4 ms·

The salary for justices is under $300,000 a year. There is no promotion path, and it's intended to be a lifetime appointment. Corporate law firm partners routin

The salary for justices is under $300,000 a year. There is no promotion path, and it's intended to be a lifetime appointment. Corporate law firm partners routinely make well into 7 figures.That is an invitation to corruption, they are some of the most powerful people in the United States. This isn't meant to excuse unethical behavior or corruption, but it should be addressed at the same time as enforcement.

alistairSH 3y ago
While I understand what you're saying, I disagree with the premise. A Justice doesn't have to be a Justice. They could stay on a lower court, or in corporate law, or wherever they were prior to being elevated to the bench. They could also retire and take a corporate job, just as many members of Congress and the Executive do (which is likely a different flavor of corruption, but another discussion). Point being, there is no need for a Justice to be corrupt for financial reason - $300k is objectively a lot of money in 2023 and they can always quit and go elsewhere. We don't make the same argument for the President or Congress. We expect them to happily take their reasonable but not lavish salary (and then go do a book tour or whatever afterwards).
- cronix 3y ago
  > We don't make the same argument for the President or Congress We allow them (congress) to trade stocks with knowledge from their privileged positions that no one else has. A lot of them walk out millionaires, before any book deals or speaking fees.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Yes, but they do report those transactions. It's unsavory, no question, but mostly above-board. Thomas willingly hiding payments from a billionaire who had business before the court is a whole different level.
    - cronix 3y ago
      > Yes, but they do report those transactions. You mean they're supposed to report the trades within 45 days. Not all do, and not all have gotten in trouble for violating the STOCK Act. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039287987/outside-ethics-group-says-7-house-lawmakers-didnt-disclose-stock-trades https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039287987/outside-ethics-gro...
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > A lot of them walk out millionaires, before any book deals or speaking fees. With $174,000 base pay, decent benefits, and frequently leaving with several decades of service, it’s not that hard to leave with a $1 million+ net worth without corruption. (And that’s even before considering how many members enter as millionaires.) To be clear, I’m not saying that there isn’t abuse of privilege and corruption in Congress, but “a lot of them walk out as millionaires” is…well, what you’d expect without any corruption at all.
    - cronix 3y ago
      $174k...how much of that is left after taxes and paying for a second residence in one of the most expensive cities, Washington DC? $174k really isn't that much in 2023. They'd be lucky to clear $100k after taxes and housing and that's before including other living expenses. > (And that’s even before considering how many members enter as millionaires.) I wasn't including them as it seems obvious millionaire in/millionaire out, but could have been more clear.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > $174k really isn’t that much in 2023. To the extent that $174k/year individual income isn’t “that much” in 2023, neither is $1 million net worth. (They are both close to 95th percentile.)
monetus 3y ago
Making them wealthy enough to scoff at any bribe seems like it would require obscene amounts of wealth, like 10+ figures - just my opinion.
- krapp 3y ago
  The premise that great personal wealth is somehow a bulwark against corruption and influence is... specious at best.
  - monetus 3y ago
    I agree.
lapcat 3y ago
> That is an invitation to corruption It's not, because every nominee knows those facts going in. If someone wants to cash in for big money, they shouldn't volunteer for this job.
inkcapmushroom 3y ago
What's the amount of money we can pay them to not be corrupt?
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  Judging from how little it takes for a pharma rep to entice a doctor to prescribe their product, there might not be an amount that can prevent the temptation of corruption. Getting something for free can still be enticing to the wealthy, especially if they think they're getting away with something. Probably pushes some buttons that aren't really related to wealth, at least not directly.
- csomar 3y ago
  The amount is largely enough for a family of 5 with only one partner working, relative to where they live (DC in this case). I think $250K-$300 + Housing + Transport (I suppose for their safety?) is largely enough. After that it's up to the person in question...
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I don't think increasing pay would reduce corruption. A corrupt person is a corrupt person regardless. If you paid a corrupt justice a million dollars a year, why would they not decide to make it 5 million on the side?
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      > A corrupt person is a corrupt person regardless. Could not disagree more.
dfxm12 3y ago
This implies that law firm partners and other lavishly rich people are immune (or less likely to fall) to corruption, which is very obviously not true.
burkaman 3y ago
Justices have many avenues for non-controversial extra income, like speaking engagements, books, and teaching appointments. All of them take advantage of these, and all or nearly all of them are millionaires as a result. This generally receives little pushback as long as it is disclosed, and there is much less potential for corruption than secretly receiving "gifts" from political activists.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

