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
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.
For anyone confused by this headline, there are two trials this judge is considering for X
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
Judges really shouldn’t be allowed to own stock. And if they do it should be blind trusts.