When it comes to age on the ballot, Texas didn’t wait until 2024 to weigh in.
Asked to let judges stay on the bench until they’re 79 years old — a year younger than President Joe Biden — Texas voters soundly rejected the proposal in Tuesday’s elections, a defeat that drew new attention to issues of age and fitness for office in the U.S.
“Age is front of mind for American voters in a way that it has not traditionally been and they are nervous about it,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University.
Others cautioned against broader takeaways. At least four other states have rejected similar proposals over the last decade, according to the National Center for State Courts. And states that have passed the measures have mostly done so in close votes.
The media cracks me up.
“None of these really good election results have anything to do with Joe Biden in 2024. Except the results that we can spin into being bad for him, those matter.”
I wouldn’t say the media under covered the Democratic wins. I also think there’s still real reason to worry about how Biden fares next year, because he is underperforming compared to the average dem. I’m worried young voters abandon him precisely because of his age. Without the unprecedented surge in youth voting in 2020, Trump wins.
It’s long past time to get the generation of lead-induced dementia patients out of office. Slow Biden, Glitch McConnell, and all of their geriatric ilk need to go.
Glitch McConnell
lol I haven’t heard that one before, that’s a good one.
I’m quite a fan of Lich McConnell since he definitely has a philactery
Sounds like something antibiotics could clear up.
Maybe that’s why he hates healthcare so much?
But Trump is young and spry, right?
Not in the slightest. Trump is a prime example of what happened to the brains of kids who ate lead paint chips.
To be fair, he’s also a speed addict.
The problem with these guys isn’t that they are old, it is that their way of dealing with problems is outdated.
-
They thought that $400 was enough to cover people for months of lost Covid wages.
-
They still think oil is “the most perfect energy in the world”
-
They think college is still $1200 for the experience
-
They think $7.50 is more then enough to cover housing, car, essentials.
-
No reality on global warming. Because it isn’t going to effect them.
Only one of those things is partially due to age. The rest of it is because they’re beholden to corporations. A geriatric progressive / social democrat / actual leftie would have very different views.
If you think they’re trying to do the right thing but just don’t know any better, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
I think they’re both. I don’t treat my politicians like Good vs. Evil.
But as smart evil vs. dumb evil.
Some of these guys have failed upwards so long just by doing the same cost cutting measures they always had. It’s the only strategy that has worked for them for 75+ years.
Only this time it isn’t working.
Rather then change their mindset, they will let America Rot and the rest of the world will outpace us in our hubris. I consider this a dumb evil situation.
It’s pretty evil. Unless the politician in question openly refuses corporate PAC money, you can be sure they take open bribes that affect their decisions to betray the will and values of the American people.
I hate to break it to you, but Biden is definitely a corporate hack.
I hate to break it to you, but Biden is definitely a corporate hack.
For sure, but that is my fault for not adding context.
I wasn’t referencing a political party, but a mindset any political leader. I would hope that most leaders would make smart decisions.
But my personal belief is that most governments operate on a sense of Narcissism or Egoism.
Which can still be useful, but not if for every dumb evil choice (Roe V Wade) that is made, 50 dumb evil problems are created.
Who can respect that?
I mean, if we are just making rhetorical arguments…. Do you think Hitler believed what he was doing was evil?
-
Healthwise, Trump appears to be older than Biden
The party that would vote for Trump is also older, though. The Democratic party needs to attract the younger folks, so it’s more of a concern for us than for the MAGA crowd.
An age limit on elderly judges is critical where they get appointed for life.
At least these other geriatric ilk have to get re-elected periodically. In previous years I would have said to trust the voters to eventually come to the right conclusion, but elections are really crazy these days
Judicial elections are barely even elections. Independent voting guides never mention them and news media rarely profile or interview them (or if they do it’s not prominently compared to other local races). Plus at least in my experience incumbent judges usually run unopposed. I also think they have very strong restrictions on what they can/can’t say while campaigning so voters can’t even do their own research properly (especially for new judges, who don’t have much of a track record). Basically it’s near impossible to be an educated voter when it comes to judges, so maybe they’re better off being appointed.
Judgeships are also rarely contested, making the elections a useless formality.
Lead-induced?
Yes. Lead used to be everywhere. In the paint on your house walls. In the paint on your children’s toys, that they would inevitably put in their mouth. In makeup. In water pipes (still in use in many places, see Flint, MI). In gasoline, leading to lead-tainted air pollution.
