Posted on 10/24/2016 3:13:29 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
Pennsylvania has a ballot question almost certain to pass this November because most voters won’t know what it means.
One of the things it may mean is that baby boomers can’t admit we’re getting old.
The ballot question goes like this: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?”
Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Jurists, who enjoy about as secure an elected position as exists, shouldn’t serve forever.
What you may not know, though, is that the mandatory retirement age is now 70. This ballot question is about giving judges five more years on the bench, not limiting them further.
Berwood Yost, chief methodologist for the Franklin & Marshall Poll, published a piece in last Sunday’s Post-Gazette about the ballot language. He found in a split-ballot experiment that voters presented with the current wording tended to vote “yes.” When asked if justices should be able to retire at 75 instead of 70, however, most say no.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
If these judges are in or near Philly or Pitt, then we need to see exactly how dangerous they are. And if they are slated to be replaced by worse.
Wolf needs to be hobbled, not enhanced.
Years ago I read where the Los Angeles City Councilmen had been trying for years to have their citizens vote them a pay raise - and they consistently refused.
They hired a promoter, who had them propose a new law at the next election, to the tune that "Under no circumstance shall the members of the City Council be paid more than the City judges".
Voters, sick an tired of the Councilmen always whining about a pay raise, said "Friggin' Ay" and overwhelmingly voted "Yes".
Turned out the City judges made four times as much as the Councilmen, and them, having no shame, immediately jacked up their salary four times to parity with the judges, claiming they were "making up for all the times they were refused."
I have no problem with good judges being able to serve five more years.
Some of the finest jurists have been “senior judges”.
What you may not know, though, is that the mandatory retirement age is now 70. This ballot question is about giving judges five more years on the bench, not limiting them further.
as long as they dont collect pension while still sitting on the bench who cares ? right ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.