Health care mandate unconstitutional judge has financial ties to A.G. filing case

[JohnWxy]

Henry Hudson the judge who decided the healh care individual mandate is unconstitional has financial ties to the Attorney General who filed the case that was heard by Hudson. From Huffington Post back in July:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/henry-hudson-judge-in-hea_n_665240.html

The federal judge set to issue one of the first decisions on the Obama administration's health care law has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform.

This week, District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson is likely to render a procedural verdict on the Virginia Attorney General's lawsuit which contends that the federal health care overhaul is unconstitutional. The Bush appointee has been hearing oral arguments in his Richmond courtroom dating back to March. His verdict could serve as an important template for more than a dozen other states following Virginia's lead.

But with power comes scrutiny. And as judgment day approaches, a Democratic source sends over judicial disclosure forms Hudson filed that could raise questions about his impartiality. From 2003 through 2008, Hudson has been receiving "dividends" from Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments. In 2008, he reported income of between $5,000 and $15,000 from the firm. (Data from 2009 was not available at the Judicial Watch database.)

A powerhouse Republican online communications firm, Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform's repeal). The president of the firm, Becki Donatelli, is the wife of longtime GOP hand Frank Donatelli, and is an adviser toformer Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.
(more)

[madrchsod]

1. these guys just reek of moral decay...

[Abq_Sarah]

2. I am less concerned

About any financial ties with one judge than I am about a congress that declares I'm engaging in commerce if I don't purchase a product from a private company.

[golddigger]

3. +1

:thumbsup:

[JohnWxy]

5. When they overturn HCR and in a few years when you or your employer can't afford Health Insurance &

you go to the hospital to get your medical care at the emergency ward what a surprise it will be when they say, since we don't get help from the local and federal governments anymore (people didn't want the community 'messing' in their health care) we now can only give care to those who can pay for it with cash. IF you are concerned you're having a heart attack, the diagnostics for that would run about $1,500 (stress test). If the results are that you need heart surgery, be prepared to hand over $50,000 to $100,000 depending on the procedure, the doctor (and to some degree where you are in the country). Don't have that kinda cash laying around?? Well, it's been good to know ya!.

Ain't going it alone fun??

in 2004 the FEderal Government paid out $35 Billion for uncompensated care provided by hospitals. If we do not want the community involved with helping us get health care then we we'll have to stop State, local and Federal Government from compensating hospitals and doctors for providing service to those who don't have health insurance. The number of people without health insurance will continue to grow rapidly if we do not have some system of health care. Many of those who happily are covered now, will not be able to afford it in not too many years.

[midnight]

6. ++++1111111

[Smashcut]

10. Indeed

[stopbush]

4. Activist Conservative Judge Legislates From Bench!!!

Why aren't Boner and others screaming about this?

[Igel]

11. Because they don't share your definition of "activist judge."

There are a few.

The most common one in RW literature hasn't changed for a decade or more and is really quite different from the way the left uses it.

Nonetheless, the left claims to have gotten it from the right, and it's true that there are people on the right who have used the left's definition for years--although most picked it up from the NYT and such sources. The term's been bleached a lot of its original meaning in this usage.

Yet the fact remains that the left's definition fails to cover all the right's examples and wrongly includes examples that the right (mostly) doesn't recognize as covered by the term.

Abductive reasoning provided a possible definition for the left, among those who couldn't be bothered to ask the right what they meant by the term back in the '80s and '90s. Then they simply assumed that since they liked the definition, it must be the one used by the right. Shoddy, that.

[zbdent]

7. when I hear about the people who use the "govt. force you to buy insurance" tactic,

I think: "So, are you happy with people getting it for free?" (meaning that, if they're pushing the Repug tactic of "Hey, it's unconstitional to ...", would they be any less vocal about someone getting it for free when they've spent their entire lives eating junk food and taking risks, and then have the taxpayers pay for it?)

[girl gone mad]

9. People will still get it for free.

The only difference would be that now the insurance companies get a big cut of those transactions.

[NorthCarolina]

8. Mandate or not, there will still be many that cannot afford health insurance. nt