Putting aside the conflict of interest point even, why do these judges need the money? They have cushy life tenure jobs, and if they’re ever bored or even removed they’d still find some high paying legal job somewhere. What’s the need for the extra money? If they’re getting paid too little to make ends meet, bump up their salaries but no stocks
I think the mifepristone case illustrates why it's a little silly to expect judges to have enough expertise to competently rule on all manner of disparate subject areas.
Kacsmaryk is a lawyer by training and religious zealot by...I don't know, choice? Whatever. Neither of those thing put him in a position to judge the safety and efficacy of any given medication, let alone mifepristone.
All you have to do is mention 'a court in Texas', and we know law and respect for the law go out the window.
But I'm still astonished at suing advertisers for not advertising on a platform. I will never understand this. Nor will I understand the donor discovery shenanigans in the Media Matters case.
I do know that if Trump is elected, Musk will do to the country what he did to Twitter. We can add to this: If Trump is elected again, what we're seeing with the Fifth and SCOTUS is nothing compared to what we'll see in the future.
Seriously federal judges (like legislators) shouldn't be allowed to own individual stock.
Putting aside the conflict of interest point even, why do these judges need the money? They have cushy life tenure jobs, and if they’re ever bored or even removed they’d still find some high paying legal job somewhere. What’s the need for the extra money? If they’re getting paid too little to make ends meet, bump up their salaries but no stocks
People are greedy. Simple as that.
"and the advertisers are being sued are seeking to keep the cases together."
I think you meant to not have that first "are" here.
"and the advertisers being sued are seeking to keep the cases together."
I think the mifepristone case illustrates why it's a little silly to expect judges to have enough expertise to competently rule on all manner of disparate subject areas.
Kacsmaryk is a lawyer by training and religious zealot by...I don't know, choice? Whatever. Neither of those thing put him in a position to judge the safety and efficacy of any given medication, let alone mifepristone.
All you have to do is mention 'a court in Texas', and we know law and respect for the law go out the window.
But I'm still astonished at suing advertisers for not advertising on a platform. I will never understand this. Nor will I understand the donor discovery shenanigans in the Media Matters case.
I do know that if Trump is elected, Musk will do to the country what he did to Twitter. We can add to this: If Trump is elected again, what we're seeing with the Fifth and SCOTUS is nothing compared to what we'll see in the future.
Seems like Matthew Kacsmaryk is jonesing for a seat on a post-2025 SCOTUS. John Roberts, watch your back!