Reagan appointed the first judge directly to the federal circuit court…
And she’s still fucking sitting there at 97 years old
At 97, Newman is the oldest judge on the federal bench. She was appointed in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan and was the first judge appointed directly to the Federal Circuit.
Maybe we should cap it at like 100?
I mean. Ideally way younger, but it’s insane there’s no cap at all for a lifetime appointment.
Since the Supreme Court is full of Originalists now, let’s think the way the farmers would have thought. When they wrote “lifetime appointments” into the Constitution, the average life expectancy for a male child at birth was 35 years. But that counts a lot of infant and child deaths, not to mention deaths due to military service. A man who managed to make it to 50 years old in 1789 would probably have at least 21 years left. Source
So, all lifetime appointments should be forced to retire at 71, because that’s how long a lifetime appointment in 1789 would have lasted. Hey, Clarence, will you go along with my thorough analysis if I give you a “gratuity” afterwards?
“Yet the average lifespan of the 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence was 66 years, and a quarter of them (including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin) lived to 80 or older.”
The average age of the signers, when they signed the DOI, was something like 26 or some really young age. Washington was practically venerable at like 40 or 45.
I don’t think your example portrays originalism. They could have said “Until they reach the age of average life expectancy” then but instead went with life time appointments when in good behavior. A lifetime being serving until that judge dies, unless they’ve given up their seat.
To change lifetime appointments we’d need a constitutional amendment.
Your using logic and facts to drive your conclusions, though. You’re supposed to do it the other way around: start with your conclusion, and cherry-pick facts to reach it. Once you learn that, you, too can be a Conservate SC Justice!
Your example is actually much closer to Living Constitutionalism which based on this comment I’m going to assume you probably don’t want to be criticizing.
Originalism is tethered to textualism which is antithetical to your analogy reading words out of text.
Things work different up here, ie: judges are never elected - always appointed; our judiciary rules based on our Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and common law (not original intent or civil law [except Quebec]); and treaty rights for First Nations peoples (and sometimes Metis and Inuit).
I won’t rule out him stepping down until the convention is over. No one is “spreading” anything, his own party leadership are still talking about him to step down to varying degrees, that’s factual. Stopping people talking about it won’t change that.
I think you’re more uncomfortable with how this national conversation will put make it impossible to argue that Biden isn’t responsible for a democratic loss in November.
This is fundamentally the standard “people are saying…” classic propoganda engine that trump literally used for over 4 years straight.
Step 1: Trump and/or his team talks about <thing> without any basis, just remarking on it Step 2: News cycles pick it up and remark about Trump remarking on it Step 3: Trump now re-iterates the talking point but this time saying its in the news Step 4: The news once again re-iterates it
At this point its so obfuscated in layers its hard to pick up the original source being “Trump just bullshitting about nothing” and then it becomes news
It’s such a tired and classic play its insane that people somehow eight years later are still falling for it.
Biden did a fucking press conference very clearly stating he is running, I don’t know how the fuck he can be more explicit that this isnt up for discussion, it’s happening, stop fucking spreading some form of implication it isnt. He so very clearly is who the democrats are pushing forward, everything else is propaganda bullshit to make people second guess.
This is fundamentally the standard “people are saying…” classic propoganda engine that trump literally used for over 4 years straight.
No. It’s not. Power player right-wing democrats in his own party are actually asking the question seriously. People who up to this point have been his strongest allies.
It’s not hypothetical, it’s real people in real positions of influence having the discusdion, regardless of whether Biden refuses to step aside.
Now please never try to make that argument again. You’ve been given direct evidence that it’s false, if you persist you’ll be deliberately lying. It’s not the same thing at all.
I’d recommend you actually read the very article and explicitly try and look for a genuine quote where an individual explicitly is quoted as saying Biden should drop out.
Note how everytime it’s a generalized paraphrase at not an actual quote.
And interestingly enough all the actual quotes are more along the lines of “He should be doing x”, or etc.
And even more so many articles capstone at the end with “when asked they re-affirmed support for biden”
The articles wiggle word their way just enough to subtly imply someone is saying he should drop, yet they can’t manage to find a single actual concrete quote of anyone actually saying it, which shouldn’t be that hard to do.
That should be a red flag for you that the article is being purposefully vague on purpose.
Stop falling for the bullshit. Actually read what the article says and look at the quotes, note the dissonance between the quotes and the paraphrasing…
I’d recommend you actually read the very article and explicitly try and look for a genuine quote where an individual explicitly is quoted as saying Biden should drop out.
