This draft is improved by the presence of some data, although in the end, as you say, what you proved was that we continue to appoint as federal judges people with decades of experience in practice, and they live longer, remaining productive on the whole far beyond the working lifetime of most citizens.

Now, the argument has been reduced to dementia. About this, you have no data. That we have no documented difficulty with the incompetence of federal judges, and no specific problem arising from dementia, seems not to deter your presentation. You think that monitoring of judges' mental health doesn't exist, for some reason. You don't discuss how retirement actually happens among federal judges, how senior status works, how assignment committees in the judicial districts function. You don't know about the fact that lifetime wages is one part of the judicial deal, and no survivor's pension to spouses is another, thus making senior status (which results in the appointment of a replacement full-time judge) the real arrangement you think doesn't exist and need to cast aspersions on judges' capacities in order to lobby for.

I don't think there's more to be done here, but if there were it would lie in taking the step that reporters are required to take and lawyers find professionally hard: really understanding both the facts and the other side.