I’m confused by Matthew Franck’s recent post on judicial salaries. Does he disagree with what I took to be Chief Justice Roberts’s basic point, i.e., that it is silly to think that we are going to attract able judges, who understand the role our Constitution assigns to the federal judges, if we are paying them about what a first-year associate makes at a big-city law firm?

I’ve read all of the posts to which Matthew links, and the question remains:

What, exactly, is his objection to paying federal judges more than first-year associates?