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
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months 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
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months 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
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months 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
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I understand what you are saying.

          However, why should 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.

        • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months 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.

    • Trantarius@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months 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
        1
        ·
        9 months 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.

    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months 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.