Yes, because the constitution calls for it. Feel free to petition your Senators / Congresscritters to introduce an amendment to change this (Seriously. As sarcastic as that sounds, I don't mean it that way)

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
We make airline pilots retire at 65, Federal agents retire at 57, yet we let these dolts judges continue on into dementia / adult diaper age?

YGTBSM!!!

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
You are implying that someone over a certain age is incapable of making sound judgment when it comes to some matter of concerning technology. You are wrong!

So dementia / mental issues aren't more pervasive in older people than in younger ones?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
queue the picture of Ginsburg absolutely catatonic at the State of the Union address...

I have grown of the opinion we need to expand the Court to more justices - to lessen the impact of any one or two idealogically wacky opinions... maybe 15 or so.

And change it from lifetime appointment to a 20 year term or something...


-------------------------

Not sure if more is the answer, but I like the fact that here in Florida SCJ judges go on the ballot and can get the boot from the voters.

And there is a mandatory retired age of 70 as well.

Maybe that would be okay across the nation. Having voted in CA and seen how absolutely moronic voters can be I am not sure I would want them having the opportunity to pull Justice Gorsuch for instance.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
You are implying that someone over a certain age is incapable of making sound judgment when it comes to some matter of concerning technology. You are wrong!

So dementia / mental issues aren't more pervasive in older people than in younger ones?

Dementia/mental issues are very selective. They only affect those judges we disagree with.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Yes, because the constitution calls for it. Feel free to petition your Senators / Congresscritters to introduce an amendment to change this (Seriously. As sarcastic as that sounds, I don't mean it that way)

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
We make airline pilots retire at 65, Federal agents retire at 57, yet we let these dolts judges continue on into dementia / adult diaper age?

YGTBSM!!!

Oh, I know that it would take legal / constitutional changes. And that's impossible. But other entities (Florida for example) has a pretty good setup (IMO).

6 year terms but the Judges go to a statewide vote after at least a full year. <50%, beat it.

After 6 years they get voted on again.

If they hit 70 during their first term, see ya. Head to the retirement home. If they get a second term and hit 70 during, they get to finish the term.

Either way, it keeps the driftwood down.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
You are implying that someone over a certain age is incapable of making sound judgment when it comes to some matter of concerning technology. You are wrong!

So dementia / mental issues aren't more pervasive in older people than in younger ones?

Dementia/mental issues are very selective. They only affect those judges we disagree with.

No, I'd like them all to go at a certain age. Plenty of other jobs have mandatory retirement ages and terms. And I know it would take an amendment which will never happen.

Both Kennedy & Ginsburg are unfortunately not going anyway soon & will probably die in their robes in chamber.

Mandatory retirement ages? Seriously? So, even though there are people in their 80s, 90s, and even over 100 years old who are still fully functional, they should be forced to retire because of some statutory retirement age decided by young people? And you can't see how unfair that is or how it might end up biting YOU in the ass if you end up being a victim of it?

Yup, I suspect I'm about to lose a couple hundred bucks on Kennedy not retiring this year (Predictit: "Will there be another supreme court justice this year 2017"). They were suggesting if it came, the Kennedy Retirement announcement would be today. Like to see Trump get another pick this year, but my emotions drove that bus off the road.

Heres to hope and change....

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
Mandatory retirement ages? Seriously? So, even though there are people in their 80s, 90s, and even over 100 years old who are still fully functional, they should be forced to retire because of some statutory retirement age decided by young people? And you can't see how unfair that is or how it might end up biting YOU in the ass if you end up being a victim of it?

The number of 'fully functioning' 80 and 90 year-olds is pretty small you must admit. Just as you wouldnt want a 20 year old piloting an Airbus with 300 people on-board - I wouldn't want a 70 year old doing it either.

Basically I am not a fan of people that age making important decisions they won't be around to experience the effects of... (John McCain for instance...)

---------------------------------------

It's certainly possible, but it's not guaranteed. I'd be okay with some sort of annual acuity test after 65. If they have all, or at least most, their marbles they can stay on the bench. If they can't cut it, they get a nice party and a replacement.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
Mandatory retirement ages? Seriously? So, even though there are people in their 80s, 90s, and even over 100 years old who are still fully functional, they should be forced to retire because of some statutory retirement age decided by young people? And you can't see how unfair that is or how it might end up biting YOU in the ass if you end up being a victim of it?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:
Kennedy is a attention whore.

