How would you like your freedom determined by a 103 year old judge?

I understand the reasons for lifetime appointments to the bench to remove the element of politics from the judiciary. At some point, however it gets to a point where justice can not simply be meeted out fairly with someone beyond a certain age. At some point statistics have to take a priority and when an age is reached, forced retirement must be happen.

"As lawyers and litigants wait in respectful silence, Brown, who is 103, carefully steers his power wheelchair behind the bench, his stooped frame almost disappearing behind its wooden bulk. He adjusts under his nose the plastic tubes from the oxygen tank lying next to the day's case documents. Then his voice rings out loud and firm to his law clerk, "Call your case."

"As a federal judge, I was appointed for life or good behavior, whichever I lose first," Brown quipped in an interview. How does he plan to leave the post? "Feet first," he says.

hosted.ap.org...

There is no way it was envisioned that someone would hold onto a judgeship into their 100s when they created the lifetime appointment. 99% of judges are reasonable and responsible and retire when they get to a place where their mental faculties have eroded or they lack the vigor and stamina to do the job effectively. There is absolutely no way that this man can provide the level of thoughtful rigor required to do his job and absolutely no way that justice can possibly be served by having him sit on the bench and decide on cases where people can lose their freedoms at 103 years of age.

He is a self-absorbed jerk and should have had the responsibility to retire 20 years ago. The folks within his district are cowards for not moving to impeach him.

A bunch of folks probably think its cool that a gent of this age is still working. I doubt they would think it was cool if they or a friend or loved on was tossed in the slam by this old fool.

This should apply to the Supreme Court most of all. History is full of Justices hanging on for a change in political leadership in order to retire. Spending time in their chambers, sleeping, watching TV while letting 20 year old law school clerks write their opinions for them. It has been going on for decades and now, especially with the medical ability to keep folks alive longer the law needs to change and they need to be out by 80 at the latest regardless of their abilities.

reply to post by dolphinfan


i'm all for removing every doddering old fool from the judicial system, politics, law enforcement, medicine, and anywhere else they are doing more harm than good. every dog has his day. seems like some people were never fed a piece of humble pie. an excessive sense of self-importance is an ugly trait at any age.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
I understand the reasons for lifetime appointments to the bench to remove the element of politics from the judiciary. At some point, however it gets to a point where justice can not simply be meeted out fairly with someone beyond a certain age. At some point statistics have to take a priority and when an age is reached, forced retirement must be happen.

Do you have these statistics? or any proof at all that this judge does more harm than good?

Becuase this sounds more like a age-biased rant than anything.

Your post reminded me of a Patton Oswalt bit about birthdays. Go to 4:30 in the video to hear why we would be better off with centenarian leaders than with the leaders we currently have (NSFW):

only politicians and judges.

to be honest i don't like the fact that the majority of congress is populated with 70 year old idiots.

force retirement works for me in both cases.

reply to post by eNumbra


Really? Here is but one study which suggest that mental function is seriously impaired in a significant percentage of folks over the age of 71.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Are you really suggesting that there is no decline in mental facility upon reaching the age of 80 let alone 100?

If so, great. The thing is that mental ability typically suffers a slow decline. At what point did this guys facilities begin to be less than adequate? How many folks have been sent to jail because this guy did not understand the nuance of a law? It does not matter if he is 100%. The point is that there is a reasonable chance that he is not and you are then faced with two alternatives. Testing them every year or forcing them to retire.

They should be forced to retire, period. How about this - if they can repass the bar, they can sit on the bench? Every year over the age of 70.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by eNumbra

 

Really?

Yes really. You make a claim, you back up the claim.

Here is but one study which suggest that mental function is seriously impaired in a significant percentage of folks over the age of 71.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Are you really suggesting that there is no decline in mental facility upon reaching the age of 80 let alone 100?

Are you really suggesting that because ONE THIRD of people begin to decline mentally at 70 that this man must also (despite not presenting any evidence) be mentally deficient because he is older than the average in the statistics?

If so, great. The thing is that mental ability typically suffers a slow decline. At what point did this guys facilities begin to be less than adequate? How many folks have been sent to jail because this guy did not understand the nuance of a law? It does not matter if he is 100%.

You're assuming the answer to your own question. Stop. Rather, ask IF anyone has been sent to jail because he didn't understand the nuance of law; then ask yourself how many judges half this man's age have probably done the same. (This is not a justification of him staying mind you, before you accuse me of that)

The point is that there is a reasonable chance that he is not and you are then faced with two alternatives. Testing them every year or forcing them to retire.

No argument here, but the same should be done with everything from Licenses to practice medicine, law, driving... etc, for people of all ages. Some people's faculties begin declining even before 70, waiting until they're older is proof of Age-bias.

They should be forced to retire, period. How about this - if they can repass the bar, they can sit on the bench? Every year over the age of 70.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself. Either they pass the test and can stay or force them to retire regardless? Do you really hate the idea of a 103 year old man who isn't senile that much?


There is no proof, or even a hint of this judge being mentally defunct and you go on the attack; you obviously have a problem with old people.

On average, I think you could certainly expect some decline in his mental acuity, but how much, or even if, that's true in this particular instance is something I can't answer. If he is still capable of performing his duties at a high level, then I have no issue with him remaining in office, nor can I see a justification for removing him. That being said, there does need to be a means of testing and removing someone *if* necessary. I'm just not convinced, on the basis of age alone, that its necessary in this case.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he's more capable than a fair percentage of federal judges half his age.

IMO it would be a great idea. At least this judge was around during those fateful days BEFORE the Federal Reserve, BEFORE the "New Deal", BEFORE most of the retarded tyrannical practices we now enjoy from the FedGov. Gee, you just might get someone who understands the concept of a "Justice System" rather than the infantile crap we must succumb to every day in our Courts system.
Bring back Judge Learned Hand!

ganjoa

i think this is similar to a 50 year old living at home with his parents. if a person or generation havent/hasnt been given the opportunity to exert their talents/potential they will atrophy in their ability to do so.

reply to post by eNumbra


Here are a few studies which assert a few things:

- mental ability is at its peak at 26 years of age and begins to decline after 27
- mental ability has a sharp decline after the age of 60

www.denverpost.com...
www.virginia.edu...
www.ygoy.com...

I agree with you on the other professions as well, but there is a huge difference. If I'm in the hospital and a doctor comes in who is 100 years old I can ask for a different doctor. If they won't get me one, I can have them take me to a different hospital. I would not be treated by a 100 year old doctor. Not for anything.

Same with a lawyer.

No so with a judge. If I am unfortunate enough to be in front of him, that is it. I can appeal, but that is after the fact.

You also don't get the lack of statistics relative to prior case history with a judge. A judge is in many cases providing subjective judgement. There is no way to ascertain if this gent was giving out appropriate sentences or inappropriate ones.

I'm guessing you were OK with Robert Byrd being strapped to a hand truck being wheeled into the Senate like Hanible Lector then poked with a pen so he could shout "Aye" during votes. I was not

This judge is a selfish ass who should have removed himself from the bench. Obviously he chooses maintaining his own power over doing what is in the best interests of the law he proports to uphold. He is certainly within his rights to die on the bench. Thats why the law needs to be changed.

reply to post by dolphinfan

How would you like your freedom determined by a 103 year old judge?,

I don't want MY freedom determined by anyone of any age.