Judge Newman has threatened to have staff arrested, forcibly removed from the building, and fired. She accused staff of trickery, deceit, acting as her adversary, stealing her computer, stealing her files, and depriving her of secretarial support. Staff have described Judge Newman in their interactions with her as “aggressive, angry, combative, and intimidating”; “bizarre and unnecessarily hostile”; making “personal accusations”; “agitated, belligerent, and demonstratively angry”; and “ranting, rambling, and paranoid.” Indeed, interactions with Judge Newman have become so dysfunctional that the Clerk of the Court has advised staff to avoid interacting with her in person or, when they must, to bring a co-worker with them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      But we set a limit because there needs to be one.

      That’s why. There are certain things that are significant enough that we don’t let just anyone do them, yet also important enough to self-determination that we don’t usually say a person will never be allowed to make that choice. That age when we’ve decided people are mentally, not physically, mature enough to make those decisions is 18. Most people have reached that threshold, some have been there for years, some never will be. Some will barely skim past that threshold, and we will hear stories about them for years. Those who are incapable of breaching that threshold have some or all of their rights as adults removed, and we call that guardianship, power of attorney, and similar things.

      The difference between minors and incapable seniors is that some never become that much less capable, and those that do will do so over a truly significant span of years, like half a lifetime’s difference. So how do you pick a number and say, “This is when adults are too old to make good decisions,” without disregarding the capabilities of the vast majority of the people affected on the low side of the range or being far too late to matter on the high side? Perhaps dealing with something with such a great degree of variability should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

      • Captain Aggravated
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        There is a mandatory retirement age for airline transport pilots. 65 years of age. There are also mandatory medical examinations for ALL commercial pilots.

        Now, the general public has a uniquely great interest in an airline pilot’s cardiovascular health, aka “is the geezer in the cockpit going to have a heart attack between here and Newark?”

        In a job like a judge or other government official whose job is largely paperwork, no heavy equipment is operated, I can see perhaps extending it to 70 years old or something, possibly with a part-time stipulation and possibly on condition of passing some cognition test, something.

        But yes something has to be done about the age epidemic in our government offices, our country should not be run primarily by the People Who Should Be Dead By Now If God Had Any Mercy demographic.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          I’m not sure why you’re so fixated on physical well-being for a job that has no negative consequences for poor physical health, and we have numerous examples of judges performing their jobs so poorly that an appeal is pretty much a slam dunk, regardless of age. Yet even when you acknowledge the merits of tests for mental competence in a field that literally references having sound judgement in its name, you still have to circle back to the age issue. There are better metrics than that, even ignoring the fact that we have good evidence that there are pretty shitty people in positions of power from just about every age demographic that can get elected or appointed.

          • Captain Aggravated
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            I’m “so fixated on physical well-being” because there are folks in this discussion saying that no one should be working at all over 65. Let me reiterate my points, low attention span listicle style:

            1. There is an industry with a mandatory retirement age. Airline pilot. 65 years old.
            2. This limit is largely in place for cardiovascular health reasons aka we don’t like pilots having heart attacks and less about cognition.
            3. Many retired airline pilots continue to fly smaller planes, often offering flight instruction, demonstrating mental wellness beyond the age of 65.
            4. Since many governmental roles such as judge etc. aren’t as immediately safety critical as airline pilot, much of the reason for an age limit can be relaxed, but I still feel that senility (or just plain being out of touch) is a significant factor in such cases.

            So there needs to be some practical limit to the age of government officials.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I will say this one last time. Equating the necessity for certain jobs to require physical fitness with the requirement for other jobs to have mental fitness makes no sense. This does not mean we shouldn’t remove people from their jobs because they are old, but because they are unfit. When there is a strong correlation between fitness and age, such as physical well-being, and a failure to perform your job puts lives on the line, age limits make sense. When there is a much weaker correlation between age and fitness, such as mental acuity, other tools will achieve better results.

              All of this is tangential to setting a retirement age. If you as a nation are going to require people to stop working at a specific age, then you as a nation should be willing to guarantee the financial well-being of people over a certain age. If you don’t want to support them, then you shouldn’t mandate they stop being able to support themselves. Currently, about a quarter of the American workforce is over 65. I guarantee a significant number of them aren’t doing it out of preference rather than necessity.

              • Captain Aggravated
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                I don’t believe our nation should guarantee the financial well-being of people over a certain age, I believe there are lots of old people who deserve to starve to death for the harm and destruction their unchecked greed has caused.

                But they might not be who we’re talking about (though we’re on the subject of greed, they probably are.) If a fucking JUDGE can’t retire at 70 on a pension we might as well starve us ALL to death because I’d take that as mathematical proof that hope doesn’t exist.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t think it will be the judge, or those with enough power to cause harm to society to the planet or society who would suffer under your grand plans. More like the old lady working at Wal-Mart who would love to be able to retire and still be able to afford food and shelter. This is why sweeping generalizations while focusing on only a tiny part of the outcome both lead to bad policies and makes you look like a ghoul.

                  I missed the context of government officials. I still think a simple age requirement is a poor choice, but certainly better than no retirement options at all within that context.

                  • Captain Aggravated
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    On the topic of "Should GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS have mandatory retirement ages, I don’t see what the little old gramma working at Walmart has to do with anything, other than trying to dishonestly build false sympathy for a group of people who has overwhelmingly voted Republican demonstrating a strong hatred of social safety nets, so as far as I’m concerned no social safety nets is what they should get. It’s called consequences.