House Republican pushes medical examinations for Supreme Court justices (Issa)

[corbe]

House Republican pushes medical examinations for Supreme Court justices

By Lydia Wheeler - 09/11/18 05:38 PM EDT   

A House Republican is pushing a batch of reforms for the Supreme Court that would require justices to undergo periodic medical examinations.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, introduced a bill on Tuesday that aims to make the federal courts more transparent.

Under Issa's Judiciary Reforms, Organization and Operational Modernization, or Room Act, federal justices and judges age 70 and younger would be required to undergo a medical evaluation every five years. Those older than 70 would have to be examined every two years, and those 81 and older would have to go every year.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/406154-house-republican-pushes-medical-examinations-for-supreme-court

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

"Psst. Somebody wake up Ruth."

[GtHawk]

Sounds okay, but how about Congress? I can think of a number whose mental health is highly questionable. I wonder if there's a reason why democrat and dementia both start with the same three letters

[Maj. Bill Martin]

House Republican pushes medical examinations for Supreme Court justices

By Lydia Wheeler - 09/11/18 05:38 PM EDT   

A House Republican is pushing a batch of reforms for the Supreme Court that would require justices to undergo periodic medical examinations.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, introduced a bill on Tuesday that aims to make the federal courts more transparent.

Under Issa's Judiciary Reforms, Organization and Operational Modernization, or Room Act, federal justices and judges age 70 and younger would be required to undergo a medical evaluation every five years. Those older than 70 would have to be examined every two years, and those 81 and older would have to go every year.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/406154-house-republican-pushes-medical-examinations-for-supreme-court

Well, the Constitution sets certain requirements for the appointment of Article III judges.  It doesn't say anything about Congress being able to impose additional requirements by statute.

And leaving aside the Constitutional question...this is just a terrible idea.  It is begging for the politicization of medical examinations, which will end up being an excuse to remove judges/justices the party in power doesn't like.

[Bigun]

Well, the Constitution sets certain requirements for the appointment of Article III judges.  It doesn't say anything about Congress being able to impose additional requirements by statute.

And leaving aside the Constitutional question...this is just a terrible idea.  It is begging for the politicization of medical examinations, which will end up being an excuse to remove judges/justices the party in power doesn't like.

  @Maj. Bill Martin

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Well, the Constitution sets certain requirements for the appointment of Article III judges.  It doesn't say anything about Congress being able to impose additional requirements by statute.

And leaving aside the Constitutional question...this is just a terrible idea.  It is begging for the politicization of medical examinations, which will end up being an excuse to remove judges/justices the party in power doesn't like.

We've already got one for everyone in the country

Soviet-style abuse of psychiatry is now practiced in the US

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/soviet-style-abuse-of-psychiatry-is-now-practiced-in-the-us-t19299.html

[Emjay]

House Republican pushes medical examinations for Supreme Court justices

By Lydia Wheeler - 09/11/18 05:38 PM EDT   

A House Republican is pushing a batch of reforms for the Supreme Court that would require justices to undergo periodic medical examinations.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, introduced a bill on Tuesday that aims to make the federal courts more transparent.

Under Issa's Judiciary Reforms, Organization and Operational Modernization, or Room Act, federal justices and judges age 70 and younger would be required to undergo a medical evaluation every five years. Those older than 70 would have to be examined every two years, and those 81 and older would have to go every year.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/406154-house-republican-pushes-medical-examinations-for-supreme-court

Not really feasible.  Then we'd have to trust the doctors/examiners.  Maybe it would be simpler to just ban women from the Supreme Court.

[Emjay]

"Psst. Somebody wake up Ruth."

Ruth is awake at the moment and vowing to stay on until Trump is out of office.  She will be 90.

I think she can do it.

[Sanguine]

Sounds okay, but how about Congress? I can think of a number whose mental health is highly questionable. I wonder if there's a reason why democrat and dementia both start with the same three letters

If the citizens of a district want to elect an over the hill candidate, they can do that. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Now that they passed the Obamacare repeal, funded the wall, locked up Hitlery, defunded PP, and drained the swamp the GOP now has lots of time to pursue stupid stuff that won't pass.

[Emjay]

Now that they passed the Obamacare repeal, funded the wall, locked up Hitlery, defunded PP, and drained the swamp the GOP now has lots of time to pursue stupid stuff that won't pass.

The worst part of Obamacare was repealed (the individual mandate); the swamp was too full to drain in a day or even two years but a start has been made; Planned Parenthood is doomed and will be defunded within a year.

[Cyber Liberty]

Push it all you want, Issa, but as long as some of the fossils on the court are partisan Rats, the Rats in Congress will never go for it.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

The worst part of Obamacare was repealed (the individual mandate); the swamp was too full to drain in a day or even two years but a start has been made; Planned Parenthood is doomed and will be defunded within a year.

It's fantastic that the government doesn't require me to carry the ridiculously expensive insurance I can't afford, and you're right.  The swamp wasn't drained, and PP is still being funded by our tax dollars.  I'll have to double check if the wall is built and Hitlery is locked up now.  Thank you for correcting me.

#MAGA

[GtHawk]

If the citizens of a district want to elect an over the hill candidate, they can do that.

I have nothing against older politicians, my concern is with the mentally unstable politicians, older or younger. Pelosi, Feinstein and Waters are prime examples in California, I should have included Moonbeam. I am sure people in other states can name mentally impaired  politicians that they have.

[Sanguine]

I have nothing against older politicians, my concern is with the mentally unstable politicians, older or younger. Pelosi, Feinstein and Waters are prime examples in California, I should have included Moonbeam. I am sure people in other states can name mentally impaired  politicians that they have.

My point being that we can't tell other people who they can or can't vote for. 

[Free Vulcan]

I think this crosses the line of Separation of Powers. Find better things to do with your time Issa.

[GtHawk]

My point being that we can't tell other people who they can or can't vote for.

And my point being I never said anyone could. As I understood it what was stated in the article was a desire for medical exams for those already in office, Supreme Court Justices and I said why not those in Congress. So I have no idea why you keep implying that I was trying to discriminate on a candidates age or anyone else not already in office. But if implying that is what makes you feel good, then go with it.

[Sanguine]

And my point being I never said anyone could. As I understood it what was stated in the article was a desire for medical exams for those already in office, Supreme Court Justices and I said why not those in Congress. So I have no idea why you keep implying that I was trying to discriminate on a candidates age or anyone else not already in office. But if implying that is what makes you feel good, then go with it.

No, that's not what I was "implying" at all.  I'm not even good at implying.  I usually just say what I mean.  I said exactly what I meant.  Don't read things into it that aren't there.

[Fishrrman]

At the time The Founders put the Constitution together, people didn't live quite as long (on average) as they do today.

I'll reckon that when someone aged 45 was given a "lifetime" appointment as a federal judge or Supreme Court Justice in 1800, he was expected to serve twenty years, maybe twenty five.

But not into his eighties or nineties.

Of course, the only way to correct this is by Constitutional Amendment.

Perhaps a Supreme Court appointment could be designated a fixed term of 25 years, with the president having the option to re-nominate a sitting Justice with a simple yes/no vote in the Senate to confirm. Upon confirmation, the Justice's term would be extended for a period of 10 years, or until he/she retires.

And also the amendment should state that any sitting federal judge or Supreme Court Justice will retire upon attaining the age of 75 years.