Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[20]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[20]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-20 14:06:35.649
	1	+2016-11-20 14:06:35.0

Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,45 @@
	1	+====Judicial branch salaries are set to increase now ====
	2	+**House 14**
	3	+~~William. Political Reporter for the National Journal. "Court Rulings Mean Judges Will Get an Extra $1B in Pay and Benefits" The National Journal 9/24/14 http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/court-rulings-mean-judges-will-get-an-extra-1b-in-pay-and-benefits-20140924~~
	4	+More than 2,000 federal judges from Chief Justice John Roberts down will share in about $1 billion more in salary and benefits over the next 10 years because of court rulings determining that Congress improperly withheld automatic increases dating from the 1990s, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "As a result of those decisions and corresponding administrative actions, many judges will now receive automatic salary increases, and subsequent annuity adjustments, as well as restitution for prior automatic salary increases they should have received," wrote CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf. His cost calculations were delivered in a letter on Wednesday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. The letter addresses the financial impacts of successful court challenges to the congressional withholding of federal judge pay increases in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, and 2010. Those legal challenges were most notably carried out in Beer v. United States and Barker v. United States. Federal court judges have already started to benefit. Their salaries rose by 14 percent on Jan. 1, as the years of missing cost-of-living adjustments were added to their paychecks. The chief justice now is paid $255,500, and associate Supreme Court justices have a $244,400 salary. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges are getting $211,200 a year, and the annual salary of a U.S. District Court judge is $199,100. As a cumulative result of the court decisions, writes Elmendorf, direct federal spending will be higher by about $1.027 billion from 2015 through 2024. Only about $190 million of that will be discretionary costs, subject to annual appropriations.
	5	+
	6	+====Congress blocks salary increases in response to controversial decisions – empirics prove====
	7	+**Miller 6**
	8	+(Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Government and International Relations at Clark University, Summer 2006, Mark C., Case Western Reserve University, "SYMPOSIUM: JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: SEARCHING FOR THE RIGHT BALANCE: When Congress Attacks the Federal Courts," 56 Case W. Res. 1015)
	9	+Language modified - men and women to persons
	10	+I. Congress's Compensation Power
	11	+There have been many instances in which Congress has used various mechanisms to attack the federal courts for decisions with which a determined legislative majority has disagreed. n30 While to my knowledge Congress has not yet deliberately defied the protections inherent in the Compensation Clause, the legislative branch has used other means to attack the courts and to attempt to influence court decisions. Even though the Compensation Clause prevents Congress from reducing any judicial salaries that have already vested, n31 the clause neither requires Congress to provide any annual cost of living ~~*1021~~ adjustments for federal judges nor prevents Congress from canceling future announced judicial salary increases. n32 Thus, judicial salaries have always been a point of contention, and Congress has sometimes used judicial salaries to send a clear message to the courts. For example, in 1964, Congress increased the salaries for lower federal judges by $ 7,500 per year but increased the salaries for Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court by only $ 4,500 per year. As Schmidhauser and Berg explain, "The $ 3,000 differential clearly reflected a direct Congressional reprimand to the Supreme Court. This crude rebuff clearly stemmed from congressional dissatisfaction with several controversial decisions rendered by the Court." n33 Clearly, judicial salary issues have added to the tensions between the courts and Congress. Federal judges often feel that Congress does not provide adequate compensation for them. As Professor Paul M. Bator has remarked, "federal judges, as a group, complain more about their pay than any other group I have ever encountered." n34 There is probably a great deal of truth to the fact that federal judges feel that they are underpaid. In 2003, Judges Coffin and Katzmann noted that, "Since 1969, federal judicial salaries have lost twenty-four percent of their purchasing power." n35 Various congressional actions regarding annual cost of living adjustments for federal judges have not made federal judges feel better about their financial situations. For example, in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999, Congress blocked previously announced "automatic" cost of living increases for various governmental officials, including federal judges, that had been provided for in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. n36 Congress was really attempting to prevent the automatic pay raises for its own members from going into effect, but the legislation blocked federal judicial pay increases as well as the pay raises for legislators. When federal judges sued to ~~*1022~~ recover their blocked "automatic" pay increases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the proposed "automatic" pay raises had not vested, and thus, there was no violation of the Compensation Clause in the legislative actions. n37 Although the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in the case, Justice Breyer wrote a strongly worded dissent to the denial of certiorari, which Justices Scalia and Kennedy joined. n38 This concern with judicial salaries and other budgetary resources is not new, of course. Although he was speaking more broadly of his frustration with congressional budgeting practices, Chief Justice Warren stated in 1969 that, "It is next to impossible for the courts to get something from Congress." n39 In his annual year-end reports on the State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice Rehnquist often complained about Congress's approach to judicial