48 Comments - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:21 am: Agree. Let the voters decide, and let the Bar Association publicize their opinion if they think a judge is suffering from Alzheimer’s. - Fan of the Game - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:24 am: Agree wholeheartedly. However, I hope judges would retire of their own volition much earlier. - Lee - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:25 am: “Age alone shouldn’t be the criteria.” Except of course for the minimum driving, voting and drinking ages? I get the feeling seniors think *that* kind of age discrimination is ok. - Poli-Sci Geek - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:29 am: No judges should be re-elected or retained ever. Lower the retirement age or limit them to one term. There is so little turnover on the benches that letting them sit longer just makes the problem worse. - Ghost - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:33 am: Disagree. Like many rules, there needs to be a clear diliniation that is simple and easy to follow. If you do not use an age test then what do you use? medical exams? how often? what criteria do the medical examiners apply? who gets to choose the doctor? what do you do with cases conclusively decided during the oendency of exams? Bat opinion? so then older judges would be beholden to groups of attorneys who they felt were critical to keeping their job? the hole point of the 6 year term is allow a certain freedom without fear of influence. Also what about discrmination? a system that allows for random review and removal under a vague undefined system is the discrminatory one. A brite line rule is the easiest to employ and execute. - Milorad - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:34 am: I think at 72 it’s time to retire. - Courtroom Observer - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:35 am: I agree with the concept but somewhat disagree with the execution. Maddux is not the most symphathetic plaintiff, (nor are any Cook County judges) because, due to the nature of retention elections, these judgeships are, for all practical intents and purposes, lifetime appointments. However, if 75 is the mandatory retirement age, yet the Court (Democratic Party) routinely re-appoints judges that are over 75 to certain judgeships and certain terms, the age issue becomes legitimate. If they did not appoint judges over 75 to these positions, the lawsuit should be meritless. - Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:36 am: I agree with the Judge. Some of the best, most professional and fairest judges I have appeared before are well into their 70’s. Age itself should not be the determining factor — it should be experience, mental acuity, temperament and judgment. - 32nd Ward - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:37 am: This law would not force him off the bench–they have a system of “recalled” judges, where they recall a judge to service over and over. Coincidentally, his attorney’s father or uncle, Judge Benjamin Novoselsky, former presiding judge of the Probate Division in Cook County was recalled to that division for years until he finally retired a few years ago at age 89, I believe. And Judge Novoselsky was/is not an isolated case. Judge Maddux can just get his buddies to recall him as long as he wants to be on the bench. - Cassandra - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:42 am: How about term limits combined with no age limits.One term, age not a criterion. There is a huge range in functioning among seniors. We’ve all heard about John McCain’s mother. And centenarians are, I think, one of the fastest growing US age cohorts. US life expectancy just went up to 78 (way behind many other countries, but not bad). And there are always robots. Japan is planning to deal with its age-related labor shortage with increased use of robots. Is there anybody in Cook County who doesn’t think that a suitably programmed judge-robot couldn’t make better, fairer, more consistent decisions than our corps of Cook County hacker judges. - Courtroom Observer - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:46 am: Six Degrees: Addressing your comment about the “Bar Association” (let’s make up a name–The Chicago Bar Association) takes care of their own; in this case, machine judges. The suburban and independent voters who DO have the power to stop retainment generally don’t vote against the myriad of judges on the list or vote only against who the Tribune says to (e.g. Cynthia Brim.) Who was retained anyway like everyone else, every year. Don’t forget the many Cook County GOP township and ward organizations who have (strongly!)encouraged voters to retain all (99% Democratic) sitting judges in their election materials. Most people don’t know, don’t care and that’s the way (uh-huh, uh-huh) the pros like it. - bridgeport bombtrhower - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:49 am: Wow, thats hillarious Maddux has that much time on his hands to come up with soemthing like that. I guess when your work day consists of coming in at 10:30 and being able to hit the golf course by 2pm then I would want to keep the job as well. I think the age limit is good think of how many times some horrible judge has gotten a “not recommended” for retention and still sailed to victory. It is next to impossible to get someone off the bench and lord knows there are some total arrogant incompetants who don the black robe everyday (or when thier 3 day work week permits it) - Courtroom Observer - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:52 am: Cassandra has a point. Also, upon further review, Judge Maddux’s “I’d hate to think…” comment gets me thinking. I’d hate to think a lot of things too. Like about a much older, much crankier Judge Maddux on the bench. - Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:55 am: Whatever the policy issues, the idea of using the “special legislation” clause to strike this down is scary. The