Monday, December 13, 2010

As Expected: Judge Henry Hudson Rules For Virginia And Mostly Against Constitutionality of Obamacare

THIS SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE since Judge Hudson is a Republican appointee. Who knows how short-lived it will be. However, this should be cause for celebration in many conservative circles with those who believe the federal government has vastly over-reached its constitutional mandate in both the process and product of Obamacare, especially with its mandate to buy health insurance or else.

I'm thrilled and have an idea: Let's name a parkway---maybe in New York---after this fine, conservative judge....wink, wink, nod, nod.

REDSTATE has preliminary summary.



William said...

2 things are interesting to note. First, it was the Republicans that first supported the healthcare mandate going back to Nixon, then GHW Bush, and most recently GOP frontrunner, Romney. In 1993, the conservative Heritage Foundation pushed the individual mandate. As soon as it was proposed by Obama, it is suddenly called 'socialist.'

Second, interesting to note Bush appointed Judge Hudson has been bought and paid for. Financial disclosure forms show that from 2003 through 2008, Hudson received money from "Campaign Solutions Inc.," a Republican online communications firm that works for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics dedicated to the repeal of Obamacare, including the RNC and NRCC.

Also, Judge Hudson is famous for sentencing David Vasquez - an innocent mentally retarded man to prison for 5 years until DNA evidence exonerated him. Later Hudson said on the case, "I offer no apologies."

Judge Hudson also admitted that in his campaign for the office of Commonwealth (State) Attorney in Virginia he may have violated federal law by campaigning on the job. From his book: "I lied to the General Assembly and the Fairfax County Bar Association when I told them unequivocally that I had no intention of seeking a federal judgeship.”

Nice judge you have there.

Webutante said...

And your point exactly is...? Conservatives have no right to....what when it comes to Obamacare? And that is the subject of this post, not some wide-ranging diatribe of all things on the right.

fraydna52 said...

1) Some Republicans in the past supported a healthcare mandate. And some did not. How does this relate to the ruling?

2) The judge who ruled that requiring an American citizen to purchase health insurance is a violation of the Commerce Clause under the Constitution received money from a Republican organization opposed to "Obamacare". The concern may be that there is a conflict of interest, but that does not render the ruling invalid or without merit.

3) This same judge sentenced a man who was later exonerated by DNA evidence. If the evidence was not available at the time of the sentencing, the judge made his decision based on the information he had at the time. Again, how is this related to the ruling?

4) The judge admitted to wrongdoing by lying about his future plans regarding a federal judgeship. Again, this is an unfavorable piece of information about the judge, but how does it relate to the ruling?

Do we really want to go down the path of examining every judge's associations, political connections, or personal failings?

Webutante said...

Thank you fraydna, for this.

Also, I like it that Judge Hudson admitted his dishonesty about not ever running. He probably believed what he said himself at the time he made it. Yet that doesn't change the fact or lack thereof of constitutionality of the individual mandate and forcing people into commerce they have no interest in partaking of.

William said...

The bottom line is this... Hudson would have recused himself if he were honest. 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).

Also, Cuccinelli, known as a far-right "birther" conspiracy theorist who is championing his state's right to discriminate against gays. He is so far into conspiracy land that he said he might not register his newborn son for a Social Security number because "it is being used to track you." He has immediately started fundraising off the ruling. Great example of a young comservative... off in crazy land.

Webutante said...

Hudson is a shareholder of Campaign Solutions, Inc. (a Republican consulting firm. For 2008, Hudson reported income of between $5,000 and $15,000 from the firm. In December 2010 the company released a statement that "Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company."


Cuccinelli at first publicly stated that it was possible that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and that the validity of any law that he signed could be challenged to raise the question of Obama's citizenship. In response to the controversy surrounding his statements, Cuccinelli on March 15, 2010, issued a statement clarifying that he believes that Obama was born in the United States.


A little more information to clarify. Still none of it has any bearing on the constitutional issue of whether Congress has over-stepped its bounds in mandating individual commerce.

William said...

Further, Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia attorney general who is challenged the law, actually paid Campaign Solutions $9,000 in the last election. What that practically means is that Judge Hudson was deciding a case in which one of the litigants was a client of the company he owns as a shareholder.

Note, previously Judge Norman Moon found the mandate constitutional, and so too did Judge George Steeh. No such conflicts of interest in those cases.

Anyway, The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.

Hudson pointedly refused. That's good news, because there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something.

This is really a win for healthcare reform.

mRed said...

"This is really a win for healthcare reform."

So, in the end you're supporting the opinion of a lying bad judge birther who has conflict of interest and has formed a conspiracy with another in the question of health care mandates?

If you, in your comments replaced Republican with Democrat, it would make perfect sense.

I will congratulate you on your nitpicking and playing connect-the-dots. Using information that is not pertinent is always the best option when making decisions about those with whom you disagree.

William said...

And you'll notice Webutante could not refute the fact that nutjob Ken Cuccinelli said he might not register his newborn son for a Social Security number because "it is being used to track you" ... because Cuccinelli said it on video tape. That's why conservatives hate Media Matters so much, because it reports exactly what people say, and they back it up with video. Facts are hard to get around. However, even with iron clad evidence, conservatives are champion denialists.

Webutante said...

EVERYTHING reports what people say and think in our ever-increasing transparent world of no secrets where even a passing thought is recorded and held up as gospel.

I have zero interest and zero time to refute any of that. But I love the way you constantly try to hijack every thread you come on to over here and reframe the issue.

fraydna52 said...

All I can say is that context matters. If you are naive enough to believe that a video is always the whole truth, wait until you are the one shown on YouTube or interviewed and selectively edited.

Given our very real loss of freedoms in this country, maybe it's not so crazy to be skeptical of our government.

Webutante said...

Our government, grocery/drug stores and everyone we buy even a nail from keeps and compiles all the data on each of us. I'm sure we would be horrified at the extent of it. Actually Ken's idea has crossed my mind, as it probably has most sentient human beings....Unfortunately fraydna, it's not going to get better as transparency and a lack of privacy continue to make its way into every nook and cranny of our lives.