The fact that we just left it up to them to recuse themselves is a major unchecked flaw.
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59651 readers
2722 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
Our founding morons were the most naive idiots in existence... Sure they lived in a different time, but how could you possibly look back at any time in history and say "it's ok only moral people get positions of power so we'll play by the honor system."
The founding slavers were literally slavers. Their goal was simply to maintain their violent control. It's worked great for 200+ years.
The Founding Fathers could not have anticipated that honor and shame would be totally foreign concepts to a sitting president and congress. In the 1790s for example, pistol duels were the leading cause of death for US navy midshipmen.
I don't think anyone born back then could've forseen the sheer stupidity that is MAGA
The original dictator preceeded the existence of the US and refused to recuse himself once given power.
Their shortedsightedness is not excusable.
Agreed, no one should be above the law
Maga is the rightful heir to the founding slavers.
US citizens give way WAY too much credit to their founders. Calling them "founding fathers" almost sounds like it's a religion. I'm sure they were smart guys in their time, but they too were flawed and made a shit tonne of mistakes, like everybody else. Just fix those mistakes already.
It's totally cringe when people call those slavers their daddies. Definitely a symptom of a much larger, wacko cult.
They were fans of Montesquieu, but they also thought the VP should be the runner up in the election and that self interest would prevent one group from attaining too much power
In this case for example: the judge would want to avoid being labeled as partial because he would ruin his family name and lose his profession
It's not just that. People fought duels over their honor in the past. We don't have duels anymore, so we shouldn't rely on a judge to recuse themselves.
It is a founding concept of European law that no one should be a judge in their own case:
Duelling wouldn’t apply to this case
For obvious reasons a judge wouldn’t duel parties in a civil (or criminal) case but also the judge would be ruining his own honour
This is curiously noteworthy in The Federalist Papers. Hamilton puts a lot of faith in the human conscience all the while pointing out that if men were angels we would need no government noting that we do need checks and balances.
The Electoral College is a dead giveaway that they didn't trust the public to self-govern, and hence there needed to be back doors where gentlemen (men of means) could override the system should someone like Jimmy Carter get elected.
They had faith that people who got to power would use it in good faith (and get there in good faith) while or after having fought a war with a power that they believed wasn't being used in good faith.
I just wonder how much longer this system can hold up for. It's got different parts that conflict with itself but different people value different parts of it to the point that getting rid of any of it is going to be, ah, a bit rough.
Because they were the progressive ideologues of their day.
And were also often stymied from giving the constitution real teeth by the big slave holding states as well, don’t forget. The right wing was doing shenanigans at the very founding of the country.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
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
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 refused himself.
Ah this makes more sense. I thought I had heard about a recusal.
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
There needs to be a system in place that removes any judge from presiding over a conflicting case
Title seems to be of low relevance
Media Matters argued in a July court filing that Tesla should be disclosed by X as an "interested party" in the case because of the public association between Musk and the Tesla brand. O'Connor rejected the Media Matters motion in a ruling issued Friday.
O'Connor wrote that financial interest "means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party." His ruling said the standard is not met in this case and accused Media Matters of gamesmanship:
There needs to be a ban on any judge presiding over something within at least one or two degrees of separation of relationships with said judge. Any direct relationships, either direct relatives or friends or direct investment, and possibly second degree relationships like a relative or friend being invested, or a relative/friend of a relative/friend.
Does the American law still not have an auto-recuse system that does not even put you on a case of a company you own stock of?
I don't know, but considering the US's track record...
It does not. You need to ask a judge to recuse themselves and if that doesn’t work ask the court above them to reassign. If they even take it up. Usually the biased judge hears the case then it gets appealed. Which wastes a lot of time and a lot of money.
load more comments
(2 replies)
LOL what? they actually allow people to literally shop for an agreeable judge
Of course not, that would make the justice system a little more fair.
accuses Media Matters of seeking "backdoor recusal."
As opposed to the "front door judge shopping" which he clearly does agree with?