asbestos-related cases which totaled 18,179, the civil caseload fell by 4 percent.

like $165,200 per year isnt "enough" money LOL ..
i guess its a tough job though .. :sailing:

like $165,200 per year isnt "enough" money LOL ..
i guess its a tough job though .. :sailing:

When I reading his judgement I thought I was reading a page from Lyon's rulings. Interesting indeed the similarities..

Low pay threatens judiciary, Roberts warns
POSTED: 2:31 p.m. EST, January 1, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence, Chief Justice John Roberts says in a year-end report critical of Congress.
Roberts said the judiciary will not properly serve its constitutional role if it is restricted to people so wealthy that they can afford to be indifferent to the level of judicial compensation, or to people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase.
Issuing an eight-page message devoted exclusively to salaries, Roberts says the 678 full-time U.S. District Court judges, the backbone of the federal judiciary, are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools.
In the 1950s, 65 percent of U.S. District Court judges came from the practicing bar and 35 percent came from the public sector. Today the situation is reversed, Roberts said, with 60 percent from the public sector and less than 40 percent from private practice.
Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100.
Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.
The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."
"Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence judges need to uphold the rule of law -- even when it is unpopular to do so -- will be seriously eroded," Roberts wrote.
Legislation languished in Congress in 2006 that would have provided a 16 percent increase in federal judges' salaries. The bill was introduced by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Leahy, incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Roberts "is right that the issue of judicial compensation relations to the issue of the independence of the judiciary." Leahy said the chief justice "has tackled a touchy but timely topic that has been a chronic sticking point between the judicial and legislative branches."
Over the past 16 years, Congress has provided the judiciary occasional cost-of-living adjustments, but Roberts said the absence of salary increases is "grievously unfair."
Leahy pledged "to do what I can to convince Congress to fairly evaluate this issue and the chief's arguments so that we can see what solutions may be possible."
It is the first time in the two-decade history of year-end reports by Roberts and his predecessor, the late William Rehnquist, that the chief justice's message has focused entirely on a single subject.
There are "very good judges" in both of those categories, said Roberts, but a judiciary drawn more and more from only those categories "would not be the sort of judiciary on which we have historically depended to protect the rule of law in this country."
"It changes the nature of the federal judiciary when judges are no longer drawn primarily from among the best lawyers in the practicing bar," Roberts wrote.
The number of cases filed in the Supreme Court increased for the court's 2005 term, according to an appendix to the report. Supreme Court case filings rose by more than 1,000 to 8,521 from the previous term. Appeals court filings dropped by 3 percent to 66,618 in 2006 compared with 2005.
In federal district courts, the number of criminal cases filed in 2006 declined by 4 percent to 66,860 cases and 88,216 defendants, due to changing priorities directing more resources to combating terrorism.
The civil caseload rose 2 percent to 259,541.
Excluding a jump in asbestos-related cases which totaled 18,179, the civil caseload fell by 4 percent.

It looks like Justice Lyons is not the only looney toon...:sarcastic

When I reading his judgement I thought I was reading a page from Lyon's rulings. Interesting indeed the similarities..

Yep. Very similar indeed...

When I reading his judgement I thought I was reading a page from Lyon's rulings. Interesting indeed the similarities..


The rulings are extremely similar. I wonder if Judge Roberts observed the case regarding Lyons and our Judiciary. I also wonder if the resulting crisis led him to phrase his ruling differently "Pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence" versus Justice Lyon's language which basically stated that The Judiciary could not be independent. If he did not observe our crisis then perhaps he was just more thoughtful and responsible in his pronouncements than Justice Lyons.

Two things with that.

1. You can not compare the US federal court system, with the Bahamian court system

2. We have not gotten any fair prosecutions in this town for years. At least the US federal court system finds you guilty or not guilty in fair time. We don't find you anything at any time.

There are no similarities aside from the fact that they may have said similar words. That does NOT mean that the situations are the same.

I still can not believe that you are still willing to give Lyons a fairer shake on this deal, when legit murderers are not even in lieu of prosecution in this town.

Naitonbuilder just quit it. With that, Lyons is no Roberts!
:hammer:

Lyons and Roberts- what's different?

Why is it wrong for a Justice of the Supreme Court of The Bahamas to say that judicial independence is threatened because the salaries for judges have not been increased in a timely fashion and not wrong for the Chief Justice of the United States of America to say exactly the same thing about pay for federal judges in that country?

There should be no difference because they are both riding the same horse, albeit in different races. The notable exception there is the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts is home in America, where the citizens clearly understand and accept the separation of powers in Government. The Chief Justice is safe and does not have to fear any political backlash or that he might be ostracized by the American public.

On the other hand, however, Justice John Lyons is a white foreigner from Australia working in The Bahamas and what he says — if uncomplimentary to the Government — is scrutinized through racially biased eyes. In short, the foreigner would be seen to be meddling in the country's political affairs and would have to go. The message is not weighed for its content but is peremptorily dismissed because it has the wrong messenger.

In a year-end report issued on Sunday Chief Justice Roberts said the failure to raise judicial pay has "now reached the level of a constitutional crisis and threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary."

Does that sound familiar? It should.

In November last year Justice Lyons accused the Government of The Bahamas (the Cabinet) of breaking the law by failing to appoint a commission to review the salaries of judges. He said as a result the independence of the judicial system had been undermined, which caused a furor that is yet to be settled.

"By ignoring the law, Cabinet has moved to an impossible position. There is no polite way to express this other than that the law of the land has been broken... by doing so the Cabinet has shown a manifest disregard for the rule of law. What is of great concern is that the law that has been broken (not just once, but twice the second time on notice with timely advice of a solution), is the very law designed specifically to protect against the undermining of the independence of the judiciary, he said.

The Government has lodged an appeal against the allegations by Justice Lyons but that accomplishes nothing if in the meantime and at the end of the day the people feel that they have been shortchanged and hold as suspect every judicial ruling. Court of Appeal President Dame Joan Sawyer said Wednesday that if citizens lose faith in the judiciary's independence, vigilante justice will prevail and no one will be safe.

Dame Sawyer noted that there is now evidence of vigilante justice being exercised in this country. This clearly has to be guarded against as everyone has the right to be safe. The Government has a duty to ensure that every citizen, every resident and every visitor to these shores is reasonably secure and will come to no harm. And that is not so much by saying that there is no crisis but by doing everything possible to ensure that there is none.

Nassau Guardian editorial. January 5th 2007

The big difference is that:
The US federal court system and their supreme court system, works somewhat efficiently.
Our court system is a joke....to say the very least.

US standard of living, is fairly decent for judges...100,000.00 in the best country in the world, is not chump change. Whatever we get, is too much for the to do nothing.

I have to ask you this. Since Lyons is so overowrked. How come this is the first time most Bahamians ever heard of him!?!?
We know Osadebay and Sawyer....some people never even heard of this cat, untl very recently. If this was any other judge but him, we would take what he has to say with TWO grains of salt. Knowing full well our judiciary is slow and non-responsive.

What Lyons is saying that he would turn to corruption, if he does not get paid. That is a dangerous statement and he should be examined.

Lyons and Roberts- what's different?
Why is it wrong for a Justice of the Supreme Court of The Bahamas to say that judicial independence is threatened because the salaries for judges have not been increased in a timely fashion and not wrong for the Chief Justice of the United States of America to say exactly the same thing about pay for federal judges in that country?
There should be no difference because they are both riding the same horse, albeit in different races. The notable exception there is the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts is home in America, where the citizens clearly understand and accept the separation of powers in Government. The Chief Justice is safe and does not have to fear any political backlash or that he might be ostracized by the American public.
On the other hand, however, Justice John Lyons is a white foreigner from Australia working in The Bahamas and what he says — if uncomplimentary to the Government — is scrutinized through racially biased eyes. In short, the foreigner would be seen to be meddling in the country's political affairs and would have to go. The message is not weighed for its content but is peremptorily dismissed because it has the wrong messenger.
In a year-end report issued on Sunday Chief Justice Roberts said the failure to raise judicial pay has "now reached the level of a constitutional crisis and threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary."
Does that sound familiar? It should.
In November last year Justice Lyons accused the Government of The Bahamas (the Cabinet) of breaking the law by failing to appoint a commission to review the salaries of judges. He said as a result the independence of the judicial system had been undermined, which caused a furor that is yet to be settled.
"By ignoring the law, Cabinet has moved to an impossible position. There is no polite way to express this other than that the law of the land has been broken... by doing so the Cabinet has shown a manifest disregard for the rule of law. What is of great concern is that the law that has been broken (not just once, but twice the second time on notice with timely advice of a solution), is the very law designed specifically to protect against the undermining of the independence of the judiciary, he said.
The Government has lodged an appeal against the allegations by Justice Lyons but that accomplishes nothing if in the meantime and at the end of the day the people feel that they have been shortchanged and hold as suspect every judicial ruling. Court of Appeal President Dame Joan Sawyer said Wednesday that if citizens lose faith in the judiciary's independence, vigilante justice will prevail and no one will be safe.
Dame Sawyer noted that there is now evidence of vigilante justice being exercised in this country. This clearly has to be guarded against as everyone has the right to be safe. The Government has a duty to ensure that every citizen, every resident and every visitor to these shores is reasonably secure and will come to no harm. And that is not so much by saying that there is no crisis but by doing everything possible to ensure that there is none.
Nassau Guardian editorial. January 5th 2007


