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.

  • toasteecup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        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
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            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
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          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.

          • Smoogs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There isn’t an age limit to youth running in office. Go on, take some responsibility then.

    • Trantarius@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Instead, the group in question has had almost exclusive representation for half a century. There are lower age limits, so there should be upper limits.

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

            I don’t believe in two wrongs making a right. I consider a lack of lower age representation a problem but I can not agree to flipping it around and making it a lack of upper age representation either. If that’s your idea of a just society when a presented method could solve this without that issue I have concerns.

            • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              All people and all generations are entitled to the right to self-determination. That’s something that we have seen is not possible without such limits.

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

                And why can’t we fulfill that with term limits and pass fail capability tests?

                Really seems to uphold your first statement much better than disenfranchising an entire group of people simply they are old.

    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t want an 80 year old as a doctor. My luck he’d be hit with Mega Alzheimer’s right in the operating room and rearrange my insides to look like a Christmas tree because he thought he was 25 again and decorating one with his first born son again.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Given I just stated my grandfather is a doctor, who is not suffering from Alzheimer’s I can’t help but feel insulted by your comment.

        I can understand being concerned by the Elderly however given that age does not ensure someone will develop Alzheimer’s, I find your comment rude and offensive. I hope you’ll consider using some tact in expressing your concerns in the future.

        • GreenMario@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lemme reword it a bit to be more respectful:

          I do not think anyone age 80 should have to work for a living. He should be chilling in an RV or something fishing or whatever he likes doing. Savvy?

              • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Teaching isn’t being a doctor. So long as he is still competent and had patient recovery rates similar to younger doctors, there is zero need for him to stop. We have a doctor shortage in lots of parts of the world, so let em keep doing it until they actually can’t.

        • XbSuper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think they raise a perfectly reasonable point, despite your feelings.

          While it may not seem likely to occurr, I would also not allow an 80 year old doctor to care for me for very similar reasons.