Judge Newman has threatened to have staff arrested, forcibly removed from the building, and fired. She accused staff of trickery, deceit, acting as her adversary, stealing her computer, stealing her files, and depriving her of secretarial support. Staff have described Judge Newman in their interactions with her as “aggressive, angry, combative, and intimidating”; “bizarre and unnecessarily hostile”; making “personal accusations”; “agitated, belligerent, and demonstratively angry”; and “ranting, rambling, and paranoid.” Indeed, interactions with Judge Newman have become so dysfunctional that the Clerk of the Court has advised staff to avoid interacting with her in person or, when they must, to bring a co-worker with them.

  • Trantarius@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tests would be a pretty bad idea. It is easy to imagine the ways that someone could use that to attack their political opponents. Similar things were used to disenfranchise voters in the past. Also, it is too easy to corrupt the legitimacy of such a test. All a person would need to do is get a heads up of how the test works and practice for it. Or, have the test designed to be too easy to pass. It’s easy to say “make it impartial, scientific, and dignified”, but that doesn’t mean it will be. I seriously doubt any governmental body ever has or will be that trustworthy. An actual age limit would be objective and clear though, making it much more practical.

    • toasteecup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How would an opponent be able to attack you if the test is pass or fail? You either are able to have an opponent or you can’t run.

      Using a strict age limit would only result in a segment of people who are paying taxes without having representation which is the exact situation we’re brainstorming ideas to avoid.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Instead, the group in question has had almost exclusive representation for half a century. There are lower age limits, so there should be upper limits.

        • toasteecup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t believe in two wrongs making a right. I consider a lack of lower age representation a problem but I can not agree to flipping it around and making it a lack of upper age representation either. If that’s your idea of a just society when a presented method could solve this without that issue I have concerns.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            All people and all generations are entitled to the right to self-determination. That’s something that we have seen is not possible without such limits.

            • toasteecup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And why can’t we fulfill that with term limits and pass fail capability tests?

              Really seems to uphold your first statement much better than disenfranchising an entire group of people simply they are old.