U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman lost her legal challenge to a suspension over concerns of mental deterioration. A judge rejected her constitutional challenge to the law underlying her suspension.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
This study discussed age-related cognitive decline, and towards the end, they describe how a sample found that a much steeper decline tends to begin at 60.
There is an active tradeoff happening here, assuming that someone continues to gain valuable wisdom in their later years of life (which is a bold assumption – some people seem to have stopped gaining it in their teen years).
Notably, one of the parts of the mind that goes into decline is logical reasoning…which I think would be pretty important for someone in such a role that we’re talking about.
This is how you get lots of lobbyists.
You know they can just do that now right?
Yeah? And they clearly do? Why change the law just to continue allowing it?
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?
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.
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.
I hate it, here.
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.
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?
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.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2683339/
This study discussed age-related cognitive decline, and towards the end, they describe how a sample found that a much steeper decline tends to begin at 60.
There is an active tradeoff happening here, assuming that someone continues to gain valuable wisdom in their later years of life (which is a bold assumption – some people seem to have stopped gaining it in their teen years).
Notably, one of the parts of the mind that goes into decline is logical reasoning…which I think would be pretty important for someone in such a role that we’re talking about.