Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

scheming daemons

(25,487 posts)
26. There is nothing "ageist" about wanting liberal appointees for 30-40 years instead of for 10-15.
Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:26 PM
Nov 2012

I want our rights protected. I want liberal justices that are there for a long time so they can't be replaced by GOP Presidents.


Putting an older person on the court means that that person will have to be replaced sooner... which means that there is a chance they are replaced by a GOP President and Senate.

Having a judge on the court for 40 years denies them the opportunity for a much longer time period.



It is simple math.
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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No candidate over 50 year...»Reply #26