legislature draws distinctions all the time - this clause is a tool for judges to substitute their opinion for that of the legislature pretty willy-nilly. - Jake From Elwood - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 9:58 am: I do not support the age restriction for judges, and particularly not at age 75. Most judges are able to self-police their competency. Cassandra, I am sure that Cook County could find a suitable vendor who would secure the no-bid contract on the robo-judges. - Skeeter - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 10:01 am: I would love to write about how wrong the judge is and how fair and reasonable the current law is, but, knowing this judge, I am forced once again to admit that he is right and that I a wrong. I am used to that though. It has happened many times in the past, and will happen again. In my defense, my opponents have often felt the same way. Judge Maddux is a class act and is absolutely one of the best judges I have met. He’s still at the top of the game, working harder than nearly any of the judges that report to him. Losing him from the bench would be a major blow to Cook County. There does need to be a system to take judges off the bench when the are no longer capable, but a blanket rule just isn’t right. - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 10:08 am: I agree. There are many fine judges who are older than the mandatory retirement age. While there are many poor judges, a mandatory retirement age is an ineffective and silly way to address those problems. It makes as much sense as saying, “There are bad judges who stay on the bench too long, so we should have a physical fitness requirement to drum some of them out.” It would accidentally remove some of the bad judges, but it would also remove some good judges and leave some bad ones untouched. – SCAM - jwscott72 - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 10:18 am: I wasn’t aware there was a such a law on the books. Thanks to Rich, I learned something today! That said, I believe the judge is 100% correct. The law needs to go because it clearly violates equal protection. The lawsuit does raise the topic of judicial selection/retention. I’ve never been a fan of electing judges, but a five year old can see the pitfalls of allowing the current Governot to appoint any judge. Tough nut to crack, but something interesting to discuss. - Pat Collins - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 10:30 am: Hah. You know (or should know) that in industry a person is lucky if they can work to age 60, much less 65. Corporations have the “lay you off near 60″ down to an art. Not much sympathy here until “Wonder AG” deals with that! - Black Robe - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 10:37 am: It is fallacious to assert it is a mandatory retirement age. The fact is, he may run for election to the seat, he just cannot do it through a retention race. The voters get to decide. The only difference is that he may have an opponent. He has no right of vested interest to hold the seat beyond his term of office. That is the law. Serving as a judge is a privilege not a right. It is not discriminatory to say that you have to run for election if you want to continue on after your present term expires. The case is a loser on the merits, perhaps a winner on the politics. There is also a seperation of powers argument. Is anyone concerned about judges throwing out laws that relate specifically to judges? The law is a good law. The law is constitutionally firm and a judge, no matter how smart one thinks he or she is, or how firmly one believes he or she is indispensible to the cause of justice, that judge should respect and abide by this law, not try to have judicial colleagues abort it. From one who wears the robe. - Ginsu - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 10:53 am: Black Robe: Your Honor, Judges throw out laws that relate specifically to judges all the time. Sticky situations can also arise in civil actions like the Bob Thomas libel suit or Governor Rod vetoing COLA raises for judges. There is a reason why Maddox is the plaintiff: most likely standing (as he is in the age group that will be affected) and politically (as he is Chief Judge of Law Division.) I agree with you that the law is clear; but should it not be the other way around, i.e. voters would get to elect judicial candidates of any age, but judges could not be appointed by The Party after a certain age? Not a clean analogy but an anology nonetheless: convicted felons can hold elected office but cannot be a garbageman. Reason being you can select your Mayor but not a person entering onto your property at the direction of the State. - Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 11:04 am: I would love it if the judges agreed to a test of legal competence and mental acuity that would be applied to all judges. But absent an agreed way to remove judges that have lost it–or never had it–I want the age retirement to stay in place. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 11:09 am: Black robe is right. Age discrimination might win politically, but this is not the case and allowing this judge an opportunity to define this situation to better suit him is a disservice to our community. I guess he never had a problem with this law until it affected him, did he? - Black Robe - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 11:18 am: Ginsu, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The voters can elect a person of any race, any sex, any creed, any sexual orientation, and any age they choose to elect. The same is true regarding those who may seek the nomination of an established political party in a primary election or who may seek to run as an independent. Your reference to Illinois laws governing what public offices a convicted felon may or may not hold is important. The laws are strange in that it is easier for a convicted felon to run for high office like State Senator than it is to run