• JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 hours ago

    He’s talking about how long young people will last on the supreme court. Still gross, but this article is click-baity and dumb with its premise.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The title is basically a blatant lie, easily shown to be deceptive simply by reading the article.

      Yet look at this comments section and how many people have bought the deception hook, line, and sinker.

      We shit on Republuicans for being idiots who support Trump, which is true, but it’s almost like we are trying to out-stupid them.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Yeah, it’s a bad look essentially saying you should only put young justices on the SCOTUS in order to control it for longer. However, that is not a dumb thing to say. It’s logical if your goal is control, which his obviously is. It’s why the lifetime appointments are so bad. It encourages putting young, less qualified justices on the court instead of older, potentially more qualified ones.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        No, it doesn’t apply, at least not for the same logic. He didn’t say that because the older people are less capable. He said it because a younger person will give you control for longer most likely. They’re lifetime appointments, so the logical choice for maintaining control is to appoint healthy young people, not the most qualified people.

      • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah I’m not arguing that. But the point is different… He’s talking about longevity, not acumen.