American Idol 2012 finale
Rollover crash injures 2
News hounds (5/24/12)
Home > Blogs > Chatterbox > Archives > 2011 > April > 26 > Entry
Should there be a mandatory retirement age for elected judges?
Should there be a mandatory retirement age for elected judges? Ohio’s constitution currently says judges can’t run again after turning 70, but there is a move afoot to change that to 75.
ELLEN WHITAKER, Centerville: “If they’ve got to be re-elected, the people will decide if they’re too old. Some are real sharp way up in their later years, but others should quit as early as 60. I’d favor them changing the mandatory retirement age to 75.”
DENNIS BROOKS, Dayton: “No. They shouldn’t have to retire at a certain age. As long as they can get elected, they’re good to go.”
BETTY EVANS, Franklin: “I think they should be retired by 70. Turning 70 doesn’t mean you’re feeble, but give a younger person a chance.”
TEDDY DURDEN, Dayton: “I have mixed emotions. There are some individuals who are up in age and can do the job, but there are others who can’t. From a political standpoint, it’s fine, but you do worry whether, with age, they’ll be able to keep up with all the laws on sentencing and things like that. It’s a Catch 22 for the individual.”
JIM MARSHALL, Miami Twp.: “I don’t believe in mandatory retirement. I know people 75-80 years old, and they’re sharp as a tack. I wouldn’t mind having them for a judge.”
Comments
By c'mon man
April 26, 2011 6:31 AM | Link to this
Defiantly. It should be mandatory to Retire by 70.
By You Bet They Should...
April 26, 2011 7:46 AM | Link to this
They should retire at the same age that they interpret and enforce laws on the rest of us to go at. People forget that justices and courts are part of the same government that leaches off you until you have nothing left in order to be the enemy of the private sector. They are also part of that legal mafia that puts minority thinking on every issue ahead of mainstream thinking while we generally sit back and wonder why the country is on the wrong track.
By Cat Slobber
April 26, 2011 9:14 AM | Link to this
I don’t have a problem with them working that long as long as they keep winning elections. My problem is on the Federal level where they get appointed for LIFE with no input from you or I. There should be mandatory term limits at the Federal Level. The Supreme Court is more of a Legislative Branch than a Judicial Branch of Goverment tdue to these Lifetime Appointments.
By Good question
April 26, 2011 10:54 AM | Link to this
It might save the state five years of pension pay in some cases, and gives experienced attorneys a chance to run for another term. Why not just remove the mandatory retirement age altogether? It seems a little arbitrary.
By Solomon
April 26, 2011 5:44 PM | Link to this
Is there a retirement age for wisdom?
By Court Proccedings....
April 26, 2011 5:54 PM | Link to this
A judge should mandatorily retire if during the sentencing phase of the trial, he delivers the sentence and states: “Baliff!!! Whack his pee-pee!!!”
By JS
April 27, 2011 9:46 AM | Link to this
@cat slobber: You have a point about the appointments of federal-level judges being for life, but you’re wrong about their being no input from us. They are appointed by Presidents, who are voted into office. They go through hearing, held by Congress, who are all elected by us. The problem at the federal level is that a process that was supposed to give us judges above the obviously immature rhetoric of politicians have become subject to it BY the very process that puts them in office. This became most obvious during the hearings on Bork and have continued ever since. Presidents use the appointments to appease parts of their base, Senators use the hearings to grandstand. It’s all a show and it’s ridiculous. We now have an extremely activist Supreme Court and it will stay that way UNTIL the way our politicians behave is changed. We keep electing the morons, though, so we take the blame. We have the government we’ve chosen.