?>


Politics & Religion


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER
Mandatory retirement ages for judiciary, legislative, and executive offices
Posted: Posted December 30th, 2019 by chiarizio
View Source Report Thread Views

I’d rather do this as a poll, but sad experience has shown me that’s beyond my competence for the time being.

What do you think would be appropriate mandatory retirement ages for politicians (whether appointed or elected) in the various branches of national and/or regional governments?
Maybe you think there should be none, for some branches or at some levels?

Do you think the retirement ages should be different at the national level than at the regional level?
Or do you think they should vary from branch to branch?

If I could make this a poll I would give the following five choices:
  • 90 years old
  • 85 years old
  • 80 years old
  • 75 years old
  • 70 years old

    I personally feel 90 years old is way too old and 70 years old is way too young.
    I’m dithering between 85 and 80, leaning toward 85.

    I don’t see why it should differ between national government and regional government.

    If I were to recommend different retirement ages for different branches, I’d make judiciary oldest, legislative intermediate, and executive youngest.
    For instance, maybe, 85 for judges, 80 for legislators, and 75 for executives.

    For a bicameral legislature, if the upper chamber and the lower chamber have different minimum-age requirements, maybe they should also have different mandatory retirement ages.

    For instance, for the US Federal offices:
    85 for Federal judges
    85 for Senators
    80 for executives (President, VP, cabinet, etc)
    75 for Representatives

    Or
    85 for Federal Judges
    80 for Senators
    75 for executives
    75 for Representatives

    Or something like that.

    Probably some people would like
    90 for Justices and Judges
    85 for Presidents, Veeps, and Cabinet department heads
    80 for Senators
    75 for Representatives

    Or something like that.


  • There are 43 Replies
    Load all posts On page: 1 2 ... 4 5
      settingsSettings

    I'm not for having a cap on it due to age. Only mental competence.

    Posted December 30th, 2019 by Fox Forever
    View Source Quote Report

    Same. If you're senile or something you shouldn't be in office.

    Posted December 30th, 2019 by Xhin
    View Source Quote Report
    Xhin
    Full speed ahead

    Don’t care as much about age limits as term limits. For the love of god let us have term limits. For the love of god let us have limits for SCOTUS someday. Who the hell thought lifetime appointments for judges were a good idea?

    As for mental competence, I get the sentiment behind it (a la Reagan slipping into Alzheimer’s as president), but who gets to ultimately define “mental competence”? Study of the mind and mental illness is still pretty tentative and shaky. See also:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

    Posted December 31st, 2019 by pacman
    View Source Quote Report

    @Fox_Forever:
    @Xhin:

    While you may both be right, that’s not an answer when the only way to get rid of someone is an impeachment, and that requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate.
    Many other democracies have mandatory retirement ages for many officers.
    The Roman Catholic Church is considering an 85-y/o upper age limit on who can be elected Pope and on which Cardinals can vote for Pope.
    In many democracies, many offices have terms. For instance the RC Church is considering a 15-year term for Popes.

    If an officer needn’t be elected, and doesn’t have a finite term (so needn’t be re-appointed after a set time), and doesn’t have a mandatory retirement age, the only ways to get rid of them are impeachment and assassination.

    You maybe haven’t seen how many anosognostically senile Senators and Representatives and Supreme Court Justices the US has had, just during my lifetime?

    We just can’t count on death or impeachment or self-recognition of vanished competence to remove those who are no longer capable of performing appropriately.

    ———

    If you’re against mandatory retirement ages, you must be in favor of terms; and perhaps also of term-limits.

    So, what do you think the longest term-of-office should be?



    Edited December 31st, 2019 by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report

    @pacman:
    Effectively I guess I’m saying they must be checked for mental competence every so often or at a certain age.

    I don’t think legislative terms should be shorter than four nor longer than seven years.
    I don’t think executive terms should be shorter than five nor longer than ten (should I say eight?) years.
    I don’t think judicial terms should be shorter than nine nor longer than fifteen years.

    I don’t think there should be limits on how many terms, nor how many consecutive terms, legislators nor judges can serve.

    I think term-limits on executives should allow at least three consecutive terms.
    They might allow more than three terms, if they weren’t consecutive.
    For instance, maybe:
    At most three out of any four consecutive terms;
    At most five out of any seven consecutive terms;
    At most six out of any nine consecutive terms;
    And at most seven terms life-time.

    ———

    Edited December 31st, 2019 by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report

    As for mental competence, I get the sentiment behind it (a la Reagan slipping into Alzheimer’s as president), but who gets to ultimately define “mental competence”? Study of the mind and mental illness is still pretty tentative and shaky.

    I knew this would come up as a follow up question after I stated it. But I am not a mental expert. I would leave it up to people at the head of their field. I know how troubling this is because we still can't be 100% sure with the standards if the field is still being looked into.

    While you may both be right, that’s not an answer when the only way to get rid of someone is an impeachment, and that requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

    If anything this shows the toxicity of the two party system with people willing to throw away their morals to tow party lines. I still do not think that there should be an age limit. A term limit is fine. "For life" positions (a la supreme court) is just bullshit.

    For the love of god let us have term limits. For the love of god let us have limits for SCOTUS someday. Who the hell thought lifetime appointments for judges were a good idea?

    In total agreement.

    Posted December 31st, 2019 by Fox Forever
    View Source Quote Report

    @Fox_Forever:
    If you’re against maximum ages, are you also against minimum ages?
    In your opinion:
    Assuming they’re known, somehow, to be mentally competent, in some way:
    Should people younger than 18 y/o be allowed to vote?
    Should people younger than 25 y/o be eligible to the House of Reps?
    Should people younger than 30 y/o be eligible to the Senate?
    Should people younger than 35 y/o be eligible for President?

    Should the RC Church go back to not requiring candidates for Pope to be at least 65 y/o?
    Should they go back to allowing 90-y/o Cardinals to attend conclaves?

    Edited December 31st, 2019 by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report

    @Xhin:
    Same. If you're senile or something you shouldn't be in office.

    How are you going to implement or enforce that?
    The 25th Amendment gives a way, if it’s the U.S. President we’re talking about.
    But if the Prez is anosognostic, it requires 2/3 of each chamber of Congress to take the side of the VP and a majority of the Cabinet, against the Prexy.
    And the 25th Amendment provides no way to protect the Cabinet during the conflict.


    Posted December 31st, 2019 by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report
    Posted January 1st by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report

    “Mental competence testing” just seems like it could be too easily abused, much like “literacy tests” for voting eligibility back in the 19th/early 20th centuries, which ended up being used to keep blacks and other undesirables from voting. And how can we be sure the “heads of the field” would be immune from corruption, bias and/or outside influence in determining who is mentally stable, especially when there really is no objective definition for “mental stability” currently?

    I mean, I think Joe Biden is losing it mentally (and let’s not even get into Trump), but I don’t think that should necessarily disqualify him or anyone from running. It would be too easy for the powerful and influential to deem anyone they dislike “mentally incompetent”.

    Posted January 1st by pacman
    View Source Quote Report
    Next page Load rest of pages On page: /
    Reply to: Mandatory retirement ages for judiciary, legislative, and executive offices
    Enter your message here

    Rules | Report Issue | Request Feature | Roadmap Facebook Page | Discord Group
    GTX0 © 2009-2020 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
    You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett