I came in to say something like this. Watching the generation above me, it is clear that 80 means very different things to different individuals. It is absolutely not too old for some people to do a complex, demanding full-time job. It is, however, too old for most people to do that job. I do not support age limits (or term limits) because I’m unwilling to discriminate against the few: I’d hate to miss out on wisdom and experience because of such a limit. On the other hand, I would support annual binding evaluations by a non-partisan panel of health professionals for those 75 and over, with the recommendations “continue in the position,” “consider retirement,” or “do not continue in the position.” I think the cost would be worth it.
It’s not possible to please everyone, but the position is very easily defended by the indisputable fact that she is not showing up to work anymore, and can’t say when she will return, and won’t step down. That’s a strong argument that’s supported both by real-life observations. If folks don’t want to accept the obvious fact that people slow down when they age, then this intuitive understanding can be readily supported and quantified by actuarial statistics.
On the other hand, if you want to suggest that a 53-year-old person, in a highly competitive and frequently contested seat, who consistently shows up to work and does the job they were elected to do, ought to step down after N terms, you’re going to need a lot stronger argument than some nebulous beef about “incumbency”.
Death panels!!
I kid. We have tests for people to ensure they can still drive a car when they get old, so there should be some testing involved with doing a specific job. It’s not uncommon for people in physical jobs to be moved to other roles when their body can no longer do the job properly (firemen, police), so there should be no qualms about asking people to step aside if their mental capacity starts to diminish.
That is certainly something to be taken into account next election cycle. Without a time machine, it is not something that could have been taken into account last election cycle.
That is also something that can be taken into account with the voters.
It wasn’t nebulous. They block the field, keep others from running, and end up turning into old senators whose health problems keep them from performing their duties.
Feinstein was only 59 when she was first elected to the senate. The reason she’s still in office is incumbency, nothing “nebulous” about it.
And not just the Senate, but the House, Supremes, and Prez as well.
Biden is pretty impressive, but I don’t think he is as capable as he was at 70. And I think it an EXCEEDINGLY RARE octogenarian who is as capable as a large number of 60-70 year olds.
FWIW:
A bill that will ultimately be vetoed by Biden FWIW.
Fun that it’s blamed on Feinstein for being sick, but not on Manchin for actually voting for it.
How many times can one rail at Manchin before the futility of it makes it just not worth it any more?
Yeah, Manchin is worthless. Don’t count on him for anything. Feinstein used to be valuable, and who knows, maybe she has enough cognition left to recognize she’s become a detriment to her cause and act on it.
Eh, however many times he fucks our country with a D next to his name.
So, what happens if a Senator goes into a coma? They are still alive, they have brain activity, but they aren’t waking up and aren’t expected to.
If they die or resign, they can be replaced by the governor. But is there anything equivalent to the 25th amendment that will replace an incapacitated one?
If so, could that be invoked while she’s just non-cognizant, and not actually comatose?
If not, then I highly recommend her staffers watch the documentary, “Weekend at Bernies” for further ideas.
The only way to remove a Senator (absent his/her resignation or death) is through expulsion, which requires a 2/3 vote of the chamber. This process has never been used to remove a Senator for incapacitation. There have been several instances of Senators being absent from the chamber for years due to illness. Senator Karl Mundt of North Dakota suffered a severe stroke in 1969 and was absent from the Senate for the remaining three years of his term. Senator Carter Glass of Virginia was nearly entirely absent from the Senate for four years due to age-related illness until his death in office in 1946. More recently, in 2006 Senator Tim Johnson suffered a brain aneurism that kept him out of the Senate for nearly a year (although he was able to return and complete his term).
I quite like the idea of a maximum age limit on Senate eligibility, since it fixes two separate problems, the Feinstein issue of senility (a word also related to “Senex,” the Latin root of Senator) AND the issue of term limits.
I would propose a cap of 50 years of age, which would probably reduce most Senate to 12 years or 6 years. Then you’re out, to be replaced by some other 30-to-50-year-old. This way no one would be serving past age 56, so we would get an infusion of fresh blood on a regular basis, of candidates who understand the problems of mid-career Americans.
Of course, it’s never going to happen.
Wouldn’t that be illegal age discrimination?
What about term limits, but instead of limiting it to two terms, as is common, we limited the senate to four or five terms? 24 or 30 years is a pretty good career, and about the length of a generation; I don’t think changing representatives ever generation is unreasonable.
You don’t want to lose good people to arbitrary cutoffs (age or term), but if you set the arbitrary limit higher, you lose less — 80 instead of 65 for age, perhaps.
I’m in favor of 6 year terms for every Congressperson, Senator, and President. I feel that’s enough time to learn the job and pass meaningful legislation without having to start campaigning for the next term. If they wanted to run again, they’d have to sit out the next six years. I believe that would result in fresh turnover and give a chance to greater varieties of citizens. This would also prevent political dynasties of either party. For Supreme Court justices and other judges currently serving for life, I’d like to see staggered 18 year terms that would encourage regular turnover and hopefully result in a fairly balanced court.
Isn’t setting a lower limit for the Senate at 30, or the presidency at 35, age discrimination?
Yes, but it’s not illegal age discrimination. I suppose you could amend the Constitution for your upper limit, which would make it legal age discrimination.
Well, it would take a constitutional amendment to make it happen, and since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and would trump any discrimination statute. And, if I recall correctly, Congress has made itself exempt from all those types of laws anyway.
In theory, I’d be fine with a mandatory retirement age for Senators. I wouldn’t put it at 50. Maybe 70.
I’m deliberately setting it low to get the “term limits” benefits in there.
I’d be fine with a different 20-year limit on both ends, like 40-60, or 50-70.
If you set it low, I’d even be ok with a one-time exception for an unusually popular Senator to run for a single term after sitting out one election cycle due to aging out. For example, someone wins a Senate seat at 35, gets re-elected at 41 and 48, ages out, but can run for any subsequent opening and, if she wins it, can serve a single six-year term after 50.
Well, senators’ terms are six years so that would be only one term for them and the president’s term is four years so that is only one term for him/her. Besides, the president is already term limited to a maximum of ten years in office which seems fine (and, as a practical matter, generally means only two terms as president).
I’d be all for term limits but it needs to be more than six years for senators (I’d suggest three terms which is 18 years). Since the president is already covered that leave House members. I think ten years would be better for them.
Without those limits though (whatever they would be) our congresscritters really, really, really need to know when to call it quits (Supreme Court justices too…looking at you RBG but she’s not the only one).
Most humans diminish some once past 80. Not all. Some do before and some seem to stay sharp forever. But there is no telling which way things will go at that age. You might be doing great today and within months be severely diminished (I saw my mother go down like that in less than a year…some minor signs at first but the drop was precipitous). These are important jobs. Take retirement and enjoy it. You had your run, take a bow and exit the stage gracefully (seriously, something like what is happening with Feinstein can tarnish a lifetime of service).
(and I say the above regardless of party or gender or ideology)