• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Does the American law still not have an auto-recuse system that does not even put you on a case of a company you own stock of?

    • Kalysta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It does not. You need to ask a judge to recuse themselves and if that doesn’t work ask the court above them to reassign. If they even take it up. Usually the biased judge hears the case then it gets appealed. Which wastes a lot of time and a lot of money.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Title seems to be of low relevance

    Media Matters argued in a July court filing that Tesla should be disclosed by X as an “interested party” in the case because of the public association between Musk and the Tesla brand. O’Connor rejected the Media Matters motion in a ruling issued Friday.

    O’Connor wrote that financial interest “means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party.” His ruling said the standard is not met in this case and accused Media Matters of gamesmanship:

  • jayandp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    There needs to be a ban on any judge presiding over something within at least one or two degrees of separation of relationships with said judge. Any direct relationships, either direct relatives or friends or direct investment, and possibly second degree relationships like a relative or friend being invested, or a relative/friend of a relative/friend.

  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Can someone explain the conflict they see here? X and Tesla are 2 different companies.

    • 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Why do people downvote others who are just asking questions? I’ll never understand the mindset. You ask an honest and genuine question and people just downvote it for no reason. I don’t get it.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because disingenuously asking loaded questions (not saying this is one) has become a favorite tactic of conservatives and other trolls. It’s so common now that people automatically assume the questioner is acting in bad faith.

      • jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        As a Brit, we just had riots due to a rightwing posh dickhead “just asking questions”. Look for “Farage riots”. (Something Elon made worse)

        Some questions aren’t questions but dog whistles and conspiracy theories.

        Of course owning stock in one Elon company compromises you judging another Elon company. You don’t even have to look hard to see how he leverages one for another. Or could if he hadn’t already. Not seeing it is done willfully.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m sure it’s a bunch of things, but people are so used to rushing to conclusions without giving it some real thought, myself included, that when someone doesn’t immediately take a side…well, they must be taking the opposite side as me.

  • Kalysta@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Of course it’s fucking Reed O’connor

    This will get overturned on appeal. He’s frequently overturned for shit like this.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Gotta love that Conservative mantra:

    • I get to do what I want.
    • You have to do what I say.

    The judge doesn’t have to recuse himself, because <insert specious reasoning> and fuck you. Also, he’s the big, bad judge, and he’s going to chide the plaintiff’s attorneys in a show of dominance.

    Texas is basically a Conservative rubber stamp, at this point. I hope we get Kamala/Walz, because we desperately need judicial reform.

    • Kalysta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      If this is the court i’m thinking of, this circuit is already trying to mandate a better lottery system because of shopping for this particular judge.

  • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is fucking bullshit.

    I review science proposals for the government that come from private companies responding to an announcement about grants for specific kinds of technology.

    I have to submit a financial form every year disclosing stock that I own to make sure there are no conflicts of interest.

    The fact that is guy is allowed to shrug and say “nah” and just keep going blows my mind.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Day 30 of being fucking bewildered that I, a non-voting member of my city’s bicycle commission, have stricter ethical laws binding me than those for judges and politicians.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s because the politicians make the laws. And they want their judges on the bench to rule in their favor. Laws forcing judges to recuse don’t help the politicians ignore the laws they find inconvenient.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Our founding morons were the most naive idiots in existence… Sure they lived in a different time, but how could you possibly look back at any time in history and say “it’s ok only moral people get positions of power so we’ll play by the honor system.”

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because they were the progressive ideologues of their day.

        And were also often stymied from giving the constitution real teeth by the big slave holding states as well, don’t forget. The right wing was doing shenanigans at the very founding of the country.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The right wing was doing shenanigans at the very founding of the country.

          It’s almost like we’re literally never going to not be dealing with their bullshit…

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is curiously noteworthy in The Federalist Papers. Hamilton puts a lot of faith in the human conscience all the while pointing out that if men were angels we would need no government noting that we do need checks and balances.

        The Electoral College is a dead giveaway that they didn’t trust the public to self-govern, and hence there needed to be back doors where gentlemen (men of means) could override the system should someone like Jimmy Carter get elected.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        They had faith that people who got to power would use it in good faith (and get there in good faith) while or after having fought a war with a power that they believed wasn’t being used in good faith.

        I just wonder how much longer this system can hold up for. It’s got different parts that conflict with itself but different people value different parts of it to the point that getting rid of any of it is going to be, ah, a bit rough.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The founding slavers were literally slavers. Their goal was simply to maintain their violent control. It’s worked great for 200+ years.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The reason to have courts at all is to have an alternative to violence to resolve conflicts of interest.

    This is why black market negotiations are done featuring a lot of well-armed guys.

    This is also why the public needs to be able to trust the courts are impartial.

    This is why even the appearance of misconduct cannot be tolerated.

    So at the time your goons kill their goons to resolve the dispute, kill the corrupt judge as well, because its his fault you had to resort to violence in the first place.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You didn’t have to mention his party, everyone knew he was a Republican from the headline.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        When McConnell blocked the confirmation of Garland to SCOTUS, he also blocked over a hundred federal bench appointments, so many, that the Federalist Society was struggling to find enough to fill the seats, so yes they were scraping the dregs at the bottom of the conservative barrel. So in only follows that a lot of conservative appointments were given a position above their level of competence.

        Curiously, in movements like the white Christian nationalist movement that had been commandeering the GOP since the 1970s (which is not to say they were much better before that), the shift from principle to personal loyalty results in brain drain, since competent officers with dissenting opinions are swapped out for incompetent ideologists. The German Reich also had to deal with this kind of problem.