49
Sonia Sotomayor's retirement is a political IQ test
(www.natesilver.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
49 points (90.2% liked)
politics
18894 readers
3170 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While experience is clearly an important job qualification for a judge, at some point their experience is from a different era. At the beginning of her training the world was a very different place, but she now applies her experience from that era to cases today. I don't mean to say her experience is entirely irrelevant, just that the old have to give way to the young if progress is to be made. These guys should have age limits if not term limits. At the very least there should be a known point in time that they need to be replaced so that political games cannot be played with their appointments.
If you replace one judge every year, that will give the judge nearly a decade of service. If somebody karks it, the other guy gets to stay another year.
Once you hit your 9 years… (or 10,) you’re done. Retirement it is. (Or maybe you get to teach at a law school or something.)
Clarence Thomas serial killer origin story right there 😁
So, do you not think the principle of ensuring a justice doesn't have to worry about their next gig is valuable, or do you think youthfulness is just more important?
I think the court should be expanded, quite a lot. There is nothing magical or constitutional about the number nine. Congress could easily expand it to twenty, or fifty, or more while limiting justices by terms or age would require a constitutional amendment. Nothing says every justice has to sit on every case. A larger court would be significantly less prone to extremes, reducing the importance of individual nominations.
That would be putting words in my mouth.
Firstly, I think that having been a justice, which is a very distinguished post , they would never have to worry about future employment, it would probably find them. I also think that a job for life means you don't worry about scrutiny. You can do what you want almost without consequence because you don't need to worry about what comes next. If no one can fire you, and you don't need to worry about people being happy with your performance, you can be free so act however you want. In your own interest. In the interest of some benefactor, or should you choose to, in the interest of the people.
Second, I did not say youthfulness it's important. There is a vast gulf between youthful and aged. I don't want a 20 year old justice and more than a 70 year old one.
Lastly, expanding it would be great. No arguments here.
it is learning, not youth, that makes a person be not-living-in-the-past,
& there isn't any substitute for getting old-enough to understand systems-of-systems thinking, as some "grandmothers & grandfathers", as the Indigenous people call 'em, can.
Age isn't, of itself, sufficient to judge whether someone's competent to do the work they currently are doing.
Yes I agree with that, but age is a strong indicator.