for the mayor or alderman of a small town. Seems backward to many, yet the courts have consistently respected the policy choices of the legislature on that matter. So too, should they respect the legislative scheme devised or retention vs election in judicial races. Finally, it is not an unreasonable policy choice, and certainly not an unconstitutional choice, to let voters decide when it is time for a judge to move on rather than to make it a unilateral decision for that judge to make. - R.A. - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 11:26 am: Forget age. We need term limits for judges, particularly in Cook County. Most of the judges here are arrogent do-nothings. Walk through the Bridgeview Courthouse any summer afternoon and you’ll see what I mean. Or look how long it takes for criminal cases to go to trial (R. Kelly, for instance.) Very few judges bother to put in eight hour days for there 160k per year. A job for life breeds contempt and laziness. - Courtroom Observer - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 11:28 am: VanillaMan: Nope. He did not. These guys do not want to take a chance on not being re-elected by the unwashed non-politically affiliated suburbanites, who, by the way, pay the bills for much of the state. Their stability, financial pressures (children)and political naivite make them an easy target for the duly elected “Robin Hoods.” (Emphasis on the Hoods.) Government bureaucrats are by nature, not risk-takers. Judges, like it or not, are at times, glorified bureaucrats. Go to 400 West Superior for some illumiination on that. A $tipend to The Party will get him a spot on the retention ballot, and, as I have previously articulated, employment to the grave. Taxpayers: Keep hittin’ that spike and keep fillin’ that trough. - Fan of the Game - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 11:46 am: If what Black Robe has written is correct (and I have no reason to discount his veracity), then I would change my vote. - North of I-80 - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 11:53 am: Age discrimination is a no-no. I do advocate any system or procedure that holds judges accountable though: court-watchers who sit in the courtrooms and write about judges who dismiss or go easy on repeaters; public stats made available so we all know if Judge A convicts 10% of all cases before him/her while Judge B convicts 95% and Judge C sentences at or below the minimum 90% of the time while Judge D gives jail time 60% of all convictions….. THEN the voters can make accurate decisions. - Ghost - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 12:12 pm: FYI we have mandatory retirments ages for more then just Judges in IL. - anon - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 12:28 pm: Age discrimination exists all around us and is upheld by the courts. Drinking age, Driving age, yearly drivers test for drivers over a certain age, smoking age, minimun age for certain political offices, age restrictions on when and where young people can work, minimum age to get a pilots license and many others. If you truely want to wipe out age discrimination then any law that uses age as a qualifing/disqualifing factor needs to go. Do any if us really wish to wipe out every age based law, I don’t so someone will always be able to argue age discrimination. Let the Legislature do their jobs and if you don’t like a law lobby to have it changed. - plutocrat03 - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 12:42 pm: There needs to be acceptable age limit for any position. Airline pilots are routinely dismissed from their positions at an age certain. They don’t even have a term to finish out. Few of the minds on our jucicial system are bright enough or hard working enough to justify their positions until death. We are all astute enough to see that judges in the Cook County system will almost always be reelected, some even after their deaths! There are hundreds of qualified attorneys out there who would be able to inject some fresh air into the thinking of the courts. Heck a 55 year old judge might even be able to get a few more hearings in during the course of the day and reduce the backlog of cases. My vote would be to wave bye-bye - Toyota Park - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 12:53 pm: R.A.: If I were a Cook County judge (I am not) and was assigned to a suburban courthouse, I would select Bridgeview for those very reasons and additional ones (such as good places to eat nearby such as Niko’s and Duke’s.) Why wouldn’t I if I had the choice? Unless a judge lives on the North Shore or far Northwest Suburbs, its only 30 minutes away tops from everywhere else, even from downtown. That said, addressing your concerns, it’s the Government. You need them at that point, they don’t need you. You have a dispute; take it there. You can’t go down the street to “R.A.’s Court House” as you could if you received bad service at a restaurant. But we all know The Party selects where you go, whether you are a judge, clerk, ASA, APD, GAL or deputy Sheriff. Now, I am hungry myself. Either that or I feel like showing off my ride at Duke’s. Or being a judge 45 minutes late to a scheduled hearing. - Buckeye Boy - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 1:18 pm: Cook County judges should have to step down at age 60 and then they should be, politely but firmly, taken out and shot. - Objective Dem - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 1:45 pm: Judges are not the same as other elected posts for numerous reasons. So I don’t see why judges cannot be singled out for a mandatory retirement age. Yes there are some judges that would be great into their 80s, but likewise there are a lot of jet pilots that would be great into their 70s. The problem is I don’t want to take the risk of getting one of the bad ones. 75 is not unreasonable. One other issue that pops up in a few of the comments is how little many of the judges work. I’m not involved in the court system, but