• NotNotMike@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 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.

      • NotNotMike@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

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