• @treefrog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 months ago

    Shoehorn into the Supreme Court?

    They already factor age into lifetime appointments.l with nominations (look at the median age of Trump’s appointments). I don’t see how requiring public servants be cognitively fit to serve and making them prove it if they’re getting on in years can be abused here.

    • hDGGgrLpg8nEucjxWnJz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      I think the point is that the doctor making the call could be corrupted, or a corrupt doctor appointed to the position.

      • @treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        That is an issue which is why we’d need an independent agency and transparency.

        And yes, that means this would be public medical information. Want the right to medical privacy, resign. It’s a requirement of the position post 65 that you wave that right in this instance.

        • @paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          I agree with all of that, except it should be for every person holding an elected position at that level.

          Younger people can be mentally impacted by a host of issues, and, on the flip side, any whiff of ageism should be avoided.

          So just make it a universal precondition.

          • @treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            My fear is how easily it can be weaponized as a tool of oppresion if applied to broadly.

            I.e. how we define cognitive fitness. But as I think about it I think you’re right. A person who isn’t competent to stand trial isn’t fit for public service, regardless of age.

            Tie it into the legal definition. If you can’t pass a competency test legally you have no business writing laws.