US appeals judge, 96, suspended in rare clash over fitness | Hacker News Reader

US appeals judge, 96, suspended in rare clash over fitness

reuters.com

Air Traffic controllers must retire at 56 because they have peoples lives in their hands... Why not have a maximum retirement age for judges too? Maybe something like 88 years old?

I personally would prefer that these decisions be made based on competency rather than arbitrary age limits. This is especially true as everyone is aging, and the "meaning" of a certain age is changing dramatically. (I'd say this of air traffic controllers also, although I see where you're coming from — I imagine you could have a standard set of tests they need to take regularly? I'm not sure I know enough about it to say confidently.)

I don't know the details of the case, and maybe she should step down. However, the article mentions that doctors' evaluations of her competency were submitted. It sounds a bit like an argument over whose expert testimony should be relevant, and I could easily see a situation where someone wants her gone for political reasons ("political" in a broad sense, including "office politics"), and starts demanding that she have a particular evaluation done by a particular professional. If you were going through a divorce and your ex demanded you be evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist of their choosing, would you comply?

I've seen ageism be leveraged for political reasons with people I know, and it's corrupt, pure and simple. It's not any different from arguing against someone because of their ethnicity or gender.

At some point people can't do their job as well anymore and maybe she's at that point. But after reading the article, I wasn't really so sure. I could just as easily see it being the case that someone assumes she should step down because "clearly she's too old at 96", has some resentments about her being there for other reasons, and then leverages the former to achieve satisfaction with regard to the latter.

Its not that hard to shop around for a doctor who agrees with you though

Designing a generic competency test would be very difficult to do fairly. There are a lot of incentives to design a test that would disqualify judges on arbitrary political grounds.

Perhaps a regular IQ test taken at age 65 and then every few years after would do it. Enough of a decline and you’re no longer fit.

Tricky, since even if we assume the IQ test is producing a relevant metric there's significant run-to-run variation in test results. A lot of people would get retired prematurely if they happen to roll those dice low.

Because age discrimination against people at least 40 years old is illegal. [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employ...

There are already plenty of age restrictions on federal positions, adding new ones seems fine.

Since any age restriction on judges would alter the “in good behavior” term currently in the Constitution, it would require a Constitutional amendment, rendering any existing statutory prohibition moot, not that the Age Discrimination in Enployment Act referenced applies to political appointees in any case.

Dumb question, and this is just me not Googling... but what do ATC do after their forced retirement at 56? That's still to young to retire, or will be for most people in the future and that's pretty late in someone's life. Are there natural progressions within the industry that they can move onto post being a controller or are they restarting from scratch in a new field?

That's a good question and I'm wondering the same. Seems like a raw deal for air traffic controllers.

I think they get some type of pension/benefits, similar to how you can retire from the US military after 20 years of service, which is a more extreme case. (If you enlist at age 18, you can be fully retired at 38)

From a sample size of one ATC I know. After they retire with a very generous pay package, they spend their time getting involved in local flying clubs, going on holiday and spending time with their families. They have enough money not to need to work again.

> but what do ATC do after their forced retirement at 56? That’s still to young to retire, or will be for most people in the future

ATC aren’t “most people”, they are federal employees with a federal pension, and not just normal federal pension because ATC service time is “special provision” time that allows retirement at 20 years service and age 50, or 25 years service at any age.

Retirement benefit is the (highest average salary over any 36 month window) * (34% + (1% * years of service beyond 20))

Plus an additional “FERS Supplement” payment post retirement to age 62.

How about 75

Interesting remarks by the Chief Judge:

"I met with Judge Newman for approximately 45 minutes where I outlined the concerns about her inability to perform the work of an active judge and the concerns which had been expressed about her mental fitness. She refused to consider senior status saying that she was the only person who cared about the patent system and innovation policy."

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zjvqjadmmpx/...

Now do elected leaders in Washington.

If that's deemed too onerous, can we at least start with term limits for congress?

> Newman's attorneys have long argued that Newman's own court should not preside over the competency probe. They said in a filing made public on Wednesday that the committee investigating her fitness was "interested in one thing and one thing only - keeping Judge Newman off the bench via the exercise of raw power."

Interesting that she has attorneys for this issue and that they're taking the position that they're taking. It seems to me that there are some ethical considerations for a lawyer who is providing a defense for a probably senile person.

Is the position they're taking in the best interest of their client who is likely senile?

It's an important question but I also thought it was a reasonable legal position to take. If there's a conflict between two parties, you generally would have a third party address mechanisms to satisfy concerns. For example, if someone were involved in a lawsuit and countersuit involving their employer, or with a spouse they are divorcing, you wouldn't expect them to accede to the employer's or spouse's demands. You'd probably submit your own evidence (which Newman is doing), or seek a third party.

Someone being 96 does not mean they are senile. This is even more likely to be true of someone with the likely cognitive background of someone like Newman. For example, in individuals over 90, the estimated dementia rate in one study was only around 33% (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... this is in a general setting also, and includes a lot of individuals of many different backgrounds.

I really don't mean to be defending Newman per se (I don't really know anything about the case other than what's in the article), and I think there are good questions about representing someone where the question is competence. But reading the article it seemed like just what I'd expect if there were legal heavyweights in dispute about an issue, regardless of what's "really" going on. In fact, if anything, Newman is sort of behaving like an aggressive lawyer, which is what you'd expect if she were competent.

> Is the position they're taking in the best interest of their client who is likely senile?

I'm not willing to say the judge is "likely senile" - there are plenty of ways to no longer be competent due to age while still having full coherence.

Based on phrasing, what I think you're asking is "is the job of her lawyers to do what is best for her in the long term?" but as I understand it the job of lawyers is to best represent her desired outcome, not their own personal opinion of "what is best for them".

But if she is senile, then can her lawyers actually determine what is her desired outcome?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com