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.
This didn’t happen overnight, if it’s this bad now then her judgement has been compromised for a long time.
We need term limits, because once these (completely normal) mental changes start happening, the person will almost always react with aggression and refuse to ever step down.
We have a thing called senior citizenry.
It’s an age at which we decided old folks can start skimming funds off the top to make ends meet, because they are otherwise unable
It is absolutely unconscionable to be collecting social security while simultaneously holding office.
No one over the age of 65 should be allowed to hold any office. Ever.
I don’t think age needs to be the limiting factor. I’ve met plenty of 70+ year olds who are mentally capable of performing any job. My grandfather is in his 80’s and he’s a kick ass doctor.
I strongly feel that it needs to be test and check up based. Something impartial treated with an air of dignity so that people are raised respecting that it’s perfectly alright to not pass it. That should help avoid stigma while ensuring people like that judge are a non-issue if not nearly a non-issue.
Tests would be a pretty bad idea. It is easy to imagine the ways that someone could use that to attack their political opponents. Similar things were used to disenfranchise voters in the past. Also, it is too easy to corrupt the legitimacy of such a test. All a person would need to do is get a heads up of how the test works and practice for it. Or, have the test designed to be too easy to pass. It’s easy to say “make it impartial, scientific, and dignified”, but that doesn’t mean it will be. I seriously doubt any governmental body ever has or will be that trustworthy. An actual age limit would be objective and clear though, making it much more practical.
How would an opponent be able to attack you if the test is pass or fail? You either are able to have an opponent or you can’t run.
Using a strict age limit would only result in a segment of people who are paying taxes without having representation which is the exact situation we’re brainstorming ideas to avoid.
It should be easier to whistle blow if someone thinks a worker is losing capacity to do their job, but having an arbitrary age at which you’re no longer allowed to work in office doesn’t serve its purpose. Some people can have dementia starting in their 50s, and other people in their 70s are excellent in higher level positions due to how much experience they’ve amassed.
If anything, there should just be better peer performance reviews across the board.
So we shouldn’t give social security to people unless they have dementia?
We already have an arbitrary age set. We should stick to it.
I’m still game for removing someone earlier than that if they are unfit. But after 65? You’re not fit. Even if you “are.” You’re too far removed from the policies you’d be enacting. It’s just nonsense.
I think that’s a disservice to people who have intimate knowledge of how a service has developed over time, and common problems with change that younger people may not have experienced.
I’m not saying that people should all be forced or unduly enabled to carry on working well into their seniority, but we’d be missing the opportunity to utilise skills and experience by enforcing a hard limit - certainly as young as 65!
The problem is that you’d need an objective, unbiased, incorruptible review process. I have zero faith that any government is capable of providing such a thing, particularly in a situation like this, where there’s so much room for interpretation.
Selecting an arbitrary age has its own problems, but at least it’s much simpler and harder to argue with.
Anyone who’s dealt with someone with early dementia will recognize this behavior. I can empathize with those suffering from it, because my own mind slipping away would be incredibly frustrating. But if you’re a danger to yourself and others someone needs to stop you, whether its to keep you from driving or to keep you from presiding over trials.
We need a mandatory retirement age for federal appointees, fucking immediately.
Imagine you go to court and this fossil at 96 is the one who determines your fate. Imagine if you catch her on an off day and she thinks you stole her computer, her files or other nonsense she’s accused court staff of doing (the only thing that’s been stolen is her marbles, and it looks like they went a few years back)
Get these shocking people out of the courts and into the nursing home where they belong
Why do these old people constantly feel the need to work? I’m trying to retire the moment I can and enjoy the rest of my life.
Power. The moment they retire they give up the ability to control people’s lives.
probably because they really dont work as hard as you
Nah I barely work hard. I’m not equating my life to work. There’s too many other things to enjoy for that.
Then create a culture that isn’t reliant on working to make money just for basic necessities.
It should be possible considering we have some money hoarders hoarding enough that we shouldn’t have people going hungry and enough houses that people shouldn’t be homeless.
Yet we do.
Tax the rich.
Part of it is because you still need a gig to keep the retirement funds rolling. You don’t want to live it out on pea soup and bread.
Part of it is because after a certain point every bit of your body, from your bones to your brains, is only available on a Use It or Lose It basis with no warranty for service blackouts.
And part of it is because, and l guess this is due to the collapse of the extended-family model, lots of people don’t have anyone or thing to go home to; they’re divorced or widowed, kids have moved out, and their social network has literally died out.
Towards the end of his life my father only had ONE surviving peer from grade school. Imagine how it is to call your only surviving friend on a regular basis and to wonder, each time, if today’s the day you learn you’ve already heard their voice for the last time.
Yup. A lot of people here don’t get that when you retire the funds are finite. And you could still live another 20 yrs, even up to 35 more years but completely alone and with no income. If you have someone telling you to quit as you round up to 65 when you have another good 20 yrs of cognizance to pull income, you won’t go quietly.
And you shouldn’t.
