At Court of Appeals, dumb meets arrogant (updated)

As Jimmy Vielkind headlines the TU blog link to today's Court of Appeals ruling, "Judges rule judges should get raise."

The decision denounces the governor and Legislature for failing to give judges as high a salary as judges would like: "... they are treating judicial compensation ... as if it were merely another government program appropriation as opposed to compensation for members of a co-equal branch." Translation: We're the special interest you can't mess with.

"Judges," the ruling whines, "no longer earn salaries that are appropriate given the significance of their position in our tri-partite form of government and the role they play in ensuring the rights of all members of society." Translation: Our rights come first. Suggested slogan: This inappropriateness shall not stand.

Update/clarification: Here's Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's pithy take (in full):

"Today’s decision by the Court of Appeals regarding judicial pay recognizes that the Legislature retains the constitutional and statutory power to determine judicial compensation. Further, the decision does not mandate any action by the Legislature at this time.
"I have said in the past and I continue to believe that judicial salaries in New York State should be increased. The Assembly will consider this matter when economic conditions improve."

 

Comments

[Brian]

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=903416

A TU piece yesterday (above) pointed out that Judith Kaye is now making $570 an hour investigating problems at the SUNY Binghamton athletic program... which means she's earning as much in about 2 months as she would've made in the whole year had she been able to stay a judge. It's dumb to give themselves raises but you might get a little pissy if you didn't get a raise for 15 years in a row.

And one commenter to the piece you linked to wrote: "You should read the ruling. You’ve got it totally incorrect. It does not say the failure to provide judicial pay raises is unconstitutional. It only says the manner of consideration by the Legislature (not the Governor), in linking judicial pay raises to legislative pay raises is unconstitutional. it also dismisses claims against the governor as not being material."

[Brian]

Oops, I meant $520 an hour.;

[Brian]

Isn't it funny (pathetic) how often it happens in Albany that all the major players "agree" on something for years on end but nothing ever happens?

[Bob Conner]

Indeed, and they can all slightly plausibly claim, as with current ethics brouhaha, to be stalwart supporters of reform. BTW, your prior comment on this thread made good point, that despite all the tendentious language the COA did not actually order a remedy, as Shelly pointed out in his release (and his last sentence is a beaut). So it could have been worse. But I've never been persuaded by the Albany consensus that it's desperately important to give judges a raise.

[Brian]

Personally, I don't think it's right to make any employee go 16 years without a raise.

Though obviously the Albany consensus is not that it's DESPERATELY important or else it would've been done a long time ago.