Technology

58123 readers

4505 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

916

Texas judge who bought Tesla stock won’t recuse himself from X v. Media Matters (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Let me get this straight, just because they could stand to gain financially does not mean they should recuse themselves. Furthermore we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt decision X results is Y extra money to satisfy you.

If you move the goalpost past Jupiter I guess there is no corruption at all. Keep moving along nothing to see here...

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

You could have just said it was speculation. All the attacks and lies about what I am doing or what would satisfy me were completely unnecessary.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That is a pretty ridiculous response, frankly. If you're saying this judge should step aside, you should be able to back that statement up with at least some evidence.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are plenty of judges without this conflict of interest available. They recuse themselves because ethically it is what is right. There is no shame, it is normal procedure.

A judge who has a large investment should not rule on a case that they have a financial interest in. Even if you believe they could remain impartial it breeds distrust in the process.

So you are arguing they should prove 100% that their claim is true but that is not how it works. Corruption is a real issue and your hand waving isn't making it go away.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago

You're treating the fact this is a conflict of interest as a foregone conclusion, and I'm not convinced the link between the two is strong enough to be a concern.