- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Amendment 13 on La Ballot
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:43 am to medtiger
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:43 am to medtiger
quote:
mandatory retirement age for judges
I had a boss that worked until he was 76. The thought of him making life impacting decisions without someone else reviewing them the last two to three years he worked scared me to death. Also, by age 70 many of the judges have been in office for 25-30 years. It's time to hang it up at that point.
This post was edited on 11/4/14 at 10:46 am
1
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:44 am to LSU0358
Yeah I voted no on those.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:54 am to LSU0358
So, you worked with one person who was incompetent at age 70, so you think everyone is? I find it ironic that as much as I read "less govt" and "give me my freedom back" on this board that people are so willing to allow the government to tell someone they have to retire because of their age. No other profession is subject to age discrimination in that sense. Why can't judges be subjected to mental competency tests every so often if there's a concern about it instead of randomly picking an age to decide everyone is incapable of serving?
Posted on 11/4/14 at 11:52 am to medtiger
If there was a mental competency test Id have no problem with them staying longer, but there isnt one.
In Bossier there was a problem with an elderly judge falling asleep during court.
In Bossier there was a problem with an elderly judge falling asleep during court.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 12:20 pm to LSU0358
quote:
In Bossier there was a problem with an elderly judge falling asleep during court.
Then vote him out the next time he comes up for election.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 12:53 pm to ScottieP
No to all but 10. No is my default on all Amendments just as it is on Tax Increases and Renewals. Government needs to be choked out. Enough new laws, enough amendments, enough with taking more and more of our money.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 12:54 pm to ScottieP
The only problem is once a judge is elected its tough to get one kicked off the bench and youre stuck with them for up to six years. Meanwhile people in his/her courtroom get sent to jail or get screwed in divorce.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
I vote no on almost all amendments unless it's to increase freedom.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:07 pm to LSU0358
I voted No for most, especially the ones wanting to protect more funding in our budget which would RAPE the higher educations budget even more than it has been in the last 10 years that for some reason Jindal gets the blame for. Amendments like these are the cause for it - QUIT PROTECTING ACCOUNTS IN THE BUDGETS, DICKWADS. Also No to the retirement ages on Judges - if it were up to me they'd have term limits as well from supreme to district court.
I voted yes for the Wildlife and Fisheries board to have 2 reps from N La, yes for the vets as well.
I voted yes for the Wildlife and Fisheries board to have 2 reps from N La, yes for the vets as well.
This post was edited on 11/4/14 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:10 pm to SpidermanTUba
Mark the date. For today I have up voted you. Somebody alert the media. 
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:21 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
I vote no on almost all amendments unless it's to increase freedom.
Then you should vote yes on 7 because it allows disabled Vets or their surviving spouse the freedom to not pay property tax.
This post was edited on 11/4/14 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:43 pm to Zantrix
quote:
I voted No for most, especially the ones wanting to protect more funding in our budget which would RAPE the higher educations budget even more than it has been in the last 10 years that for some reason Jindal gets the blame for. Amendments like these are the cause for it - QUIT PROTECTING ACCOUNTS IN THE BUDGETS, DICKWADS
A lot of the money is donated it's not tax dollars, this is keeping it from being used in the budget outside of it's intended purpose. Why would a fund that is largely donated money need to be put into the tax pool?
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:29 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I always err on the side of NO for amendments. Think about it. Who proposes them? The legislature. Are they smart? No
Holy shite.
A small gov't post from tuba? The end is nigh.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News