salary issues. In his 2000 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Rehnquist focused most of the report on what he termed, "the most pressing issue facing the Judiciary: the need to increase judicial salaries." n40 The Chief Justice went on to say, In order to continue to provide the nation a capable and effective judicial system we must be able to attract and retain experienced persons of quality and diversity to perform a demanding position in the public service. The fact is that those lawyers who are qualified to serve as federal judges have opportunities to earn far more in private law practice or business than as judges. In order to continue to attract highly qualified and diverse federal judges — judges whom we ask and expect to remain for life — we must provide them adequate compensation. n41 In a quite lengthy discussion of the subject, the Chief Justice also noted that judicial salary issues had been discussed in thirteen of the last nineteen end-of-year reports on the state of the judiciary. n42 In his 2002 Annual Report, the Chief Justice reiterated the same sentiment: "At the risk of beating a dead horse, I will reiterate what I have said many times over the years about the need to compensate judges fairly." n43 Judicial salary issues remain important to the Supreme Court and to all federal judges. In his first annual report, Chief Justice Roberts also raised the judicial salary issue: A more direct threat to judicial independence is the failure to raise judges' pay. If judges' salaries are too low, judges effectively serve for a term dictated by their financial position rather than for life. Figures gathered by the Administrative Office show that judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers now than ever before. n44
	12	+
	13	+====The plan is unpopular in congress – Law enforcement lobbies are powerful====
	14	+**Rucke 14**
	15	+(Katie, political writer, Mint Press "The Law Enforcement Lobby's Heavy Hand In American Policy", http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-law-enforcement-lobbys-heavy-hand-in-american-policy/191557/ )
	16	+"Capitalism is alive and well in politics," Goldstein said while talking to MintPress about the "incredibly powerful lobby" law enforcement has created over the years. The problem with lobbying, she says, is that it's all about furthering self-interests. Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the CATO Institute, agreed with Goldstein, noting that the spokesmen and spokeswomen for police departments often distance themselves from their influence on the law when legal issues or controversies arise, "as if they are disinterested or indifferent to" what law the legislature is writing. While some of the issues taken up by the lobby are related to public safety, collective-bargaining packages for officers and other special legal protections as outlined under the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, one of the largest political issues law enforcement attempts to influence is related to drug reform — specifically, marijuana legalization. Exactly how much money police lobbies spend on legislative efforts isn't the easiest figure to decipher, since there are more than 18,000 different police departments in the United States. Of the total, some lobby, while others simply focus on keeping the people in their communities safe. To make things even more complicated, there is a difference in the types of records that are required for lobbyists that are public unions compared to organizations, and the rules vary by state, as well. But according to Dan Auble, senior researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics, law enforcement spent roughly $2.5 million lobbying lawmakers in Washington last year. Auble says this amount seems relatively "paltry" when compared to what other groups spend on influencing the government, but the actual influence of law enforcement is likely much higher. He says this is because reported financial figures don't include the other ways law enforcement influences policies such as when lawmakers reach out for an "expert opinion." Law enforcement lobbies may not be as influential in Washington as the financial and pharmaceutical companies, but Auble says that especially when it comes to issues of particular concern to law enforcement, including drug policy, human trafficking, immigration and their own pension and retirement issues, "they are surely a well-respected voice in the halls of Congress."
	17	+ns may elude policy makers who cannot agree on much. And yet legislators may find their usual politics scrambled by an issue that crosses party lines. "It's the beginning of a long process, and the end on some of this is still unclear," said former Representative Jane Harman, an author of the last major surveillance law and now the president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "But the good news is now there's a full debate in the Congress and in the country about our values and how to address security and liberty at the same time."
	18	+
	19	+====Ensuring adequate judicial salaries key to judicial independence and rule of law ====
	20	+**Supreme Court Justice Kennedy 7 **
	21	+(Supreme Court Justice, Harvard Law School, London School of Economics, Stanford University (Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, "Testimony of Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Judicial Security and Independence", February 14, 2007, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/poladv/priorities/judicial_pay/kennedystatement.authcheckdam.pdf)
	22	+
	23	+As I have tried to convey, separation of powers and checks and balances are not automatic mechanisms. They depend upon a commitment to civility, open communication, and good faith on all sides. Congress has certain functions that cannot be directed or initiated by the other branches; yet those prerogatives must be exercised in good faith if Congress is to preserve the best of our constitutional traditions. You must be diligent to protect the Constitution and to follow its letter and spirit, and, on most matters, no one, save the voters, can call you to account for the manner in which you discharge these serious responsibilities. This reflects, no doubt, the deep and abiding faith our Founders placed in you and in the citizens who send you here.
	24	+Please accept my respectful submission that, to keep good faith with our basic charter, you have the unilateral constitutional obligation to act when another branch of government needs your assistance for the proper performance of its duties. It is both necessary and proper, furthermore, that we as judges should, and indeed must, advise you if we find that a threat to the judiciary as an institution has become so serious and debilitating that urgent relief is necessary. In my view, the present Congressional compensation policy for judicial officers is one of these matters.
	25	+Judges in our federal system are committed to the idea and the reality of judicial independence. Some may think the phrase "judicial independence" a bit timeworn. Perhaps there has been some tendency to overuse the term; there may be a temptation to invoke it each time judges disagree with some commonplace legislative proposal affecting the judiciary. If true, that is unfortunate, for judicial independence is a foundation for sustaining the Rule of Law.
	26	+Judicial independence is not conferred so judges can do as they please. Judicial independence is conferred so judges can do as they must. A judiciary with permanent tenure, with a sufficient degree of separation from other branches of government, and with the undoubted obligation to resist improper influence is essential to the Rule of Law as we have come to understand that term.
	27	+Judicial independence presumes judicial excellence, and judicial excellence is in danger of erosion. So at this juncture in the history of the relationship between our two branches my conclusion is that we have no choice but to make clear to you the extent of the problem as we see it, with the hope your Committee will help put the problem into proper perspective for your own colleagues and for the nation at large.
	28	+It is my duty, then, to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in more than three decades as a judge, I have not seen my colleagues in the judiciary so dispirited as at the present time. The blunt fact is that the past Congressional policy with respect to judicial salaries has been one of neglect. As a consequence, the nation is in danger of having a judiciary that is no longer considered one of the leading judiciaries of the world. This is particularly discordant and disheartening, in light of the care and consideration Congress has generally given in respect to other matters of judicial resources and administration.
	29	+The current situation, in my submission, is a matter of grave systemic concern. Let me respectfully suggest that it is a matter Congress in the exercise of its own independent authority should address, in order to ensure that the essential role of the judiciary not be weakened or diminished. You are well aware of threats to the judiciary that history has deemed constitutional crises, such as the Court's self-inflicted wound in Dred Scott or the ill-conceived 1937 Court-packing proposal. These were constitutional crises in the usual sense of the term. So too, however, there can be systemic injury over time, caused by slow erosion from neglect. My concern, shared by many of my colleagues, is that we are in real danger of losing, through a gradual but steady decline, the highly qualified judiciary on which our Nation relies. Your judiciary, the Nation's judiciary, will be diminished in its stature and its capacity if there is a continued neglect of compensation needs.
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+====Global democratic transitions will fail without Supreme Court leadership====
	33	+**Suto 11**
	34	+(Research Associate at Tahrir Institute and J.D. ~~07/15/11, Ryan Suto is a Research Associate at Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, has degrees in degrees in law, post-conflict reconstruction, international relations and public relations from Syracuse Law, "Judicial Diplomacy: The International Impact of the Supreme Court", http://jurist.org/dateline/2011/07/ryan-suto-judicial-diplomacy.php)
	35	+
	36	+The Court is certainly the best institution to explain to scholars, governments, lawyers and lay people alike the enduring legal values of the US, why they have been chosen and how they contribute to the development of a stable and democratic society. A return to the mentality that one of America's most important exports is its legal traditions would certainly benefit the US and stands to benefit nations building and developing their own legal traditions, and our relations with them. Furthermore, it stands to increase the influence and higher the profile of the bench. The Court already engages in the exercise of dispensing justice and interpreting the Constitution, and to deliver its opinions with an eye toward their diplomatic value would take only minimal effort and has the potential for high returns. While the Court is indeed the best body to conduct legal diplomacy, it has been falling short in doing so in recent sessions. We are at a critical moment in world history. People in the Middle East and North Africa are asserting discontent with their governments. Many nations in Africa, Asia, and Eurasia are grappling with new technologies, repressive regimes and economic despair. With the development of new countries, such as South Sudan, the formation of new governments, as is occurring in Egypt, and the development of new constitutions, as is occurring in Nepal, it is important that the US welcome and engage in legal diplomacy and informative two-way dialogue. As a nation with lasting and sustainable legal values and traditions, the Supreme Court should be at the forefront of public legal diplomacy. With each decision, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to better define, explain and defend key legal concepts. This is an opportunity that should not be wasted.
	37	+
	38	+
	39	+====Democracy solves extinction.====
	40	+**Diamond 95**
	41	+(Larry, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute, 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, Online)
	42	+
	43	+The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens
	44	+
	45	+, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-20 14:06:35.949

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Aaron Timmons

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Colleyville Heritage CW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+10

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Winston Churchill Coltzer Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NovDec Court Salaries

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Glenbrooks