New Hampshire has an amendment on the November Ballot that would allow judges to serve until age 75. We currently retire them at 70. I confess that, until the past week, I paid no attention to this whatsoever, but others have.
‘Grok author Laurie Ortolano dropped a piece on the amendment (opposed), to which occasional op-ed writer Spike felt compelled to respond. A stirred up a nest I didn’t know existed. But then, that’s what we do here. Start conversations, debates, and the odd rhetorical food fight, often on topics, events, or issues no one else is paying much attention to.
The conversation continues. This article landed in the mix this morning, and its author suggested I might (anonymously) add it to the debate. And so, I shall.
A few thoughts on the upcoming constitutional question of extending judicial service from 70 to 75 years-of-age.
There is rationale for limiting the US president to two terms. Not only prevents unresponsive dynasty, innovation depletion, policy fossilization but also impels president to make his mark within his terms. Forced retirement is akin to term limits in moving on from the status quo, regardless of its current merit. There should never be an entitlement to public position … particularly one which is unelected, and near unaccountable quasi-executive.
Most jurists are well into middle age before achieved merit, and more importantly politics, qualifies for judicial appointment. This currently leaves potential of, say 25 years, in the fraternal judgeship club where entitlement is a given. The Constitutional question poses to tack on 5 more years to a long unchallenged authoritative career, far in excess of presidential limits. Moreover, 70 years old is well beyond Full Retirement Age (FRA) of 66+ recognized by Social Security as the wear-out point of employable competency.
It is said that non-term appointment frees judges from political influences. Really? Have we not seen the abuse suffered by Donald Trump at the hands of democrat-appointed jurists? Jurists having not a shred of basis for gag orders, unreasonable fines, and allowing performing democrat persecutors to argue based on nothing-burger evidence.
We are fortunate in NH to have governor’s appointment approval by the Executive Council at the front end of judicial career, assuring merit and to-date acceptable behavior. The behavior problems may creep in later in career, needlessly wrecking people’s lives and making mockery of justice.
In extended service, what prevents a jurist from reckless behavior with a litigant? What mechanism prevents his political core from shining through in court orders? A business person typically has the common sense to preserve his success by firmly posing himself apolitically, as all US money is green. There is no such mechanism with judges for self-governance.
Bad behavior can originate from premature mental aging, releasing repressed inhibitions. Such is true of dementia and Alzheimer. Most folks can attest to such familial experience. There is no external mechanism to discriminate wide judicial latitude from age-induced bad behavior or confused procedural rulings. It (may be) all too politically risky for other judges to challenge a colleague on even the obvious.
The current 25-year judicial career does not serve us justice at forced retirement at 70 years-old for certain judges. The potential unbridled arrogance of entitlement, unchallenged over long career and compounded with age-induced behavior problems may be too long already. Adding 5-years pushes into male actuarial life expectancy.
With our present judicial installment process, we get quality jurists at the front end so why would we risk keeping potentially faulty jurists with a further 5 year extension?
Question asked. You get to answer.
