This is why nothing is ever agreed to in the world and there is no longer legitimate discourse.

I am an expert in the field of longevity. With respect to longevity, you are an expert in the interweb.

You trot out a table showing 1850-2011 life expectancies with zero recognition of the mortality improvements experienced from 2011 to 2018, as well as the projected mortality increases that experts in the field are modeling post-2018. Let's assume there were no increases in life expectancy from the late 1700's to 1850 and we use the 27.9 number as our starting point. I'll tell you the life expectancy for a male aged 40 under the most recent actuarial tables published by the Society of Actuaries is 44.6 years.

You claimed 27.9 years vs. 38.6 is "slight", In my world, I call that a 16% increase in the expected age at death, which is significant. How'd you like a 16% increase (or decrease) in your pay? How'd you like to save and prepare to live 27.9 years in retirement and then live 38.6 years. How's that gonna work out for you? Are you only "slightly" eating dog food in those extra 10 years?

With a straight face, I could even call it a 38% increase by just looking at the increase in life expectancy as opposed to the increase in expected age at death. 38%!

In reality, because I don't need to rely on the interweb and can do my own life expectancy analysis, we should really be comparing 27.9 years to 44.6 years. That's a 25% increase in the expected age at death, which is, well, in actuarial terms, "a lot". I won't even try to perpetrate a 60% increase (again just looking at the increase in life expectancy) because that's piling on and it almost makes my numbers seem absurd.

The above is not germane to the original discussion but it is symptomatic of why we can't have a discussion on any topic.

Suppose I really did believe that we should have age limits for the Supreme Court and my position was based on the idea that life expectancy has risen since the Constitution's inception. I can't even get to discussing my original proposition without first navigating and arguing about stuff you only read on the internet. That's a problem. And if you were on one side of the argument and I was on the other and we were trying to rally others to our positions, you'd be using words like "slight" on MSNBC and I'd be using numbers like 25% or even 60% on Fox while calling you "fake news". And our sheepish followers who can't think for themselves will fall right into our respective corners. Then they'll go on Facebook and Twitter and repeat what we said so they can seem relevant, engaged, and informed.

And then MSNBC would bring out experts to contradict my analysis and say that the data collection methods used by the Society of Actuaries are flawed and that I'm not accounting for blue collar vs. white collar, or race, or gender, or...

And then Fox would bring out experts to support my analysis and take it even further talking about expected increases in medicine and how we're going to live to 200, and how Justices have access to the best health care, and...

Wait, what were we talking about again? School shootings? There's been another? Why don't we ever do anything about them?

If only I had an idea.

It's a friggin' intellectual abomination.

The quoting was getting too long so I dropped it.

You started the discussion with this, "When the constitution was signed, life expectancy was 38 years old. A lifetime appointment then doesn't mean what it means now. And, you gotta admit, some of the Justices are losing their fastball as they age."

You cannot then claim the high ground on longevity expertise when you use the longevity at birth. Which is a meaningless number in regards to life expectancy of SCOTUS justices.

You also are ignoring that as life expectancy has increased, the health of older people has also increased.

And you have also failed to describe who you think has lost something off their fastball, what you think is evidence of that, and have ignored that Congress has the ability to remove incompetent justices.


So the answer to your questions remains:
1 - no
2 - no
3 - no, hell no, fuck no

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Beat me to it.

Men didn't have universal suffrage in the US until 1965! The 24A got rid of poll taxes. Native Americans didn't get universal sufferage until 1924. Before 1800, if you were a white, male renter (not a land owner), you could only vote in VT, KY, and PA. If you weren't a white male, you didn't count at all.

Only 6% of people could vote in 1789. 14th, 15th, 24th and 26th all gotta go.

Watch this.

I was sloppy in mixing the terms "life expectancy at attained age" and "life expectancy at birth". Truthfully, I didn't give it much thought because, well, as I showed, it really doesn't matter. Furthermore, I underestimated the audience and was only partially invested in setting up the premise because this is, after all, the LR.

Yes, I was not initially clear, but I'm pretty sure I subsequently disabused the masses of my bona fides in the area of longevity.

You, on the other hand, refuse to admit you were presenting ill-informed stats, continue to obfuscate, and are posturing as if somehow I don't know what I'm talking about with regard to life expectancy and you are really the expert (as if this is even what we were originally going to debate.)

I'll say a person's inability to stay awake at work is a pretty good sign they are not firing on all cylinders. But, that's anecdotal. If this were a serious discussion, we could bring in neuros and could implement testing for the Justices at various ages. But, then I guess somebody would point out that President Trump is 71 and we should test him. And then some lawyer would talk about age discrimination and how we should test everyone.

And then you'd bring up (somehow with a straight face, I assume) that I am, again, not qualified to debate this issue because I have "...ignored that Congress has the ability to remove incompetent justices." Presumably, you live in a world where a Republican Congress can remove Democrat Justices, er, I mean a Justice who leans Dem, er, I mean a random Justice. I sure hope that Justice isn't a woman or a minority. That's a cute suggestion, though, but I'll admit the idiots among us might buy into the idea we don't need to do anything because there's already mechanisms in place to address my issue.

I guess that's why we have school shootings. There's nothing to talk about because we already have gun laws.

For the record, my answers are:

1. I'm not sure. I don't like how politicized the Court is and that might encourage Justices to hang on for political reasons when we really need the best and brightest in there.
2. No
3. No, hell no, fuck no

My original post was a reaction to the intellectually void 2A opponents who think they win the gun debate by pointing out the 2A was written at a time when "arms" meant something different.

I've enjoyed the interaction, but need to go run. I know, take this shit to the Tri Forum.

Little bit of a god complex huh.

i would be more in favor of a maximum voting age. Maybe 70. They aren't as invested in the outcome as the younger people, and are beginning to lose a bit more than their fastball.

i never really understood why 18 year olds can't drink. One group of adults being discriminated against under the law because of their age. Has that ever been challenged under the 14th amendment?

I remember plenty of kids who couldn’t stay awake in class when I was in college. Not sure that has anything to do with age or not “firing on all cylinders.” It just has to do with how much rest you need, how much you’re getting, and how interested you are in whatever is going on at that moment.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The only reason is because of drunk driving statistics. When the national age was raised to 21, drunk driving incidents were reduced dramatically.

As to your other question, the Supreme Court has held anti-age discrimination laws only protected the old, not the young: http://supreme.findlaw.com/...t-not-the-young.html

As to the 14th Amendment piece, there is a split in the courts. Most state and federal courts have held age claims must be brought under Civil Rights laws (i.e., the ADEA). A few state and federal courts have held state employees can bring a Section 1983 claim against the state for age discrimination under the 14th Amendment. But, that only applies to state employees and, once again, the law protects the old, not the young.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Excellent job of taking one line out of context and not recognizing everything that led up to that statement.

Bless you, my son.

The 6th! We don't need it, because with social media, everyone at this point is put on public trial and condemned.

thank you for the legal insight. I'm now better informed on interpretations of the 14th and 26th amendments.Good to learn that it is going to take a constitutional amendment for the LR to take away the voting rights of 18 - 20 year olds.