They’re all failsons even if their dad was a ditch digger, because digging ditches is a noble occupation and these pieces of human garbage are on the Supreme Court, a position you can only get to if you are among the worst shitbags to exist.
Some of them maybe shouldn’t be described as failsons for chromosomal reasons, but they’re all failures.
There is truth to that, but that’s not what people mean when they say failson. What they mean is someone who is hopelessly incompetent. Like Don Jr. Hunter Biden, etc.
Yeah, he was definitely born on 3rd base. I’m not arguing against that. But it’s not like he turned that start into Don Jr. He ran with it. The dude received a Truman Scholarship, which is hard AF to get and I don’t think you can completely nepotism your way into.
Not a failson. POS human being, perhaps. But definitely not a failson.
Attending Harvard/Yale in 1990 and on means you are an honorary failson at worst. Yes I am sure they let a token amount of bootstrappers in and maybe even some of the current justices fall into that category but I’m going to guess without looking that most of the parents of current justices were affluent. Kagan and Sotomayor seem fine as SC justices but fuck the rest of them. They are certainly failures anyways.
Honestly Kagan isn’t really all that good.
Affluent parent, while a necessary condition of failson, is not a sufficient condition.
It’s possible to take those advantages that you were born into and, like, not fail. As shitty some of the justices are, it’s tough to make the case that they are idiotic incompetents.
We could drive a fleet of trucks through the chasm between someone like Don Jr. and Gorsuch. The former is the quintessential failson. The latter is someone who had every opportunity and simply took advantage of them.
I’ll cosign that. But that doesn’t make the rest failsons.
It is definitely possible to be a smart, hard working piece of shit. In fact I would describe the vast majority of corporate executives, politicians, BigLaw partners and really any group of people with power and money this way.
You have to grease the palms of a lot of horrible people to even be considered as a SC justice. Acting like most of them aren’t completely corrupt piles of human garbage is naive. Call it what you will. Failsons may be an inaccurate adjective. But you don’t ascend to those positions without giving away your soul a long time ago as well as being born into wealth.
ACB’s father was a Shell Oil attorney. Convince me that SCOTUS is a less noble position.
Yeah, I agree with all that. I just prefer to reserve the use of failson for the Don Jrs. of the world. It’s not accurate to describe a, as Riverman puts it, a smart, hard-working piece of shit as a failson. Failsons are neither smart nor hard-working.
What if you worked hard and are still dumb af and a hack?
I’m OK with failson for that. I can’t think of any examples of such. But if you found one, I’d wouldn’t argue with it. Obviously you need the privileged upbringing in there as well.
one should not make this quibble in a forum of jest without suggesting a more amusingly accurate alternative
May I suggest the 5:4 podcast?
People often assume morally bankrupt people are dumb, and that’s a huge mistake.
Almost every long tenured partner at a large law firm is a horrible person, and literally none of them are stupid or lazy.
I’d go with the tried and true “piece of shit”. I don’t know if it’s more amusing, but it’s definitely more accurate.
Yeah, I agree, this is definitely a thing.
There are definitely cases where it’s hard. Ted Cruz, for example, says the dumbest shit all the time. But if you look at his resume, it’s highly improbable for him to be as dumb as he sounds.
But in most cases, it’s not that hard.
I do think there’s a psychological element where people tend to become what they practice being. So if you put on an act constantly of being an imbecile for your rube base then eventually you will lose some intellectual capacity. Thoughtfulness and reasoning are honed with practice, and similarly dulled with lack of practice.
If you read Clarence Thomas’ opinions, he’s clearly very intelligent. Intelligence is not the issue here.