Judge who overturned drilling moratorium reported owning stock in drilling compa

[Soul Crusher]

are we now changing the thread from judicial bias to the effects of obama's policies?

You're a lawyer, 333386.  If a judge who owned stock in some bullshit "green" cap/trade company just shut down Gulf drilling, you'd be shitting golf balls right now.

What say you on the potential for bias (regardless of this or any position or ruling)?

I think if the only stock holding are all energy stocks, than maybe we should look at it, however 15k is not alot of money and if itsa a tiny amount allocated amongs many other holdings, then Danny's and yours' complaints are unfounded. 

[240 is Back]

Is this judge more or less biased than Obama is towards BP and Goldman given the millions they dumped into his campaign?

Goldman, Soros, and everyone else you're bitching about = PRIVATE sector.  Scumbags as they are, they have the ability to act in their own vested financial interest.

judge = PUBLIC APOINTEE.  

I know for a fact you're a lawyer... so you "get this"... but I think the end result, and your emotion attached to it, is causing you to embrace his decision and excuse what is obviously grounds for self recusal.  He's probably giftwrapping a turnover on appeal too.

[240 is Back]

I think if the only stock holding are all energy stocks, than maybe we should look at it, however 15k is not alot of money and if itsa a tiny amount allocated amongs many other holdings, then Danny's and yours' complaints are unfounded. 

So - if the judge has only $16k of total personal investment holdings, then it's wrong.  But if he has a million, it's cool?

What # in the middle is your cutoff?  Shades of gray here bro...

[Fury]

I think if the only stock holding are all energy stocks, than maybe we should look at it, however 15k is not alot of money and if itsa a tiny amount allocated amongs many other holdings, then Danny's and yours' complaints are unfounded. 

Well said. If this was his entire portfolio, then their argument might have some water. Thumping your chest because he happens to hold some stock only makes them look childish and shows that they're desperate to discredit the judge because they didn't like his decision.

Goldman, Soros, and everyone else you're bitching about = PRIVATE sector.  Scumbags as they are, they have the ability to act in their own vested financial interest.

judge = PUBLIC APOINTEE.  

I know for a fact you're a lawyer... so you "get this"... but I think the end result, and your emotion attached to it, is causing you to embrace his decision and excuse what is obviously grounds for self recusal.  He's probably giftwrapping a turnover on appeal too.

Is there a law that says a judge can't hold stock in oil companies? Who are you to tell him which company's stocks are OK for him to hold?

[Danny]

Is this judge more or less biased than Obama is towards BP and Goldman given the millions they dumped into his campaign?

ALL politicians are corrupt. Judges on the other hand should try and successfully most of them manage to stay away from corruption, in this case he should have simply stated he has a conflict of interest.That"s the reason we trust our system.

[240 is Back]

Is there a law that says a judge can't hold stock in oil companies? Who are you to tell him which company's stocks are OK for him to hold?

Of course not.  I'm saying any judge who is to make a ruling on a company whose stock HE OWNS... should pass on this case and take the next one.  You know, like if the defendant was accused of stealing the judge's car, for example.

[Soul Crusher]

ALL politicians are corrupt. Judges on the other hand should try and successfully most of them manage to stay away from corruption, in this case he should have simply stated he has a conflict of interest.That"s the reason we trust our system.

That's simply impossible if if the judge has a diversified portfolio.  Should he recuse himself from every single case where he possibly holds stocks in a related field?

So any judge with stocks should recuse themselves from a case involving stock issues?      

[240 is Back]

That's simply impossible if if the judge has a diversified portfolio.  Should he recuse himself from every single case where he possibly holds stocks in a related field?

So any judge with stocks should recuse themselves from a case involving stock issues?      

 Until you can demosntrate the judge's holdings in this company were inconsequential, he should recuse.

What were his total holdings?

[Danny]

Well said. If this was his entire portfolio, then their argument might have some water. Thumping your chest because he happens to hold some stock only makes them look childish and shows that they're desperate to discredit the judge because they didn't like his decision.

