• givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    6 days ago

    Not so fun fact:

    Reagan appointed the first judge directly to the federal circuit court…

    And she’s still fucking sitting there at 97 years old

    At 97, Newman is the oldest judge on the federal bench. She was appointed in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan and was the first judge appointed directly to the Federal Circuit.

    Maybe we should cap it at like 100?

    I mean. Ideally way younger, but it’s insane there’s no cap at all for a lifetime appointment.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Since the Supreme Court is full of Originalists now, let’s think the way the farmers would have thought. When they wrote “lifetime appointments” into the Constitution, the average life expectancy for a male child at birth was 35 years. But that counts a lot of infant and child deaths, not to mention deaths due to military service. A man who managed to make it to 50 years old in 1789 would probably have at least 21 years left. Source

      So, all lifetime appointments should be forced to retire at 71, because that’s how long a lifetime appointment in 1789 would have lasted. Hey, Clarence, will you go along with my thorough analysis if I give you a “gratuity” afterwards?

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 days ago

        I don’t think your example portrays originalism. They could have said “Until they reach the age of average life expectancy” then but instead went with life time appointments when in good behavior. A lifetime being serving until that judge dies, unless they’ve given up their seat.

        To change lifetime appointments we’d need a constitutional amendment.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Your using logic and facts to drive your conclusions, though. You’re supposed to do it the other way around: start with your conclusion, and cherry-pick facts to reach it. Once you learn that, you, too can be a Conservate SC Justice!

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            Your example is actually much closer to Living Constitutionalism which based on this comment I’m going to assume you probably don’t want to be criticizing.

            Originalism is tethered to textualism which is antithetical to your analogy reading words out of text.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          Things work different up here, ie: judges are never elected - always appointed; our judiciary rules based on our Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and common law (not original intent or civil law [except Quebec]); and treaty rights for First Nations peoples (and sometimes Metis and Inuit).

  • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Newman was represented in the lawsuit by New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a public-interest law firm linked to conservative backers that focuses on the so-called “administrative state.”

    I doubt she appealed because she wanted to, she’s too old and confused to care imo. But plenty of conservatives have incentives to get this through the courts so they can have more precedents to keep the geriatric government going.

    For years people passed on the torch when they got old, but this shitty boomer generation feel like they’re special

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        The boomers are refusing to take their turn, and refusing to allow any of us “kids” to step up and take on the responsibility for them. This particular “kid” is Gen X, and almost 44…

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Wow, having to work untill you are 97?

    Wow, that is horrific elder absuse!

    Shame on you, USA, shame!

  • sunzu@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Gereatric parasites just won’t fucking die… This one is wasting judicial resources too as former judge.

    Smells like a nepo baby tbh

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    i can’t remember being Alzheimer so i am not // i can’t come up with the idea i am senile so i am not 🤪

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    6 days ago

    Universal health care, 100% financial support once you reach federal retirement age, and you are legally required to retire from any federal position once you reach the social security retirement age. You can go do private industry stuff, but no federal jobs.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            Because we’re discussing trying to pass a law to keep geriatrics out of important, decision making positions?

            Because we’re not trying to discuss a law preventing lobbying from former federal employees?

            Like… are you mentally well or do you just not understand that your point about lobbying just simply does not follow/ is independent of the idea that we shouldn’t have geriatric federal employees?

            • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              Because we’re discussing trying to pass a law to keep geriatrics out of important, decision making positions?

              Those ‘geriatrics’ often have the wisdom that younger judges lack.

              I would like to see a group of judges in charge of evaluating judges’ rulings when it becomes apparent that they are being led by something other than the law in their decisions.

              • otp@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                What wisdom would a 97-year old have that no 64-year old would have? And why would that wisdom outweigh the decline in mental faculties that comes along with being of such an advanced age?

                • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  I dunno. I’m not 97. But I am in my mid 60’s and what I do know is my wisdom has grown immensely since I was 40. So who’s to say that can’t happen for someone in their 90’s?

                  I will add that I am not specifically supporting this judge’s argument (that she’s fine) because she is clearly putting out ruling that are not based on the law. But neither is SCOTUS, and for very different reasons.

                  I would still prefer a tribunal-type scenario that has the authority to investigate and remove judges based on facts, not just age.

            • alekwithak@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              6 days ago

              You added the addendum, I noted what the consequences of that addendum would be. Moving straight into ad hominem attacks because you don’t like what I’m saying is pretty much not lit, fam.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                6 days ago

                Its a legitimate question as to your wellness. Its often a part of cognitive tests to see if people can make reasonable and logical conclusions and follow chains of reason. Its a sign of a lack of wellness if you can’t do that.