Local Government TV

▼

Monday, October 03, 2016

Should Mandatory Retirement Age of Judges Be Upped to 75?

This question is actually on the ballot in two states this November. In addition to Pennsylvania, voters in Alabama are being asked to increase the retirement age. Oregon voters will consider eliminating it entirely.

In Federalist No. 79, Publius (Alexander Hamilton) argues that independent judges should serve for life. I agreed and voted to increase the retirement age during the primary. But in nine of 11 state referenda on this topic since 1995, the measure has failed.

NorCo Council member Hayden Phillips sums up his opposition on Facebook:
I am not in favor of raising the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 years old. It is not based on my opinion of the mental capacity of 71 year old jurists. It is based on my belief in term limits. Raising the retirement age will add 5 more years before mandatory change can take place and I don't think that is a good thing.
at

7 comments:

  1. AnonymousOctober 3, 2016 at 4:02 AM

    NO!

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 3, 2016 at 7:49 AM

    Not no, but HELL NO.

    Judges should be limited five year appointments and that's IT.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 3, 2016 at 7:54 AM

    Hokie Joe says:
    Someone just doesn't get it. Term limits and serving till your 75 are two different issues. You can have term limits. Judges are elected for ten year terms. Change it to two or three six year terms. The Senate and the House can follow the example. However putting a judge out to pasture when he is only seventy doesn't make sense. He can be elected and not serve out a full term.??????? Seventy Five seems a fair age.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousOctober 3, 2016 at 8:47 AM

    At 75 you can be painting pastures, not serving in a courtroom. We need mentally sharp people as judges, not old people with borderline dementia.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousOctober 3, 2016 at 10:31 AM

    putting a judge out to pasture when he is only seventy doesn't make sense.

    No it doesn't, that's why they can continue serving as senior judges. No need to raise the retirement age. What's really going on here is that Republicans in Harrisburg are trying to keep incumbent Judge Saylor serving on the Supreme Court. He would have to retire next year if the referendum fails.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousOctober 3, 2016 at 2:45 PM

    The Senior Judge thing is a sweet deal. Some of these folks continue to make nice coin until they drop. Just check out the sweet deal some former magistrates have.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousOctober 6, 2016 at 4:29 AM

    Baked Ziti should be taken off the menu

    ReplyDelete

You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.