Minimum Age Requirements?
Photos
Should there be a minimum age to be nominated for a lifetime position?
As I speak to people about the nominations that are approved by the Governor’s Council this question keeps coming up, should there be a minimum age for these appointments?
If someone is appointed at the age of 50 they can serve for 20 years.
In an age where so many are advocating for term limits its hard to imagine why anyone should get a 20 year term, but that is what can happen with the judiciary.
Many people have told me that they view these offices as ones that should be held by mature, experienced people. People that have excelled in their field and are ready to give back to the community they have worked with.
When people are applying for a lifetime position and they are younger than 50, they are often trying to move up the ladder rather than give back. They are looking for a pay increase, not sacrificing by accepting a pay decrease.
It is often argued that people under the age of 50, simply don’t have the gravitas for these positions.
It may be that when someone older makes a ruling that people don’t like, that everyone realizes they won’t be around for that much longer, but when someone younger makes the same mistake it is felt that it will go on for much longer.
Of course people can grow in positions, but this is not ideal if they do not start with basic experience.
Another problem with the younger nominees, is that they are always viewed with a great amount of suspicion, why are they being nominated? When it is clearly not for their experience.
On June 6 the Governor’s Council will hold hearings for two such nominees.
If there is anything you would like to know about the Council please feel free to contact me at patrickmccabegovernorscouncil@gmail.com.
Patrick McCabe is a candidate for Governor's Council District 2
Robert Orthman
3:16 pm on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
I hope this is not a serious proposition here. John Marshall, the most influential Supreme Court Chief Justice in US history and father of much of our constitutional jurisprudence was 46 years old when nominated by President John Adams to the Supreme Court. So, that should put to rest any notion that someone under 50 years old lacks the gravitas to be appointed to the bench.
Patrick McCabe
4:29 pm on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
It is a comment I have often heard.
There is little question that there are nominees that lack experience that appear before the council.
There is also the new adage that 50 is the new 40.
I welcome hearing, sharing and discussing all reasonable views.
Our judiciary can only be improved by open discussions of the issues that affect it.
Robert Orthman
5:22 pm on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
I feel there is little legitimate reason to limit the judicial pool to individuals over the age of fifty. Lawyers nominated to the bench often are leaving lucrative and successful careers not to mention entering likely public scrutiny as it is. As a result, we should have the largest pool possible to encourage the best candidates and not set arbitrary limits on who can serve. And respectfully, I would like to see some backing and evidence behind some of the assertions in your post like claiming younger lawyers are just looking to move up the ladder rather than give back. I could point to many many examples that directly refute that seemingly wind-sweeping assertion.
Patrick McCabe
7:43 pm on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
"I feel there is little legitimate reason to limit the judicial pool to individuals over the age of fifty. "
While I may agree with you my point is that many people have raised this issue, and I feel that reasonable voices should be heard.
While I may not agree with a minimum age requirement, I am concerned that there are underlying issues that cause people to make this suggestion.
"Lawyers nominated to the bench often are leaving lucrative and successful careers not to mention entering likely public scrutiny as it is."
I have attended hearings for four years, when the nominees are younger they are seldom leaving a lucrative career, they are usually trying to move up the financial ladder by getting a job on the judiciary.
"As a result, we should have the largest pool possible to encourage the best candidates and not set arbitrary limits on who can serve."
I could not agree with you more. With the current system there is little transparency the public has no idea what the size of the pool is. I have urged the Governor to be more transparent, and although some effort has been made little has been accomplished and more can be done.
Patrick McCabe
7:43 pm on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
"And respectfully, I would like to see some backing and evidence behind some of the assertions in your post like claiming younger lawyers are just looking to move up the ladder rather than give back."
Just reporting the facts. It is hard to argue that someone is giving back when they are benefiting from an advancement. The Governor's Council is fully aware of the income of the nominee as well as how much they will be earning if their nomination is approved. It is an issue.
Checking my website:
patrickmccabegovernorscouncil.com
Of the nine nominees listed there that have been approved, five of them acknowledged that the position they were applying for would improve their financial situation.
"I could point to many many examples that directly refute that seemingly wind-sweeping assertion."
As always I would be happy to hear more.
Patrick McCabe
9:00 am on Friday, June 8, 2012
Wednesday I attended the Governor's Council Hearings, there were two nominees.
I raised the issue of pay, would the nominees be getting a pay increase, would it be pay neutral or would they be taking a pay cut.
It was bluntly acknowledged that the majority of nominees (one person suggested 80%) receive a pay increase.
I have no issue with people receiving a pay increase, but I am concerned about the myth-making regarding these positions. While some nominees may take a pay increase, most do not.
Some nominees do take a pay cut, and perhaps there was a time in the distant past when most nominees took a pay cut, but it certainly isn't the case now.