Judge Newman has threatened to have staff arrested, forcibly removed from the building, and fired. She accused staff of trickery, deceit, acting as her adversary, stealing her computer, stealing her files, and depriving her of secretarial support. Staff have described Judge Newman in their interactions with her as “aggressive, angry, combative, and intimidating”; “bizarre and unnecessarily hostile”; making “personal accusations”; “agitated, belligerent, and demonstratively angry”; and “ranting, rambling, and paranoid.” Indeed, interactions with Judge Newman have become so dysfunctional that the Clerk of the Court has advised staff to avoid interacting with her in person or, when they must, to bring a co-worker with them.
This didn’t happen overnight, if it’s this bad now then her judgement has been compromised for a long time.
We need term limits, because once these (completely normal) mental changes start happening, the person will almost always react with aggression and refuse to ever step down.
We have a thing called senior citizenry.
It’s an age at which we decided old folks can start skimming funds off the top to make ends meet, because they are otherwise unable
It is absolutely unconscionable to be collecting social security while simultaneously holding office.
No one over the age of 65 should be allowed to hold any office. Ever.
I don’t think age needs to be the limiting factor. I’ve met plenty of 70+ year olds who are mentally capable of performing any job. My grandfather is in his 80’s and he’s a kick ass doctor.
I strongly feel that it needs to be test and check up based. Something impartial treated with an air of dignity so that people are raised respecting that it’s perfectly alright to not pass it. That should help avoid stigma while ensuring people like that judge are a non-issue if not nearly a non-issue.
But there is a HUGE difference between living a healthy, active, and fulfilling life and holding a public office deciding extremely sensitive and important things that will decide the outcome of someone’s life or the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
What if 50% of people above a certain age have a mental of physical disability(example), then would an age limit be justified? There are probably more 25-30 year olds than 70-80 year olds that are mentally and intellectually sound enough to hold office.
I’m fully in favor of having better representation in our elected offices but limiting it based solely on age feels bad a like solution when the problem is based on problems that may happen with age.
For example, let’s say you were a berry eater who loves wild berries. You go out and eat a berry and notices that later on it gave you indigestion, after several more times that berry has consistently done it but other berries do not, would you stop eating wild berries or identify the one giving you indigestion and stop eating those?
It’s a silly example, but it works. If someone is capable of performing the position without issues they should be able to. That’s why I’m advocating for a solution that’s based on identifying those solutions after they appear so that anyone who is capable and has the desire can work as they like.
For those capable people, a fulfilling life can be defined as working the position. Why stop them from it?
I understand what you are saying.
However, why shouldn’t there be a lower age limit on elected office? Plenty of capable people for it. If they are capable of performing the position without issues they should be able to.
It has to go both ways because the exact same arguments can be made for each end of the age spectrum.
I couldn’t agree more!
Lower the age limits a bit, and add in some mandatory health checks.
Gotta say, you’re one the people who makes me love Lemmy so much more than reddit. Good discussion, and being able to disagree and agree respectfully
Because they need to get out of the way for the next generation.
Your examples work well in La La land but in reality those tests and checkups would be riddled with fraud and favouritism.
Tests would be a pretty bad idea. It is easy to imagine the ways that someone could use that to attack their political opponents. Similar things were used to disenfranchise voters in the past. Also, it is too easy to corrupt the legitimacy of such a test. All a person would need to do is get a heads up of how the test works and practice for it. Or, have the test designed to be too easy to pass. It’s easy to say “make it impartial, scientific, and dignified”, but that doesn’t mean it will be. I seriously doubt any governmental body ever has or will be that trustworthy. An actual age limit would be objective and clear though, making it much more practical.
How would an opponent be able to attack you if the test is pass or fail? You either are able to have an opponent or you can’t run.
Using a strict age limit would only result in a segment of people who are paying taxes without having representation which is the exact situation we’re brainstorming ideas to avoid.
Instead, the group in question has had almost exclusive representation for half a century. There are lower age limits, so there should be upper limits.
I don’t believe in two wrongs making a right. I consider a lack of lower age representation a problem but I can not agree to flipping it around and making it a lack of upper age representation either. If that’s your idea of a just society when a presented method could solve this without that issue I have concerns.
All people and all generations are entitled to the right to self-determination. That’s something that we have seen is not possible without such limits.
I don’t want an 80 year old as a doctor. My luck he’d be hit with Mega Alzheimer’s right in the operating room and rearrange my insides to look like a Christmas tree because he thought he was 25 again and decorating one with his first born son again.
Given I just stated my grandfather is a doctor, who is not suffering from Alzheimer’s I can’t help but feel insulted by your comment.
I can understand being concerned by the Elderly however given that age does not ensure someone will develop Alzheimer’s, I find your comment rude and offensive. I hope you’ll consider using some tact in expressing your concerns in the future.
Lemme reword it a bit to be more respectful:
I do not think anyone age 80 should have to work for a living. He should be chilling in an RV or something fishing or whatever he likes doing. Savvy?
whatever he likes doing
What if he really likes being a doctor?
Maybe he should teach.
