Agnostic.com

3 7

##131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest

Link is from an alternate site but in fact a copy of a paywalled article from WSJ. I say this because a know-it-all pompous ass somewhere on this site might question Slashdot as a "credible" source. [yro.slashdot.org]

barjoe 9 Sep 28
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

The first sentence says it all. If the judges had a financial interest they should not be hearing the case.

How many folks with retirement investments in mutual funds know which companies they are "invested in" at ALL times (much less at any given time) ?

@FearlessFly With mutual funds you do not know.

@FearlessFly That is quite possible in some cases. I'm sure many of these judges owned equities in companies to which they were sitting in judgement and should have recused themselves.

1

Slashdot is a 'nerd' blog, not a 'source' πŸ˜›

original source (can be accessed from private browser windows) :

[wsj.com]

alternate source :

[forbes.com]

. . . short summary :

[eminetra.co.za]

If I had posted WSJ you would've complained, as you have bitched (legitimately so) in the past, that the post was paywalled. I'm not that familiar with Slashdot, of course you're an expert on everything, but I posted a non paywalled mirror of the article. I just use my phone as I assume most users on this site do. I basically only go on my laptop to zoom and to update it.

@barjoe I use private windows in all browsers (Opera has a built-in VPN) , virtually NO websites are 'paywalled' to me. πŸ™‚

2

The jails aren't big enough for all the people who should be incarcerated

I have a plan that will work for most. I live in a community with a lot of boats, fishing boats. We could take the people out into the ocean a distance commensurate with their crime and allow them to attempt to swim back to shore. If they make it to shore they get to go to jail. The distance could be figured in a manner like a number of miles per dollar amount of the crime. Trump would get the maximum of three hundred miles. Of course no one can help him and he, like everyone else is totally on their own. I think the numbers of people in jail would greatly be decreased. Of course we have to make absolutely sure they are guilty and not just falling through the cracks of the justice system. We can work on this.

@dalefvictor isn’t that kind of like the old dunking method of justice, where the Puritans submerged the accused under water for a certain amount of time and if they survived they were considered not guilty. If they were dead, guilty!

@Barnie2years No! They have to actually be proven guilty, then they get the swim.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:625144
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.