Nearly half the potential jurors summoned for a high-profile class-action lawsuit against Elon Musk were dismissed after openly conceding they could not be fair, with several bluntly declaring that they hate him.
The case, unfolding in the Northern District of California, underscores how deep-seated hostility toward prominent conservatives and free-market advocates has seeped into the judicial process, particularly in liberal enclaves, according to Gateway Pundit. Jury selection began this week before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, a Clinton appointee and younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in a venue long regarded as friendly territory for progressive causes and hostile to disruptive innovators like Musk.
Breyer opened the proceedings by acknowledging Musks extraordinary public profile, telling lawyers that the Tesla and SpaceX chief had reached a level of notoriety like the President of the United States, and that even if they search the entire country, it would be nearly impossible to find someone without an opinion about him. As a public figure he will excite strong views, and for him in particular, people have strong views, Breyer added, before stressing the legal standard: The question is, and courts are very clear about this, is whether they can set them aside.
That question proved difficult to answer in practice, as it took more than five hours to seat just nine jurors deemed capable of setting aside their personal views of Musk and evaluating the evidence impartially. Out of a pool of 93 prospective jurors, 40 were immediately excused after raising their hands to admit they could not overcome their biases against the billionaire entrepreneur.
Juror questionnaires revealed a level of animus that went well beyond ordinary skepticism of the wealthy or powerful. One potential juror wrote that he could be impartial in a civil matter but would feel a moral obligation to convict Musk and send him to prison if the case were criminal, effectively confessing that ideology would trump evidence in a more serious proceeding.
Another prospective juror declared that he disagreed with the existence of billionaires altogether, a sentiment that reflects the hard-left hostility to wealth creation rather than any specific conduct by Musk. A woman singled out Musks mass layoffs of Twitters content moderators after his acquisition of the platform, expressing hatred for his decision to cut back the very censorship apparatus conservatives have long criticized.
Musks attorney, Stephen Broome, captured the atmosphere in the courtroom when he observed that so many people hate Musk that were becoming desensitized. He noted that in ordinary litigation, a questionnaire response openly professing hatred for a party would typically result in automatic dismissal, yet here such responses were disturbingly common.
The lawsuit, brought by Twitter investors, alleges that Musk violated federal securities laws during his drawn-out and highly public deliberations over whether to purchase the company in 2022. Plaintiffs contend that his public wavering was a calculated scheme to depress Twitters share price before he ultimately closed the $44 billion acquisition in October 2022, thereby inflicting financial losses on shareholders.
The trial, expected to last about three weeks, may feature testimony from Musk himself as well as former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, placing the platforms turbulent transition under a fresh legal microscope. While some observers have treated the spectacle of Musks detractors vying for a seat in the jury box as fodder for jokes, the episode raises a more serious concern about whether conservative-leaning figures can receive genuinely fair trials in heavily Democratic jurisdictions.
As a public figure he will excite strong views, and for him in particular, people have strong views, Breyer reiterated, again framing the core challenge as whether jurors can truly bracket their personal animus. With the trial set to begin on March 2, the proceedings will test not only the specific securities claims at issue, but also whether a justice system increasingly marinated in partisan passions can still deliver equal treatment to those who challenge progressive orthodoxy.
Login