Everybody thinks that what they do is just about the most important thing to be done and they should be getting more for it. And that goes double for pampered elites. But Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith Kaye's lawsuit over judicial pay seems ill-advised for several reasons.
Substantively -- they're upset about salaries topping $136,000? Are they kidding? Do they know what it's like out here for a lot of people who work just as hard as they do, for much less? They don't sound like they've got a problem to anyone but themselves. They're in a top-10-percent income bracket.
Legally -- the judge likely to hear the case, who probably shouldn't hear it because he'll benefit from the outcome, has already frowned on similar claims made in a suit filed by city judges. And the argument that judges have a constitutional right to force the people to give them cost of living increases seems like... a bit of a reach.
At least in common parlance, "diminish" means reduce, it doesn't mean fail to increase. And not paying the judiciary what it wants doesn't really compromise its independence unless there's evidence it is punitive for some decision or set of decisions.
Economically -- We are told that they haven't had a raise in ten years. But lots of people are unhappy with their pay. If it's so bad, why don't they do what everyone else does -- quit and find something that pays better?
If they're all so much more valuable than what they're getting paid, it should be easy, shouldn't it?