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.

  • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    But there is a HUGE difference between living a healthy, active, and fulfilling life and holding a public office deciding extremely sensitive and important things that will decide the outcome of someone’s life or the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

    What if 50% of people above a certain age have a mental of physical disability(example), then would an age limit be justified? There are probably more 25-30 year olds than 70-80 year olds that are mentally and intellectually sound enough to hold office.

    • toasteecup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m fully in favor of having better representation in our elected offices but limiting it based solely on age feels bad a like solution when the problem is based on problems that may happen with age.

      For example, let’s say you were a berry eater who loves wild berries. You go out and eat a berry and notices that later on it gave you indigestion, after several more times that berry has consistently done it but other berries do not, would you stop eating wild berries or identify the one giving you indigestion and stop eating those?

      It’s a silly example, but it works. If someone is capable of performing the position without issues they should be able to. That’s why I’m advocating for a solution that’s based on identifying those solutions after they appear so that anyone who is capable and has the desire can work as they like.

      For those capable people, a fulfilling life can be defined as working the position. Why stop them from it?

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I understand what you are saying.

        However, why shouldn’t there be a lower age limit on elected office? Plenty of capable people for it. If they are capable of performing the position without issues they should be able to.

        It has to go both ways because the exact same arguments can be made for each end of the age spectrum.

        • toasteecup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I couldn’t agree more!

          Lower the age limits a bit, and add in some mandatory health checks.

          Gotta say, you’re one the people who makes me love Lemmy so much more than reddit. Good discussion, and being able to disagree and agree respectfully

      • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because they need to get out of the way for the next generation.

        Your examples work well in La La land but in reality those tests and checkups would be riddled with fraud and favouritism.