Thank you so much for following up on this troubling situation with such grace and incisive questioning. Watching Judge Newman respond to your direct and thoughtful questions with clarity and honesty is quite moving and demonstrates convincingly that she is not the least bit diminished cognitively. On the contrary, she is clearly completely capable of sitting in fair and impartial judgment of anyone who might come before her as a judge. I am someone who values the wisdom of our elders, and this set of videos proves that our elder statespeople deserve our ongoing respect and appreciation.
There are definitely older judges who are sadly no longer up to the task of judging. But as far as I can tell—at least based on my firsthand observation, not rumor—Judge Newman isn’t one of them.
I’m totally open to discussing mandatory retirement ages or term limits for judges. But as long as we have the current system, older judges who are still competent shouldn’t be forced off the bench because of personal or jurisprudential disagreements with them.
I completely agree with you and was worried (after I posted) that my comment made it sound like I blindly support all judges serving beyond the point at which they are mentally competent simply because they are "older and therefore wiser." That was not my intent, and I, too, support the consideration of mandatory retirement ages and/or term limits. But, as you point out, that is not the reality of our current time. For better or for worse.
I do, given this reality, very much value your continued concern with and investigation into the very problematic situation Judge Newman finds herself in. I appreciate your willingness to give her the platform to speak and advocate in her own defense. :)
I just listened to your clips and checked on some news reports from last year dealing with this issue, so I am not well informed. I live in Chicago though and I wouldn't be surprised if the comrade judges here would like to get rid the judge nominated by President Ronald Reagan. She still remembers this country before it became the crazy shithole it is now, and her decisions may be inconvenient. Just spitballing here...
She is the court’s most frequent dissenter, which I think is playing a role. But as I hope to explain in my longer follow-up piece, it’s less a matter of ideological differences and more a matter of personal ones.
I think your interview should be covered by one of the major newspapers and give this story broader airing. Something stinketh in the land of the DC Courts, and unfortunately, this story - video and audio - sends clear wafts of fresh (bad) odors. Such a great job on the interview on both sides. Clearly, she is not feeble-minded in any sense of the diagnosis.
Watching some of these underscores the point from the podcast: this woman is with it. She's all there, and she knows it.
At the risk of oversharing: I was lucky enough to know all four of my grandparents; both grandfathers died in their mid-80s, both grandmothers died in the mid-90s. And it was very clear to the very end which of them were "all there" mentally and which were not, which suffered extreme cognitive decline (1), which suffered mild decline in the weeks before death (2), and which was sharp as a tack until the end (1; one my grandmothers). I mention this both because I think the ageism issues can be real but also because it is hard to fake at the level of Judge Newman's coherence and competence. You know it when you see it, just as (sadly) you know when someone is not in good shape.
I am generally very skeptical of people in public office who are over 80 and insist on clinging to power. At that point in your life, you hopefully don't need the income to live on. Anyone who is desperate to cling to power at an age where they should be enjoying their final years, traveling or with family or exploring new interests or whatever, is someone the public should be extremely suspicious of and subject to constant scrutiny.
Thank you so much for following up on this troubling situation with such grace and incisive questioning. Watching Judge Newman respond to your direct and thoughtful questions with clarity and honesty is quite moving and demonstrates convincingly that she is not the least bit diminished cognitively. On the contrary, she is clearly completely capable of sitting in fair and impartial judgment of anyone who might come before her as a judge. I am someone who values the wisdom of our elders, and this set of videos proves that our elder statespeople deserve our ongoing respect and appreciation.
There are definitely older judges who are sadly no longer up to the task of judging. But as far as I can tell—at least based on my firsthand observation, not rumor—Judge Newman isn’t one of them.
I’m totally open to discussing mandatory retirement ages or term limits for judges. But as long as we have the current system, older judges who are still competent shouldn’t be forced off the bench because of personal or jurisprudential disagreements with them.
I completely agree with you and was worried (after I posted) that my comment made it sound like I blindly support all judges serving beyond the point at which they are mentally competent simply because they are "older and therefore wiser." That was not my intent, and I, too, support the consideration of mandatory retirement ages and/or term limits. But, as you point out, that is not the reality of our current time. For better or for worse.
I do, given this reality, very much value your continued concern with and investigation into the very problematic situation Judge Newman finds herself in. I appreciate your willingness to give her the platform to speak and advocate in her own defense. :)
I just listened to your clips and checked on some news reports from last year dealing with this issue, so I am not well informed. I live in Chicago though and I wouldn't be surprised if the comrade judges here would like to get rid the judge nominated by President Ronald Reagan. She still remembers this country before it became the crazy shithole it is now, and her decisions may be inconvenient. Just spitballing here...
She is the court’s most frequent dissenter, which I think is playing a role. But as I hope to explain in my longer follow-up piece, it’s less a matter of ideological differences and more a matter of personal ones.
I’m not sure most progressives see any difference between personal or ideological.
I think your interview should be covered by one of the major newspapers and give this story broader airing. Something stinketh in the land of the DC Courts, and unfortunately, this story - video and audio - sends clear wafts of fresh (bad) odors. Such a great job on the interview on both sides. Clearly, she is not feeble-minded in any sense of the diagnosis.
Watching some of these underscores the point from the podcast: this woman is with it. She's all there, and she knows it.
At the risk of oversharing: I was lucky enough to know all four of my grandparents; both grandfathers died in their mid-80s, both grandmothers died in the mid-90s. And it was very clear to the very end which of them were "all there" mentally and which were not, which suffered extreme cognitive decline (1), which suffered mild decline in the weeks before death (2), and which was sharp as a tack until the end (1; one my grandmothers). I mention this both because I think the ageism issues can be real but also because it is hard to fake at the level of Judge Newman's coherence and competence. You know it when you see it, just as (sadly) you know when someone is not in good shape.
I am generally very skeptical of people in public office who are over 80 and insist on clinging to power. At that point in your life, you hopefully don't need the income to live on. Anyone who is desperate to cling to power at an age where they should be enjoying their final years, traveling or with family or exploring new interests or whatever, is someone the public should be extremely suspicious of and subject to constant scrutiny.