Judge dismisses Tesla/X link, accuses Media Matters of seeking "backdoor recusal."
See full article...
See full article...
Texas judge who bought Tesla stock won’t recuse himself from X v. Media Matters
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
What matters is whether he knows he owns them. The only sure fire way around this is a blind trust.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Judge shopping is extremely dodgy, as is the ability of a judge to make their own decision on whether they are reasonably seen as impartial in any given case. Him saying no to this should automatically kick it somewhere else for a final decision.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Your country's judiciary is rotten to the core, from the bottom to the top. They're not concerned with the rule of law, only their self-interest and the interests of their paymasters.
If there's a close election in November, then you can't depend on them to do the right thing. If there's any kind of legitimate dispute regarding its outcome the judiciary will almost certainly side with Trump, whether his claim is valid or not, and that will be the end of American democracy.
You're teetering on the brink of dictatorship. The only hope you have of avoiding it is GET OUT AND FUCKING VOTE in November in numbers too large to possibly challenge.
And even if you do win, you'll still have your work cut out for you. You'll get 4 years to fix the broken and non-existent checks and balances before the right wing push some other hideous candidate to do the same thing that Trump is attempting now.
If there's a close election in November, then you can't depend on them to do the right thing. If there's any kind of legitimate dispute regarding its outcome the judiciary will almost certainly side with Trump, whether his claim is valid or not, and that will be the end of American democracy.
You're teetering on the brink of dictatorship. The only hope you have of avoiding it is GET OUT AND FUCKING VOTE in November in numbers too large to possibly challenge.
And even if you do win, you'll still have your work cut out for you. You'll get 4 years to fix the broken and non-existent checks and balances before the right wing push some other hideous candidate to do the same thing that Trump is attempting now.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Is it that bad in Texas? It is hard to imagine judges doing this from where I live.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Democrats not making sweeping power grabs to punish the Republican Party and it's donors for a century of gaming the system is the problem (regardless of how hypocritical it may appear that republicans can't win in some blue districts)
You don't have to retaliate against the poorly informed rank and file, you just need to freeze assets of wealthy donors and convict false victims on domestic terrorism charges or corruption, or impeach on appearance of corruption.
Churn out a few more movies of Nazis while beating Republicans over the head with the phrase 'small-town fascism' and link it to right wing populism/terrorism in a bare knuckle ideological brawl for once fighting as if their political lives depend on it...
A free exchange of ideas does not require allowing the right wing to resurrect bad faith rebuttals to settled doctrines in warmed over conspiracy theories, nor does it require ensuring that losing an election doesn't cost them their campaign infrastructure and the Federalist Society outright.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
A system with little check in authority and a system rigged to protect those in such positions. The police for example. Or Catholic priests, or really any religious setting that gives someone power over others.
The courts were supposed to be the final answer to all those issues. Finding the truth, administering justice, and following the law and Constitution. Justice for wrongdoing.
Now the courts have become much like any other organization that has some genuinely good people… who are being drowned out by the corrupt. The rot starts at the top.
Biden was right about court reform. I know he wouldn’t have been able to get much of any of it passed at any point in the last 4 years due to Congress but I do wish he’d come out for it a long time ago when everyone else was.
The courts were supposed to be the final answer to all those issues. Finding the truth, administering justice, and following the law and Constitution. Justice for wrongdoing.
Now the courts have become much like any other organization that has some genuinely good people… who are being drowned out by the corrupt. The rot starts at the top.
Biden was right about court reform. I know he wouldn’t have been able to get much of any of it passed at any point in the last 4 years due to Congress but I do wish he’d come out for it a long time ago when everyone else was.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
What's your beef? He's following the example of the highest Court in the land.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
What is the logic behind letting judges decide on their own recusals? Here in the Netherlands, if one of the parties before a judge asks for a recusal, an indepent chamber of recusals decides on the matter, instead of the same judge that was being accused of showing bias in the first place.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I mean, I haven no idea the judge's actual financial situation. All we know is his stake is between $15,000-50,000. That is a pretty wide range. And that was the range at the time he purchased it. Now their pay is ~$200k-270k a year. I'd think in the northern district for Texas, that would set you up pretty handsomely.
