• NotNotMike
    link
    fedilink
    English
    293 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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      93 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
        link
        English
        4
        edit-2
        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
      link
      English
      43 months ago

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

      • NotNotMike
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33 months ago

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