This country just raised the retirement age to 70 — and others may follow
The Danish Parliament passed legislation on Thursday that will gradually raise the retirement age to 70 by 2040.
The change applies to anyone born after December 31, 1970.
The bill, which passed with 81 votes in favor and 21 against, marks one of the most significant changes to the state pension age in Europe. It also signals a broader shift in how developed economies are preparing for aging populations and mounting fiscal pressures.
The move stems from a 2006 welfare agreement that ties the pension age eligibility to life expectancy. With people living longer, the government argues that raising the retirement age was needed to keep the pension system financially sustainable.
"In 2040, we will raise the retirement age from 69 to 70 years, among other things, to afford proper welfare for future generations," Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen, Denmark's employment minister, said in a statement following the vote.
She said it would be the last time her party voted for an increase under the current system, citing the need for a fairer model that reflected differences in career length and job type.
The decision has sparked anger from unions and workers in physically demanding sectors such as construction and agriculture.
Denmark's largest trade union, 3F, has argued that the policy will disproportionately burden lower-income workers. It said surveys had found three-quarters of their members doubted they could keep working into their 70s.
Pension changes have become a flash point across Europe. Just two years ago, France was rocked by months of mass protests and strikes after President Emmanuel Macron's government raised the retirement age from 62 to 64.
Nonetheless, as demographic pressure mounts globally, Denmark's move may be a bellwether.
Countries including Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK have already scheduled retirement age increases to 67 by 2031, 2028, and 2028, respectively.
With life expectancy continuing to rise, birth rates falling, and the need for a sustainable ratio of workers to retirees, economists and researchers say retirement ages will probably need to be pushed back further.
A 2024 report from the UK's International Longevity Centre projected that Britain would have to raise the retirement age to 71 by 2050 to maintain the ratio of workers to retirees.
Similarly, in the US, the retirement age for full Social Security benefits has already been raised from 65 to 67.
While Republicans have proposed a further increase, President Donald Trump said on the campaign trail in June 2024 that he would "not raise the retirement age by one day."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
a few seconds ago
- Los Angeles Times
Voters wouldn't want such a big government if they had to pay for it
Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for? Yes, the Big Beautiful Bill avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt — by how much is debatable — and that's before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare's impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it's infuriating to see a $9-billion rescission package — one drop in the deficit bucket — met with cries of bloody murder. The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill's reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under President Biden. Maybe we wouldn't keep operating this way — pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet — if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we're willing to pay for. Otherwise, it's too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That's because all the benefits and subsidies that we're unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation or both. That's morally and economically reprehensible. Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities. First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates — the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we're this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won't be enough. Raising taxes on the rich will fall short, too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive. Here's something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17% to 18% of GDP for more than 50 years — through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates and every combination of deductions, exemptions and credits in between. This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don't simply continue what they've been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in non-taxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions or increase tax-avoidance strategies. Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It's why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor. If the underlying structure of the system doesn't change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18% in tax collections. Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue — through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy — that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some. It's long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be 'paid for.' Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have. I suspect that most people aren't willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare. Until we align Congress' promises with what we're willing and able to fund, we'll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft — as we cope with economic decline. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
Washington Post
2 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The man who got the Epstein subpoena