I’ve had/have lead poisoning. It’s not fun. I had to take some horse sized pills that were virtually impossible to keep down… it was like there was a little trampoline in my stomach that just made them want to pop straight back up.
My stomach still lurches a little thinking about them.
In water pipes
Better check my bong!
Actually yes. Lead and cadmium in glass and pigment products is a real problem.
Yeah, lead fucked a lot of people up.
And it still is affecting our children.
I mean I know lead is bad for you but the body does process it over time and leaded gas has been banned since the 70s. You can’t just disqualify everyone who was alive in the 70s because there was potential for lead exposure.
One would hope that such a bold and specific claim as “the President and Senate Minority Leader have lead-induced dementia” would have…a single shred of specific evidence.
Lead poisoning causes permanent irreversible brain damage that manifests in the form of learning disability and behavioral disorders.
Ok so the claim is that the president and Senate minority leader got permanent irreversible brain damage in the 70s?
More than likely, they got it as children.
You think it is more than likely that both of these people had permanent brain damage their whole lives and proceded to get elected to higher and higher office continuously getting votes amongst the scrutiny of the national press for decades? Despite having zero evidence.
If true, it must be brain damage so slight that it’s meaningless. If false, you’re just making something up because you don’t like some political leaders.
Don’t forget leaded paint. It was also banned in those decades but any house/building from before then is potentially contaminated with lead paint. While interior paint has gotten a lot of attention, “encapsulating” it is not perfect nor permanent and the building is still surrounded by contaminated soil from exterior paint.
And prop planes … leaded fuel not banned yet
The Wikipedia article is pretty scary, especially
According to a study, half of the US population has been exposed to substantially detrimental lead levels in early childhood – mainly from car exhaust whose lead pollution peaked in the 1970s and caused widespread loss in cognitive ability.
“Age is front of mind for American voters in a way that it has not traditionally been and they are nervous about it,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University.
Um, yeah, because never was normal to have so many 75+ year olds in power. They need to retire. And yes, that includes Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The Silent Generation and Boomers ran this country into the ground and never gave up that power.
I think this is the only thing on that ballot that I voted for that went my way. It’s like the only reasonable thing that won.
Read how misleading some of this shit was written:
Ratifying the ad valorem tax rate of $0.9746 per $100 valuation in Creek School District for the current year, a rate that will result in an increase of -19.87 percent in maintenance and operations tax revenue for the District for the current year as compared to the preceding year, which is an additional $-50,585,883.
It will “increase” by a negative amount! It’s so fucked up.
Yeah. It’s very fucked up, but legally (and only for schools) it has to be written like that.
Oh. Well. TIL! Thank you!
This was the first year I learned about is as well. Trying to explain it to family and others was a headache and a losing battle.
It’s almost like Texas is purposely fucking over their schools. Imagine that.
Why do all these articles make it a point to say Biden is 80, but fail to mention Trump is 77?
Biden is now 80 and former President Donald Trump is 77.
Literally in the article.
Because Biden shows it more publicly and doesn’t coat himself in more makeup than a mime. But your point is still valid.
FTA: “Biden is now 80 and former President Donald Trump is 77.”
I would, at the very least, have all judges and politicians retire once they reach the expected lifespan for their demographic. Men born in your birth year have a life expectancy of 68? You retire by 68. A life expectancy of 84? You retire by 84.
We have age limits that state how old you need to be to run for office, I see the logic in setting limits. It’s just hard because a 75 year old can seem like they’re about to curl over and die or they can be just as sharp as a 55 year old. On one hand, with age they have a ton of knowledge and experience, on the other, their cohort is rapidly dwindling and their ability to relate to the shared experience of younger cohorts is deminished. Ultimately for me, officials that have to run for reelection i think we should let the voters decide if that person is fit, but for judges with lifetime appointments we need to have some sort of cut off.
Do you think Texas would be on board for this as a rule for the Supreme Court, where the two oldest justices are Thomas and Alito?
Imo age is a shitty metric to go by because it misses outward indications of maturity or debilitation. Just because someone is 70 doesn’t mean they have dementia (or dementia could have started when they were 50), and just because someone is 17 doesn’t mean they’re not knowledgable enough to vote for a gov’t.
The problem isn’t dementia, the problem is that they won’t live to see the consequences of their actions.
That’s hardly the problem, imo.
“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall not never sit.”
