Reply
Sat 18 Jan, 2003 08:44 am
On another thread, Trent Lott was mentioned, with respect to his remark about Strom Thurmond, at Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration.
This got me to thinking. I looked at videos of Thurmond on TV, and he was a doddering old man, and has been for some time. That is not to say that some people, even into their 90s, are not still sharp mentally, but are they capable of holding important government positions, and executing their duties appropriately?
Many people work very effectively, after the retirement age of 65. But do you think that there is a point, at some age, where a person needs to "pack it in"? I am thinking particurly about Supreme Court Justices, who theoretically can stay in such an important position until they are littlerally carried out, feet first.
Do you think that there should be a mandatory retirement age for politicians and Supreme Court Justices? If yes, what age would that be? If not, why?
Should there be a mandatory retirement age for politicians and Supreme Court Justices? What should that age be?
I don't think so. IMO, the number of years they are in Washington/Government itself has more effect than their age. I think realistic term limits is a better goal than forced retirement at a specific age.
This dips right smack in the middle of agism, to me, but it illustrates a very serious problem
If you live long enough, your capabilitites ARE going to diminish (re: driving.)
Even though I despise agism (I'm only 40), waiting around until the old person kills someone (driving) or spouts Mary Had A Little Lamb from the Supreme Court bench-- is waiting too late.
I think, instead of a mandatory age of retirement, there should be pre-set 'reviews'. Either written test or interview, where the basic knowledge and reasoning skills can be assessed. Maybe these tests should begin at 70, and be repeated every five years...
Forced retirement for someone with capability intact would be very wrong, IMO.
fishin'- I agree with you about term limits, but IMO, that is a separate issue.
omiting the supremes, i am against term limits or age limits, when we do limits like that we are only protecting us from ourselves, if enough idiots vote for another idiot they deserve what they get.
I am for mandatory retirement. No one over the age of 75 should be allowed to stand for election.
Quote:
Lash Goth says
This dips right smack in the middle of agism.
Is that a new ism have never heard of it before.
Blanket rules for a particular group, I believe is wrong.
Agism is rampant (of course, they have a killer lobby.)
Plus, we will all belong to that demographic if we don't die first. I want to protect them from bias and discrimination, because, one day, I will be them.
I DO think there should be measures to assess rational thought and reasoning due to age. Some should drive and sit on the Supreme Court at 75; some should go home at 65....
Lash Goth says
Quote:Plus, we will all belong to that demographic if we don't die first. I want to protect them from bias and discrimination, because, one day, I will be them.
I am 2 years away from the age I believe mandatory retirement should be required. I don't think I need protection from age discrimination nor do any of my friends and acquaintances. There is a time to step aside and allow the young to determine what their future should look like. We have had our time in the sun.
au-- I respect your opinion, but what if you held a job you loved, and wanted to continue doing said job?
I feel it would be very unfair to force you out, if your abilities hadn't diminished.
Not only because I will be a member of the demographic; I am a fairness supporter. I WANT FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE!!! (I'm stamping feet, now.) :wink:
I used to think this was a conservative stance...Now I think it's radical.
Lash Goth
As the good book says there is a time to sow and a time to reap and etc. And to that I would add a time for the young and a time the old.
Well...
There should be mandatory voting. No federal or state beneifits and $500 fine unless you vote in the elections. There wouldn't be another republican elected if everyone got out to vote!
I chose the "No mandatory age, as long as the person can do the job." option, though I did not completely agree with the wording. I would rather have it read, "No mandatory age, as long as the people elect that person."
Anything else constitutes the government telling me for whom I can or cannot vote.
Re: Well...
ZedSquared wrote:There should be mandatory voting. No federal or state beneifits and $500 fine unless you vote in the elections. There wouldn't be another republican elected if everyone got out to vote!
What a profoundly disturbing and poorly considered idea. First, the government forcing anyone to vote would ring a lot of first amendment bells. Inherent in the right to speak freely in the political arena is the right to remain mute. Second, imagine the government we would have if those who either do not care enough to educate themselves on political issues or are incapable of doing so were nevertheless forced to vote. (That you think adding the votes of those who are ignorant of and have no interest in political issues would benefit the left, I find rather amusing.)
Phoenix32890 wrote:Quote:I would rather have it read, "No mandatory age, as long as the people elect that person."
Tresspassers will- May I assume, from your statement, that in your opinion, Supreme Court Justices, who are appointed, and not elected, should have a mandatory retirement age?
You may, but it would not be logical for you to do so. :wink: The fact that I have taken a position against X for one group, does not imply that I am for X for any other group. (It merely leaves open the question of my position as regards X for all other groups.)
So the uneducated cannot vote? What a profoundly republican idea!
ZedSquared says
Quote:There should be mandatory voting. No federal or state benefits and $500 fine unless you vote in the elections.
It would be great if everyone exercised their civic duty and voted. But to me the idea of forcing people to vote is as repugnant as not allowing them to.
ZedSquared wrote:So the uneducated cannot vote? What a profoundly republican idea!
I
clearly wrote nothing of the kind. I wrote that I believe the consequences of forcing those who are not interested in educating themselves about politics to vote would have disastrous consequences. I
clearly did not write that we should bar anyone from voting for any reason.
I could easily comment that your statement--being baseless and absurd--is a profoundly Democratic (large "D") idea. :wink:
And again the fact that I am not talking about the infirm but the lazy makes it a valid suggestion. They will get involved and they will be aware, Their battle cry would be 'if those sons of guns are gonna make me vote I might as well know what I'm voting for'...
We are the laughing stock of the world for many reasons the currently illegitimate administration, the unSupreme Court and the War on Iraq being the main three, our lack of responsibility when it comes to voting is the one that has got us stuck with the first three...
If everyone had to vote in the last election the economy would be zooming still and we would have no deficit and 9-11 would be someone's birthday. The terrorist smelled the blood in the water, so they attacked, the administration was more concerned with taking for the poor and middle class so they ignored the warnings, simple, eh?
that should be 'from' the poor and the middle class
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace