My Photo

counts


« The Worst Chrismahkwanzakah Specials Ever? | Main | I Had the Answer for the Answer »

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Krissy

what an a**hole

Steve the LLamabutcher


Context. The point he's been making for a long time now (and Breyer, and Rehnquist and the rest) is do we want a high-quality federal bench or not? Insert your Clarence Thomas jokes if you'd like, but why exactly would someone want to leave private practice as a high-powered attorney with a giant pay cut, or big league law school tenure with a not as big pay cut but a cut nonetheless and subject themselves to the toxic appointment process we've developed?

If you say "civic virtue" I'm going to slap you silly with a dog-eared copy of the federalist papers....

DT

You need to be fair though, Scott.

Keep in mind that a goodly portion of the $165k Scalia took in this year was direct-deposited straight into Satan's checking account, as payment for the deal Scalia cut with him all those years ago.

That leaves Justice Scalia with barely enough scratch to buy brillcream and abridged versions of the 10 Commandments with those annoying ones he doesn't need (2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10) conveniently edited out.

Steve the LLamabutcher

10? I don't think Scalia covets anyone's ass...

scott

Context. The point he's been making for a long time now (and Breyer, and Rehnquist and the rest) is do we want a high-quality federal bench or not? Insert your Clarence Thomas jokes if you'd like

Thank you, but your tacit admission there that he is, in fact, an embarrassment to jurisprudence will do quite nicely, I think.

but why exactly would someone want to leave private practice as a high-powered attorney with a giant pay cut, or big league law school tenure with a not as big pay cut but a cut nonetheless and subject themselves to the toxic appointment process we've developed?

This process didn’t just pop up out thin air one day. If we really don’t like it, we could, if not get rid of it entirely, make it far less contentious. By appointing only qualified judges, for instance. [CF Clarence Thomas, Harriet Miers.] Also by making it clear to our elected officials that we'd prefer a more civil (and thorough) discussion.

If you say "civic virtue" I'm going to slap you silly with a dog-eared copy of the federalist papers....

If you can reach as far as sunny southern California, you’re welcome to, although I’d prefer if you’d do it as you join me at the quite fine microbrewery that’s a few blocks away. Mmm….beer…

Let me see how I can put this…ah! I know. Simply and directly: you bet your tuchus I want a judge who’s willing to sacrifice something to have such a wonderful and important—and difficult—job.

I want a judge who realizes that being on a state supreme court, much less the Supreme Court of the United States of America, is one hell of an honor and the most important thing he or she will ever do professionally, and that it’s worth turning down some or even a whole lot o’ cabbage for, especially given that they’re not exactly on welfare in return: they’re merely in the top, say, 2% of Americans, rather than the top .5% of Americans, financially.

I want my teachers to be well-paid, far more generously compensated than they are now. But I don’t want a bunch of mercenaries who are doing it just because it pays, say, 150k a year. I want my kid’s doctor to be very well-paid, but I also want him to be a doctor because he loves it and not just because it makes him rich.

There’s also the sidenote discussion that some folks think Supreme Court justices are already too far removed from everyday life, and that the quality of their decisions, based as they are entirely on theory with no knowledge or acknowledgment of actual reality, a theory flawed for coming entire from within a hermetically-sealed bubble, is lacking. Paying them NBA money will do nothing to alleviate this problem, if it indeed exists. And I’m not sure it does—and I’m not sure that, even if it does, it’s a drawback, actually, rather than a benefit—but it’s something else to consider.

I've never known anyone who was truly great at their job who didn’t also love it. And that’s triply-important for the highest court in the land. If the only way to score a certain individual is by offering him a million bucks to sit on the Supreme Court? Said individual can kiss my ass.

Of course, Clarence Thomas probably loves his job too. I never said loving it was the only criteria.

DT

“Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” - Theodore Roosevelt, 1898

The comments to this entry are closed.