this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
785 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59555 readers
5347 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
785
Texas judge who bought Tesla stock won’t recuse himself from X v. Media Matters (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 months ago by Xatolos@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] notnotmike@programming.dev 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

For anyone confused by this headline, there are two trials this judge is considering for X

[O'Conner] was overseeing two lawsuits filed by X and recused himself from only one of the cases.

This isn't the new case about the "illegal boycott" O'Conner has recused himself from that trial (likely) because he also owns stock in Unilever, one of the defending companies

[–] towerful@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh, so if a judge has a vested interest in more than 1 party, then they should recuse themselves from the case.
Good to know where the line is

[–] stankmut@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The judge's argument is that Tesla, which he owns stock in, isn't a party in the suit against Media Matters, just X. It's a pretty stupid argument, but he wouldn't be able to hurt Media Matters if he recused himself.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ah this makes more sense. I thought I had heard about a recusal.

[–] notnotmike@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah the news of this non-recusal came too soon after the other recusal. Very confusing timeline if you didn't know there were two cases

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Judges really shouldn’t be allowed to own stock. And if they do it should be blind trusts.