LEHIGH VALLEY EXPRESS TIMES Op Ed: In 1989, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania’s constitution, which prohibits a judge to remain in office after the age of 70. Since then, numerous judges have retired at 70. But recently, a number of jurists filed lawsuits challenging the restriction. Then, the chief justice, who coincidentally turns 70 next year, announced that he would seek retention for another 10-year term on the high court even though next year would be his last if the age restriction remains in place. Next, the eyebrows of many attorneys were raised when the Supreme Court reached down, bypassing the lower court, and agreed to hear and expedite one of those cases. Is there anyone who actually believes that despite the clear precedent, all these judges suddenly woke up one morning and, independently of each other, decided to sue?
When these actions were filed, many lawyers questioned why, when similar challenges had always failed. A previous panel of the Supreme Court upheld the age restriction in the constitution that was approved by the people at the ballot box. In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar restriction in Missouri’s state constitution. The question is: What has changed? And, what is the rush? Judges have been retiring for decades at 70. Pennsylvania judges campaigned knowing their terms were limited by mandatory retirement. Most of them would not have had an opportunity to be a judge but for the age restriction, which forced judges to retire and created vacancies. Now, some want to change the rules and strike down the constitution on the way… (more)
What has changed? Nothing. But since when has that stopped any special interest from trying to transform the system. Some say the law is a living thing if so maybe another look is needed. Useful lives are lived well beyond age 70, and isn’t this demonstrative of age discrimination?