Why a 98-year-old federal judge is asking the Supreme Court for her job back

A fair point, especially in a case involving Federal judges and complex law. Maybe "independent" or "professional" are better words to describe a three-physician panel, and "arbiter" should be replaced with "expert". There is no dispute that she had a heart attack in 2021, and fainted during oral arguments in 2022. The neurosurgeon who [examined her in 2023](https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Declaration-of-Ted-L.-Rothstein-M.D.pdf) was not her doctor: he's a GWU professor, though very experienced and well-qualified. I also give some weight to information in the [February 2024 decision upholding her suspension](https://www.uscourts.gov/file/document/ccd-no-23-01-february-7-2024), which said: >Affidavits prepared after more than 20 interviews with Court staff reflect consistent reports of deeply troubling interactions with Judge Newman that suggest significant mental deterioration including memory loss, confusion, lack of comprehension, paranoia, anger, hostility, and severe agitation. Critically, these reports are not isolated incidents of occasional forgetfulness based on a few interactions with only one or two staffers. To the contrary, they come from interactions with staff members across a broad range of departments from the Clerk’s Office to Information Technology (IT), to Human Resources (HR), to the General Counsel Office, to Judge Newman’s own chambers staff. And contrary to Judge Newman’s assertions, the reports indicate that the behaviors suggesting that Judge Newman may have a disability emerged over two years and increased in frequency and severity. Judge Newman has never specifically disputed any of the staff accounts, many of which are independently substantiated by Judge Newman’s own emails attached as exhibits. I shouldn't have said that there is no dispute about her heart attack and the stents that were put in afterwards, because she denied to the neurologist that she had received stents after her heart attack. I have some experience with my father adamantly denying that he had diabetes, while I was insisting that he take his insulin. Yes, it's possible that her colleagues on that court, and the committee on judicial conduct and disability, and several expert doctors, and twenty courthouse staff members are all eager to oust her from the bench because of her powerful and well-reasoned dissents. Or, she is 98 years old and is not as capable as she once was, even two years ago, to perform the complex and weighty duties of a Federal judge.

So I have a different perspective based on my career. I'm a lawyer in Florida and we have a cap of 75. It was 70 until just recently. The best judges, and really the requirement should be, that they had a decent background in the law before getting elected. If you don't let those folks have a window of meaningful service the only people becoming part of the judiciary will be people trying to get in right away at the minimum requirement. Plus most of judges I've dealt with around 70 are the best ones. They have a great combination of intelligence and experience.

Yea 75 is way too old should be 60-65 like the rest of regular workers.