But a lot of well-off people are terrible with money too.
That said, any knowing stake (that isn't maybe part of a mutual fund or some other diverse portfolio you probably aren't teasing apart, and it would need to be a minority stake at that, which the vast majority of mutual funds are) should disqualify you.
I make a lot less than that judge, but I know $15k would influence the ever-loving crap out of me, even if I wouldn't want it to. Even if I didn't think the outcome of the case before me would really impact the value of my investment in any meaningful way. Even if you put it at $5000. Maybe $100 or $500 I wouldn't think twice about it. Then again, I'd recuse the heck out of myself. Maybe why I am not a judge...
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Index funds or blind trusts. The same should be required of immediate family members. Probably also restrict gifting significantly more TO such individuals also. Make it taxable and declarable for anything that isn't de minimus (I don't know, under $200) with maybe higher exceptions for lifetime events, such as marriage, birth of a child, retirement, etc. (maybe make it $500 then). And can't accept anything from anyone with business before your court or lobbyists.
They DO get paid and compensated well enough that shouldn't be a hardship upon them.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Any decision will be for naught as either side can and will appeal. The judge is a total moron who feels that he is above the law.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Snarky Robot
Ars Legatus Legionis
Twitter is very much still bleeding cash. Watching for when (I seriously doubt it’s if) he’s going to have to sell more stock to fund Twitter is a potential money maker for investors. A “victory” in this case may make it seem like he’s less likely to do that (stock price stays stable or rises).
I put “victory” in quotes because the goal here is not the immediate return of advertising, it’s the destruction of people willing to criticize his platform for the abject bigotry it pushes and the unwillingness of people to even research it. But I doubt that’s the primary thing hindering potential advertisers. It’s the fact that’s it’s obviously platforming (and forming business relationships with) bigots, without the need for it to be quantified. And his general behavior. People willing to advertise now aren’t going to be cowed by someone showing that hate speech under Elon Musk is greater than it’s ever been, and people are seeing ads against it.
Regardless, Twitter relies on workers from his other companies, and cannot function as an independent company without the direct support of a man who both runs Tesla and has his primary source of net worth as TSLA stick. If he loses this case, as he should, it’ll make a sell-off marginally more likely, which would drive down the stock.
None of Musk’s companies are truly independent.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Whoosh!
Federal judges are appointed by the president, and approved by the Senate.
The president is elected nationally, under terms of electoral college voting. The drawing of representative districts has no bearing.
Senators are elected state-side, so the drawing of representative districts has no bearing.
Upvote
-3
(2
/
-5)
Here we go with the "They're just as corrupt as we are." myth. Contemporary 'conservative values' (read Fascism) are rejected by a clear majority of the American electorate, so the Repugs have resorted to cheating and corruption to gain and maintain power by the few over the many. Courts aren't meant to be political organizations. Public will should be achieved through the legislative process and not undermined by judges destroying years of precedent by obvious political gain and outright corruption. Republicans are the ones who need corruption to hold power and game the system through the courts. Your both sides nonsense doesn't reflect reality.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
You forgot the second half of the quote. Context matters.
"a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." This includes cases in which the judge has a direct financial interest, and cases where the judge has "any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding."
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Well, if I had tens of thousands of dollars invested in something, and my ruling might help me gain some money, or lose some money, I would be tempted to put my thumb on the scales of justice, though of course I would never, ever do such a thing.
Yeah, recusal is in order.
Yeah, recusal is in order.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
The absolute, unmitigated gall of this corrupt PoS accusing Media Matters of gamesmanship when the only reason he is even looking at the case in the first place is absurd and disgusting judge shopping by X.....
This so-called "judge" should be removed from the bench immediately and by any means necessary.
The judiciary needs a mass-purge of all these corrupt, federalist society anointed, domestic terrorists.
This so-called "judge" should be removed from the bench immediately and by any means necessary.
