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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No candidate over 50 years old should be considered as a SCOTUS appointee [View all]StarryNite
(9,443 posts)44. He'll realize that one day. LOL
I think he's having a midlife crisis. Just because we hit 50 doesn't mean it's time for this.... Or that we should sit down and shut up.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
70 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No candidate over 50 years old should be considered as a SCOTUS appointee [View all]
scheming daemons
Nov 2012
OP
The President can use whatever criteria he wants in selecting a nominee
scheming daemons
Nov 2012
#7
The poster is right. The goal should be to set the national policy over 2-3 decades.
bluestate10
Nov 2012
#9
Sorry... no... we need liberal justices on the bench for 30-40 years... instead of 10
scheming daemons
Nov 2012
#10
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
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
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
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
There is nothing "ageist" about wanting liberal appointees for 30-40 years instead of for 10-15.
scheming daemons
Nov 2012
#26
No... the oldest current is Ginsberg... she is 79... and retiring this month, likely.
scheming daemons
Nov 2012
#56
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
And then we have to replace her in a decade? Would be better for her to run for President
scheming daemons
Nov 2012
#38
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