Good morning, Early Birds. Everyone still able to get their matcha fix? Send tips to earlytips@ Thanks for waking up with us. In today's edition … How Democrats got an Epstein subpoena … 100 days from Election Day in Virginia and New Jersey … but first … Former vice president Kamala Harris is not running for California governor, leaving the door open for a 2028 presidential run. Harris was a top contender to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is term-limited from running for a third term in 2026, but people in Harris's circle thought running for governor could box her out of a future presidential run, Maeve Reston reports. She also turned down a gubernatorial run in 2015 to run for U.S. Senate. Harris's statement said she would be focusing on organizing Democrats in the immediate term and would be 'sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans.' Read more from Maeve. Here's what else you need to get ready with The Post: The House Oversight Committee is made for viral moments. It deals with some of the testiest issues on Capitol Hill, and many of the dramatic confrontations that make the rounds on social media are from the committee. It once again thrust itself into the spotlight after one of its subcommittees voted to subpoena the Justice Department's files on Jeffrey Epstein, going further on the case than Republican leadership seemed willing to go. Enter Rep. Robert Garcia (California), the second-term Democrat selected by his party to lead them on the committee — and the man who bypassed the committee's Republican leadership to subpoena the files. Garcia has been the top ranking Democrat on the committee since June. He's using the position to model how Democrats can push back on the Trump administration as voters repeatedly implore Democratic lawmakers to be more aggressive. 'One of the first things I told everybody is, we have got to be aggressive, and we have got to push back, and not just wait until we win control,' Garcia told us. 'The fight starts today, and I want us to come up with ways that we can use the Oversight Committee to get results and to get transparency.' He cited the subpoena as a prime example — using committee procedure to force action even when the party is in the minority. He targeted the House Oversight subcommittee on federal law enforcement because he knew it had a number of Republicans who were sympathetic to releasing the Epstein files, he told us, and was able to get enough Republicans on the subcommittee to vote with the Democratic members to approve a subpoena. The full committee is now required to issue a subpoena, which the team of Chairman James Comer said he would do soon. Garcia wrote to Comer (Kentucky) urging him to issue the subpoena as soon as possible. 'The Oversight Committee will be the tip of the spear in taking on Donald Trump,' Garcia told us. 'We're well positioned to do that, and we're not waiting until we win the majority back. We're doing it now.' Garcia is eager to demonstrate a new leadership style from past Democrats. He cast his candidacy to be the ranking Democrat as a generational changing of the guard, differentiating himself from more senior candidates including Stephen F. Lynch of Massachusetts and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland. The previous ranking member, Virginia's Gerry Connolly, died in May, opening the position. Connolly ran against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York) for the role last year, another young Democrat who made a similar pitch as Garcia. 'He brings a deep understanding of the challenges our communities and country face, and has demonstrated an unwavering commitment and ability to meet the moment,' Rep. Summer Lee, the top Democrat on the federal law enforcement subcommittee, said in a statement. 'Under his leadership, Democrats are prepared to take this fight exactly where it needs to go.' Epstein offers a unique opportunity for Garcia to prove himself, with heightened interest in the case from the public and from several of his colleagues across the aisle. Garcia also has his eyes set on tackling other contentious, high-profile issues including deportations to the maximum-security prison CECOT in El Salvador. Garcia is hardly the first to recognize the power of the committee. Republicans under Comer have relentlessly investigated former president Joe Biden, beginning when he was in office. Oversight Committee Republicans led the probes into Biden's family and directed the unsuccessful impeachment inquiry into Biden. They are continuing to investigate Biden's mental acuity while he was in office, including whether staff acted on his behalf. (Garcia waved off pursuing impeachment now and said that would have to be a party-wide decision.) But Garcia's recent maneuver to secure the Epstein subpoena is notable because he managed to get it done while in the minority, going beyond what Republican leadership was comfortable pursuing on Epstein. Comer has also made steps to address interest in Epstein, even if he didn't go as far as to push for a full release of the Justice Department documents, which Trump has made clear he opposes. Oversight Committee Republicans also voted to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, an Epstein accomplice who is serving prison time for sex trafficking, and issue subpoenas on several prominent former Justice Department figures, including former FBI director James B. Comey; former attorneys general Merrick Garland, William P. Barr, Jeff Sessions, Loretta E. Lynch, Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales; and former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. They also threw in Bill and Hillary Clinton. Comer knew Democrats would make a go for releasing the files during subcommittee hearings last week and warned Republican leadership about it at the time, a Republican aide told us. Democrats had previously made moves to subpoena, including Elon Musk. He also knew several Republicans were likely to support the Epstein subpoena, so the approval didn't come as a surprise, the aide said. Comer has to sign off on the subpoena before