r/politicsnow

▲ 2 r/politicsnow+1 crossposts

The structure of the nation’s highest court could face its first major overhaul in centuries. Congressman Johnny Olszewski of Maryland is officially introducing the Reform of Bench Eligibility (ROBE) Act, a constitutional amendment designed to end lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices.

The act proposes a standard 18-year term limit. Under the current rules, justices serve until they choose to retire or pass away. This has led to tenures that are now among the longest in U.S. history. Olszewski contends that this system has turned the court into a political tool rather than an independent body.

The push for the ROBE Act follows several controversies regarding judicial conduct. Olszewski pointed to recent instances of justices accepting private jet travel from wealthy donors and attending high-profile political events, such as White House state dinners.

>“Faith in the Court depends on its legitimacy as a fair and independent institution,” Olszewski stated.

He argued that the current lack of oversight and the reversal of long-standing legal precedents have damaged public trust. By implementing fixed terms, the legislation seeks to minimize the "political gamesmanship" that currently defines the appointment process.

One of the primary goals of the amendment is to stop the practice of strategic retirements. Currently, many justices time their departure to ensure a president from their own preferred political party can appoint a successor.

This environment has also changed how presidents select nominees. To maximize long-term influence, administrations often prioritize younger candidates who are ideologically predictable over those with broader experience. The ROBE Act would apply to both current and future justices, featuring a transition plan to shift the court toward the new 18-year cycle.

u/evissamassive — 10 days ago
▲ 3 r/politicsnow+1 crossposts

Trump is again using his performance on a cognitive screening test to defend his mental fitness. During the White House Small Business Summit, he claimed to have "aced" the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) three times, asserting that medical professionals were stunned by his perfect scores.

However, the neurologist who created the test, Dr. Ziad Nasreddine, suggests these results are being misinterpreted. The MoCA is not a measure of high-level intelligence or "brilliance." Instead, it is a brief clinical tool used globally to detect early signs of Alzheimer’s, dementia, and other impairments.

The assessment involves basic tasks, such as:

  • Identifying common animals (e.g., a lion or a squirrel)

  • Drawing a clock face

  • Recalling a short list of words

  • Stating the current date and location

While Trump described the middle section of the test as "very tough," the exam is intentionally simple for any adult with normal brain function. "It wasn't designed to be a test of IQ," Nasreddine said. "It was designed to assess normal cognitive performance."

A perfect score on the MoCA does not indicate a "genius" level of thinking. It simply confirms that the individual does not show signs of cognitive deficit in areas like memory, attention, and language.

According to Nasreddine:

  • Most people score around 26 out of 30

  • About 10 percent of individuals in Trump's age bracket achieve a perfect 30/30

  • The test identifies those who fall below the threshold of healthy cognitive aging

Trump’s focus on the test comes as voters express skepticism about the health of aging leaders. A recent Washington Post poll found that 59 percent of Americans doubt Trump’s mental sharpness, while 55 percent question his physical health.

Trump has used his scores to challenge other candidates to undergo similar testing. In contrast, aides for Joe Biden have reportedly avoided the MoCA entirely, fearing that the mere act of taking a dementia screening could validate public concerns about his age. For Trump, a perfect score serves as a rhetorical shield; for the medical community, it is merely a sign of a healthy, aging brain.

u/evissamassive — 9 days ago
▲ 3 r/politicsnow+1 crossposts

Why We Should Stop Calling Trump "Crazy"

Labeling a political figure "crazy" is a common reflex in modern discourse. However, using mental illness as a shorthand for behavior we find abhorrent is both factually wrong and socially damaging. When journalists and pundits suggest that Donald Trump is mentally ill, they aren't just misdiagnosing a politician—they are insulting millions of ordinary citizens.

The primary issue with using "crazy" as an insult is that it reinforces false stereotypes. Data shows that the vast majority of people with mental health diagnoses—about 97 percent—are not violent. In fact, they are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Most people managing mental health conditions are productive, law-abiding members of their communities.

When we equate erratic or harmful behavior with mental illness, we suggest that people with these diagnoses are inherently immoral or incapable of logic. This isn't true. Irrationality is a universal human trait, not a clinical requirement. By using "mental illness" as a garbage-can category for any behavior we dislike, we further marginalize a population that already faces significant discrimination.

The second issue is accuracy. Calling Trump "crazy" ignores the intentionality behind his actions. If we look at the standard definitions of "evil"—defined as behavior that is morally wrong, harmful, or characterized by future misfortune—a different picture emerges.

Trump’s record includes a long list of deliberate choices:

  • Moral wrongdoing: From the separation of children at the border to the use of charitable funds for personal gain.

  • Active harm: Policies that have led to the detention of thousands, the defunding of essential medical aid, and the removal of environmental protections that safeguard public health.

  • Ominous intent: Frequent rhetoric regarding "retribution," threats to prosecute political opponents, and suggestions of military intervention against sovereign neighbors.

Mental illness is a health condition; it is not a synonym for cruelty or prejudice. When we call a leader "crazy," we inadvertently provide them with a shield, suggesting they lack the agency or the "reason" to understand the consequences of their actions.

Trump’s actions are not the result of a clinical deficit in thought. They are the result of a specific worldview characterized by a lack of empathy and a disregard for established norms. To address the problem effectively, we must name it correctly. He is not a patient in need of a diagnosis; he is a leader whose actions should be judged on moral and ethical grounds. Stop using mental health as a punchline. It does nothing to restrain the politician, and it does a great deal of harm to everyone else.

commondreams.org
u/evissamassive — 8 hours ago