Laurie Ortolano writes a piece that purports to give readers guidance on the ballot question raising the age limit for judges from 70 to 75. But the text quickly turns to recap Laurie’s mistreatment by the New Hampshire judiciary and by specific persons.
Thanks to Spike for the Op-Ed. Send yours to steve@granitegrok.com
Let’s stipulate that Laurie was treated unprofessionally, that the judiciary is a clique that resists citizens without credentials litigating on their own behalf, and that it does such an awful job of policing its own that we need forced retirement by constitutional rule rather than depending on the judiciary to weed out incompetent judges.
But 70 versus 75?
All Laurie has to say about this is that even 70 is sometimes too old; yes, fixed age limits are a blunt instrument. What is her thesis about the ballot question, the title of her article? Vote No, to spite the judiciary for wanting a Yes vote. Unfortunately, a comeuppance for Laurie is not the most important criterion for the voter.
Here’s a more important criterion: If we keep cashiering judges at 70, do cases start backing up? A former umpire once riddled me about the “one word” that a manager could say to an umpire to get ejected from the game. The answer is “you.” There is a difference between criticizing the decision and criticizing the work of the arbiter.
In the article, Laurie cites unprofessional conduct but then senses incompetence and senility, adding that “it is unacceptable” that such issues are swept under the rug and that complaints provoke retaliation.
Is it possible that she finds it equally unacceptable at the courthouse for her to gloss over the judge’s temperament? Laurie lost a series of judicial decisions. It is impossible for the reader to tell to what extent her desire to fault individuals contributed to their eventual incivility toward her.