The "Different" is that Roberts had the good sense to say that The Judiciary's independence was threatened. Stupid Justice Lyons said that The Judiciary "could not be independent". Those are similar sounding statements but the simple difference in wording means that they are worlds apart. Justice Roberts (who I don't particularly like but he is changing that) displayed responsible and prudent judgement when he made his ruling, Justice Lyons displayed recklessness in making a ruling which has created a crisis in The Judiciary of The Bahamas. The fact that you continue to trumpet this even after I have explained that proves that you are either unable or unwilling to grasp simple nuances in the English language.

Another question which must be asked is how is it that Justice Lyons is able to make a ruling which he will claim is independent, in which he states that The Judiciary cannot be independent.

If he is independent then the rest of The Judiciary must also be considered to be so.

If the rest of The Judiciary is not independent then neither is he and his ruling must be thrown out.

Unless you are willing to concede that Justice Lyons is somehow less susceptible to outside influence than the rest of our Judiciary his ruling cannot stand up to scrutiny. His ruling sounds similar to the Roberts ruling but is fundamentally different.

Justice Roberts (who I don't particularly like but he is changing that)
What don't you particularly like about him??? and what is changing your opinion of him?

Just curious is all

What don't you particularly like about him??? and what is changing your opinion of him?
Just curious is all


I felt that he was too conservative to be Chief Justice. Also the situation in 2000 with the Florida recount led me to be unfairly (maybe) critical of appointees of Bush, Bush and Reagan.

Since then he has made some rulings that have been less conservative than I would have expected from him. Even this address shows a thoughtfulness that I wish had been displayed by that idiot Lyons.

Two things with that.
1. You can not compare the US federal court system, with the Bahamian court system
2. We have not gotten any fair prosecutions in this town for years. At least the US federal court system finds you guilty or not guilty in fair time. We don't find you anything at any time.
There are no similarities aside from the fact that they may have said similar words. That does NOT mean that the situations are the same.
I still can not believe that you are still willing to give Lyons a fairer shake on this deal, when legit murderers are not even in lieu of prosecution in this town.
Naitonbuilder just quit it. With that, Lyons is no Roberts!
:hammer:

I think your beef about prosecutions should be directed at the AG's office since they are the ones charged with the responsibilty of preparing and prosecuting cases as stated by Dame Joan Sawyer. Judges do not try cases. I think that rapists and murderes are out on bail, etc. due to scew ups with the AG...they need to pay presecutors better to attract better prosecutors.

I think your beef about prosecutions should be directed at the AG's office since they are the ones charged with the responsibilty of preparing and prosecuting cases as stated by Dame Joan Sawyer. Judges do not try cases. I think that rapists and murderes are out on bail, etc. due to scew ups with the AG...they need to pay presecutors better to attract better prosecutors.


My thing is, the entire system is broken. Put some of these things on fast track, which the AG HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO!!!
:gi:
LYONS JUST WOULD NOT SHUT HIS FAT STUPID MOUTH!

Lyons and Roberts- what's different?
Why is it wrong for a Justice of the Supreme Court of The Bahamas to say that judicial independence is threatened because the salaries for judges have not been increased in a timely fashion and not wrong for the Chief Justice of the United States of America to say exactly the same thing about pay for federal judges in that country?

What I want to know is whether Roberts is on a one man strike like Justice Lyons...or is he still hearing cases...
Perhaps that is the difference?