906
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 post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
906 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59554 readers
3295 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
It's because the politicians make the laws. And they want their judges on the bench to rule in their favor. Laws forcing judges to recuse don't help the politicians ignore the laws they find inconvenient.
If you can get the street sweeper to get the bike lane near my house I'll give you a half a can of chamois butt'r
I'm trying to secure wholly separate bike lanes, or at least flexi-posts, anything but a sharrow or a line of paint. Tbh, I dunno how that'll work with a street sweeper.
There are little sidewalk sweepers about the size of golf carts that get used by colleges, it would work perfectly for a bidirectional bike lane.
The mini sweepers work just fine in both Toronto and Montreal. Heck, in Montreal they clear the bike lanes even in the winter, often better than the roads. Additionally the local bike share is open 365 days a year now, they are equipped with studded tires between November and April.
Curious to hear about your experience.
Can you get narrower car lanes? Trying to cross an 8 lane stroad that has 12ft wide lanes in the middle of town is hellish.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
The system is working as designed.
Nothing to see here, move along.
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.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The fact that we just left it up to them to recuse themselves is a major unchecked flaw.
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."
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
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(8 replies)
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.
If it matters, the judge is a Republican.
They seem to be in the news more often....
You didn't have to mention his party, everyone knew he was a Republican from the headline.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
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
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
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?
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›