I think they raise a perfectly reasonable point, despite your feelings.
While it may not seem likely to occurr, I would also not allow an 80 year old doctor to care for me for very similar reasons.
Also because they learned medicine in the 60s. Would you trust your life to something built in the 60s if you had a choice?
Doctors don’t just stop learning medicine when they leave school though.
It should be easier to whistle blow if someone thinks a worker is losing capacity to do their job, but having an arbitrary age at which you’re no longer allowed to work in office doesn’t serve its purpose. Some people can have dementia starting in their 50s, and other people in their 70s are excellent in higher level positions due to how much experience they’ve amassed.
If anything, there should just be better peer performance reviews across the board.
Removed by mod
But we set a limit because there needs to be one.
That’s why. There are certain things that are significant enough that we don’t let just anyone do them, yet also important enough to self-determination that we don’t usually say a person will never be allowed to make that choice. That age when we’ve decided people are mentally, not physically, mature enough to make those decisions is 18. Most people have reached that threshold, some have been there for years, some never will be. Some will barely skim past that threshold, and we will hear stories about them for years. Those who are incapable of breaching that threshold have some or all of their rights as adults removed, and we call that guardianship, power of attorney, and similar things.
The difference between minors and incapable seniors is that some never become that much less capable, and those that do will do so over a truly significant span of years, like half a lifetime’s difference. So how do you pick a number and say, “This is when adults are too old to make good decisions,” without disregarding the capabilities of the vast majority of the people affected on the low side of the range or being far too late to matter on the high side? Perhaps dealing with something with such a great degree of variability should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
So we shouldn’t give social security to people unless they have dementia?
We already have an arbitrary age set. We should stick to it.
I’m still game for removing someone earlier than that if they are unfit. But after 65? You’re not fit. Even if you “are.” You’re too far removed from the policies you’d be enacting. It’s just nonsense.
I think that’s a disservice to people who have intimate knowledge of how a service has developed over time, and common problems with change that younger people may not have experienced.
I’m not saying that people should all be forced or unduly enabled to carry on working well into their seniority, but we’d be missing the opportunity to utilise skills and experience by enforcing a hard limit - certainly as young as 65!
Or as the famous catchphrase from the movie goes: Run Logan Run
The problem is that you’d need an objective, unbiased, incorruptible review process. I have zero faith that any government is capable of providing such a thing, particularly in a situation like this, where there’s so much room for interpretation.
Selecting an arbitrary age has its own problems, but at least it’s much simpler and harder to argue with.
Anyone who’s dealt with someone with early dementia will recognize this behavior. I can empathize with those suffering from it, because my own mind slipping away would be incredibly frustrating. But if you’re a danger to yourself and others someone needs to stop you, whether its to keep you from driving or to keep you from presiding over trials.
We need a mandatory retirement age for federal appointees, fucking immediately.
Why do these old people constantly feel the need to work? I’m trying to retire the moment I can and enjoy the rest of my life.
Power. The moment they retire they give up the ability to control people’s lives.
DING DING DING
WE HAVE A WINNER FOLKS
You ever heard the phrase “do what you love and you’ll never work a day in your life”?
Well some people love being abusive pieces of shit.
Probably not as much as I love this comment though.
probably because they really dont work as hard as you
Nah I barely work hard. I’m not equating my life to work. There’s too many other things to enjoy for that.
Then create a culture that isn’t reliant on working to make money just for basic necessities.
It should be possible considering we have some money hoarders hoarding enough that we shouldn’t have people going hungry and enough houses that people shouldn’t be homeless.
Yet we do.
Tax the rich.
Part of it is because you still need a gig to keep the retirement funds rolling. You don’t want to live it out on pea soup and bread.
Part of it is because after a certain point every bit of your body, from your bones to your brains, is only available on a Use It or Lose It basis with no warranty for service blackouts.
And part of it is because, and l guess this is due to the collapse of the extended-family model, lots of people don’t have anyone or thing to go home to; they’re divorced or widowed, kids have moved out, and their social network has literally died out.
Towards the end of his life my father only had ONE surviving peer from grade school. Imagine how it is to call your only surviving friend on a regular basis and to wonder, each time, if today’s the day you learn you’ve already heard their voice for the last time.
Yup. A lot of people here don’t get that when you retire the funds are finite. And you could still live another 20 yrs, even up to 35 more years but completely alone and with no income. If you have someone telling you to quit as you round up to 65 when you have another good 20 yrs of cognizance to pull income, you won’t go quietly.
And you shouldn’t.
Retirement right now is still expecting you’re going to pay your way or live worse than prison conditions. Even worse if you’re a person with disabilities or early onset issues, diabetes along with other things from a lifestyle habit of consumerism pushed on all of us by capitalists that don’t give a shit what happens to you down the line.
it’s not to say someone shouldn’t retire eventually when they can no longer work. It’s to say that assuming you’re as incompetent at 60 as if you’re 96 is just plain refusal to recognize the human condition and it’s ageism. The article is about a 96 yr old. That’s past 30 yrs retirement age. It’s only in her recent years this is happening so the fact she made it to 90 cognizant is actually very impressive either way. So just saying yeah, she should retire now. But blaming her for not retiring at 65 when she’s 30+ past that age is a misnomer argument at this stage. If anything we should all be so lucky to make it past 70 with our cognitive abilities with the current American diet slowly killing our organ function.
