Judicial retirement
According to a poll conducted by the Associated Press, six in ten Americans think the justices of the Supreme Court are too old. As the justices have lifetime tenures, many think they are simply too old to do their jobs. The opinion of an 84 year-old woman interviewed by the writer of the NBC article is that younger people need to be incorporated into the Supreme Court in order to bring in "fresh ideas". John Dean argues in his article that the problem becomes mental ineptitude. He says that it is not their bodies we have to worry about giving up on them, but their minds. The view he holds is that retirement is not so bad for these people as they retain their full salaries and are welcome on Courts of Appeal anytime they fancy. Dean also gives many instances in which justices were less than able in their capabilities, but as he says, they are hidden from the media and no one finds out. Now that media is more involved in the American Political System, it is becoming difficult to hide and the people start wanting to see changes. He says the older one gets, the more likely they are to suffer from mental problems and he proposes a mandatory retirement age. He even tells us that several justices were on board with this idea of a retirement age of say, 75, as long as it applied for all branches of the government. Dean concludes with the concession that while age is an implication, it varies greatly from person to person as to the actual age that the inability starts to influence decisions.
I want to start off by saying that I am one of the four out of ten that do not think the justices are too old. I believe that the Court represents a good variety of ages at the current moment. A lifetime tenure has always been the allowance for this job and I believe it is this way for a reason. The justices are not supposed to be influenced by the public or their political parties. Their post was set up to protect the rights given by the Constitution and to interpret it in a way that reflects uniformity and impersonality. In this, I believe that age does not have anything to do with capability. People can become decrepit at any age or not at all. Setting a specific age limit does very little to prevent bad decision making, but it can greatly hinder those who are making good decisions. Once a person reaches this level of their career, they have gone through intense education regimens, prestigious positions in their jobs, and have truly earned their spots as a Supreme Court justice. It is expected that it would be later in ones life. These people have worked for their whole lives to receive this honor, and I don't think it is right to limit their time on the Court by a general stereotype on age. "Fresh ideas" are not what is needed on the Supreme Court; we need people who are fully immersed in law and who truly know their background on making these important rulings. I think Congress has more need for these "fresh ideas". I do concur with the statement that some justices have no business making these decisions in their current state of mind, but can the same not be said for some of our presidents? In conclusion, I, for one, think it is reassuring to have these people, people who have devoted their whole lives to learning the law, in control of making these important decisions and I disagree with the notion that they should step down purely based on something as objective as age.
I want to start off by saying that I am one of the four out of ten that do not think the justices are too old. I believe that the Court represents a good variety of ages at the current moment. A lifetime tenure has always been the allowance for this job and I believe it is this way for a reason. The justices are not supposed to be influenced by the public or their political parties. Their post was set up to protect the rights given by the Constitution and to interpret it in a way that reflects uniformity and impersonality. In this, I believe that age does not have anything to do with capability. People can become decrepit at any age or not at all. Setting a specific age limit does very little to prevent bad decision making, but it can greatly hinder those who are making good decisions. Once a person reaches this level of their career, they have gone through intense education regimens, prestigious positions in their jobs, and have truly earned their spots as a Supreme Court justice. It is expected that it would be later in ones life. These people have worked for their whole lives to receive this honor, and I don't think it is right to limit their time on the Court by a general stereotype on age. "Fresh ideas" are not what is needed on the Supreme Court; we need people who are fully immersed in law and who truly know their background on making these important rulings. I think Congress has more need for these "fresh ideas". I do concur with the statement that some justices have no business making these decisions in their current state of mind, but can the same not be said for some of our presidents? In conclusion, I, for one, think it is reassuring to have these people, people who have devoted their whole lives to learning the law, in control of making these important decisions and I disagree with the notion that they should step down purely based on something as objective as age.