3 ms·
That's attacking the person rather than the action - were the fact checking moderations wrong? Sure, their personal political bias should put them up to a grea
by pbhjpbhj 6y ago
That's attacking the person rather than the action - were the fact checking moderations wrong?
Sure, their personal political bias should put them up to a greater level of scrutiny; but it they can still fact check without bias.
So, have they?
- free_rms 6y agoThe appearance is disqualifying on its own. They're gonna get dragged for these tweets any time they fact check anything, even if their judgment is always impeccable.
- surfpel 6y ago> They're gonna get dragged for these tweets They’ll get dragged for doing anything that doesn’t align with X party. If not his tweets than something else. Not saying people shouldn’t have common sense about what they post on a public forum tho...
- free_rms 6y agoYeah, but why hand them ammo. Like you say. I'm pretty sure most judges would recuse if they had statements like that surface. Sections (a) (1) and especially (a) (5) here, for example: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_11disqualification/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...
- remarkEon 6y agoI think it's a much greater stretch to pretend that this person's obvious political bias doesn't leak into the "fact checking" they choose to do - or not to do, which is kind of the bigger issue. They may "correctly", ignoring the philosophically charged issue of "correct", fact check a certain politician but choose to ignore a different politician's statements that would otherwise be noted as incorrect under the same or similar standard.