this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
242 points (99.6% liked)

News

23387 readers
3351 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Democrats were able to get President Joe Biden to step aside after a pressure campaign. But it’s much more difficult to force out a federal judge.

At the age of 97, Judge Pauline Newman is the oldest full-time federal judge on the bench, but despite concerns about her ability to do the job, her colleagues are struggling to get rid of her.

When Democrats decided after President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance that he was no longer fit to serve at the top of the ticket, a multifaceted pressure campaign was able to convince him to step aside.

But federal judges, as well as Supreme Court justices, have lifetime appointments and there is no easy process for easing them aside.

With people generally living longer, a lifetime appointment can now last many decades. The average age of a federal judge is 69, according to a recent study, and there is no clean way to force someone to step down.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] riskable@programming.dev 61 points 3 months ago (3 children)

We need a maximum age for all government positions in the US. The science says at around 70 is when humans start losing their mental faculties (on average).

It's not just about that though: The government shouldn't be run by old people! And by, "old" I mean over 70. That way there's no ambiguity.

[–] restingboredface@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It think it might work better to do a maximum length of service. Will generally have the same effect but should make it easier to keep from having a huge number of people rotate out at once, which would be pretty disruptive.

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I like the idea, but they are generally added in batches.

A president nominates a bunch of people, them they go through the betting and approval process.

Example: the 234 judges put in place by Trump.

[–] Corgisocks@programming.dev 7 points 3 months ago

Trump did a big batch because the Senate stopped doing them under Obama, creating a backlog for Trump to fill.

[–] teft@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Make it a maximum age that increases with life expectancy. Want to remain longer in government? Work to increase the average life expectancy of the entire populace.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Keeping people alive longer doesn't necessarily mean they stay capable of doing their jobs longer. It should be a fixed age that's only changed if there's a breakthrough in preventing cognitive decline.

[–] teft@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would say they should be tested for mental acuity but they would just game the system somehow.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

This is the same reason why eg. voting tests are a bad idea. A test is complicated enough to be meddled with.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

35 is the minimum age to be President. 17 years from being an adult. So perhaps go 17 years below the median life expectancy, somewhere around 60?

[–] Hellinabucket@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Honestly that's the problems. The median life expectancy is in the upper 70s. Once you factor in having all the benefits of the USA health care system but none of the cost, it gets even higher. The average for 1787 was in the upper 30s.

The concept of a judge in their 90s was as outlandish as the concept of 35 million people living in California.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That's neatly symmetrical, but I don't see an objective reason to have it be that way. Symmetry for symmetry's sake isn't by default better than anything else.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
  • Rhetorically, it helps make the case to any naysayers who've enabled an age-minimum but decry an age-maximum is wrong.
  • It effectively achieves the same result of tying the age-limit to retirement age without giving legislators the incentive to simply raise retirement age.
  • It will always float significantly below the median life-expectancy, which even if life-expectancy overall improves marginally by a couple of years (in itself a good thing of course), it still gives a buffer to the point where cognition begins to increasingly wane.

Realistically I'd be fine with a final term beginning at 65 and ending at 69.

[–] hannesh93 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There was a proposal by a satirical party a couple of years ago about limiting voting for elderly by the same amount of years as it takes for people to become eligible to vote.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

That's not really a good idea... Just because life expectancy could go up doesn't mean that a person's cognitive function will remain the same if they live longer.

A senator could have the mental capacity of a toddler at 110 even if the life expectancy at the time were 150.

Even if we have super geniuses at 150 we should still be giving control of the government to people under 70. Let the "young" run the country.

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Just impose mandatory annual fitness tests after the retirement age. No clue how it's in America, but here that's how it works with driver's licenses (tho it's not annual, but every 2 years). I mean most jobs require some fitness test, so why not positions is power? (rhetorical question, it answers it self)

[–] heavy@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We should be promoting a culture of enjoying your life, not working until we're dead.

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Some people get their enjoyment from having power.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Yes, although true, a condition of that enjoyment should be that it not affect others negatively.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

~~could~~ step down

should

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

I don't understand anyone wanting to work at 97 for that matter.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Well I mean yeah they could, but I think most of them know that if they do their seat will remain vacant because Congress will keep blocking new appointments.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NBC News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/-gerontocratic-crisis-federal-court-system-struggles-handle-aging-judg-rcna167605
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support