That's ridiculous.

It was a sly joke. I imagine that those present got a good laugh at his "announcement."

I regret posting this. I have often been astonished at the directions threads sometimes careen off in, but this is baffling. Some of you are wound up awfully tight.

I realize the joke for what it is JALLEN. Just pissed me off that someone would impinge a Justice of the Supreme Court based on age alone. Sorry for my thread drift inducing comments.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
You are implying that someone over a certain age is incapable of making sound judgment when it comes to some matter of concerning technology. You are wrong!

So dementia / mental issues aren't more pervasive in older people than in younger ones?

The comment was about AGE...PERIOD! You're adding to the argument something that wasn't originally there. I'm 67, I'm retired. Why? Because I just wanted to? NO! Because I'm over 60. Am I capable of doing the job I held prior to retirement? You can bet you ass on it. I put in 45 years and was very good at what I did. My only fault was having been over 60 when the corporation I worked for went belly up. Maybe when you have someone tell you

quote:

We think you're overqualified for the position you're seeking and since you only have 4+ decades of experience, we're just going to go with this kid right out of college.

Maybe then you might understand my meaning.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
It's certainly possible, but it's not guaranteed. I'd be okay with some sort of annual acuity test after 65. If they have all, or at least most, their marbles they can stay on the bench. If they can't cut it, they get a nice party and a replacement.

And a gold watch!

I have no problem with acuity tests. We have to be tested when we renew our DLs after a certain number of years, and I'm thankful for that.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:
Kennedy is a attention whore.

That's ridiculous.

It was a sly joke. I imagine that those present got a good laugh at his "announcement."

I regret posting this. I have often been astonished at the directions threads sometimes careen off in, but this is baffling. Some of you are wound up awfully tight.

I'll admit, I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. But it was funny. The fact that you had to change your thread title, is funnier.

(just shows how much the members care about the future of the court)

The sooner the better.

Since 1789, 113 persons have served on the Supreme Court.

Of those, two reached 90 years of age, Oliver Wendell Holmes (90 yr 10 mo.) and John Paul Stevens (90 yr 3 mo.).

14 have been in their eighties while on the court. Black, Marshall, Brandeis, Rehnquist and Scalia were among those notables.

6 served on the court while in their 40's.

As I said earlier, worries about dottering senility are directly proportional to the worrier's disagreement with their decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The bar would be open downstairs.

I wonder how many passed the bar?



.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
Mandatory retirement ages? Seriously? So, even though there are people in their 80s, 90s, and even over 100 years old who are still fully functional, they should be forced to retire because of some statutory retirement age decided by young people? And you can't see how unfair that is or how it might end up biting YOU in the ass if you end up being a victim of it?

Yeah, there are people in the 20s who might have the temperament and knowledge to be President, but they can't due to the law.

People are forced to retire from a number of jobs. Airline pilots, police, federal law enforcement, military.

Look, as much as you say "I've still got it", you are no longer in your prime. Physically or mentally. You still might be better than a lot of people but honestly I don't want 70-80 year olds flying planes with paying passengers, walking the beat to protect the community, or judging for the entire country - especially with no 'light at the end of the tunnel' to remove them, other than their decision or death.

quote:

We think you're overqualified for the position you're seeking and since you only have 4+ decades of experience, we're just going to go with this kid right out of college.

Way to take the exceptional case and use it to prove the normal case.

Nobody on SCOTUS is 'right of of college'.

But keep getting worked up about it.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
But keep getting worked up about it.

Way to trivialize another member's views.

My father is 89 years old and continues to work as a tax consultant. He's worked at the same business for close to 17 yrs now, and there are over 200 clients who will allow only him to prepare their tax returns and be their advisor during the rest of the year. He still drives, has 20/20 vision, reads books avidly, and even gets paid to speak at presentations. Additionally, he and my mother know dozens of other active, healthy, completely self sufficient people in their age group and spend time with them regularly.

But, hey - he's 89 years old. We should probably just force him to step down. Maybe we should even have an age for people to voluntarily cease to exist - you know, for the greater good; to clear the medicare and social security rolls.