it goes out but has yet to do so. Trump got the good economic news he is craving, but not the reaction he has been publicly and privately demanding. After the economy contracted in the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department announced yesterday that the U.S. economy grew by 3 percent in the second quarter of the year, a strong showing that our colleague Abha Bhattarai reports was 'boosted by a slowdown in imports amid ongoing trade turmoil.' That is the news Trump wanted. Hours later came the news he didn't want: The Federal Reserve, led by Chair Jerome H. Powell, announced it was keeping interest rates steady and warned about slowing economic growth, bucking Trump's furious pressure campaign that is sure to anger the Republican president. Notably, two Fed governors, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, dissented from the decision and said they preferred lowering rates, our colleague Andrew Ackerman reported, the first time in more than 30 years that two sitting governors have dissented from such a decision. In announcing his decision, Powell pointed to Trump's tariff policy: 'Increased tariffs are pushing up prices in some categories of goods,' he said. 'Near-term measures of inflation expectations have moved up on balance over the course of this year on news about tariffs.' So it's a mixed bag for the president. While the economy is growing, analysts were sure to say it was not the time for Trump to be doing cartwheels on the South Lawn. 'You abstract from all of the tariff-related ups, downs and arounds, and the underlying story is that the economy is struggling,' Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told our colleague. 'The economy has significantly throttled back this year.' This news matters, though. The dominant political issue right now is the economy, prices and how people feel about their bottom line. Because so much of this is driven by vibes, news like this could improve those vibes for Republicans as they head into what is expected to be a challenging 2026 midterms season. With just under 100 days until Election Day in New Jersey and Virginia, the head of the Democratic Governors Association has a clear message for Democrats: We feel good about our standing in these races, but do not assume they are easy wins. 'These are both going to be really competitive races,' Meghan Meehan-Draper, the executive director of the association, told us. 'In Virginia, we have a lot of statewide elected Republicans. We lost this race in 2021, so we're the ones who had to make up ground from last time. And in New Jersey, history says that we shouldn't win this race. [Gov. Phil] Murphy had a tough reelection, not because he's not a great governor, but because they like to change governors in New Jersey. It's been decades since they've elected back-to-back Democratic governors.' It was a blunt assessment, but one, Meehan-Draper argued, that Democrats need to understand to avoid overconfidence ahead of two key elections. Former congresswoman Abigail Spanberger is running as the Democratic nominee in Virginia, and Rep. Mikie Sherrill is running as the party's nominee in New Jersey. 'Anyone who wants to be part of the path forward for Democrats and the Democratic Party needs to look at 38 governors races in the next two years,' Meehan-Draper said, starting with Virginia and New Jersey, two states she thinks have clear momentum, no matter how close the races may end up. The reason for that moment, she argued, was Trump and what Republicans have done with unified power since taking control earlier this year. That has federalized these statewide campaigns and given Democrats something to rally around. 'These are going to be the first governors races in response to Trump 2.0,' Meehan-Draper said. 'This is voters' first opportunity just to make their voices heard in a governor's race about the way Trump's chaotic governing has affected people in their states.' Elsewhere on the campaign: House Republican Conference Chair Lisa C. McClain is hitting the road next week to advertise the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in three competitive House districts. She's partnering with the National Association of Manufacturers for events in districts represented by Reps. Tom Kean Jr. (New Jersey), Rob Bresnahan (Pennsylvania) and Ryan Mackenzie (Pennsylvania). 'It's a privilege to help carry the message of President Trump and the American people's agenda,' McClain said in a statement. 'As Conference Chair, I have the opportunity to join my colleagues during this district work period and share that message across the country. I'm excited to help bring our results directly to more people and communities.' The National Association of Manufacturers praised the tax cuts in the bill for businesses of all sizes. Republicans are pushing back on Democratic attacks on the bill zeroing in on cuts to Medicaid, extolling instead the major tax benefits for most Americans. Democrats criticize the tax cuts as disproportionately helping the rich while reducing benefits for the poor, citing estimates by the Congressional Review Act. Senate Republicans advanced out of committee a stock trading ban bill derisively named after former House speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday. The Pelosi Act would ban members of Congress, presidents, vice presidents and their spouses from holding individual stocks. Republicans frequently accuse Pelosi of insider trading, citing her husband's stock trading that they allege was based on confidential information gleaned from her office. Pelosi rejects the accusation but has previously been unenthused about a stock-trading ban for members. This is a capitalist country and everyone should participate, she would say. But now Pelosi is backing the effort. 