If it were simple, it would probably already be done. In fact, if it were simple, a lot of things would be in the Constitution that arenāt.
Simple to write maybe. Not simple to ratify.
330 million people canāt even all agree that eating people is wrong.
1 Like
Another way to deal with this situation.
Adopt a bipartisan change to the rules of the United States Senate.
The rule would state that the Senate would not consider the nomination of any person to the Article III Judiciary to serve during good behavior, unless that person had attained to the age of 50 years.
Additionally, 25 cumulative years of legal experience would be required, of which 15 years must have involved regular court room appearances or service as a State Judge.
There is no good reason to appoint a person under 50 years of age to the Federal bench.
The ONLY reason for doing so is PURELY POLITICAL, that being to keep a judgeship in your parties hands for decades. But that is an unacceptable motivation for appointing a Federal Judge, whether your name be Obama, Trump or Biden, all three having done so.
A Senate rules change could squelch this vile practice for good.
25 years of experience is NOT too much to ask for such a vitally important and powerful position.
Again ā¦ simple to say; near impossible to achieve.
By the way:
āAs of 2017, the average age at the time of appointment to the bench of active circuit court judges was 50.6.ā
Average of course meaning that some are older than average and some are younger than average. Some being WAY below average.
The average being 50.6 is indicative of the problem. And average of 54 or 55 would indicate that most nominees at the lower end would be 50 or more.
āFiftyā is an arbitrary standard. I know adults in their thirties who are more mature and demonstrate more wisdom, than others in their 50s.
The problem, if one exists (none has been identified) is in the appointers, not the age of the appointees.
Iāve seen a couple of judicial nominees before congressional committee and theyāre not worth a pound of owl ā ā ā ā ā
I donāt pretend to know ā ā ā ā about the law but you can pay me that $245K! 
2 Likes
Having a Hahvard, Yale, or Columbia āpedigreesā is a negative in my book.
Iāll take some with common sense over a well indoctrinated snooty grad of those schools any day and twice on sunday.
Hell, I am in Silicon Valleyā¦$250k annual, is over $20k grossā¦a month. that would be about $15k a month take home.
One can live pretty well here on that.
In other parts pf the countryā¦one could live extremely wellā¦
Growing up, I was always told one could always do better in the private sector, than working for the government. but the benefits and retirement were better working for the government.
Then when good union jobs started to disappear, and wages did not keep upā¦the public sector was/is paying as much, if not more than the private sector (not in all situations).
Then people stated complaining the public sector was making moreā¦when in reality, that was due to the private sector paying less.
Many of the Pubs you support and like hold those degrees from Harvard/Princeton/Yale.
Cotton, Cruz, Vanceā¦Hawley-Stanford.
Desantis is a twofer.
1 Like
And also US Navy JAG.
Cāmon man, if youāre going to hurl it throw in some sweet stuff too. 
Iām not hurling anything, just pointing it out.
@gooddad409 is the poster butt hurt about grad schools.
Harvard - John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia
Yale - Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas
Stanford - William Rehnquist
Notre Dame - Amy Comey Barrett
The point being, merely attending one of these schools isnāt going to turn somebody into a flaming liberal. If you are conservative going in, you are likely to be just as conservative coming out.
And a candidates law school has always been a factor for me when evaluating judicial candidates in elections.
If a candidates law school happens to be Cooley, probably less than 2% chance I vote for them, unless they really surpass the other candidates in other factors.
Of course, merely graduating from a school like Harvard wonāt guarantee my vote, but it certainly helps.
The facts are inescapable. Some law schools are simply better than others and some are far worse.
Cooley is little more than a degree mill.
Not too mention we only hear of reportable income. Big pharma needs something, i am sure there are ways money finds its way to those in power.
1 Like
Isnt law being oversaturated with lawyers?
It is a supply and demand thing. The pay should probably decline some. . Blue collar workers would see this, why not white collar?
The problem is ā ā ā ā holes like Cooley and others turning out marginal attorneys that have poor career prospects at best.
I would close at least 1/4 of law schools in this country and probably more, starting with Cooley.
1 Like
Reminds me of the old joke ā¦
What do you call a bus load of lawyers going off a cliff and falling into the ocean?
A good start.
1 Like
