General Discussion

demosincebirth

(12,529 posts)

3. ...or a Republican only if you're over 80.

Reply to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:01 PM

Nov 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No candidate over 50 years old should be considered as a SCOTUS appointee [View all] scheming daemons Nov 2012 OP

I say 55. sadbear Nov 2012 #1

Yep. Mid 50s is just fine hifiguy Nov 2012 #35

Nice to see that you believe in age discrimination, MadHound Nov 2012 #2

The President can use whatever criteria he wants in selecting a nominee scheming daemons Nov 2012 #7

I'm in agreement JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #18

The poster is right. The goal should be to set the national policy over 2-3 decades. bluestate10 Nov 2012 #9

Has the opposite ever occurred (or at least occurred recently)? sadbear Nov 2012 #45

what if someone aged 103 was nominated? Whisp Nov 2012 #64

...or a Republican only if you're over 80. demosincebirth Nov 2012 #3

I would prefer over 96 LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #8

ridiculous. cali Nov 2012 #4

Sorry... no... we need liberal justices on the bench for 30-40 years... instead of 10 scheming daemons Nov 2012 #10

No. We need outstanding Justices and as long as they're under 60 cali Nov 2012 #50

Ok... so you basically agree with me... you just set the bar at 60 and I set it at 50... scheming daemons Nov 2012 #61

That's right...and unless your bar is 60, it's SHIT. Under 60? kosher, Under 50? LaydeeBug Nov 2012 #65

I personally want the most outstanding of judicious social liberal thinkers... Melinda Nov 2012 #5

What good is a superior intellect if the person is only on the bench for a few years... scheming daemons Nov 2012 #29

Because good open, free-thinking minds uphold good laws which in turn become settled law. Melinda Nov 2012 #40

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was named justice when she was in her late 50s.... scheming daemons Nov 2012 #43

I understand your position, I really do. Melinda Nov 2012 #67

I'm getting kind of tired HappyMe Nov 2012 #6

+1 calico1 Nov 2012 #14

It is simple math. scheming daemons Nov 2012 #15

I guess math is hard for you! Logical Nov 2012 #53

Why, yes it is! HappyMe Nov 2012 #63

I'm getting tired of the age crap, Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #70

I agree, she should be young 1-Old-Man Nov 2012 #11

What is is with you and people over 50? mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #12

this is the second ageist post in as many days mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #16

That is kind of gross. Why don't you think before you make arbitrary ageist comments, SD?! nt JudyM Nov 2012 #54

It is about *LIFETIME* appointments.... and we want those appointments to last a long time scheming daemons Nov 2012 #19

Unfortunately mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #25

Exactly. HappyMe Nov 2012 #37

Nope JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #24

EXACTLY scheming daemons Nov 2012 #30

exactly. I don't find that ageist at all, but practical and self preserving. Whisp Nov 2012 #48

You really do not understand this logic? Really??? Logical Nov 2012 #55

Age discrimination? How nice! calico1 Nov 2012 #13

Gotta agree with you. RebelOne Nov 2012 #20

It isn't age discrimination. It is making sure that *OUR* justices are on the court for as long as scheming daemons Nov 2012 #21

That's two days in a row Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #17

There is nothing "ageist" about wanting liberal appointees for 30-40 years instead of for 10-15. scheming daemons Nov 2012 #26

You have an ageist agenda mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #28

Yesterday's thread didn't denigrate people over 50 AT ALL..... scheming daemons Nov 2012 #33

I don't see the denigrating of 'over 50 people' here at all. Whisp Nov 2012 #49

Aren't there quite a number of supreme court justices in their mid eighties? LisaL Nov 2012 #32

No... the oldest current is Ginsberg... she is 79... and retiring this month, likely. scheming daemons Nov 2012 #56

I would rather have a 50+ year old who is calico1 Nov 2012 #22

That is why the first criteria is "liberal". The second criteria is "young". scheming daemons Nov 2012 #27

People over 50 generally know a lot more about life than do people under 50 slackmaster Nov 2012 #23

Exactly! n/t calico1 Nov 2012 #42

I disagree. LisaL Nov 2012 #31

Yes.... but a 70 year old would not scheming daemons Nov 2012 #34

So Hillary Clinton mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #36

And then we have to replace her in a decade? Would be better for her to run for President scheming daemons Nov 2012 #38

You seem to have a thing about 50 StarryNite Nov 2012 #39

Heh - Time has a way of fixing that kind of problem slackmaster Nov 2012 #41

He'll realize that one day. LOL StarryNite Nov 2012 #44

I'm 46. I will turn 50 when Obama's term ends. In 10 years, I wouldn't put myself on the court. scheming daemons Nov 2012 #46

bwahahahahah. you are getting ever more absurd. cali Nov 2012 #51

Please explain. What is absurd? scheming daemons Nov 2012 #59

Then your perfect choice StarryNite Nov 2012 #66

I wholeheartedly agree with you! hogwyld Nov 2012 #47

You can pick a 30 year old, and that 30 year old can get hit by a car and die within a year. LisaL Nov 2012 #52

LOL, yes, because that happens a lot. Logical Nov 2012 #57

Replace a woman w/woman & a man w/minority! LOL dem4ward Nov 2012 #58

I'm ok with any of those... as long as they're LIBERAL and YOUNG scheming daemons Nov 2012 #60

This is the second thread about the age of 50! treestar Nov 2012 #62

I strongly disagree liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #68

I totally agree with you.. AsahinaKimi Nov 2012 #69