Are you in favor of a mandatory retirement age for all three branches of the government?

[hislegacy]

Are you in favor of a mandatory retirement age for all three branches of the government?

 

[BCP1928]

Are you in favor of a mandatory retirement age for all three branches of the government?

Those who are employed by the government rather than being elected or appointed already have one. Elected officials already have a functional age limitation--it's called running for re-election. All that's left is the judiciary.

 

[hislegacy]

Those who are employed by the government rather than being elected or appointed already have one. Elected officials already have a functional age limitation--it's called running for re-election. All that's left is the judiciary.

Do I take that as a no?

 

[BCP1928]

Do I take that as a no?

Not necessarily. I would be in favor of a retirement age for judges. I was just pointing out that the other branches of government don't need one.

 

[hislegacy]

Not necessarily. I would be in favor of a retirement age for judges. I was just pointing out that the other branches of government don't need one.

Thank you - we disagree completely.

 

[BCP1928]

Thank you - we disagree completely.

About what? You don't think the US civil service has a mandatory retirement age? They did when I worked for them. You don't think we can remove elected officials when we think they are too old by not re-electing them? Or maybe you think judges should not have a mandatory retirement age?

 

[Belk]

While I understand the reasoning, I find the idea of saying "You are too old to have good ideas" problematic. I vote no.

 

[seeking.IAM]

It is a "no" from me. People age differently so an across-the-board ruling eliminates many capable of serving. Health should always be a consideration in ability to serve, but that is not age-based. There are societies that honor and value older persons as having experience and wisdom. Sadly, I think ours is not one of them. We could do well to learn from others.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe for judges. But for elected officials the public gets to weigh in at election time.

The real problem is that elections are losing their meaningfulness for two reasons.
1. gerrymandering
2, the two party duopoly

I'm not into these "solutions" like additional age and term limits that just paper-over the real problem.

 

[rambot]

You don't think we can remove elected officials when we think they are too old by not re-electing them?

No I honestly don't think so. Especially given that (I think) most of hte oldest ones have been there a fair while, and given the encumbency rate....

 

[Vambram]

I'm not in favor of mandatory retirement ages for judges OR elected representatives and Senators. However, I do support laws for term limits. We have term limits for governors and presidents. Therfore we ought to also have term limits laws for the legislative branch as well. The incumbency rates for state and federal legislators are far too high in my opinion.

 

[Diamond7]

Are you in favor of a mandatory retirement age for all three branches of the government?

What is there to retire from? It is not like they are doing any work anyways. Other than payola for selling political favors. Clarence Thomas said it is to difficult to live on a half a million a year. If he could not accept payola he would have to quit his gov job.

 

[hislegacy]

What is there to retire from? It is not like they are doing any work anyways. Other than payola for selling political favors. Clarence Thomas said it is to difficult to live on a half a million a year. If he could not accept payola he would have to quit his gov job.

Perhaps he could take lesson from Joe Biden who is paid 100,000 less, but has amassed millions of dollars, multiple homes, dozens of corporations that funnel money into his family. If he would have to leave (and he will), the money train would stop. Who would give his son money for cocaine?

 

[Diamond7]

If he would have to leave (and he will), the money train would stop.

The money would stop for Biden, Obama and Hillary. Of course Bill and Chelsea get almost one million each from her charity fund. The first thing Biden did was turn off the oil from Russia and open up the oil from Arabia.

 

[rambot]

Perhaps he could take lesson from Joe Biden who is paid 100,000 less, but has amassed millions of dollars, multiple homes, dozens of corporations that funnel money into his family. If he would have to leave (and he will), the money train would stop. Who would give his son money for cocaine?

Wow! Sounds like an easily provable claim if it was true.

You say some pretty unproven things about the president who hasn't digitally raped someone.

 

[hislegacy]

Wow! Sounds like an easily provable claim if it was true.

You say some pretty unproven things about the president who hasn't digitally raped someone.

But has showered with his daughter.

 

[rambot]

But has showered with his daughter.

Trumps favourite line:
Prove it in a court of law.

 

[jayem]

This is Article III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. AKA, the Vesting Clause:

Section 1 Vesting Clause​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

This language has always been interpreted that Federal judges, at all levels, will hold office as long as they exercise "good Behaviour." Whatever that means. Establishing a mandatory retirement age will require a Constitutional amendment. Which doesn't come easy. Any proposed amendment must pass by a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate, and must then be ratified by 3/4 (38) state legislatures. An amendment can also be proposed if 2/3 of the states call for a Constitutional Convention. That's never happened, and there are no rules or precedents for what a Con-Con could do. But still--anything such a convention put forward would still need to be ratified by 38 states.

Personally, I think a mandatory retirement age of 80 would be reasonable. It would provide a decently long career for any federal judge, and still allow for the injection of new blood and fresh ideas into the the federal judiciary.