Bard spotting on Bluesky 27 December 2024

Alexis Turner (@surliertexan.bsky.social):

The timeline is relevant. The recusal should have happened PRIOR to the public outcry that could have easily been anticipated. The fact that it wasn't is indicative of the gulf btwn what passes for reasonable and proper within the courts vs outside of them.

Alexis Turner (@surliertexan.bsky.social):

I'll be a lot more blunt than I was last night because the aggressive failure to understand where the problem lies is tiresome. The judiciary is a hot goddarn corrupt mess and the public isn't the one being unreasonable here to expect its members not be invested up to their eyeballs in corporations.

Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):

They explicitly are. The judiciary are not forbidden from having retirement investments, Alexis. Should there be a rule that says that judges should only invest in index and mutual funds? Probably! Is there? No. You cannot make "being a judge" incompatible with "being financially prudent."

Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):

Should there be a rule that says that judges should only invest in index and mutual funds? Probably! Is there? No.

Thank you.

———

I had been rethinking how my sentiment could be put into different words, and travelled down this path.

Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):

In the absence of such a rule, there is no conflict to disclose, no appearance of impropriety.

Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):

Which brings us to an is-ought problem, which — I lack talent, cleverness, or intelligence to overcome.

Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):

You can start by using "ought" when you mean ought and "is" when you mean is.