The judiciary needs a mass-purge of all these corrupt, federalist society anointed, domestic terrorists.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Which is why he's the one running on a Vengeance ticket. The Democrats are largely running on a joyful ticket.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Trump has promised no more elections if he wins this time. We're pretty close.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Cleaning up Trump's mess, getting out corrupt judges is not authoritarianism. It's exactly the opposite.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I've had 13 presidents in my lifetime and there's never been a clearer choice than in this race. The two sides couldn't be more stark.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Not them, but there is an idea that the states themselves are kind of a gerrymander, given that there are a number of Republican states that make it difficult for anyone who's not a white male to vote. And with that, since the Senate is the one that confirms judges, affecting the balance of the Senate affects who gets through.
Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Any assertions you make pertaining to your professional integrity are speculative.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
That's an unrealistic view of the duties and powers of the President setting voters up for disappointment. For enduring, substantial change the President requires assent of Congress. The federal government is cumbersome by design. Changing the framework requires Constitutional Amendment, which is incredibly difficult (by design) even in less polarized eras.
Modern Presidents have continued to expand the powers of the office, made easier by a partisan Congress less concerned about losing legislative influence. Each President tries to build and expand the powers assumed by the previous as no one wants to burden themselves with limitations for their short tenure. While you may like one President having expanded powers the risk intensifies of a future President utilizing powers in a way less to the benefit of the people. Many believe that has already happened.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Like pretty well all of Trump's "Statements", it's vague enough to mean almost anything. But one thing Trump is good at is throwing red meat to his supporters.
From this article where he was "clarifying" his remarks, he said (when talking about the christian vote):
Which leaves us with another vaguely threatening statement, and no explanation of what it means to "fix" the country. But this is the sort of thing that his supporters lap up.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Yeah, I made a reply to RickRoy etal's comment yesterday expressing a similar view. We don't need more decree we need democracy. We can gain judicial reform and securing our rights through legislation and constitutional amendment.
The last thing we need is expanded presidential powers. The Supreme Court's ruling on that score was frightening.
Last edited:
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I mean, one of you is missing the point of the post he's responding to, but I don't think it's numerobis.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Yup, the generous interpretation is that there will be so much support for Republicans and very little for Democrats that all future elections will be landslides for Republicans. The subtext is in how he intends to get to that overwhelming support... his supporters know what he means and like it.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The amendment process was designed for a nation of 13 states. While it's true that it's often required something extraordinary to get an amendment passed (a criminal VP, a war, a major sociopolitical movement like suffrage or temperance, the assassination of a president), we nonetheless managed to pass 16 of them between 1795 and 1971, and 1 since.
The framers didn't intend for constitutional amendments to be easy. But they certainly didn't intend for them to be impossible, either.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Back when the Gay marriage scare started to raise its ugly head, there were a lot of conservative commentators saying things like "What's next? Being able to marry your dog?". My internal thoughts of this (aside from vehemently objecting to the anti-gay sentiment) was "Why do you hate the constitution?". Because if enough support existed in the US, then there could be an amendment that allowed people to marry their dogs1. The process allows it, and to deny the process is to deny the constitution. But of course self awareness isn't a strong point for people who depend on moral outrage for their paycheck.
1. Of course the chances of actually having such an amendment is very very close to zero
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Sorry, doesn't seem like much of a "back door" motion when they publically point out you're financially tied to a defendant in the case you're overseeing 
Frankly, that sentence is one step above objecting to testimony at trial by saying, "the witness is turning the jury against my client!"
Frankly, that sentence is one step above objecting to testimony at trial by saying, "the witness is turning the jury against my client!"
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Vote harder is not a solution. The oligarchy no longer responds to voters. In fact it deposed their democratic choice because of bad polling weeks before the formal nomination process. I don't know what fixes this, but voting isn't it.
Upvote
-12
(0
/
-12)
I can't figure out what context you think I missed. You're just adding a couple sentence of further clarification.
The context I was basing my statement on is that Reed O'Connor is a partisan hack. His impartiality is definitely questionable when it comes to culture war issues that his chosen party cares about. He's got a track record of activist rulings that have no basis in law and get overturned on appeal.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)