Should There be a Minimum Age Required for Lifetime Appointments?

Should there be a minimum age to be nominated for a lifetime position?

As I speak to people about the nominations that are approved by the Governor's Council, this question keeps coming up.

If someone is appointed at the age of 50, they can serve for 20 years.

In an age where so many are advocating for term limits, it's hard to imagine why anyone should get a 20-year term, but that is what can happen with the judiciary.

Many people have told me that they view these offices as ones that should be held by mature, experienced people. People that have excelled in their field and are ready to give back to the community they have worked with.

When people are applying for a lifetime position and they are younger than 50, they are often trying to move up the ladder rather than give back. They are looking for a pay increase, not sacrificing by accepting a pay decrease.

It is often argued that people under the age of 50 simply don't have the gravitas for these positions.

It may be that when someone older makes a ruling that people don't like, everyone realizes they won't be around for that much longer. But when someone younger makes the same mistake, it is felt that it will go on for much longer.

Of course, people can grow in positions, but this is not ideal if they do not start with basic experience.

Another problem with the younger nominees is that they are always viewed with a great amount of suspicion. Why are they being nominated, when it is clearly not for their experience?

On June 6, the Governor’s Council held hearings for two such nominees.