alistairSH 3y ago

While I understand what you're saying, I disagree with the premise. A Justice doesn't have to be a Justice. They could stay on a lower court, or in corporate law, or wherever they were prior to being elevated to the bench. They could also retire and take a corporate job, just as many members of Congress and the Executive do (which is likely a different flavor of corruption, but another discussion). Point being, there is no need for a Justice to be corrupt for financial reason - $300k is objectively a lot of money in 2023 and they can always quit and go elsewhere. We don't make the same argument for the President or Congress. We expect them to happily take their reasonable but not lavish salary (and then go do a book tour or whatever afterwards).

cronix 3y ago
> We don't make the same argument for the President or Congress We allow them (congress) to trade stocks with knowledge from their privileged positions that no one else has. A lot of them walk out millionaires, before any book deals or speaking fees.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Yes, but they do report those transactions. It's unsavory, no question, but mostly above-board. Thomas willingly hiding payments from a billionaire who had business before the court is a whole different level.
  - cronix 3y ago
    > Yes, but they do report those transactions. You mean they're supposed to report the trades within 45 days. Not all do, and not all have gotten in trouble for violating the STOCK Act. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039287987/outside-ethics-group-says-7-house-lawmakers-didnt-disclose-stock-trades https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039287987/outside-ethics-gro...
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > A lot of them walk out millionaires, before any book deals or speaking fees. With $174,000 base pay, decent benefits, and frequently leaving with several decades of service, it’s not that hard to leave with a $1 million+ net worth without corruption. (And that’s even before considering how many members enter as millionaires.) To be clear, I’m not saying that there isn’t abuse of privilege and corruption in Congress, but “a lot of them walk out as millionaires” is…well, what you’d expect without any corruption at all.
  - cronix 3y ago
    $174k...how much of that is left after taxes and paying for a second residence in one of the most expensive cities, Washington DC? $174k really isn't that much in 2023. They'd be lucky to clear $100k after taxes and housing and that's before including other living expenses. > (And that’s even before considering how many members enter as millionaires.) I wasn't including them as it seems obvious millionaire in/millionaire out, but could have been more clear.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > $174k really isn’t that much in 2023. To the extent that $174k/year individual income isn’t “that much” in 2023, neither is $1 million net worth. (They are both close to 95th percentile.)

monetus 3y ago

Making them wealthy enough to scoff at any bribe seems like it would require obscene amounts of wealth, like 10+ figures - just my opinion.

krapp 3y ago
The premise that great personal wealth is somehow a bulwark against corruption and influence is... specious at best.
- monetus 3y ago
  I agree.

lapcat 3y ago

> That is an invitation to corruption It's not, because every nominee knows those facts going in. If someone wants to cash in for big money, they shouldn't volunteer for this job.

inkcapmushroom 3y ago

What's the amount of money we can pay them to not be corrupt?

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Judging from how little it takes for a pharma rep to entice a doctor to prescribe their product, there might not be an amount that can prevent the temptation of corruption. Getting something for free can still be enticing to the wealthy, especially if they think they're getting away with something. Probably pushes some buttons that aren't really related to wealth, at least not directly.
csomar 3y ago
The amount is largely enough for a family of 5 with only one partner working, relative to where they live (DC in this case). I think $250K-$300 + Housing + Transport (I suppose for their safety?) is largely enough. After that it's up to the person in question...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I don't think increasing pay would reduce corruption. A corrupt person is a corrupt person regardless. If you paid a corrupt justice a million dollars a year, why would they not decide to make it 5 million on the side?
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    > A corrupt person is a corrupt person regardless. Could not disagree more.

dfxm12 3y ago

This implies that law firm partners and other lavishly rich people are immune (or less likely to fall) to corruption, which is very obviously not true.

burkaman 3y ago

Justices have many avenues for non-controversial extra income, like speaking engagements, books, and teaching appointments. All of them take advantage of these, and all or nearly all of them are millionaires as a result. This generally receives little pushback as long as it is disclosed, and there is much less potential for corruption than secretly receiving "gifts" from political activists.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]