Because the previously mentioned RBG example. I am sure Diane Feinstein voters thought the same thing last time she was elected, but her deteriorating health means she’s just filling a chair to ensure a D vote on things. And if she dies during this term the Republicans are sure to obstruct her replacement on the judiciary committee, which stalls Biden’s ability to appoint judges, as we already saw earlier this year when she was absent.
The whole experience and clout thing can be a double-edged sword as people get old and decrepit.
All I am saying is that having people in their geriatric age cling to their political career carries risk for their constituents and their party, perhaps more risk than allowing a younger newbie to get started. RBG is the supreme example of what can happen.
It was her call to make and I don’t like the idea of telling someone they have to give up doing what they love because they might die and I won’t like their replacement. If you’ve got a gripe about who replaced her and who got to do the replacing, I say take it up with the millions of non-voters who failed to do their civic duty and elect the sane candidate.
Firefighters have a mandatory retirement age. So do pilots. This is not a new concept and no one complains about it. We recognize that as you age you are ever more likely to be diminished. Sure, some stay sharp and able well into their senior years. But so many do not that we don’t want them flying our commercial planes because the chance for harm is real.
I think there should be an age limit based on your age when elected - let’s say 70. You can be no older than 70 on election day. This functionally gives an age limit of 74 for PotUS/VPotUS, 72 for representatives, 76 for Senators.
Want to keep working past that age? Find another job. Who am I kidding? They’d probably set themselves up as consultants or work the speaking circuit.
Just as an example of a different system, “The Supreme Court of Canada consists of nine judges, including the Chief Justice of Canada, who are appointed by the Governor in Council [read: government] and all of whom must have been either a judge of a superior court or a member of at least ten years’ standing of the bar of a province or territory. A Judge holds office during good behaviour, until he or she retires or attains the age of 75 years, but is removable for incapacity or misconduct in office before that time by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons. Of the nine, the Supreme Court Act requires that three be appointed from Quebec. Traditionally, the Governor in Council has appointed three judges from Ontario, two from the Western provinces or Northern Canada and one from the Atlantic provinces.”
Just checking: is it already the case that a 12-year-old could get nominated for a spot on the Supreme Court, with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote to follow — and it’s just that no president has even bothered to ask, such that we’ve never then seen just how many ‘no’ votes would come in, and how quickly? But the ability happens to be, for what it’s worth, there?
The Founding Fathers relied heavily on good common sense and high-minded values of politicians and voters.
We have seen so many “norms” smashed through in the past 30 years I’m not sure I want to rely on politicians or voters not finding a new way to break the system. It seems they need to be told, in no uncertain terms, what they can’t do. Am I worried a 12 year-old will be a supreme court justice? No. But we did elect Trump who was massively unqualified for the job and George W. Bush tried to put Harriet Miers on the court. She was roundly rejected but I don’t doubt there is another like her in the future.
Your 78-year-old-to-be senator is, no doubt, an excellent and capable worker. But are you really saying that there is NOBODY under the age of 75 is capable of doing the job as well or better?
Also, I’m not allowed to vote for a 32-year-old for president, so there’s that.
Right, except that particular binary (“if they are to old, don’t vote for them”) is literally never a clear binary, because there are always other factors in play. Feinstein was too old, but it’s also true that no replacement would have been as powerful given the current system.
I think Biden is too old. I will vote for him, regardless, because not doing so in the general election is tantamount to voting for the Republican candidate. I also don’t think his age is impeding his performance to a great extent. If he still wants to work, I’m sure the next D president would welcome (and pay for) his expertise. He doesn’t need to be the Commander-in-Chief to make a significant contribution; I’d prefer to have the full mantle of the stress of the office taken on by somebody a tad younger.
As with any old person, he knows himself and his capabilities better than I do… but I have seen many, many old people in absolute denial of where they actually are, and I expect to be one such myself.