Asklemmy

43856 readers

2099 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

540

Would you support a mandatory retirement age of 75 for US House, US Senate & US Supreme Court Justices and if not why? (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by robocall@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

182 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

legal verbiage is such a pointless waste and almost unnecessary

Wow. I like the rest of your position, but being precise in language, and understanding what things mean legally is extremely important.

[–] Stupidmanager@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I think I’m talking about the purposeful legal jargon used to deceive or be arguable vague and 20 pages long for no reason but to hide that fact. I’m all about precision, but it needs to be something an average person would comprehend if we were to adopt this method.