from talking to friends who are involved, judges lead a very easy life and work limited hours. It is an issue that the media and politicians need to look at much closer. - One McMad - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 2:30 pm: I disagree with the lawsuit and it is further my opinion that the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County has a conflict of interest in deciding this lawsuit. Judge Maddux is the Presiding Judge of the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County and one of his counterparts presides of the Chancery Division in which a Judge under the presiding Judge would decide the lawsuit. It is only likely to say that the lawsuit would be prejudiced by Judges position as a Presiding Judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Further, I think any Circuit would have a conflict of interest reviewing this lawsuit. Even the Illinois Supreme Court would have a conflict of interest deciding this lawsuit for the very reason that: They are all Judges and have an interest in the lawsuit. The lawsuit would affect every Judge in the state. Therefore, this lawsuit has just infected the Judicial system. Judges should not file lawsuits. Their first and primary interest, per the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct is the administration of justice not their own personal interests. Further, at the age of 75, and even 72 for that fact, one would think that “a reasonable person” would be ready to retire and that their has to be a set age for a judge to retire. Judges preside over cases involving peoples livelihood and sometimes their life and we should not have a judge on the bench that is impaired by his age and doesn’t want to retire, just because he/she doesn’t want to leave the bench because there is nothing else to do…… - Ginsu - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 2:45 pm: One McMad: Oh, but they can, and do all the time, weaving conflicts wrapped in conundrums wrapped in a McDonald’s “snack wrap.” The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court read an article referencing him that was not to his liking, sued the newspaper for libel and put his brethren on the spot as discovery witnesses. He won. =we should not have a judge on the bench that is impaired by his age and doesn’t want to retire, just because (he) doesn’t want to leave the bench because there is nothing else to do…”= Welcome to Cook County. And as long as the opposition consists of having unemployed nun-tire-slashers making obscene, threatening telephone calls to members of their own party, regardless of legitimate disagreements, no change is in sight. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 2:55 pm: A look at the U.S. Supreme Court shows that any logical underpinnings for the age cut-off (unlike the argument for why people under 16 shouldn’t drive) are ill-founded: Justice John Paul Stevens - 87 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg - 74 Justice Thurgood Marshall - Retired at 83 Justice Harry Blackmun - retired at 86 Justice Warren Burger - retired at 79 Justice William Brennan - retired at 84 Justice Earl Warren - retired at 78 Justice Hugo Black - retired at 85 Justice Charles Hughes - retired at 79 Justice Louis Brandeis - retired at 83 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes - retired at 91 Even Justice John Marshall, appointed by President Adams to the Supreme Court in 1801, served on the bench until his death at the age of 80. I’m no lawyer, but I think Maddux’s case is a slam dunk, especially when you consider it will be decided by other judges. I don’t think AG Madigan will be arguing to strenuously in support of the current law, either. Ages of current IL Supreme Court Justices: Thomas - 55 Fitzgerald - (a state secret) Freeman - 74 Garman - 64 Karmeier - 67 Kilbride - 54 Burke - 63 Other than Kilbride and Thomas, it appears that every Illinois Justice is staring down the barrel of 75 in their next term. Think their going to rule that they are no longer fit to serve? As to the merits of the current law, octogenarians may lose a step or two, but they more than make up for it in wisdom and temperance. P.S. I believe there is already a process in place for removing judges for cause, such as loss of mental acuity, so that’s not really an issue here. - One_Mcmad - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 2:59 pm: Ginsu: I’m fully aware of the Illinois Supreme Court’s Chief Judges’ lawsuit against the newspaper and the columnist. However, the newspaper and the columnist have filed suit in Federal Court alleging Civil Rights violations. When the Chief Justice of the state’s highest court files a lawsuit in the juridiction that he or she controls, politically and hypothetically he or she would win that lawsuit as it would be decided by one of their counterparts or underlings. Judges should not be allowed to sue. Remember the “Cleaners Judge”. On another note, when Judges sue they open up the Judiciary to lawsuits against it that creates conflicts of interests all across the board. Since the Chief Justice sued the newspaper and it sued back in federal court, who represents the Court now, the Attorney General does. Simultaneously, what about matters pending before the Supreme Court wherein the Attorney General is a party or is representing the state? Both the Supreme Court and the Attorney General are conflicted in a scenario like that. LOL on your last comment. - Objective Dem - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 3:02 pm: Another issue is no one is saying the retired judge cannot work. First as noted by Black Robe, the judge can run for the judgeship just not as a rentention candidate. Second, they can still practice law. Its not like their law license is being taken away. Since they are drawing a big pension and don’t need to work, they can also volunteer. How about some pro-bono legal work for worthy people/causes? Or developing and pursuing changes in the law that will result