A fly in the ointment regarding youthful judicial appointments

This one is just the most recent example.

There are many more, appointed both by Republicans and Democrats.

Bottom line, Federal Judicial Pay, high as it may seem to the average Joe Sixpack American, is, by legal standards, a pittance.

Federal Judicial salaries for 2023:

District Judge - $232,600
Circuit Judge - $246,600
Associate Justice - $285,400
Chief Justice - $298,500

A first year associate in Big Law can potentially pull down a $300,000 salary.

The good life cannot be had on the pitiful salary of a federal judge.

Thus, young appointees are in severe danger of quitting and returning to Big Law.

Which is actually a good thing in my book.

I would amend the Constitution to prohibit appointment to the Federal bench unless a person has attained to 50 years of age. This movement by BOTH parties to put 30 something year olds on the Federal bench is just ■■■■■■■ insane.

A federal judgeship should be the capstone of a successful career, not a stepping stone along the way.

Nothing screams out of touch with society than a “pittance” of a few hundred thousand dollars. :rofl:


Whatever you may think, it is a pittance nonetheless.

Well of course. I’m from the real world. :wink:


By staying in the private sector until they are past 50, they will have made their fortune and can live their desired lifestyle regardless of Federal pay.

1 Like

I grew up in the lower class of society. I made the conscious choice not to stay in that condition.

But the realities of legal pay are what they are.

1 Like

Didn’t mean to touch any silver spoon-fed trigger buttons, just stating facts from down here in the real world where people do actual work to survive. :wink:


Boy that 232,000 per year sounds awfully nice to my lower middle class (at best) ass.



Would it sound so good if you have a Harvard, Yale or Columbia pedigree, a Federal judicial clerkship under your belt and the potential to make $500,000 or more in a few years in Big Law???

That is the issue.

Obviously to a person from the working class it sounds good. To somebody from the Big Law legal class, it probably doesn’t sound too good.

I paid off my mortgage and two vehicles by the age of 40, with about third of what some silver-spoon citizens call a “pittance”. Some high school dropouts make better decisions than beautiful people like that. :sunglasses:


Again, you are looking at it from YOUR point of view.

Which obviously NOT the point of view of everybody considering the matter.

1 Like

But going back to the OP.

It is a good thing if it gets excessively young people OUT of the judiciary.

We definitely don’t want any poor undernourished judges only making a few hundred thousand dollars on the judiciary to leave for greener pastures. There should be a minimum age. :rofl:

Which is the point.

50 year minimum.

They have made their fortune in the private sector by that time. They are likely to stay put after that. :smile:

Really? Extravagance and luxury are not the same thing as “good.”


Nonetheless, they are government employees. Their salaries should not be compared to the private sector.

Oddly enough, usually when people complain about the disparity between private sector and public sector wages, it’s about the government wage being too high. I find it somewhat amusing that some people are feeling bad for these very well paid public servants. :wink:


The point is, Federal Judicial pay doesn’t add up to private sector pay.

That is the point.

I don’t feel that way at all and that is not the point I am making.

Nor am I IN THE SLIGHTEST insinuating Judicial pay should be increased.

And as the op article notes, they are perfectly free to work elsewhere if they think they are underpaid. In fact, they are free to decline the job in the first place.