by Jack
It’s been suggested that members of the Supreme Court should not serve after age 80. Personally I think after age 70 they should move on. I would also like to see them limited by the number of years they can serve too. 15 years should be the maximum term, or age 70, whichever comes first.
A persons peak mental capacity matters to the nation or at least it should matter! For most of us, there are noticeable or measurable cognitive declines sometime after age 60 and we just keep slipping. Of course this depends on a number of factors, such as health, diet and exercise. But, its fair to say that a person who is 70 is generally not as sharp as they were at 50, right? It just seems logical to me the nation would be better served if the Justices were a bit younger. What do you think?
An interesting question, Jack.
I think it was Thurgood Marshall who responded (with incredulity) to a reporter questioning his reason for retiring, “Because I’m old!” He was in his nineties.
If only Ruth “Buzzy” G were of like mind.
Age discrimination would immediately rear it’s head and I tend to agree…with caveats.
Some people remain as sharp as a tack well into their 90’s.
Others, like Rep Nancy Pelosi for instance, definitely show signs of mental decline. (She, of course, believes calls for her resignation is a sexist “thing.”)
I would think that people in government positions, out of concern for the country, would have the good sense to bow out when it becomes obvious that they are losing it.
Fat chance of that happening.