The National Law Journal by Marcia Coyle - April 14, 2010
As Justice John Paul Stevens is so ably about to prove, "90" may be the new "70," at least for judges, and state lawmakers are taking note. Stevens announced last week that he would retire when the current Supreme Court term ends. He will turn 90 on April 20. If Stevens were a state Supreme Court justice, he would not have had the option of choosing when to retire because most states require those judges to step down after age 70, according to the National Center for State Courts in a recent study. But nine states this year have legislation pending that would either eliminate or raise the retirement age. The Center noted that 20 states require retirement at age 70; four at 72; two at 74, and six at 75. Vermont is the only state with a mandatory retirement age of 90 for a state Supreme Court justice. If applied to the U.S. Supreme Court, those states' retirement rules would force from the bench not only Justice Stevens, but also Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. In 2009, the Center reported, Kansas increased the age at which their justices must retire from 70 to 75, and South Dakota's House of Representatives also approved an increase from 70 to 75. The nine states that have recently considered or are considering legislation to increase or eliminate mandatory retirement ages for state judges are: Alabama (from 70 to 72); Arizona (70 to 75); Massachusetts (70 to 76); New Hampshire (70 to none); New Jersey (70 to 75); New York (70 to none); Virginia (70 to 73); Washington (75 to none) and Wyoming (70 to none). Justice Stevens' career, of course, is not the trigger for the action in the state legislatures. William Raftery, a court research analyst at the Center first noted what could be an emerging trend back in February. Raftery suggested that the states have begun to reexamine mandatory retirement rules as the Baby Boom generation ages, life expectancies increase, and more veteran and able judges are forced into retirement.
Posts
6 comments:
It is not good news for New Yorkers when old corrupt judges can keep their tricks going, and going, and going.
I am not a doctor
The fact is that they should lower the age. It is almost certain that by 70 years old they are suffering from things like high blood preasure. They will thierfore be medicated. The chances are high that they have had a storke or a mini stroke that although they might have never had noticible signs it has affected brain function. Thier is also lack of blood supply to the brain due to cloged arteries. How will they be able to read with glaucoma
Thier are several other conditions that not only will effect thier decision but thier capacity to work full day. Extending thier age they can be on the bench is a joke. Take it one step further you have court decisons by your peers of today not ideas form the 1940`s or 1950`s unles you want to bring back things like book burnings. What is next make booze illegal.
Wh don1t we just go back to the stone age.
NY Judges suffer from moral rot. And the longer they stay the more the rot spreads within them. They malinger too long,already. Which older judge has turned against the system? We need an early admission program to Hell for NY judges
Many times, the corruption comes from the law clerk and legal secretary.... keep that in mind!! (if you want to fix a case, get to the person actually doing the work)
the corruption comes from the law clerk and legal secretary
or any other law clerk in the building, all you need is some low life to start it and pass it around......even if they made up paperwork to do it.........
remember they do this stuff behind your back!
I know the FEDS have had the wrong paperwork several times just to make the judges believe!!!!!!!!
and wait until your sheriff, legislature or other public figure has left his phone to use the bathroom and make a fake call on your target!
or get him drunk you can target a lot of people that way, compliments of the judges phone you happened to borrow!
Post a Comment