Problem is, even if we agreed in principle to a mandatory retirement age, the party not in power would not want hand over those vacancies to the sitting president. The article points out that over a tenth of Federal judges are over 80. If presumably they're half D, half R, and they would all be forced to retire, then the current administration would get a free pass to replace a large cohort of politically mixed old judges with a homogeneous slate of young D judges. And it would be a one-shot imbalance, because in the future, judges would age out gradually instead of 10% all at once. So it's unlikely R's would agree to it, nor would D's agree when R's are the ones in power.
The only way I could see it being politically palatable is if current judges over 80 are allowed to remain, but any judges turning 80 as of a certain future date are made to retire. So, for instance, if the law went into effect today it could declare that any judge born in the year 1950 or later and turning 80 as of Jan 1, 2030 or later would have to retire.
The only way I could see it being politically palatable is if current judges over 80 are allowed to remain, but any judges turning 80 as of a certain future date are made to retire. So, for instance, if the law went into effect today it could declare that any judge born in the year 1950 or later and turning 80 as of Jan 1, 2030 or later would have to retire.