Justice Perlaky, dissenting (I like typing that)

"If you become a federal judge in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), you can't raise a family on what the salary is"

So says United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the controversial and conservative Supreme Court Justice, commenting in a recent speech that the annual Federal Judicial salary of $165,200 (in 2006) is too low.

And now to respond in a judicial opinion-like blog entry:

History and tradition have never seen any federal employee being paid well. Justice Scalia would like to see this change, at least for the occupation that he himself holds. I suppose I should take that to mean that Justice Scalia's own salary of roughly $200,000 yearly is not enough. From this ridiculous and untenable premise, I must dissent.

As an American citizen who pays his taxes, I do not feel the need to apologize to Justice Scalia for his inability to buy that Acura last year. Nor do I feel the need to apologize for him being unable to construct that indoor pool that he always wanted. I simply cannot see fit to say that a salary of over even $80,000 yearly is "not enough," especially in light of the fact that many teachers, auto workers, truck drivers, social workers, soldiers, and other people who keep this country humming along do not make even half that amount.

"Something must be done!" Justice Scalia cries, "or the judiciary will only appeal to those who...GASP!...LIKE doing public sector work!" Silly me. Here I was, thinking that the U.S. Government WAS the "public sector," as serving the public seems to have been exactly the goal that the Framers of the Constitution sought to achieve. Not so, says Justice Scalia, who believes that at the current judicial salaries, the federal judiciary "cannot attract the really bright lawyers." Actually, Justice Scalia may have a point here, at least if his own presence on the U.S. Supreme Court has been any indication. Further, I do not see how a higher salary necessarily makes a smarter worker. Wasn't former Enron CEO making a salary into the millions of dollars before he came up with the foolish idea of cheating and bankrupting his company and all of its investors, thinking that he would get away with it?

Justice Scalia also outright mocks the interpretation of the Constitution as a living document that has evolved over time. Without such "evolution" of Constitutional theory, however, I wonder how Justice Scalia and his brethren would be paid at all. Article III of the Constitution, which controls the federal judiciary, mentions only that a "compensation" is due to said judges. Under Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution, I believe we must interpret history to show that John Jay, John Marshall, and Oliver Wendell Holmes all earned nearly $200,000 at some point. This is despite the fact that the salaries that federal judges make today might shock all of these aforementioned individuals, if they were living, into the graves that they in reality inhabit.

As is usually true with him though, reality has no place in the thoughts of Justice Scalia. Never mind that it is doubtful that there are many "families" living the in the wealthiest part of Manhattan in the first place, Justice Scalia must outright deny that the Constitution is evolving right before his eyes, even though many men who have come before him on the Supreme Court have made it so. Really now, if the Constitution was not a living and evolving document, would Justice Thurgood Marshall have sat next to him on the Court for a number of years? The original document said that Justice Marshall was not a person. On that note, would either Justice Clarence Thomas, also African-American, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor have ever served with Justice Scalia, if the Constitution was not a living and changing document?

At least this observer is grounded in reality enough to see that Justice Scalia is too old and obstinate to realize his errors. Since this is the case, our living and evolving society deserves a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court who interprets a living and evolving document.

It is a shame then that Justice Scalia will not step down, probably more out of fear that his pension will be too low than anything else.