Judge Who Overturned Obamacare: Conflict of Interest?

[Emmortal]

This doesn't bode well:

http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm

Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform. You don't say!

As the Huffington Post and others first noted last July, Hudson's annual financial disclosures show that he owns a sizable chunk of Campaign Solutions, Inc., a Republican consulting firm that worked this election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and a whole host of other GOP candidates who've placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms. Since 2003, according to the disclosures, Hudson has earned between $32,000 and $108,000 in dividends from his shares in the firm (federal rules only require judges to report ranges of income).
Judge Who Ruled Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Owns Piece of GOP Consulting Firm

Campaign Solutions was instrumental in the launching of Sarah Palin's PAC (though Palin has since split with the firm), and Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia attorney general who filed the lawsuit that Hudson ruled in favor of today, paid Campaign Solutions $9,000 for services rendered in 2009 and 2010.

Anyway, if you're curious why Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, ruled that health care reform's individual coverage mandate violates the constitution, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he as a major shareholder in a political messaging firm that gets paid to argue that health care reform's individual mandate is unconstitutional. It's really just that he's a Republican.

[Fury]

So?

It's amazing how the new leftist thing is to scream "conflict of interest" any time a judge rules against them.

[Emmortal]

So?

It's amazing how the new leftist thing is to scream "conflict of interest" any time a judge rules against them.

While I certainly agree, I'm just concerned this is going to be used against him in the ruling.

[240 is Back]

HAHAAH!

This one is golden.

it's shitbag politics when dems do it, and it's shitbag politics when repubs do it.

I didn't know judges were allowed to own 50k in political firms - and make rulings on federal cases involving their target causes.

brutal conflict of interest.

[Kazan]

HAHAAH!

This one is golden.

it's shitbag politics when dems do it, and it's shitbag politics when repubs do it.

I didn't know judges were allowed to own 50k in political firms - and make rulings on federal cases involving their target causes.

brutal conflict of interest.

Does that make it any less unconstitutional? This is the tipping point, if this stands the flood gates open. Then the government can use the commerce clause to mandate/regulate anything and everything. Volt is selling well, guess what? Maybe next they will decide that we should all only be eating Soilent Green.

[240 is Back]

Does that make it any less unconstitutional?

I dunno what the rules are regarding when a judge should pass on a case.

personally, if I was a judge, and it was a case i was financially involved with, I would just pass it.

Some judges become activists - which they shouldnt do.

[Kazan]

I dunno what the rules are regarding when a judge should pass on a case.

personally, if I was a judge, and it was a case i was financially involved with, I would just pass it.

Some judges become activists - which they shouldnt do.

Not sure how this is activism, its constitutional or it isn't, not alot of room to be an activist.

[George Whorewell]

Ok- when that fagg judge in California struck down a vote by the public on the grounds that the public lacked the rational basis to make such a decision and it turned out this dick tickler was a pro gay activist, did anyone here (besides those of us who are informed and intelligent) say anything? Of course not. In that case a judge with a clear agenda basically spit in the publics face, made up the law as he went along and came up with an outcome that had absolutely nothing to do with law.

Here, the LAW is clear. There is no middle ground. There is no maybe, wiggle room, or room for interpretation. If you go back to some of my postings and 333's on this issue from last year, we predicted this shit would get struck on precisely the three grounds that were ruled on today. Saying that this judge should possibly have recused himself is asinine. Did judge ass reamer recuse himself? Of course not. And in that case a totally different outcome would have been reached. Here, only a left wing political stooge looking to kiss Obama's ring would have upheld the three challenges that were issued.

Conflicts of interest only matter when an uninterested party would have reached a different conclusion. Any judge who knows the law and who calls this case right down the center, would have ruled in exactly the same fashion.

[Straw Man]

Ok- when that fagg judge in California struck down a vote by the public on the grounds that the public lacked the rational basis to make such a decision and it turned out this dick tickler was a pro gay activist, did anyone here (besides those of us who are informed and intelligent) say anything? Of course not. In that case a judge with a clear agenda basically spit in the publics face, made up the law as he went along and came up with an outcome that had absolutely nothing to do with law.

Here, the LAW is clear. There is no middle ground. There is no maybe, wiggle room, or room for interpretation. If you go back to some of my postings and 333's on this issue from last year, we predicted this shit would get struck on precisely the three grounds that were ruled on today. Saying that this judge should possibly have recused himself is asinine. Did judge ass reamer recuse himself? Of course not. And in that case a totally different outcome would have been reached. Here, only a left wing political stooge looking to kiss Obama's ring would have upheld the three challenges that were issued.

