1510
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1510 points (98.2% liked)
politics
18075 readers
2680 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't understand why there aren't term limits across the board either. Some Congress wo/men have been there for decades ffs!
Definitely. Age limits are difficult. Some people lose it early. Some never do.
Two terms and you're out seems to me to mostly resolve this.
You can even make it just two consecutive terms. I think I'm largely fine with that. At least it's better than the alternative.
Also, lifetime appointment. That was designed at a different time. Scotus should be a (reasonably long) single term. Then you're done with the federal judicial system.
Yes, can't endorse this enough. Judicial appointments need a term limit, no matter the position. Maybe 10 years maximum.
10 years is nice to because it wouldn't line up exactly with new presidents, so it would guarantee different parties would most likely get to pick.
In 1789, the average lifespan for a Supreme Court justice was 67 years. By 1975, that expectancy had risen to 82 years.
Sure, but how long were they on the court?
Just let agelimits apply to judges as well and make judges appoint judges while you're at it to minimize the politicizing of the bench.
Looking at the way the current SCOTUS is, the last thing I'd want is Justices appointing their replacements.
They should be elected.
Yes! Term limits are the answer, not age limits. It’s effectively the same thing but protects us in two ways (instead of just one: ie age) and does so without the slippery slope that an age limit would entail.
If a pilot is forced to retire at 65 due to fear of killing a couple hundred, there is absolutely zero reason someone in charge near 400 million shouldn't have a maximum age cap
Can you elaborate?
He means that people have different rates of cognitive decline than others, so if you like this 70 year old politician and he's great, why not?
I think that's ridiculous. Term AND age limits would make much brighter futures. We should be electing officials that will have to live under the shade of the trees they planted, which is not the case for most US politicians today.
Yeah the slippery slope makes no sense. I get that there isn't a precise date to determine the start of cognitive decline, but why not just put an avery one as a limit in the law then? We do it for expiration dates as well.
If there were age limits it should be well below the point of any cognitive decline, because it's also about having younger people in power who can think and plan on a scale of several decades, because that's how long they have left to live.
I'm thinking like 50.
The problem with setting the age limit too low is that people of that age range might not feel represented.
To give an example, I'm 48. One of my upcoming concerns is retirement. Will it be able to afford to retire? Will I need to work part time after "retiring" just to survive?
If every politician in a position of power was too young, retirement might not seem to them to be an important issue. After all, when you're 30, retirement seems forever away. They could enact policies that are great for people under 40 but devastating to people approaching retirement.
That's why, while I definitely think politicians like McConnell and Feinstein should have retired long ago, I'm leery about setting too low of a forced retirement age.
I'm 31 and I'm pretty fuckin concerned with retirement. Because if I'm not now, I'll probably never be able to.
Also, you do want people with experience there. Having a rotating door of only young people doesn't really help anything.
The door wouldn't be rotating anymore than it is now.
And what's your source on young people not helping anything? All the times in US history that we made the most progress were under young Democrat presidents.
I didn't say young people don't help anything. I said having only new young people all the time doesn't help. Having people with experience is a good thing.
Do you think JFK had no experience? He became president at 47. Did he "not help", as you put it?
Your claim is not only vague but has also been presented without any reasoning.
Why are you trying to argue? It was a general statement I made, I'm not presenting a case study.
Chill out, goddamn.
Because the statement you made doesn't have sound reasoning.
In other words, you're wrong.
Just because you're missing the point it doesn't mean the other person is wrong.
Ok let's hear the reasoning then.
If we made this change, it would serve as a lever to help increase the age at which we can vote. Which is what these fuckers really want.
Considering a lower age limit would have to be put in place by existing politicians, that particular slope is not slippery at all. And slippery-slope arguments are categorically invalid except when you can point to a specific reason why doing something will make it likely to be done in excess.
I think testing for cognitive function is going to prove impossibly difficult - or at least for now. How do we set and quantify an acceptable value for cognitive function? How will we execute testing? When do we test? How often? Who will do the testing? How do we counter for potential performance drugs for test candidates? Do we notify the public on the test findings? There's just a lot involved with making this the barrier to entry vs age or term limits.
Yeah I was wrestling with this in the same way. It's too hard. That's not even mentioning that cognitive function or mental acuity isn't really a straight or constant line. You could test someone who's off in outer space most days but you test them on the right day they'd ace any cognitive test you put in front of them.
Oh absolutely. I'm a walking, talking banana if you catch me at the wrong time or on the wrong day.
Also, if we went this route and tested for cognitive function- I'd 100% guarantee that our politicians would be on Adderall or some other amphetamine...if they weren't already.
It could be a test administered anonymously and run by board certified psychologists, doctors, neurologists, etc.
They could give a grade, and then if they fail within a certain margin, they could be put on a sort of probation, where they'd need to make a passing grade the next test or be ejected from their office.
I just worry this would end up disenfranchising minorities somehow. Tests for voting don't have the best history
There didn't used to be but after FDR hit 4 terms in a row, they passed the 22nd Amendment in 1947, it was ratified in 1951.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
A rare example where a Gentleman's Agreement that is important to how our government runs was actually codified.
I think the idea in the Senate is that those people would have been seasoned bureaucrats who were intimately familiar with law - lawyers in particular. The House was more the everyday man representing the people of his district.
Now that we vote for senators, too, I'm not sure what role they really play. I'd also add that we need to remove the cap on headcount in the house. I did the napkin math once and we should have something like 2.5x the representatives we have now, IIRC.
I used to feel this way about Career Politicians but they actually have the opposite problem in some other countries. Politicians having personal businesses makes it very, very easy to bribe them.
Lobbying straight up makes bribery legal for career politicians. How could it possibly be easier than that?
You don't understand why the people who vote on various things won't vote against themselves?? I'm guessing it's the same reason why voting on pay raises for themselves always pass.
That's easy to fix: exempt anyone in office at the time the bill passes.
Don't think that'll work on its own, as they will want to protect the party that gives them their power from, for after they leave office.
Wo/men!
WHOOOOAAA-A-A-A-A MAN!
Source for those who have lived better lives than me