No, you’re desperately trying to ignore why they are trying to be delicate; these are people who are close to Biden, and they understand that they need to try to persuade him to step down but also if he chooses not to they need to be able to try and drag his corpse over the line.
If Biden had their full support they wouldn’t be qualifying all their endorsements, they wouldn’t be phrasing it as “Whoever the candidate is I’ll support them.” They would be saying the discussion of his age is nonsense, but they’re not because they understand this is one thing they can’t just pretend isn’t a reality. They’re positioning themselves for both scenarios because there are closed door meetings about this topic.
And besides, other dems have been more explicit, including Adam Smith and Pat Ryan, both of whom did not soften the blow at all:
These are not fringey left dems, they’re right-wing, party establishment.
But yeah, I can see you’re not ever going to be honest about this, no matter how much evidence you’re shown. You’ve got some other agenda here besides a democratic win, and I don’t really care to know what it is honestly. Good bye.
I’ve been a couple times. It really is beautiful in different ways depending on the season. The wild flower super blooms in Feb/Mar are amazing, and the temps are reasonable then, too. In the summer it is just a desolate wasteland that has its own charm.
Anyone who can convince this many people, to spend that much money on a giant paper clip deserves the 44 billion payout. As long as the TSLA shareholders are good holding the bag.
How the hell does he find this many gullable suckers with money ?
“It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe ‘big F-ing deal’ Biden of 2010,” Clooney wrote. “He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate.”
Biden is going to make some snide remark about him now…
Just like he has to every other supporter who didn’t give 100% loyalty forever.
Remember when we all made fun of trump for shit like this?
People are burying their heads in the sand and will act shocked and point fingers when Biden loses rather than actually try to do something about it while there’s still time.
Biden is going to make some snide remark about him now…
“Listen, folks, you gotta understand, this guy, he’s just… well, y’know, he’s a real… um, like a, uh, y’know, a complete… ah, c’mon man, he’s a real knucklehead, can’t even… y’know, get it right, it’s just… malarkey.”
I noticed he sounded like Trump in one of his recent statements. I guess this is just what happens when you insist on holding the most stressful job imaginable while well beyond the age of retirement
I don’t know that he’s actually significantly worse off than he was before, but he may be heading to the point where, regardless of his health, he has lost the confidence of the electorate in his health.
This debate, and all of his post-debate has hurt him, surely. But its detached from reality to suggest that Biden wasn’t “severely injured” going into this debate. The difference was that we saw an energized, verbal, focused, able to maintain eye contact and remember the first half of his sentence Joe Biden during the SOTU back in March. Bidens debate was a geriatric who is clearly “sunsetting”. Bidens post debate interviews re-enforced that.
Biden needs to be leading by 5 (50-55%) in the polls nationally to demonstrate that he had the “confidence” of the electorate. He was leading by 5 in 2020 and barely managed a victory in the EC by 40k net votes. If Biden is at 45% in the polls, he’s not winning the election. Biden is at 35% and dropping.
Biden hasn’t had the confidence of the electorate, basically ever, in this election cycle. At no point has he been “winning” or even really viable in this campaign. This is just purely what the data show us. Its what Nate Silvers been saying for over a year, its what Ezra Klein has been saying for a long time. The apologists around Biden protected him from any kind of real primary, or significant criticism in what has been the most critical period for evaluating his sufficiency around him as candidate. We were prevented from doing the kind of due diligence required.
Main points, Biden wasn’t winning this when it wasn’t about his health. Layer in the appallingly clear indications around his health and extrapolate. Biden was doing way better in terms of demonstrating his ability to “be the president” with the SOTU back in March. Draw a line from then to now, and then see where that line puts you 3 months from now. If you’ve ever had an elderly family member “sunset” on you, it is like, shocking how fast it happens.
Universal health care, 100% financial support once you reach federal retirement age, and you are legally required to retire from any federal position once you reach the social security retirement age. You can go do private industry stuff, but no federal jobs.
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.
Security theater. A show run by idiots for idiots to make them believe they’re safe. How many guns they miss, knives, etc. It’s ridiculous. And this month, how many fireworks they missed in people’s carryon bags is outstanding! Now with the internet we can get real-time updates by soon-to-be-on-the-no-fly-list social media wannabe stars, who post all the crap they get through security.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.