Should there be an age limit on Federal office holders (POTUS, VP, Senate, House)
- No
- Yes
- No, but with exceptions which I will note
- Yes, but with exceptions which I will note
0
voters
Age out at 70 is my opinion. That includes Supremes.
This poll might be helpful over in the other thread about age limits for politicians that was started yesterday:
The solution is simple, if they are too old don’t vote for them.
Exactly. There’s no problem here – if voters don’t want old people, they don’t have to vote for old people.
Especially as you can vote against too-old candidates in both primaries and the general.
Agree with this. As far as voting people out, I think that is the best we can currently do, but the parties’ apparatus seems to favor incumbents, locking younger people out (people that may have fresher ideas). And once people are in office and on committees and gaining power, it’s even more difficult to challenge them. It’s not like each primary is a blank slate where there is a level playing field. The longer someone is in there the more unassailable they become.
I agree, but this doesn’t work for Supreme Court justices, so’d I’d consider an age limit for them. Except, would that incentivize nominating the youngest possible justices?
Rather than impose age limits, I’d rather look for ways to reduce the incumbents’ “unfair” advantages (like lessening the power that goes with seniority).
In general, no. If the people want someone elected of any age, they are entitled to vote for them.
The only exception is lifetime appointments - essentially all federal judges. I’d be happy with an age limit on them. One unintended consequence of this might be that as judges approach the age limit they will select their retirement date to coincide with a President/Senate that aligns with their politics. Granted, they won’t always be able to but it might solidify any existing political alignments.
The issue with SCOTUS would (IMO) be better solved by having them serve a term of 18 years. If I calculated correctly that would be an appointment every 2 years, twice per full presidential term, which is my intention.
Well, Diana Ross is 79.
mmm
For SCOTUS, I think a MINIMUM age would be better than a maximum (or term limits, which would accomplish approximately the same thing). Let the minimum age be 65 – only senior and even retired judges, and there’d be plenty of turnover, with justices frequently retiring (or passing on), so each nomination wouldn’t be the massive political event it is today. If every term a president got to nominate 4 justices or so, then it wouldn’t be that big of a deal to fill a vacancy.
I have no object in to a max, and 70 is as good as any. How do you work that for elected officials - time at election/end of term…? There are plenty of opportunities for old feds to contribute meaningfully - tho without the power and perks they previously enjoyed.
I wonder if you could work out some equation combining age w/ term limits. Say someone gets elected to the Senate at age 65 - can they run for a 2d term?
I’d go 75 as maximum. Plenty of people are hale and hearty enough after that, but no one should have to work after that. I hate the idea of zero tolerance/ no exceptions, though, so I’ll say allow for extensions for extenuating circumstances on an annual basis, with the idea that people deserve a retirement.
With any upper age limits, you also encounter the difference between men’s & women’s longevity.
And if they want to work after that, then what? “Sorry, you’re old and useless now”?
I’m 99% sure this is what justice Anthony Kennedy did.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was being pushed to resign while Obama was in office. She refused. That didn’t work out well for liberals.
Nobody said useless.
But yes, at 75, they are old.
I have family members above that age limit still working, because they want to, and I think that’s great. I have no plans to retire, myself: I like working. But I think it’s important to correct our system’s tendencies toward gerontocracy, so in the limited scope of this thread, yes, I support age limits with case-by-case exceptions.
So, if a 12 year-old were to run for president you should be able to vote for them?
The senior senator from my state is the current president pro tempore. She’s been around for awhile and IMO has been doing a spectacular job.
She’ll also be 78 when she’s next up for reelection.
Why should I not be allowed to vote for her if I think she would do a better job remaining in office than if a newbie Democrat took her place with none of the experience and clout she’s accumulated? And if she needs permission to run again on a “case-by-case basis”, who gets to decide if I’m allowed to vote for her?