'While I appreciate the creativity of my Republican colleagues in drafting legislative acronyms, I welcome any serious effort to raise ethical standards in public service,' she said in a statement. A stock trading ban has support — and opposition — on both sides of the aisle. But Democrats and some Republicans were chagrined by the fact that the Pelosi Act would kick in for elected officials next term, meaning Trump wouldn't be subjected. We finally have a proposed map for new congressional districts in Texas. As expected, the map increases the number of Republican-controlled seats by five. Though they make some districts slightly more competitive, Trump won all of the proposed Republican seats by at least 10 percentage points, making any Democratic challenge a hard sell. That could placate some House Republicans, who were unenthusiastic about new district lines that could make their reelections more competitive. It also takes some wind out of the sails of Democrats who said they would aggressively campaign in more competitive Republican districts if a new map gets approved. Democrats said they were still pursuing legal challenges and would recruit candidates to challenge in the new districts. Texas Democrats have historically performed better than Democratic presidential candidates in the state, especially in areas like South Texas, which has unique political cultures and longtime members who defy shifting political winds. Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, for example, won reelection last year despite Trump taking every county in his district. Same with Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, who survived a challenge despite being criminally indicted and Trump winning all but two counties in his district. Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, Patrick Marley, Marianna Sotomayor, Nick Mourtoupalas, Maeve Reston and Lenny Bronner have more on the latest map. Honolulu Civil Beat (Honolulu): Chaos across Hawaii followed a tsunami warning caused by a magnitude-8.8 earthquake just off the east coast of Russia. The warning led to sirens, jammed roads and quiet beaches. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles): The federal funding cuts for NPR and PBS are being felt across the country, with public broadcasters in California and elsewhere cutting positions. MLive (Grand Rapids, Michigan): In what has become a summer tradition, smoke from Canadian wildfires is blanketing parts of Michigan, the Great Lakes area and the northern stretches of the Northeast. With Kamala Harris's announcement that she won't run for governor, we're curious about your thoughts on the 2028 field. Any candidates already sticking out to you? Send us your thoughts at earlytips@ or at and Thanks for reading. You can follow Dan and Matthew on X: @merica and @matthewichoi.
The Intercept
31 minutes ago
- The Intercept
What to Do — And Not to Do — About a Judge Like Emil Bove
Emil Bove, the nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is sworn in before his confirmation hearing in the Senate on June 25, 2025, in Washington. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images President Donald Trump's second term has so far been a constant barrage of unconstitutional actions and illegal orders. So it was thus no surprise when the Senate on Monday confirmed Trump's former personal lawyer and Justice Department lackey, Emil Bove, to a lifetime appointment on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That 50 Republican senators would install this fascist bootlicker to one of the most powerful judicial positions in the land for life is, as MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann put it, 'a nail in the coffin' for a system of checks and balances on authoritarian presidential overreach. There's a risk, however, after a grave blow like this to legal, political, and constitutional norms, that liberal epitaphs to the American constitutional order will mourn the wrong thing. Bove's appointment confirms something worse than the Republican embrace of lawlessness. He represents the Republicans' use and abuse of our fraught constitutional order for the purposes of enacting profound, life-denying, and long-lasting injustices to uphold a white nationalist regime. Liberal epitaphs to the American constitutional order risk mourning the wrong thing. Calling on the restoration of preexisting norms of law and constitutionality to reverse course will be, at best, insufficient. After all, liberal reliance on a system of order above justice helped deliver us Trump and his jurist enablers in the first place. This is not to understate how appalling it is that Bove has been appointed a federal judge. 'It is one thing to put lab-designed Federalist Society members on courts across the country — and, to be clear, several of Trump's nominees from his first administration went far beyond that,' wrote legal journalist Chris Geidner when Trump nominated Bove, 'but it is another thing altogether to name a lawless loyalist to a federal appeals court.' Geidner called Bove's confirmation a 'line that cannot be crossed.' It has now been crossed. Bove is perhaps best known as the Justice Department official who dismissed corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams — a decision that led more than 10 Justice Department attorneys to resign in protest. He fired federal prosecutors who had worked on January 6 cases. According to three Justice Department whistleblower accounts, Bove also told federal attorneys that they 'would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'' and ignore orders blocking the administration from sending immigrants to El Salvador's gulag. Over 900 former Justice Department attorneys, identifying with both parties, wrote letters opposing Bove's judgeship. Yet Republican senators refused to hear whistleblower testimony and dismissed the widespread concerns about Bove as Democratic meddling. As usual, they did what the president asked. Bove's new, permanent position assures more