in a more fair and just legal system? I’m sure there are young lawyers that need mentoring. It also strikes me that a judge who sues over an issue of such self interest in light of all the inherent conflicts of interest and truly serious problems that need to be addressed shouldn’t be on the bench at any age. - One_Mcmad - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 3:02 pm: YDD, I understand your comparision to the U.S Supreme Court. But if you notice, this is a state issue and unless it makes its way to the U.S Supreme Court, it remains to be decided by the state. If you notice all of the Illinois Supreme Court Justices are under the age of 75. And anyone approaching 75 should be ready to bid farwell. - Ginsu - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 3:13 pm: One Mc: The Chief Justice’s defamation lawsuit was filed in state court, not federal. I have no idea where the newspaper’s 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 suit is going. There is a concept of judicial immunity which may knock out some of their claims. The state court case, however, was decided by a jury. Whatever you may think about Cook County juries, they, not the court were the triers of fact. The Office of the Attorney General is inherently conflicted all the time by the nature of the Office’s duties. However, there is an approximately 100-year-old Illinois Supreme Court decision that recognizes this and allows the conflicts to exist in most, if not all circumstances. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 3:19 pm: Pretty callous comments by many here. The artificial limitation of age 75 should not preclude someone from running for retention as a judge should they so desire. It is an artificial limitation. No evidence has been presented that mental capacity sufficient enough to serve as a judge has been impaired at the magic number of 75 years. As a practicing attorney all I can say is that there are some judges under the age of 75 who should not run for retention or be reappointed. Age alone should not bar retention. - The Professor - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 3:53 pm: Did anyone else notice this passage in the Illinois Constitution? ARTICLE IV. THE JUDICIARY SECTION 15. RETIREMENT - DISCIPLINE (a) The General Assembly may provide by law for the retirement of Judges and Associate Judges at a prescribed age. It appears the GA is being more lenient than it could be — they’re not forcing judges to retire, just raising the bar for staying on the bench. It’d be a Pyrrhic victory if he won the right to run for retention and then had lawmakers come behind him and simply make retirement mandatory. - Captain America - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 4:44 pm: Age alone should not disqualify anyone except where physical fitness is a job necessity (police, fire, and military personnel.) There probably should be some provision to remove judges and other people who are no longer able to meet the obligations of their respective jobs, but refuse to retire. Since success is taking so long for me to achieve, I’m planning on being a very active septugenarian/octogenarian. It may take me that long to pay off my graduate school loans. - One_mcmad - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 6:00 pm: Ginsu, I am very familiar with immunity clauses, they tend to pop up in response to lawsuits filed against government officials and elected officials, but here’s my response to the immunity contention: No government official whether elected or appointed is immune from an Official Misconduct charge. To say that any government official; judge, governor, clerk, ect., are immune from tort suits, ect. would mean that they are immune from the laws of the land and can do anything they want as long as they are “acting in their official capacity”. In any legal action regarding government officials and tort claims, requesting an investigation from the court would bring out the criminal charges, if any exist, and there is no immunity from criminality unless being granted such by the prosecution. However, you seem to know a lot about what you’re talking about. Your last sentence regarding the Attorney General’s conflicts of interests, I disagree and if there is such a case, it needs to be reexamined with a new precedent. - Ginsu - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 7:41 pm: One McMad: You have correctly stated the law. Official misconduct is a criminal charge. But this is the first time you have brought it up today, and it is unrelated to your previous arguments about judicial conflicts. Back to the instant subject, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials acting in their official capacity whose actions do not violate CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW (emphasis added.) Federal judges do not always like defense counsel making the argument. But you have to or its waived. For example, police cannot randomly beat the piss out of people. (Clearly established law.) Whether or not an inmate gets to have his tarot cards or ouija board is open to interpretation. The Supreme Court case I referenced does exist. Whether or not the subject will be revisited is open to question. At this time last year I would have said no way. With Gov. Blagojevich trying to put everyone in a trick bag now, it may indeed be revisited. The outcome will stay the same, though. - Ginsu - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 7:47 pm: Furhermore, if a claim against a state employee or official sounds in tort or contract, the sole jurisdiction is in the Illinois Court of Claims; both statutorily and under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. (There are a couple of exceptions that deal basically with snowplows, etc.) It is only Civil Rights actions under Section 1983 that get plaintiffs into federal jurisdiction. - Ginsu - Thursday, Sep 13, 07 @ 7:50 pm: Whoops…Title VII, et al. too. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.