Should Supreme Court Justices be forced to resign at the age of 80?

A simple, completely unbiased question: do you believe that a Supreme Court Justice has sufficient use of his/her mental faculties to continue to determine the most important legal issues for the United States of America beyond that age of eighty?

This week it was announced that Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring from the SCOTUS, at age 81.

Personally? I think that anyone serving at the top levels in any of the Branches of Government should undergo mandatory tests for mental acuity after reaching the age of seventy. That would include President Donald Trump (age 72), and, Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Goldberg (age 85), among others....

And, no, I'm not 'age-bashing' -- because I'm a 'senior-citizen' myself, who's well aware of both the strengths and weaknesses that 'age' confers....

 

Yes they should and I am saying that as a 77 year old.Also no member of congress should be allowed to seek reelection after their 77th birthday.

 

I KNEW that this poll question would be treated like deadly poison by the hyperliberal Left... especially now that the question that is surfacing in everyone's mind is, at age 85, WHY IS RUTHIE STILL SITTING UP THERE (and falling asleep while the Supreme Court is in session), showing up 'tipsy' at the State of the Union Address, etc.?

Link: http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/this-day-in-wnd-history-justice-ginsburg-is-snorer-in-the-court/

 

I prefer term limiting them to 20 years

 

To change this requires amending the US constitution. Very, very difficult.

I side with the Founding Fathers, hold what you got.

 

I’m not a constitutional expert but off hand I think that is wrong

I will do some research as see if I’m correct

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/inte...MIipTvptj72wIVCQ9pCh1vCgxgEAAYAiAAEgJd6fD_BwE

It does not mention lifetime appointment so I think either age limiting or term limiting is possible

 

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Article III, Section 1

 

That does not sound like a lifetime appointment to me

But if the black robes say it is then my opinion is meaningless

 

I'm not advocating that anyone under the age of 80 should be forced to retire, but that persons over the age of 70 should undergo mandatory annual mental competency tests, conducted in a fair, impartial manner by a team of physicians and psychiatrists. But, yes, if a person (any person) has achieved the age of 80, then mandatory retirement should be applied....

 

Ever since President Roosevelt try to pack the court using the age issue to do so the whole idea tend to leave a very bad taste for anyone who know history.

 

Do they make SCOTUS Justices take drug tests? How the hell would anybody over 80 pass a drug test? 55 percent of Americans regularly take prescription drugs, and how many of those drugs affect the way a Justice could rule on an important case? Here's the source, https://www.webmd.com/drug-medicati...king-more-prescription-drugs-than-ever-survey

So using the same percentage could we expect that four or five SCOTUS Justices are on prescription drugs at any one time, especially old ones? Shouldn't we make SCOTUS Justices take drug tests? Everybody I know who works in any government job has to take regular unannounced drug tests.

 

I am only 59 and I am noticing a decrease in ability to remember what was so easy a decade or so ago.......
so going beyond eighty seems risky.

 

Actually I would make it 70. The older a person gets the more set in their ways they get. Look at Ginsberg, she does not have an ounce of objectivity in her. No argument would change her mind. When you lose that ability to consider the other side, you have lost the ability to be a judge. I also agree with the poster who says what drugs they take should be considered. Many drugs affect your cognitive ability. Someone too zoned out to consider what is being presented to them should not be in that position.

 

When I was working for Prime Contractor(s) to the Federal Government, I was always subject to being ordered to take unannounced drug tests at any time, on any day. So, yes, I'd say that anyone who holds a position above the level of, say, janitor, in the Federal Government should have to take unannounced drug tests -- ESPECIALLY all Representatives, all Senators, the President of the United States, and all Supreme Court Justices!

 

The Constitution should be amended so that all Federal Judges are appointed to 10 year terms, requiring re-approval by the US Senate to remain.

 

Yeah, cause what could possibly go wrong with that scenario?

 

should people being investigated for collusion and other things be able to pick justices?

 

I would be good with a term of 25 years, has to be long enough that these people do not have to look for jobs when they retire or they may be biased for personal gain

 

Of course. Being investigated is exactly NOTHING.

 

That logic works only if a person believes democracy is invalid.

 

you mean like making the person with less votes President?

 

maybe, maybe not, we will see

how about we let the people decide in the next election, isn't that what the republicans said when it was Obama's pick?

 

No, because Obama was at the end of his term so there would be no accountability. President Trump is not at the end of his term so it is NOT the same situation.

There is nothing in the Constitution that Supreme Court Justices can only be appointed every other year.

 

Probably, but it would require a Constitutional Amendment to require it.