Day 30 of being fucking bewildered that I, a non-voting member of my city's bicycle commission, have stricter ethical laws binding me than those for judges and politicians.

This is fucking bullshit.

I review science proposals for the government that come from private companies responding to an announcement about grants for specific kinds of technology.

I have to submit a financial form every year disclosing stock that I own to make sure there are no conflicts of interest.

The fact that is guy is allowed to shrug and say “nah” and just keep going blows my mind.

Gotta love that Conservative mantra:

• I get to do what I want.
• You have to do what I say.

The judge doesn't have to recuse himself, because <insert specious reasoning> and fuck you. Also, he's the big, bad judge, and he's going to chide the plaintiff's attorneys in a show of dominance.

Texas is basically a Conservative rubber stamp, at this point. I hope we get Kamala/Walz, because we desperately need judicial reform.

The fact that we just left it up to them to recuse themselves is a major unchecked flaw.

The reason to have courts at all is to have an alternative to violence to resolve conflicts of interest.

This is why black market negotiations are done featuring a lot of well-armed guys.

This is also why the public needs to be able to trust the courts are impartial.

This is why even the appearance of misconduct cannot be tolerated.

So at the time your goons kill their goons to resolve the dispute, kill the corrupt judge as well, because its his fault you had to resort to violence in the first place.

Right wingers in the US have decided to collectively do whatever the hell they want.

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.

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

Democracy in America in a nutshell.

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?

We should've let them secede.

Papa Clarence would be proud

There needs to be a system in place that removes any judge from presiding over a conflicting case

Of course it’s fucking Reed O’connor

This will get overturned on appeal. He’s frequently overturned for shit like this.