John Roberts' Ironic Argument

Chief Justice John Roberts has become the chief advocate for judicial pay increases.  Due to rising private-sector salaries, judges are too tempted to leave the bench.  This potential exodus, he contends, amounts to a constitutional crisis.  While I think this argument is ridiculous (no exodus has occurred, so his argument is empirically falsifiable), what is even sillier is this: John Roberts himself gave up a lucrative career in private practice to serve on the high court.  If the money is so tempting, why did he give it all up for yeoman's work at One First Street?

Could it be, as David Bernstein notes here, that people are willing to give up money for power and prestige almost beyond human comprehension?  No, that couldn't be it at all.

 

Comments

[Norm Pattis]

Is he saying only knuckleheads become judges?