Shame on you trying to force an old lady into retirement before she is ready. Especially after doing so much for you.
And They say the Republicans are leading a “war on women”.
Okay, I’ll bite.
How is this either age or gender discrimination? The purpose of the call to retire is based on political reasons (whether correct or incorrect), not an assertion that Justice Ginsburg can no longer do the job because her age or gender.
‘In deciding when to retire, Ginsburg, who is the eldest among the nine justices, should maximize the chance that her successor will be someone with her values and views.’
She’s not doing it. And there is pretty little history of it happening. The justices take that lifetime appointment thing pretty seriously.
Of course it is political, but we expect SCOTUS judges to be beyond politics and should not subject them to it.
At its core is discrimination. My assistant is in her 60’s and one of the best employees I ever had. When there was some doubt to the continued existence of my company, I talked with a recruiter buddy of mine to find a backup for not just me, but her. He said placing somebody that old, no matter how skilled, no matter how healthy would be impossible, but no company would ever admit that as it would be illegal. If I were to ever suggest she retire I face a potential for lawsuit. And these are policies that were pushed by liberal democrats.
If she says she is healthy and is as fit for duty as ever, the discussion should end there. But interestingly she addressed it head on, suggesting anybody who think Obama could place another Ginsberg with this congress is foolish. Maybe you can get a reliable liberal, but even that would be a crap shoot.
I’m not sure she’s all that healthy. She’s an 81 year old who has had pancreatic cancer. I’ve listened to a few cases recently on the radio (that makes me sound like I’m 81 years old myself), and she seems to sound pretty frail. But she is absolutely mentally fit still, which is what matters. It doesn’t seem to have stopped her from doing her job.
I do agree with you that she should stay or go as she sees fit. You obviously don’t to her position without some force of will and ability to make decisions on your own, so I doubt any public pressure is going to change her mind one way or another.
Plus, there are a few late 70’s guys on the court, which is basically average male life expectancy. They could easily “go” before her. Never know what could happen.
Of course it is political, but we expect SCOTUS judges to be beyond politics and should not subject them to it.
It coudl be political. But it could also be ideological. Justices care a great deal about ideology and jurisprudence. Almost as much as they care about legacy. It’s certainly not unheard of for a justice to retire at a point where the replacement is most likely to match ideological and shore up their legacy.
My assistant is in her 60’s and one of the best employees I ever had. When there was some doubt to the continued existence of my company, I talked with a recruiter buddy of mine to find a backup for not just me, but her. He said placing somebody that old, no matter how skilled, no matter how healthy would be impossible, but no company would ever admit that as it would be illegal. If I were to ever suggest she retire I face a potential for lawsuit.
Seems like you got some bad advice.
Gotta make room for Eric Holder.
Okay, I’ll bite.
How is this either age or gender discrimination? The purpose of the call to retire is based on political reasons (whether correct or incorrect), not an assertion that Justice Ginsburg can no longer do the job because her age or gender.
You are 100% correct, hit the nail on the head!
This would only be gender and age discrimination if the Republicans were doing it.
There’s something incredibly cynical and dishonorable about the idea that someone whom one things is doing a fine job should leave it because one wants to make sure that her successor has the “correct” political persuasion.
Only if it is conservatives, you know that. And yes.
Okay, I’ll bite.
How is this either age or gender discrimination? The purpose of the call to retire is based on political reasons (whether correct or incorrect), not an assertion that Justice Ginsburg can no longer do the job because her age or gender.
You are 100% correct, hit the nail on the head!
This would only be gender and age discrimination if the Republicans were doing it.
This.
Thanks for saving me the time to type it out.
Greg
Okay, I’ll bite.
How is this either age or gender discrimination? The purpose of the call to retire is based on political reasons (whether correct or incorrect), not an assertion that Justice Ginsburg can no longer do the job because her age or gender.
You are 100% correct, hit the nail on the head!
This would only be gender and age discrimination if the Republicans were doing it.
This.
Thanks for saving me the time to type it out.
Greg
Tit’s my pleasure.
Okay, I’ll bite.
How is this either age or gender discrimination? The purpose of the call to retire is based on political reasons (whether correct or incorrect), not an assertion that Justice Ginsburg can no longer do the job because her age or gender.
You are 100% correct, hit the nail on the head!
This would only be gender and age discrimination if the Republicans were doing it.
This.
Thanks for saving me the time to type it out.
Greg
Tit’s my pleasure.
Maybe in your cynical world. My question would be the same if it was a conservative suggesting that a conservative justice step down. What does it have to do with age or gender? Nothing. It’s a bit sleazy, but not for the reason suggested by the title. But then again, why let facts ruin a good accusation?
Yes, we all know the reason is because the next president is likely to be a republican, meaning the next hope for another liberal judge will be at least 2020. So that is where the age discrimination comes in. Will she live 6 or 10 years necessary to fill that role with a replacement. That is by definition age discrimination. But I’ll admit, it was the hook to make you read. I do that you know.
Yes, we all know the reason is because the next president is likely to be a republican, meaning the next hope for another liberal judge will be at least 2020. So that is where the age discrimination comes in. Will she live 6 or 10 years necessary to fill that role with a replacement. That is by definition age discrimination. But I’ll admit, it was the hook to make you read. I do that you know.
Despite your explanation, this is still not an instance of age discrimination. It’s a nice catchy hook, and I read it. Congratulations. Doesn’t change the fact that your headline is factually wrong.
An how. You say it is political. What is the underlying politics of it? That she might not make it until the next possible president that can elect another like minded liberal in say 6 to 10 years. In otherword, age discrimination since that is the only logical explanation for her not making it that long.
Of course it is political, but we expect SCOTUS judges to be beyond politics and should not subject them to it.
It coudl be political. But it could also be ideological. Justices care a great deal about ideology and jurisprudence. Almost as much as they care about legacy. It’s certainly not unheard of for a justice to retire at a point where the replacement is most likely to match ideological and shore up their legacy.
My assistant is in her 60’s and one of the best employees I ever had. When there was some doubt to the continued existence of my company, I talked with a recruiter buddy of mine to find a backup for not just me, but her. He said placing somebody that old, no matter how skilled, no matter how healthy would be impossible, but no company would ever admit that as it would be illegal. If I were to ever suggest she retire I face a potential for lawsuit.
Seems like you got some bad advice.
What was the bad advice? The HR advice is to never bring up retirement with an employee. If employees are talking about retirement and a supervisor simply asks when someone thinks they might retire it is a problem. The directive is to avoid such conversations.
WHat you said, this has been pretty consistent in any organization I have worked in. Maybe it the legal consequences are exaggerated, just like giving a bad reference to somebody is (florida law says you can give a bad reference), yet HR departments say avoid both.
Of course it is political, but we expect SCOTUS judges to be beyond politics and should not subject them to it.
It coudl be political. But it could also be ideological. Justices care a great deal about ideology and jurisprudence. Almost as much as they care about legacy. It’s certainly not unheard of for a justice to retire at a point where the replacement is most likely to match ideological and shore up their legacy.
My assistant is in her 60’s and one of the best employees I ever had. When there was some doubt to the continued existence of my company, I talked with a recruiter buddy of mine to find a backup for not just me, but her. He said placing somebody that old, no matter how skilled, no matter how healthy would be impossible, but no company would ever admit that as it would be illegal. If I were to ever suggest she retire I face a potential for lawsuit.
Seems like you got some bad advice.
What was the bad advice? The HR advice is to never bring up retirement with an employee. If employees are talking about retirement and a supervisor simply asks when someone thinks they might retire it is a problem. The directive is to avoid such conversations.
If the directive is to never have such conversations, it’s bad advice. There certainly are circumstances where you can have an unsolicited conversation with an employee about available options, including retirement. Those situations may not often arise, and you may have to be careful, strategic, and diplomatic about how you raise the issue saying to “never” have that conversation is bad advice.