PDA

View Full Version : Crook Judge Hudson Broke Law, Ruling Illegitimate



Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 08:46 AM
<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Federal judge Henry E. Hudson's ownership of a stake worth between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform -- the very law against which he ruled today -- raises some ethics questions for some of the nation's top judicial ethics experts.[/</span>b]


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>It isn't that Hudson's decision would have necessarily been influenced by his ownership in the company, given his established track record as a judicial conservative. But his ownership stake does create, at the very least, a perception problem for Hudson that could affect the case.</span>


"Is Judge Hudson's status as a shareholder coincidence or causation? Probably the former, but the optics aren't good," James J. Sample, an associate professor at Hofstra Law School, told TPM. [b<span style='font-size: 14pt'>]"Federal judges are required by statute to disqualify themselves from hearing a case whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It's a hyper-protective rule and for good reason. At the very least, his continued financial interest in Campaign Solutions undermines the perceived legitimacy of his decision</span>."</span>http://thewoundedbird.blogspot.com/2010/12/virginia-judge-rules-mandate-in-health.html

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that the individual mandate contained in the health care law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama this year is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson found in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought this suit separately from the other state attorney generals suing the federal government over the law. Hudson was the first judge to rule against the law. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Two other judges ruled in favor of the law, bringing the Obama administration's record thus far to 2-1. At least 13 other suits against the health care law have been dismissed on jurisdiction or standing issues</span>.
<span style="color: #990000">LMAO ooooooooooooooow A Bush Appointee no less, lol.</span>


http://thewoundedbird.blogspot.com/2010/12/virginia-judge-rules-mandate-in-health.html

more on http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

eg8r
12-14-2010, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But his ownership stake does create, at the very least, a perception problem for Hudson that could affect the case.

</div></div>Yep and when Presidential and congressional careers are at stake it is those miniscule perceptions that people will latch on to as if they were factual and run and tell the world.

He probably should have stepped back and let another judge take over. The problem is what happens when the next judge is some crazy lefty liberal. Just because he has not invested any money somewhere doesn't make him any more unbiased? People have done a lot worse for less money.

eg8r

LWW
12-14-2010, 05:11 PM
Isn't it odd that Gee has consistently given Soros and Moorecheeseburgers a pass over owning Halliburton stock ... but is insane over Cheney giving shares away. Giving the entire democrook party a pass over tax cheating while bleating about how those who create, rather than destroy, wealth don't pay enough.

And, finally, thinks that a disbarred for bribery federal judge holding a democrook congressional leadership position is just peachy ... but gets her knickers in a wad over this.

LWW

sack316
12-14-2010, 05:21 PM
C'mon Dub, Soros only invested $62 million... what's the big deal?

And it's not like Moore denied owning stock in it or anything, only for it to later be revealed on tax records that he and his wife do. Oh... wait...

And have you ever happened to look at who the wealthiest members of congress are? A lot of (D)s on up there.

Funny how so many wealthy people talk about the evils of wealthy people....

Sack

LWW
12-14-2010, 05:27 PM
If you notice it's the Kennedy/Kerry/Rockefeller crowd that bleats the most ... that being the same ones that never had to work a day in their collectivist lives.

LWW

eg8r
12-14-2010, 08:18 PM
Well, Kerry certainly does not fit the same mold as Kennedy and Rockefeller. Kerry married into money, let's just say he got lucky. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

sack316
12-14-2010, 09:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, Kerry certainly does not fit the same mold as Kennedy and Rockefeller. Kerry married into money, let's just say he got lucky. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Wonder when they'll try to establish a "married into millions" tax?

Sack

eg8r
12-15-2010, 07:48 AM
LOL, they are surely working it as fast as possible. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 08:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But his ownership stake does create, at the very least, a perception problem for Hudson that could affect the case.

</div></div>Yep and when Presidential and congressional careers are at stake it is those miniscule perceptions that people will latch on to as if they were factual and run and tell the world.

He probably should have stepped back and let another judge take over. The problem is what happens when the next judge is some crazy lefty liberal. Just because he has not invested any money somewhere doesn't make him any more unbiased? People have done a lot worse for less money.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He probably should have stepped back and let another judge take over. </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000">No, not probably. It was unethical for him to fail to recuse himself.

He had made his opinion public, belonged to and worked for an organization which was against the Bill, and particularly, THAT part of the Bill, hence, he was corrupt, for hearing the case, after having already made up his mind, and taken money, to work with others in order to repeal the bill.

the rest of your post, is irrelevant.

G.</span>

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, Kerry certainly does not fit the same mold as Kennedy and Rockefeller. Kerry married into money, let's just say he got lucky. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Wonder when they'll try to establish a "married into millions" tax?

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> Just shows that you two are apparently unaware that there is a moneyed oligarchy, which runs this country, against our will. They buy the loopholes, and earmarks, they want, and much of what goes on, has destroyed our country.

That's the ony thing about things like this, which we should be interested in.

Denying corrup[tion, only helps to destroy our Democratic Republic....

G. </span>

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:44 AM
Thanks for the response, as you already know you are irrelevant.

eg8r

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:46 AM
The Kennedy's were pretty corrupt. All that corrupt money bought nice cushy jobs in Congress and allowed them to fight a greener earth by rejecting windmills in their view.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Kennedy's were pretty corrupt. All that corrupt money bought nice cushy jobs in Congress and allowed them to fight a greener earth by rejecting windmills in their view.

eg8r </div></div>


<span style="color: #660000">LOL, typical RWNJ response. </span>

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:52 AM
I like that you have resorted back to name-calling. It has let me off the hook.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like that you have resorted back to name-calling. It has let me off the hook.

eg8r </div></div>

I didn't call you any names. I referenced a "Response" which you wrote.


Who are you to make an issue of name calling, anyway???????????

eg8r
12-15-2010, 09:01 AM
OK, can you please spell out RWNJ? You used that phrase in response to my post. I am just trying to keep you honest which appears to be a full time job.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, can you please spell out RWNJ? You used that phrase in response to my post. I am just trying to keep you honest which appears to be a full time job.

eg8r </div></div>

Stuff it. You're back on ignore.

eg8r
12-15-2010, 09:10 AM
LOL, so you want to call people names but cannot accept it when they call you out on it. Keeping you honest really is a full time job.

eg8r

Qtec
12-15-2010, 07:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He probably should have stepped back and let another judge take over. The problem is what happens when the next judge is some crazy lefty liberal. </div></div>

Do you HEAR YOURSELF!?

You are saying that you accept the crooked Judge!

Where are your principals? Do you have any?

Q

Qtec
12-15-2010, 07:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am just trying to keep you honest which appears to be a full time job.

eg8r </div></div>

Ditto.

Q

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:10 PM
Are you having trouble reading? The very first sentence explains your entire post away.

eg8r

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:10 PM
You are saying that keeping you honest is a full time job? I agree.

eg8r