Is there a law that says a judge can't hold stock in oil companies? Who are you to tell him which company's stocks are OK for him to hold?

that'snot the point at all. he can hold as many stocks as he wants in any company, however if a case comes before him where he has a conflict of interest it is clear he would tilt his judgement one way. I'm talkin about any case involving any judge in general. there are thousands of judges, why not recuse yourself when you know your judgement will create a shitstorm and probably be appealed especially in such a high profile case? I still can't believe 338 who's a lawyer doesn't even acknowledge the possibility for serious controversy here.

[Fury]

That's simply impossible if if the judge has a diversified portfolio.  Should he recuse himself from every single case where he possibly holds stocks in a related field?

So any judge with stocks should recuse themselves from a case involving stock issues?      

Great points. 240 and co. are pretty much implying that judges shouldn't be allowed to purchase stock. Quite authoritarian, if you ask me.

What were his total holdings?

So you don't even know? Great argument you're presenting here.

[Soul Crusher]

that'snot the point at all. he can hold as many stocks as he wants in any company, however if a case comes before him where he has a conflict of interest it is clear he would tilt his judgement one way. I'm talkin about any case involving any judge in general. there are thousands of judges, why not recuse yourself when you know your judgement will create a shitstorm and probably be appealed especially in such a high profile case? I still can't believe 338 who's a lawyer doesn't even acknowledge the possibility for serious controversy here.

Because its not a big issue and just because the cry babies at DU are screaming about it does not make it so.  

And no, its not an inherent conflict of interest.  I'm sure if Obama's lawyers feel it is so, they will make it a point on appeal.    

So go back to DU and find other nonsense we can debunk.    

[Danny]

Because its not a big issue and just because the cry babies at DU are screaming about it does not make it so.  

And no, its not an inherent conflict of interest.  I'm sure if Obama's lawyers feel it is so, they will make it a point on appeal.    

So go back to DU and find other nonsense we can debunk.    

What's DU? seriously..

[Soul Crusher]

What's DU? seriously..

Democratic Underground

Just ask Blacken - its where he gets EVERY single youtube video he posts here.  I know what he is going to post before he does.   

[Danny]

Democratic Underground

Just ask Blacken - its where he gets EVERY single youtube video he posts here.  I know what he is going to post before he does.   

He might get his stuff from there, can't accuse me of doing the same since I didn't even know what that thing was  

[Soul Crusher]

He might get his stuff from there, can't accuse me of doing the same since I didn't even know what that thing was  

You can thank me later for sending you there.    Me, I can't stand more than a minute or two at best over there. 

[Danny]

You can thank me later for sending you there.    Me, I can't stand more than a minute or two at best over there. 

No thanks, I don't need even more brainwashing than what I'm already subjected to.

GO USA!! this should be declared a "truce" day on Getbig between left and right to celebrate the USA soccer team huge victory.

[Soul Crusher]

No thanks, I don't need even more brainwashing than what I'm already subjected to.

GO USA!! this should be declared a "truce" day on Getbig between left and right to celebrate the USA soccer team huge victory.

Danny, don't me wrong, we may disagree on stuff, but like i say to KC, I enjoy the back and forth.  Its not personal, ever, unless you start saying you want soldiers to die and want to blow loads on babies. 

[loco]

$15,000! Wow, that's A LOT of money! You far-left tards are beyond pathetic.

Now if it was $1.5 million or something along those lines, you might have a point but not with $15,000. Talk about grasping at straws in desperation.  

$15,000?  He probably wipes his butt with $15,000.

[Dos Equis]

$15,000?  He probably wipes his butt with $15,000.

 

[loco]

 

[kcballer]

i don't think the whole stock thing affected his decision.  He's a judge he made the decision based on what he felt was legal, not what his wallet said.  it's 15k ffs.  A pittance.  If this guy had his whole retirement portfolio tied up in a company affected we may have a story, but he doesn't so we don't.