Verdict is in: Texas voters tell oldest judges it's time to retire
Verdict is in: Texas voters tell oldest judges it's time to retire
Texas voters rejected a proposal to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges. The outcome in Tuesday's off-year elections turned heads and drew new attention to issues of age and fitness for office in the U.S.
When it comes to age on the ballot, Texas didn’t wait until 2024 to weigh in.
Asked to let judges stay on the bench until they’re 79 years old — a year younger than President Joe Biden — Texas voters soundly rejected the proposal in Tuesday’s elections, a defeat that drew new attention to issues of age and fitness for office in the U.S.
“Age is front of mind for American voters in a way that it has not traditionally been and they are nervous about it,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University.
Others cautioned against broader takeaways. At least four other states have rejected similar proposals over the last decade, according to the National Center for State Courts. And states that have passed the measures have mostly done so in close votes.
The media cracks me up.
"None of these really good election results have anything to do with Joe Biden in 2024. Except the results that we can spin into being bad for him, those matter."
I wouldn’t say the media under covered the Democratic wins. I also think there’s still real reason to worry about how Biden fares next year, because he is underperforming compared to the average dem. I’m worried young voters abandon him precisely because of his age. Without the unprecedented surge in youth voting in 2020, Trump wins.
“Age is front of mind for American voters in a way that it has not traditionally been and they are nervous about it,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University.
Um, yeah, because never was normal to have so many 75+ year olds in power. They need to retire. And yes, that includes Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The Silent Generation and Boomers ran this country into the ground and never gave up that power.
It's long past time to get the generation of lead-induced dementia patients out of office. Slow Biden, Glitch McConnell, and all of their geriatric ilk need to go.
But Trump is young and spry, right?
The problem with these guys isn't that they are old, it is that their way of dealing with problems is outdated.
-
They thought that $400 was enough to cover people for months of lost Covid wages.
-
They still think oil is "the most perfect energy in the world"
-
They think college is still $1200 for the experience
-
They think $7.50 is more then enough to cover housing, car, essentials.
-
No reality on global warming. Because it isn't going to effect them.
-
Healthwise, Trump appears to be older than Biden
The party that would vote for Trump is also older, though. The Democratic party needs to attract the younger folks, so it's more of a concern for us than for the MAGA crowd.
An age limit on elderly judges is critical where they get appointed for life.
At least these other geriatric ilk have to get re-elected periodically. In previous years I would have said to trust the voters to eventually come to the right conclusion, but elections are really crazy these days
Judicial elections are barely even elections. Independent voting guides never mention them and news media rarely profile or interview them (or if they do it's not prominently compared to other local races). Plus at least in my experience incumbent judges usually run unopposed. I also think they have very strong restrictions on what they can/can't say while campaigning so voters can't even do their own research properly (especially for new judges, who don't have much of a track record). Basically it's near impossible to be an educated voter when it comes to judges, so maybe they're better off being appointed.
Lead-induced?
I think this is the only thing on that ballot that I voted for that went my way. It’s like the only reasonable thing that won.
Read how misleading some of this shit was written:
Ratifying the ad valorem tax rate of $0.9746 per $100 valuation in Creek School District for the current year, a rate that will result in an increase of -19.87 percent in maintenance and operations tax revenue for the District for the current year as compared to the preceding year, which is an additional $-50,585,883.
It will “increase” by a negative amount! It’s so fucked up.
Why do all these articles make it a point to say Biden is 80, but fail to mention Trump is 77?
Biden is now 80 and former President Donald Trump is 77.
Literally in the article.
FTA: "Biden is now 80 and former President Donald Trump is 77."
Because Biden shows it more publicly and doesn't coat himself in more makeup than a mime. But your point is still valid.
Do you think Texas would be on board for this as a rule for the Supreme Court, where the two oldest justices are Thomas and Alito?
Imo age is a shitty metric to go by because it misses outward indications of maturity or debilitation. Just because someone is 70 doesn't mean they have dementia (or dementia could have started when they were 50), and just because someone is 17 doesn't mean they're not knowledgable enough to vote for a gov't.
Ideally, there'd be some sort of objective and widely accepted "mental fitness" test.
Unfortunately that ideal doesn't exist. Age is merely the best substitute for that we've got on hand.
The huge plus for using age as a metric is that it’s objective and straightforward. Birth certificates are public record, so ages are generally well known, and there can be a clear cutoff, without leaving room for potentially biased judgement calls, nor room for lengthy appeals.
I would, at the very least, have all judges and politicians retire once they reach the expected lifespan for their demographic. Men born in your birth year have a life expectancy of 68? You retire by 68. A life expectancy of 84? You retire by 84.
We have age limits that state how old you need to be to run for office, I see the logic in setting limits. It's just hard because a 75 year old can seem like they're about to curl over and die or they can be just as sharp as a 55 year old. On one hand, with age they have a ton of knowledge and experience, on the other, their cohort is rapidly dwindling and their ability to relate to the shared experience of younger cohorts is deminished. Ultimately for me, officials that have to run for reelection i think we should let the voters decide if that person is fit, but for judges with lifetime appointments we need to have some sort of cut off.
Elderly judges means that solutions of the past have longer tails, as our laws become less likely to be interpreted to adapt to the realities of today. I suspect keeping more conservative judges on the bench after the judicial blue wave hit Texas was the point of this amendment.
Get ready for an unpopular opinion: Old age should not be a basis on which someone is disqualified from holding office.
Why not? Because it is wrong to cast aspersions on someone because of something they did not choose. It remains appropriate to only qualify people for elected office if they are old enough, because we want people to have enough perspective and life experience, and that is directly related to being old enough.
My concern is judges that old not understanding the modern way of life for most people.
The life of a moden 25 year old and a 75 year old judge when he was 25 are so different they may as well have been from opposite ends of the world.
The real problem lies in the how SCOTUS rules on Constitutional matters, using "original intent" vs "original intent AND current societal, technological, etc changes" (which is how Canada's SCoC rules).
It remains appropriate to only qualify people for elected office if they are old enough,
Fun fact: it's legal to discriminate in the US based on age. But only towards younger, not older. You can't discriminate because someone is too old, but you CAN if they are "too young".
I believe the cut off for age discrimination suits is 40, but I'd have to look it up again.
it is wrong to cast aspersions on someone because of something they did not choose.
Maybe it's not about casting aspersions but rather fitness for the job. If a surgeon loses their arms in a tragic accident they probably won't be allowed to operate. Pilots are forced to retire at a certain age because of this well documented age-related decline. If natural mental decline from age impairs one's ability to make fair and reasonable judgements and/or causes one to lose touch with the society they are resolving conflicts within, that seems like it would similarly impair a judge's ability to effectively do their job.
Saying a class of people shouldn't be making rights for the country when they won't be around to see the consequences isn't casting aspersions on anyone.
I think term limits would rid us of career politicians like McConnell. Why have term limits for president and not far more powerful senators?
The only reason we have term limits for President is because the Republican party wanted to ensure that they got "a turn" in the wake of FDR.