Would you support a mandatory retirement age of 75 for US House, US Senate & US Supreme Court Justices and if not why?

robocall@lemmy.world to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 535 points –
180

You are viewing a single comment

Not an original idea by far, but I was chatting it up with a few friends recently about this and we thought a civic duty term made far more sense (think jury duty). So much needs to be fixed in the process, like the bill riders addons (a horrible scourge to our political system) and lobbyist (scum). But imagine you were picked (randomly) to serve for 3 year stints, with those getting picked for a 2nd and maybe even 3rd term, serving as some Senior politician. Clearly it needs much more thought, but far better potential because you have to participate and accountable.

Before you knock it down, think about the intelligence required here. Boebert is an absolute moron. Bills before the system need to be something the average person can understand (legal verbiage is such a pointless waste and almost unnecessary). You would need to participate in collaboration with others, understand how to be honest and forthcoming with your goals.

We can’t hold Politicians accountable (not the system today) and this could be an answer.

Ah, the Athenian model.

I think having some kind of required civics course for the random sounds appointees would do well. Legal language exists for reasons that go beyond being deliberately obtuse, so it could still be used to try and reduce ambiguity

legal verbiage is such a pointless waste and almost unnecessary

Wow. I like the rest of your position, but being precise in language, and understanding what things mean legally is extremely important.

Yeah, I think I’m talking about the purposeful legal jargon used to deceive or be arguable vague and 20 pages long for no reason but to hide that fact. I’m all about precision, but it needs to be something an average person would comprehend if we were to adopt this method.