540
submitted 6 months ago by robocall@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 135 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I think it should be younger. Maybe 65.

Members of Congress and SCOTUS should also have term limits

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 76 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm onboard with 65 as the maximum age anyone can run for Congress but I don't have a problem with people 65+ finishing their terms provided they're actually competent. I'd like to see mandatory cognitive decline testing for anyone running for Congress, appointed to the SC or appointed to any high position in the executive branch.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we're allowing people with 5-7y remaining life expectancy to plan our future 20, 40 or 100y out - they just don't have the skin in the game that someone in their 20s or 30s does.

On top of all of that I'd like to see vigorous corruption testing, SC justices and congresscreatures shouldn't be bought and paid for the way they are now.

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

Yeah that sounds reasonable. You can at most finish your current term once you're past 65. And term-limit everything, Justices, whatever.

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 21 points 6 months ago

"After many decades of civil service, it is time for the state to give back to our hard working representatives. Therefore they will be retired in januray of the year following their 65th birthday"

"January 6th has for the last few years been a reminder of an embarrassing moment in our history, well no longer! January 6th shall henceforth be known as a day of celebration, celebrating not only long and faithfull service but also new talents, skills and hope for the furue! Join us, as we once again rejuvinate our government to keep our nation strong and dependable!"

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I agree on the legislature, but not the court. The legislature has to plan for the future. Their age should be below the average life expectancy. They need to have a foreseeable future for us to allow them to plan ours.

I would resolve the instability of the court by eliminating its fixed size. One new justice shall be appointed every other year. In the odd-numbered years, between election cycles.

This will tend to increase the size of the court over time. The average term length is currently about 16 years, but that is with strategic retirements. I would expect the average term to increase to 24 to 36 years, leaving us with a court of 12 to 18 justices.

[-] insufferableninja 1 points 6 months ago

you know that the size of the supreme court isn't specified by the constitution, right? there is no "fixed size"

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 6 months ago

The constitution isn't the only entity that could fix the size of the court. The court's size was fixed at nine by the Judiciary Act of 1869.

The revisions I proposed could be implemented by an act of Congress.

I would also establish a line of succession, where, if the president and the Senate cannot agree on a candidate, the justice is the highest ranking federal judge who has been confirmed by the Senate since this plan was enacted. Appointment to a federal bench contemplates the possibility that the judge could be elevated to SCOTUS. Confirmation after this point would signify the Senate's consent to this possibility. (I'd make it the highest ranking federal court judge, regardless of when they were confirmed, but that would probably be deemed unconstitutional)

[-] insufferableninja 1 points 6 months ago

ah woops, i conflated your comment with another one and thought you were proposing a constitutional amendment to change the court size. my bad.

[-] b3an@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Honest question, what do we do that we are now living longer, and have better quality of life and medical advancements? With AI progressing exponentially, this will likely increase average lifespans in developed countries. You might be arguing against your own comments here when you hit 65 and realize you still maintain mental acuity and are thriving.

Personally, I feel like we should be spending our time and focus on fixing a number of other issues. Namely lobbying, special interest groups tied to anti-consumer companies, 'slap on the wrist' fines for billion dollar companies, predatory lending, student loans. I mean the list goes on. These things aren't an age problem, it's a corruption problem.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

You might be arguing against your own comments here when you hit 65 and realize you still maintain mental acuity and are thriving.

I’m not running for office nor scotus. But if I were, I’d hope reason would dictate sensible policy, not magical thinking about whatever far-off technological theoretical you might imagine.

[-] b3an@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Then you are not apprised of history.

In 1900, the average life expectancy of a newborn was 32 years. By 2021 this had more than doubled to 71 years.

But life expectancy has increased at all ages. Infants, children, adults, and the elderly are all less likely to die than in the past, and death is being delayed.

This remarkable shift results from advances in medicine, public health, and living standards. Along with it, many predictions of the ‘limit’ of life expectancy have been broken.

I'm not saying we'll be doubling lifespans, but if you looked at the big picture, we've made HUGE strides and advances in a very short period of time. Especially if you consider how long humans have been around. Now we have CRISPR gene editing for example, and very obviously artifical intelligence/machine learning will grow exponentially fast.

This is not "magical thinking" about "far-off technological" theory. This is modern day and recent history, and already we expect global life expectancy to increase by nearly 5 years by 2050 despite geopolitical, metabolic, and environmental threats.

I also didn't say anything about ignoring policy in lieu of science, and pointed out several areas I personally feel could use attention. However that is my own opinion... Just like you on running/not for office.

It is also clear that some aged people are 'sharp' to the end, just as some can be debilitated earlier to disease and age. Sensible policy is also welcome. I just don't think we should lump everyone together using an arbitrary metric.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago

I’m glad you have a hobby tracking the historical progress of life-extending technology, but I find your entire premise to be a straw man.

I have no concern about them not living long enough. So your magical “maybes” and “it could happens” are completely irrelevant.

this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
540 points (96.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43893 readers
683 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS