8 ms·
I think its less a problem of lawyers and more a problem of age. I learned today Chuck Grassley plans to run again and would be 95 years old in congress. This
by bearjaws 1y ago
I think its less a problem of lawyers and more a problem of age.
I learned today Chuck Grassley plans to run again and would be 95 years old in congress. This is insane.
If you've worked retail you know many above 75 are not all there, plain and simple.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/01/SR_25.01.16_age-of-congress_1.png?resize=1024,723 https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025...
- ourmandave 1y ago...anyone above 75 is not all there, plain and simple. Yeesh, ageism, plain and simple. But yeah, Grassley needs to hang up the spurs.
- lm28469 1y agoIt's not ageism, people deciding the future of your country shouldn't already have a foot in the grave Just look at Trump and Biden speeches VS Bush or Obama
- wqugugqhugqhuh 1y ago[dead]
- lazide 1y agoThat’s like literally saying someone going off on someone because of their skin color (exclusively) isn’t being racist. It’s in the definition. Words have meaning.
- lm28469 1y ago[flagged]
- lazide 1y agoIt is, literally. Just because it’s legal doesn’t change what it is.
- lm28469 1y agoOK so let's say it's ageism, why should I care again? If your president can barely finish a coherent sentence and literally pisses in a plastic bag strapped to his leg I don't care how you call it but I want none of it Same reason I don't leave my newborn baby alone with my 95 years old grandma who has dementia, call it ageism if you want, I call it basic common sense
- lazide 1y agoAgeist is thinking the reason it’s a bad idea to leave a baby with your grandma is because she’s 95 - not because she has dementia. Which she could also have had at 50. Or even 35. Yes, early onset dementia is a thing.
- lm28469 1y agoCognitive functions start to slowly decline after 50, and rapidly after 70 All I'm saying is that people in charge should have their full cognitive capabilities, see it's not ageism anymore!
- lazide 1y agoMake a test, and I bet you more folks than you expect would pass. then it’s not ageism.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoCongratulations, you've labeled something. What's your point?
- lazide 1y agoThat words have meanings. I thought I was pretty clear about it?
- navbaker 1y agoThe difference for purposes of the conversation happening here is skin color absolutely does not affect cognition where age definitely does.
- lazide 1y agoPlenty of 12 year old morons, and 90 year old razor sharp professors, as counter examples. Either way, those same old folks are the ones who’d need to sign off on the rules banning their existence and I don’t see them doing that. So who are the idiots exactly? Personally, I think it’s the folks who think more rules will make a difference against someone who is explicitly great at violating rules and getting away with it. While pretending to be a moron.
- lm28469 1y agoAh alright, let's not do anything about anything ever then. Criminals still do crimes, so obviously laws are useless am I right ?
- lazide 1y agoMy point is actually enforce the god damn rules instead of making more bullshit rules that only get enforced against people without power.
- CamperBob2 1y agoMother Nature has made this particular rule, and you can only fool her for so long. 80+ year old people do not belong in positions of power, any more than 8-year-olds do. They should step aside and let the next generation take responsibility for their own future. (Or rather make them take responsibility, in the case of voters who insist on electing Trumps, Reagans, Bidens, and Feinsteins simply because those are the candidates they've heard about, due to their having been around the longest.)
- lazide 1y ago
- seanmcdirmid 1y agoTrump is about the same age as Bush and Clinton, oddly enough, but they were presidents in very different times.
- leptons 1y agoIt has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with corruption, greed, and hate. And that is what a lot of people keep voting for.
- frmersdog 1y ago"Muh ageism" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for these kinds of conversations. You have to make an effort to actually argue against the statements you disagree with. Are people 75-and-older agile and flexible enough, mentally, to perform in these positions? To connect with the constituents they represent? If the incidence of the requisite acuity does indeed drop with advanced age, are the individuals in government disproportionately among those who avoid issues? And, if so, how do you know?
- leptons 1y ago>Are people 75-and-older agile and flexible enough, mentally, to perform in these positions? All of them? No. But I also could introduce you to plenty of 25 year old's that aren't "agile and flexible enough, mentally to perform these positions". And it's often not even "mental agility" that is the problem with people in power, it's corruption, greed, and just plain old hate that is the problem. Those things don't have any age limits except maybe below 6 years old, and even then I've met some pretty nasty, spoiled toddlers.
- frmersdog 1y ago>But I also could introduce you to plenty of 25 year old's that aren't "agile and flexible enough, mentally to perform these positions" There are vanishingly-few 25-year-olds in national office, certainly not in proportion to their chunk of the overall population. But bringing them up at all is beside the point. The contention at hand is that there are too many elderly people, who are beyond their ability to perform adequately, in positions of power. If you would like to address that, feel free. But please stay on topic.
- leptons 1y ago>There are vanishingly-few 25-year-olds in national office Well thank [deity] for that, because many of them aren't fit for it. Neither are 75 year olds, but age doesn't really play that much of a factor - it's the people voting to put shitheads in positions of power no matter their age that are causing this damage in the first place. >> "Muh ageism" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for these kinds of conversations. >There are vanishingly-few 25-year-olds in national office, certainly not in proportion to their chunk of the overall population. But bringing them up at all is beside the point. Yes, it is the point - you made it the point with your "muh ageism" quip. I simply pointed out that age doesn't make a difference, but greed, corruption, and hate do. >The contention at hand is that there are too many elderly people, who are beyond their ability to perform adequately, in positions of power. There are also old people in power that are not "beyond their ability to perform adequately", and that's also a very subjective goalpost you're setting. Some of those shitty old politicians are doing exactly what their shitty constituents want them to, even if they are just holding the pen while someone younger moves their hand. >But please stay on topic. You made this about "muh ageism" not me, so all ages are fair to comment about. Shitty 25 year olds are actually worse than shitty 75 year olds, because shitty 25 year olds will be around much longer doing much more harm than a shitty 75 year old politician could. And again, it has nothing to do with age, and everything to do about corruption, greed, and hate. Those things are ageless.
- bearjaws 1y agoTotally fair to call out blanket “anyone 75+ isn’t all there” as ageist. But the governance point still stands: even sharp octogenarians are often out of sync with modern life (platforms, tech norms, digital risks). Only 8% of adults 65+ say they’re online “almost constantly,” vs 48% of 18–29 a proxy for how different the information environment is that shapes decisions.
- daveguy 1y agoThe word would be a better place if everyone was offline more often. They wouldn't be as subject to the propaganda oligopolies.
- serf 1y ago>Yeesh, ageism, plain and simple. we take it for granted that someone below the age of 15-ish in the United States shouldn't be behind the wheel of an automobile, but that's not universally true. We try 18 year olds as adults, and that's not universally true, either. It isn't a far leap to presume that people past a certain age meets the same psychological and mental/cognitive decline as the average person that age without testing. You wouldn't expect a 95 year old to be eagle-eyed and athletic, to presume that their age isn't a deficit whatsoever is ageist from another perspective. If I saw a person using a wheelchair I wouldn't wait for them to tell me that they needed a ramp for the staircase at the restaurant -- this too is -ist, but I see no real problem with it as a wheelchair user myself. Somewhat similarly : the amount of 'with-it' and sober 95 year olds that I have met in real life makes me really question their fitness as an important member of a government group. Just like the presidency, these roles should probably be qualified into by participants with more than just votes. If you're a 95 year old that passes the mental health and physical health examinations, more power to you , welcome to <government group>.
- CamperBob2 1y agoIf you're too old to staff an airport control tower, you're too old for Congress and especially the Oval Office. Not just because your faculties aren't what they once were, but because you have no stake in the outcome of your decisionmaking.
- linhns 1y agoHow can you expect them to legislate for the nation when they know they won’t be around when the policies come to fruition?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bdangubic 1y ago60 should be HARD limit for any politician (including scotus)
- delusional 1y agoWhy would there need to be a hard limit on something the electorate is already directly voting on? You might say every election is an election on if people above X age should be in congress.
- bushbaba 1y agoAging population means that many democracies will have more old than young voters. Couple that with the American culture of f you I’ve got mine, leads to a prioritization not on the future generations.
- nomadygnt 1y agoWhich really makes you wonder how well the system is really working. Of course I don’t know this but I feel like if you asked everyone, the majority of people would say that 95, or 90, or 85 is too old to be in congress. But somehow they keep getting reelected…
- femiagbabiaka 1y agoBecause people vote for the party and not the individual in most cases.
- 1y ago
- jordanb 1y agoOne thing I've realized it that the Democratic party is a machine. It rewards loyalty and waiting your turn. It punishes getting out of line and challenging incumbents. Parts of the Republican party are too of course (hence Grassley) but it's been the target of several successful insurgencies. First the tea party and then Trump. Now it's turning into something completely different.. a cult of personalty for a dictator. But the intact machine is the reason why the Democrats can not rise to the occasion. Their whole system is one designed to produce dour grey apparatchiks.
- regularization 1y agoDP is corporate funded and exists to squash movements from the left. Most people have to see this up close to see it though.
- regularization 1y agoI remember in the 1970s when the Soviet Union was called a gerontocracy. Gorbachev becoming general Secretary at the age of 54 was seen as a breath of fresh air. As your chart shows, one third of the US Senate is over the age of 70. We have people like Biden and Trump as president. Sign of the times (who are respectively 10 and 7 years older than Xi). Incidentally, Xi is the oldest member of the Politburo Standing Committee.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoOnly one third? I'm highly surprised that it's that low.
- master_crab 1y agoThere is another sort of old age the US suffers from. The government is now amongst the oldest nation-state organizations on the planet with probably the oldest written national laws (the constitution) still in use. The cruft that has built up (from the 2nd amendment, to the electoral college) over 250ish years is a serious problem.
- shakna 1y ago> with probably the oldest written national laws (the constitution) still in use. The UK would easily disagree, with their founding codification in 1215.
- jrflowers 1y agoThe Magna Carta was a list of stipulations relating to a monarch as the absolute head of state. The UK does not have that anymore.
- defrost 1y agoThe Magna Carta was a second, more forceful, iteration of the Charter of Liberties introduced a century earlier in 1100 by Henry I of England. Clauses of both are still part of the basis of English Common Law (the Common Law cited in the US Constitution) and the Magna Carta is still being cited in recent times by politicians and lawyers in support of (UK) constitutional positions, and still, albeit rarely, cited in UK courts in 2012 the Occupy London protestors attempted to use Magna Carta in resisting their eviction from St. Paul's Churchyard by the City of London. In his judgment the Master of the Rolls gave this short shrift, noting somewhat drily that although clause 29 was considered by many the foundation of the rule of law in England, he did not consider it directly relevant to the case, and that the two other surviving clauses ironically concerned the rights of the Church and the City of London and could not help the defendants. It's firmly a part of the continuously evolving history of UK law: Magna Carta carries little legal weight in modern Britain, as most of its clauses have been repealed and relevant rights ensured by other statutes, but the historian James Holt remarks that the survival of the 1215 charter in national life is a "reflexion of the continuous development of English law and administration" suggesting that what the UK lacks is the stagnation of US law which hasn't yet evolved past the errors of scale that have crept in since its foundation; the US electoral could also do with a revamp to better serve the people. * two quotes above sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
- teddy-smith 1y agoMy grandma is 80 and speaks 7 languages and is a professor and teaches classes. She's smarter than me. What you just said is agist.
- rileymat2 1y agoThere are incredibly smart and talented 12 year olds that are not allowed to vote due to age. Agism is pervasive in our culture, old and young, so we should ask if the discrimination is pragmatic or not. Moral or not. Legal or not.
- general1465 1y agoWhile young people can be considered immature until certain age, old people have big taboo about senility and dementia. As you are not allowed to vote and drive until certain age, you should not be allowed to vote and drive since certain age, because your brain could be considered immature again through degeneration.
- teddy-smith 1y agoThere's dumb black people and smart black people therefore black people are dumb. Its PRAGMATIC TO THINK THIS. You see how stupid you sound?
- rileymat2 1y agoThat is a complete mischaracterization of what I was saying. There are multiple considerations, both legal and moral. But pragmatism plays a role in the pervasive ageism in our culture, as we have decided it is largely legal.
- teddy-smith 1y agoIf you're capable of abstraction I'm reframing your point EXACTLY. Also, Discriminating based on age is largely legal. Are you sure about that?
- 1y ago
- g42gregory 1y agoThere is a saying that, in China, the top political career starts at 70. I don't think the age is the problem. It's corruption.
- AndroTux 1y agoLuckily there’s no corruption in China
- t-3 1y agoAt least corruption is sometimes punished in China. The agriculture minister was just given what's essentially a life sentence for corruption.
- jacquesm 1y agoSometimes isn't good enough. That's just selective enforcement, which is arguably worse than no enforcement at all.
- t-3 1y agoNo law is enforced absolutely on every offender. That's impossible. Selective enforcement is a problem, but I would never say it's worse than no enforcement unless the law is bad in the first place.
- jacquesm 1y agoIt is when it is mostly used as a weapon rather than as a law. And China, unfortunately, has quite a lot of that.
- hermitcrab 1y ago“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”
- 1y ago
- horns4lyfe 1y agoYa they’re all old lawyers
- johnisgood 1y agoWe have an age limit in so many fields. Being in congress should have one, too. Aging affects many parts of our brain (negatively) responsible for cognition.
- jasonsb 1y agoIt's lawyers. Definitely lawyers and copyright laws. You could also add corruption and age, but these are problems that can be found in China as well.
- FpUser 1y ago>"anyone above 75 is not all there" - this is pure BS But yeah allowing Chuck Grassley to run at this young </s> age is pure insanity.
- micromacrofoot 1y agoif we have a federal retirement age we should just use that
- atmavatar 1y agoIt's about more than just whether a congressperson is all there or not. A bigger concern to me is that many of them are old enough that any long-term impacts resulting from bills they pass simply won't happen until they're gone. And, I would expand that to include more than just Congress - I think major executive offices (e.g., President, VP, cabinet members, etc.) and the Supreme Court should have an age limit for the very same reason. Anyone in government office whose decisions can have long-lasting effects should be young enough they need to keep that in mind. Anyone who (statistically) has only a few years left to live and especially anyone past the average life expectancy are welcome to hang around in advisory roles, but they should have limited (if any) power to directly affect future policy because they simply don't have any real skin in the game any longer.
- xyzzy123 1y agoIsn't family "skin in the game", in a fairly literal sense? People don't come from nowhere, they have families, affiliations, communities etc. Politicians in particular are selected for this.
- jackstraw42 1y ago> Isn't family "skin in the game", in a fairly literal sense? It is as long as the person really cares about their family. You sure they all do?
- CamperBob2 1y agoTheir families are very well insulated from any negative consequences of their actions.
- ugh123 1y agoBoth can be true. Old lawyers are probably the worst
- general1465 1y agoOld people are voting for old people, because they are not going to vote for kids. Does not matter that the "kid" is 45 year old who is much more attached to everyday reality than old people.
- Gibbon1 1y agoUp until 40 years ago the US was run by lawyers. Now the US is run by MBA's and financial capitalists.
- fathermarz 1y agoIt’s less about them being “not all there” and more like the level of disconnected they are from modern society. The last time they had the average job (if ever) was before credit cards existed and it was $0.50 for a loaf of bread.
- mcphage 1y agoMany above 75 aren’t all there, but that doesn’t say anything about a specific person.
- ajross 1y ago> I learned today Chuck Grassley plans to run again and would be 95 years old in congress. This is insane. The age of the senior senator from Iowa is like 537th on the list of major problems this country is facing. I mean, let's be real. Would a bunch of spry 30-somethings in the senate have prevented the Assault on Tylenol or the coming invasion of Portland? Seems beyond dubious.
- smsm42 1y agoThere are 13 Senators, out of 120, who are over 75, as far as I can see. I don't think we can attribute all the problems to them - there's not enough of them. I mean, some of the elders in Congress - like Pelosi, Waters, Nadler, Durbin, etc. - would do well to retire, but not every single one of them is "not all there". By a coincidence, I've met one of those 13 about a month ago (not personally, on an event, but it was a small event and I could see and hear him very well) and he certainly wasn't a youngster but I didn't see any obvious degradation of mental facilities. That said, I don't think term limits and mandatory retirement age is such a bad idea for top politicians, just don't expect it to fix much.