Many of our actions will have consequences that will outlive us. The question is whether the institution is well equipped to behave ethically and just. One of he contributing factors is that all justices are of sound mind, regardless of age.
deleted by creator
Not going to argue that’s not the case. The root cause is not their age, though. Thats the point I’m trying to make.
deleted by creator
There’s literal shit-ton of non-boomer politicians acting in their own self-interest now.
Age is not a good indicator of selfishness.
deleted by creator
No, I said what I meant. If you have a problem with that, fine. But don’t scream at me because of it.
Man, these old people aren’t planting trees. That’s part of the problem. They aren’t making the world better for the later generations. They are actively making things worse for the later generations.
The consequences of your actions will affect your great-grandkids but you’re unlikely to be alive to see it happen.
Does that mean you should be cancelled as well?
I’m not an elected official, so no.
Ideally, there’d be some sort of objective and widely accepted “mental fitness” test.
Unfortunately that ideal doesn’t exist. Age is merely the best substitute for that we’ve got on hand.
The huge plus for using age as a metric is that it’s objective and straightforward. Birth certificates are public record, so ages are generally well known, and there can be a clear cutoff, without leaving room for potentially biased judgement calls, nor room for lengthy appeals.
Get ready for an unpopular opinion: Old age should not be a basis on which someone is disqualified from holding office.
Why not? Because it is wrong to cast aspersions on someone because of something they did not choose. It remains appropriate to only qualify people for elected office if they are old enough, because we want people to have enough perspective and life experience, and that is directly related to being old enough.
Pretending we dont decline mentally past the age of 80 is a very stupid take.
These are the people who lead our communities. We need them to be in peak mental health.
Then disqualify people on the basis of mental decline.
And we’ve seen how well that’s been working for aging boomer politicians…
Look at Feinstein. They literally had to pry that seat from her cold dead fingers.
Ideally, you’re correct and I would agree. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works in reality.
I’ll counter with the example of Bernie Sanders, who is 82 years old, still sharp as a tack, and arguably the furthest left person in the federal government. Jimmy Carter is 99 years old, and while I know we’re not hearing much from him anymore, he’s been an incredible force for good well into his nineties. (Yes, I know he hasn’t held elected office since early 1981, but he damned well could have, and done it well.)
Yes, Feinstein should have retired a very long time ago, not because of her age, but because of her mental decline.
deleted by creator
Don’t make policy based on outliers.
The way to avoid that, and to respect individual differences, is with standardized periodic testing, which I would support for sure.
Of course, standardized testing. Thats never failed categorically to assess entire generations on a grand sweeping scale.
deleted by creator
Or we can disqualify them based on “we know youre declining because of basic biological fact, and you dont need to be so fucking obsessed with power that you cling to it at 80 fucking years old, step down and retire.”
How so?
My concern is judges that old not understanding the modern way of life for most people.
The life of a moden 25 year old and a 75 year old judge when he was 25 are so different they may as well have been from opposite ends of the world.
The real problem lies in the how SCOTUS rules on Constitutional matters, using “original intent” vs “original intent AND current societal, technological, etc changes” (which is how Canada’s SCoC rules).
It remains appropriate to only qualify people for elected office if they are old enough,
Fun fact: it’s legal to discriminate in the US based on age. But only towards younger, not older. You can’t discriminate because someone is too old, but you CAN if they are “too young”.
I believe the cut off for age discrimination suits is 40, but I’d have to look it up again.
it is wrong to cast aspersions on someone because of something they did not choose.
Maybe it’s not about casting aspersions but rather fitness for the job. If a surgeon loses their arms in a tragic accident they probably won’t be allowed to operate. Pilots are forced to retire at a certain age because of this well documented age-related decline. If natural mental decline from age impairs one’s ability to make fair and reasonable judgements and/or causes one to lose touch with the society they are resolving conflicts within, that seems like it would similarly impair a judge’s ability to effectively do their job.
Saying a class of people shouldn’t be making rights for the country when they won’t be around to see the consequences isn’t casting aspersions on anyone.
I think term limits would rid us of career politicians like McConnell. Why have term limits for president and not far more powerful senators?
The only reason we have term limits for President is because the Republican party wanted to ensure that they got “a turn” in the wake of FDR.
Elderly judges means that solutions of the past have longer tails, as our laws become less likely to be interpreted to adapt to the realities of today. I suspect keeping more conservative judges on the bench after the judicial blue wave hit Texas was the point of this amendment.