Retirement right now is still expecting you’re going to pay your way or live worse than prison conditions. Even worse if you’re a person with disabilities or early onset issues, diabetes along with other things from a lifestyle habit of consumerism pushed on all of us by capitalists that don’t give a shit what happens to you down the line.
it’s not to say someone shouldn’t retire eventually when they can no longer work. It’s to say that assuming you’re as incompetent at 60 as if you’re 96 is just plain refusal to recognize the human condition and it’s ageism. The article is about a 96 yr old. That’s past 30 yrs retirement age. It’s only in her recent years this is happening so the fact she made it to 90 cognizant is actually very impressive either way. So just saying yeah, she should retire now. But blaming her for not retiring at 65 when she’s 30+ past that age is a misnomer argument at this stage. If anything we should all be so lucky to make it past 70 with our cognitive abilities with the current American diet slowly killing our organ function.
Is the occupation of judge so badly compensated, that you can’t retire? What the fuck is wrong with this lady?
I assume she’s got nothing else in her life, actually quite sad
She’s in severe mental decline? I thought the article made that pretty clear.
I’m sure there are financial benefits being a federal judge
Let’s ask … Clarence Thomas, shall we?
I think for her it’s the ego trip not the money. Same thing Bader-Ginsburg did which gave us Kavanagh.
How many people have been wrongly convicted or harshly sentenced because of this woman’s dementia?
In this case I don’t think any, because she worked in patents. But don’t take that as me defending nonagenarians still working in government.
None. Could you at least read the article before making a dumb comment like this?
Lol no. How else are they supposed to participate in a good old fashioned comment section circle jerk?
Bro. Read. Read the article… So desperate to say something you’ll say anything at all, even if you appear stupid.
I’m sure you’ve never done anything like that, but we can’t all be smart like you.
I actually don’t know how to respond to this. It might be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read that was uttered by an adult.
You are an adult, right? Over 18? Weird.
No, I’m stupid and a child. So stop being such a mean adult to a stupid child.
Technology is allowing us to live “longer,” but not necessarily “better.”
We shouldn’t be ruled by geriatrics. Age limits need to be a thing.
Obsolete
Should just make the retirement age for these people 65. Everyone. Senators. Presidents. Want to get a job in an advisory role after that? Cool, at least then we have a filter for the madness and your dementia can’t fuck anyone over directly.
I hope she doesn’t drive a vehicle to work.
Term limits
Where are these Obama Death Panels and FEMA Camps?!
You don’t need to be 96 years old to become a Putin and invade a Ukraine
I don’t get the outrage.
This is law. It takes ten years of practice just to really scratch the surface in one small area of law. Arbitrary compulsive retirements (such freedom) serve only to cause brain and experience drain that cannot be easily made up.
Add to that, most people retire when they should all on their own. Maybe sometimes they need a little push from colleagues. Very rarely does it rise to the level of publis inquest and a forced competency exam.
This time it seems it did, and look! It’s happening. What’s the real problem? Why is throwing the baby out with the bath water seen as a legit solution?
I prefer government officials, and especially judges and senators, to have real experience. Most elders are not senile old coots, especially not those who spent their lifetime in a career that by nature is as daily taxing on memory and recall as is the law. Some say the law is a study and a practice in memory. The best trial lawyers usually have the best memory. Add to that the extensive amount of reading and writing trial attorneys and judges do. It’s not like this judge has been clocking out from a show-up job every day at 5 pm and then doom scrolling or binging Netflix.
I would say of the judges I’ve been before including some elderly federal judges in a senior or retired judge, or magistrate sort of role, have been some of the most knowledgeable, most efficient judges I’ve argued to, especially at the appellate level, where all they do (in theory) is jurisprudence, logical and policy reasoning, and interpretation, the most mentally demanding sort of law practice.
She’s 96 and has paranoid persecutory delusions. Supporting her role as a judge is a bizarre take on your part
How is he supporting her role as judge?
Did you not read his comment?
He literally says:
Very rarely does it rise to the level of publis inquest and a forced competency exam.
This time it seems it did, and look! It’s happening. What’s the real problem? Why is throwing the baby out with the bath water seen as a legit solution?
He states that it went wrong this time and that the system in place is correcting the problem. How is that in support of the judge?
That’s great and all in theory but this one clearly has issues and can’t do her job.
I don’t necessarily fully agree but I saw you were getting downvotes. Have an upvote.
Well reasoned contribution, thank you
I’m all for term limits and an end to lifetime appointments, but maybe it’s time we start pulling back on the idea that people are useless and incompetent the moment they turn 65. I don’t really think putting an expiration date on human beings is a good thing.
What does your comment have to do with the article? She’s 94 and is pretty obviously in mental decline…
It has nothing to do with the article, just the general vibe of every comment section talking about old people turns into a circle jerk about when people are no longer valuable to society.
I don’t know that anybody is realistically saying that, I’m sure some assholes do and I often group all the “olds” together when I am frustrated. There are many things at play here:
- government appointments for life (or until retirement) mean that powerful government positions are basically unavailable for younger generations
- American work ethic tells you it is good to work until you die and not “freeload”
- Some people that get power like it and will not willingly relinquish it
- we have not aptitude tests for really anything beyond what it takes to get hired
I don’t know what the right and fair solution is, but it feels like government appointments should have a time limit. What that is I don’t know what is reasonable
Some people die young, some people die old. Some people get Alzheimer’s in their 30s or 40s, others remain sharp up till death at 95. I could see a specific age as a guideline but to say “you’re 70, off you go to pasture” is just as wrong as keeping on someone clearly incompetent.
Please read article next time
