First and foremost, thanks to the vision and leadership of the Legislature and former Governor Paterson, a permanent quadrennial judicial compensation commission was enacted into law to
take judicial pay out of the political arena... While every one of us must be prepared to make sacrifices in this era of tough choices, judges have begun their 13th consecutive year of sacrifice — and that's just too much based on any objective standard.
Not exact matches
But the nature of last week's executions is a stark wake - up call that we must
pay closer attention to the more subtle
judicial and political crack - downs
taking place.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman
took to cyberspace yesterday to formally endorse the three - year
pay raise proposal approved last week by the
Judicial Compensation Commission.
They also
took the opportunity to vote down the government's attempt to create a presumption that interveners in
judicial review proceedings should
pay their own costs.
This is not new and is in keeping with the
judicial approach
taken in discrimination and equal
pay cases.
In the most important case in decades to rule on the admissibility of medical bills to prove damages, Law v. Griffith, slip op., July 20, 2010, the Supreme
Judicial Court held that bills for medical care were presumptively evidence of the value of that care and that a defendant may not rebut or impeach that evidence by proving that the care provider
took pennies on the dollar, but that such bills could be impeached with evidence that most insurers
pay pennies on the dollar for the same services.
Or, as somebody said at a lecture I heard recently, the KEY problem with the legal systems in developing problems is
judicial salaries: that is, judges aren't
paid enough to limit, as much as practical, the need to
take bribes to survive.