serious harms to come. Given how few cases are heard by the Supreme Court, the 3rd Circuit is most often the final voice in the law for cases from Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Bove has made unwaveringly clear that, for him, the law is the president's will. This position is now standard in the Republican Party and all too consistently affirmed by a Supreme Court majority committed to unitary executive theory to vest authoritarian powers in Trump's hands. Earlier this month, Geidner posted on social media that 'should Bove be confirmed — which he should not be — he should immediately be the subject of an impeachment inquiry should Dems retake Congress.' Based on his actions at the Department of Justice, there are ample grounds to call for impeachment. Democrats should vow to do this immediately. Senate Democrats carry significant blame for Bove's judgeship, too. Senate Democrats, after all, carry significant blame for Bove's judgeship, too. His seat should have been filled by Biden nominee, Adeel Mangi, who would have been the first Muslim judge on a federal appeals court. Instead of shutting down vile, Islamophobic Republican attacks against Mangi, Senate Democrats allowed the smears to gain ground and eventually stood down on the nomination. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday said, 'To confirm Mr. Bove is a sacrilegious act against our democracy.' He did not mention that, when he was Senate majority leader, he permitted a relentless Islamophobic campaign to tank Mangi, a qualified nominee, which left the judge's seat open for Trump's taking. The Democratic establishment may lament Bove's confirmation as 'a dark, dark day,' but we have no reason to think that this party leadership will bring us toward the light. Geidner's suggestion — to pursue impeachment — would be the very least that Democrats can do. What they should already be doing is using every tool in their power to hinder Trump's deportation machine. Given the Democrats' own vile embrace of harsh border rule, I am not holding my breath. The judges who have continued to push back directly against Trump's illegal actions, meanwhile, remain a crucial constraint on some of the administration's worst attacks on our rights. These judges are under unprecedented attack. On the same day Bove was confirmed, Trump's Justice Department filed a baseless misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. In March, Boasberg issued an order to block deportation flights to El Salvador under Trump's invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — the very sort of order that Bove reportedly told attorneys to say 'fuck you' to. In an obscene retaliatory escalation, the Justice Department's complaint claims that Boasberg's alleged comments — that the administration could trigger a 'constitutional crisis' by disregarding court orders — 'have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.' The complaint says that the administration has 'always complied with all court orders.' The idea that it constitutes judicial misconduct to suggest otherwise, despite clear evidence of the executive's disregard for certain unfavorable court orders, is the sort of authoritarian logic that obviates concerns about a constitutional crisis in the worst way: There can be no crisis if fascist rule silences all constitutional pushback. Then the problem is not a constitutional order in crisis, but a fascist order without opposition. This is not yet the state of affairs. The courts — certain courts, at least — are not yet a dead end. It should be increasingly clear, however, that they will not deliver us from fascism either. As legal scholar Aziz Rana wrote earlier this year, the left should 'strongly back litigation efforts and condemn Trump's defiance of the courts,' but not because the courts are a terrain of liberatory struggle. Rana is clear that 'the reason to oppose Trump's violation of court orders is not out of a general faith in judges or constitutional norms,' but because they are a tool, however limited, for protecting people and holding the administration to account. The affront at the heart of Bove's confirmation is not that he does not respect the law — although that should no doubt be disqualifying for a judge. If that's where we object, however, we risk lionizing a criminal legal system that also gives rise to racist policing and mass incarceration. Bove's violence lies primarily in his commitment to a form of injustice that ensures impunity for the corrupt and powerful, while the poorest and most vulnerable are treated as wholly disposable. The infamous advice Bove allegedly gave to ignore court orders over deportations was a 'fuck you' to the Constitution and the rule of law, yes, but above all it was a 'fuck you' to the over 200 men who were rounded up, kidnapped, shaved, beaten, and tortured in a foreign gulag without any recourse. It was a 'fuck you' to human beings. It should go without saying that the constitutional order in and of itself has never in practice guaranteed equality and justice for all. The constitutionalization of slavery's abolition and many basic civil rights protections took extraordinary social struggle and political work. The successful dismantling of the constitutional right to an abortion took decades of political organizing, too. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees progress. 'The great social movements of the past, from abolition to civil rights, labour to women's suffrage, famously called for the defiance of unjust court judgments that sustained slavery, segregation and disenfranchisement, or criminalized union organizing,' Rana noted. 'Considering the current right-wing control over the courts, the left may find itself in a similar place in the coming years, calling for civil disobedience of judicial authority.' With judges like Bove in place, such action will likely be all the more necessary.
