Burning Petard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:16 pm
So what is a 'senior judge'? I seem to remember S D O'Connor doing some judicial work with official standing and results after she retired. Now we have another 'retired' SC justice. What happens to their pay in this situation? Do we now have eleven justices on the payroll? (maybe more. I have lost track of how many Justices have retired and if they have since died) According to wikipedia O'Connor is still receiving the same pay as a full time acting SC Justice, even though she is probably mentally incompetent to even supervise her own activities.
Because Article III judges and justices are constitutionally appointed for life, they get a salary as long as they serve. The only economic incentive for retirement is continuation of remuneration. Justices who retire under Section 371(a) no longer "hold office" or perform any (even nominal) judicial function, so technically they do not receive a salary (pay for services) but instead get an annuity equivalent to salary. Those who retire under 371(b) still serve in senior status, although with significantly reduced obligations, and therefore still hold office, so they continue on salary as long as they remain in senior service.
Big RR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 12:57 pm
One thing I do not know is whether senior status can be forced upon a federal judge (I think many states permit this based on age or the recommendation of the chief judge or a committee). Perhaps Sue knows.
As the statute currently reads, assuming senior status for federal judges is entirely voluntary. Most states, like ours, have a mandatory retirement age for their judges. Here in NJ, retired judges can continue to serve on "recall" status, which is helpful since we have a chronic shortage of trial court judges as well as funding for those positions. Since retired judges in NJ get 3/4 of their salary as a retirement benefit, having them fill otherwise vacant spots saves the state money even if they are brought back up to full salary on recall.
MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 8:08 pm
Of course it's political. All of the term limit plans involve giving every president at least 2 appointments in four years or encourage the appointment of younger and younger judges (to defer the mandatory retirement age). In either case, justices will be perceived to be playing to the gallery as their departure gets closer - attempting to curry favor with administrations to get a better job. Politicizing SCOTUS is aided and abetted by limitations on the length of term in office. The justices will be more beholden to party than they are now.
That is simply not true. All federal judicial terms are limited -- currently by death or debilitating infirmity --so the incentive is always to appoint younger judicial officers (the most recent Supreme Court appointments -- Jackson, Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh -- are all still in their 50s; Thomas was 43 when appointed). And because federal judicial salary (or equivalent) is for life, there is no "better job" to which any justice is likely to move on as a political appointee after, say, age 70 or 75. Even if there were, "playing to the gallery" in judicial opinions would be wholly unnecessary as the prestige of simply having been a Supreme Court justice (or other federal judge) is more than enough to secure any position a retiree might want (Breyer is joining the faculty at Harvard, for what that's worth).
MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 8:08 pm
Why no comment on
Booth which proponents trumpet as showing the SCOTUS itself agrees that senior status = still in office, although you brought it up indirectly as a supporting argument? I'd accept "because I'm a real lawyer and don't want to waste time arguing a case with ignorant amateurs"
Frankly, it's because I haven't read it and don't think I should argue things I don't know anything about.
I will take a look when I have a chance, but right now I am in the middle of a fight with a state agency, which is sucking up all my case-reading time.