http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/12/15/filing-challenges-retirement-law-on-judges Comments On: Filing challenges retirement law on judges by Max Brantley en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Thu, 23 May 2013 03:45:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by plainjim]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:49:21 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Atlas999]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:06:36 -0600 Arkansas Times
Especially her first and last paragraphs!

IMHO
Posted by SkyPilot]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:09:01 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by DeathbyInches]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:58:50 -0600 Arkansas Times
It's one thing to stand and defend your own constitutional rights, but it takes mettle of a stronger caliber entirely to stand up for the rights of others.

Discrimination based on something as arbitrary as age should never be permitted absent a rational basis for it, and strict scrutiny of how it is applied. If an individual's mind is compromised by age-related debilitation, that's one thing. Saying that no one is competent to serve as a judge simply because he or she has reached a certain age is absurd, and that, essentially, is what the mandatory retirement law says. Judge Brantley is definitely not six years away from senility. She's one heck of a sharp, fair judge, and Pulaski County will feel the loss of her judicial acumen keenly at her retirement.

When we stand by and allow the constitutional rights of any of us to be compromised, we embark on a slippery slope toward complete disregard of all of the rights we hold so dear.

Our Constitution is becoming antiquated and has lost some of its teeth with respect to a number of things. For example, the Fourth Amendment has been nearly rationalized out of existence by the Supreme Court and only applies "sometimes;" recent over-reaching congressional lawmaking in the guise of an emotionally acronym-ed "PATRIOT Act" served only to erode it further.

There are now more progressive constitutions in the world which do a much better job of recognizing human rights. The UN's Declaration of Human Rights is a good starting point: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.…

South Africa's 1996 Constitution is one of the most progressive in the world. Its passage exemplifies how a country whose laws permitted truly egregious human rights abuses can turn 180 degrees in a very short period of time. From the government's banning and murder of Steve Biko in 1977 to the presidency of Nelson Mandela in 1994, enormous changes took place. See its human rights provisions at http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitut….

The bottom line is that human rights are vital to a well-functioning society and democracy, and protection of everyone's human rights is in everyone's best interest.
Posted by Anne Bonney, Pirate]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:21:33 -0600 Arkansas Times