Judge Newman has threatened to have staff arrested, forcibly removed from the building, and fired. She accused staff of trickery, deceit, acting as her adversary, stealing her computer, stealing her files, and depriving her of secretarial support. Staff have described Judge Newman in their interactions with her as “aggressive, angry, combative, and intimidating”; “bizarre and unnecessarily hostile”; making “personal accusations”; “agitated, belligerent, and demonstratively angry”; and “ranting, rambling, and paranoid.” Indeed, interactions with Judge Newman have become so dysfunctional that the Clerk of the Court has advised staff to avoid interacting with her in person or, when they must, to bring a co-worker with them.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So we shouldn’t give social security to people unless they have dementia?

    We already have an arbitrary age set. We should stick to it.

    I’m still game for removing someone earlier than that if they are unfit. But after 65? You’re not fit. Even if you “are.” You’re too far removed from the policies you’d be enacting. It’s just nonsense.

    • ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s a disservice to people who have intimate knowledge of how a service has developed over time, and common problems with change that younger people may not have experienced.

      I’m not saying that people should all be forced or unduly enabled to carry on working well into their seniority, but we’d be missing the opportunity to utilise skills and experience by enforcing a hard limit - certainly as young as 65!