I quit at 35 and am now 58. My only regret was being too afraid to do it earlier.
How ? I long ago was able to to differentiate needs from wants.
I do own my own small house. Each year I have excess funds, some is rolled over and reinvested, some is donated to charity, because the small investments I do have earn way more then my needs.
I’d consider euthanasia if I had to return to work because of some unforseen reason, after deaades of freedom Arbeit macht frei is prison.
Is none of it wanting to keep their boomer views relevant?
Why do they not want to ? Ego and or indoctrination mainly. (Work itself has worth for being work, power over others, you’re an attention whore and fear obscurity, or some combination ). There’s also a stigma with being retired.
I retired at 35 and am now 58. My only regret was not stopping earlier.
I work in higher education, coordinating advanced degree programs. This situation makes me think of half a dozen research faculty I know personally that behave the exact same way.
I’m not of the opinion that people of advanced age are automatically less competent, but it’s a fact that age-related cognitive decline is a thing. People persisting in important decision-making positions after such decline cause immense and compounding problems.
It’ll never happen, but I’d love for us to collectively decide that a particular age range is the end of a person’s professional life and the beginning of something new and exciting and also dignified. I’m aware of the cultural reasons that it can’t happen in this particular time and place, but it would improve things a lot if it could.
there used to be tenure with sanity; it was rare for faculty to stay on after their abilities started to wane. Then came the boomers.
Imagine you go to court and this fossil at 96 is the one who determines your fate. Imagine if you catch her on an off day and she thinks you stole her computer, her files or other nonsense she’s accused court staff of doing (the only thing that’s been stolen is her marbles, and it looks like they went a few years back)
Get these shocking people out of the courts and into the nursing home where they belong
How many people have been wrongly convicted or harshly sentenced because of this woman’s dementia?
Bro. Read. Read the article… So desperate to say something you’ll say anything at all, even if you appear stupid.
I’m sure you’ve never done anything like that, but we can’t all be smart like you.
I actually don’t know how to respond to this. It might be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read that was uttered by an adult.
You are an adult, right? Over 18? Weird.
No, I’m stupid and a child. So stop being such a mean adult to a stupid child.
deleted by creator
In this case I don’t think any, because she worked in patents. But don’t take that as me defending nonagenarians still working in government.
Should just make the retirement age for these people 65. Everyone. Senators. Presidents. Want to get a job in an advisory role after that? Cool, at least then we have a filter for the madness and your dementia can’t fuck anyone over directly.
Technology is allowing us to live “longer,” but not necessarily “better.”
We shouldn’t be ruled by geriatrics. Age limits need to be a thing.
Age limits could be tricky and unnecessarily easy to use in a divisive political campaign though. But contract term limits should be introduced into lots of positions. It not only gives the employers an easy and expected out, but it also gives a natural contract renegotiation point for workers with smaller bargaining power.
Obsolete
Geez. Just step down and run for Congress or the Executive at this point.
Presidential material right there
Or maybe just step down 😂 we don’t need folks older than boomers running the government!
There needs to be an age limit for these positions. Sounds like she should have retired 25 years ago.
People don’t realize that Judge Judy isn’t even a caricature. It is shockingly easy to just up and up become a judge.
Sounds like dementia. My father in law has dementia and all of a sudden started accusing me of stealing his $5 sunglasses and being super aggressive at my mother in laws birthday party. Shit sucks when it progresses to this stage and someone in charge of people’s lives should definitely call it a day.
I hope she doesn’t drive a vehicle to work.
Quick solution for situations like this: compulsive retirement.
65 years old? Get out of here or get thrown out.
Disagree-ish.
I would suggest that, instead, after a certain age or catastrophic loss (such as that of a lifetime partner) we should all be receiving regular competency / cognizants evaluations. I think that compulsive retirement would be dehumanizing, a potential trigger for senility, dementia, or suicide, and a negligent misappropriation of the experience and institutional knowledge, that many of our seniors hold.
Most modern countries contemplate the notion that at some point in your life you are deemed unfit of occupying an active position, regardless whatever experience an individual may have in whatever field.
What that does not imply is the individual being rendered useless. Highly experienced individuals can act as teachers, mentors and advisers, sharing experience but with no weight for actual decision making or action taking.
I myself don’t intend to reach retirement age and turn off all switches and just stay home and vegetate; I think I can make myself useful up until my body becomes too frail and my mind breaks. But there is a point where I don’t want to have any responsabilities towards an institution.
65 isn’t the same as 96
1 is not the same as 2
Care to elaborate on that, please? I’m not following your reasoning.
That’s Because you’re being an ageist.
You’re going to have to elaborate on your reasoning. One sentence makes no service to explain yourself.
75 seems more reasonable
You don’t need to be 96 years old to become a Putin and invade a Ukraine