Conflicts of interest only matter when an uninterested party would have reached a different conclusion. Any judge who knows the law and who calls this case right down the center, would have ruled in exactly the same fashion.

by the same standard you can't have a heterosexual judge either.   

Just by virtue of being hetersexual that judge have a "clear agenda" right?

[Soul Crusher]

Had this been an issue, why didnt the parties bring it up sooner and ask the judge to recuse himself? 

[George Whorewell]

by the same standard you can't have a heterosexual judge either.  

Just by virtue of being hetersexual that judge have a "clear agenda" right?

Are you being sarcastic or just a moron as usual? I suppose if a rabid, pro-heterosexual marriage advocate who also happened to be a judge presided over a case where the public voted down straight marriage in favor of gay marriage and then proceeded to ignore the law, and a vote taken by the public that was conducted in accordance with the law, I would conclude that such a judge had a clear agenda and shouldn't have issued a ruling.

Your reasoning is nonsensical as usual. A trained monkey could have presided over the case and as long as he abided by the law, I have no problem with the outcome. Are you suggesting that queers can't read and interpret laws? Are black judges incapable of sentencing black defendants? When you issue a decision that ignores the law and props up your agenda, you should recuse yourself and the verdict should be annuled. I am sure that most gay judges wouldn't have flushed the law down the toilet and ignored the will of the public to prop up personal feelings and beliefs. By definition thats the exact opposite of what judges are supposed to do.

Do you need me to explain that again using smaller words and shorter sentences or do you think you can handle what I wrote?  

[Straw Man]

Are you being sarcastic or just a moron as usual? I suppose if a rabid, pro-heterosexual marriage advocate who also happened to be a judge presided over a case where the public voted down straight marriage in favor of gay marriage and then proceeded to ignore the law, and a vote taken by the public that was conducted in accordance with the law, I would conclude that such a judge had a clear agenda and shouldn't have issued a ruling.

Your reasoning is nonsensical as usual. A trained monkey could have presided over the case and as long as he abided by the law, I have no problem with the outcome. Are you suggesting that queers can't read and interpret laws? Are black judges incapable of sentencing black defendants? When you issue a decision that ignores the law and props up your agenda, you should recuse yourself and the verdict should be annuled. I am sure that most gay judges wouldn't have flushed the law down the toilet and ignored the will of the public to prop up personal feelings and beliefs. By definition thats the exact opposite of what judges are supposed to do.

Do you need me to explain that again using smaller words and shorter sentences or do you think you can handle what I wrote?  

Your immediate need to respond with personal insults suggests to me that you are incredibly insecure

Is it possible for you to engage in conversation without that or should I just go ahead skip the attempt at dialouge and join you in the personal attacks?

To your point, I assume you're suggesting that the judge in the case you're referring to is a "rabid pro gay marriage advocate"....is that correct ?

[Soul Crusher]

Personally, I really don't see how one could rule any other way on the mandate.  Its bizarre to say that just by living and breathing, and doing nothing else, that you are engaging in interstate commerce. 

The analogies to car insurance are grossly misplaced as no one is forced to have drivers license or buy a car. 

And to take the slippery slope argument, where does this end?  If the govt can force you to purchase private insurance for health, why not certain automobiles or homes?  Why not certain food or clothing?  As absurd as it appears the argument in favor of mandating an individual purchase private insurance from a private corporation under penalty of law as a matter of ones existence really sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

I for one am thrilled obamacare is likely to go by the wayside. 

[JOCKTHEGLIDE]

I dunno what the rules are regarding when a judge should pass on a case.

personally, if I was a judge, and it was a case i was financially involved with, I would just pass it.

Some judges become activists - which they shouldnt do.

just as bad as judge in california,,who hates gays but come t find out he is gay and has a boyfriend on the side as a misteress over his wife and kids,,,ha ha ha ha,,,

[Straw Man]

just as bad as judge in california,,who hates gays but come t find out he is gay and has a boyfriend on the side as a misteress over his wife and kids,,,ha ha ha ha,,,

Are you talking about the prop 8 case in CA

I can't find anything on that judge having a wife or kids or ever being an "advocate" of any kind for gay marriage