Judge rules Obamascare unconstitutional.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

2003 is 7 years ago.

Does he still have a personal stake in this company?

Go back to the Judicial Watch website and click on his 2009 Financial Disclosure Report. It shows that he still does own stock in Campaign Solutions, Inc.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Go back to the Judicial Watch website and click on his 2009 Financial Disclosure Report. It shows that he still does on stock in Campaign Solutions, Inc.

This Republican is wagging his head in disbelief.


The most eggregious attacks on our freedoms, the most eggregious offenses of our "system" seem to come from my party.


I hope I am wrong on this. I really hope that you guys are wrong and I've just been told some mistruths or something.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I bet you are "reserving judgment" on President Obama's birth certificate also, aren't you? lol.

But you press for a huge and choking gubment. The majority of us are adults and can run our own lives. The death panels and the gubement funded abortion are tops for ya?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Sam

If it ever does go to the Supreme Court, they will probably do their little sidestep dance and send it back to a lower court or maybe they'll just refuse to hear the case at all

I don't know about that. Possibly, but I would think they would want to set down a definitive answer. I think the Supreme Court will probably rule on it, considering what a large issue it is.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Go back to the Judicial Watch website and click on his 2009 Financial Disclosure Report. It shows that he still does own stock in Campaign Solutions, Inc.

The constitution of this country allows us to own common stock.

If we become communists as you wish. the People will own everything collectively.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Twisp

LOL

I guess we know why Hudson ruled it unconstitutional when two other Federal judges have already upheld the law's constitutionality.

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).


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.

http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-...onsulting-firm

He owns stock in a company that is a consulting firm that has nothing to do with the case he heard.

Selectively choosing the clients of the consulting firm is a bit misleading. They exist to help organizations make theirpresence known and solicit money on the web. organizations like:

George Mason University
Homeownership Alliance
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund
National Organization on Disability
National Pork Producers Association
National Realtors Association
Northern Virginia Urban League
Oregon Restaurant Association
Saint Luke's Hospital
Small Business Survival Committee
The Reform Institute (headed by John McCain)
United Cerebral Palsy Association
U.S.O.
West Virginia Breeders Classics

This company does not benefit in anyway from his ruling. He does not control the company, he made investments in a company (the claims that he owns substantial interest seem misleading as well) that has a broad range of interest. Considering the complaint being made against him he would have to withdraw from every case involving restaurants, hospitals, institutions of higher learning, small businesses, politics, law enforcement, pigs, disability, etc.

[coadie]

Supreme court Justice Elena Keagan has a conflict of interest on the matter. Her need to recuse herself from hearing this case was discussed at her nomination hearings.

Committee members didn’t ask her those questions during the hearings, as The Wall Street Journal explains. Fortunately, a letter to Kagan from all seven Republicans on the committee has (exhaustively) remedied that oversight.

Kagan has already told the committee she would recuse herself from any case in which she “participated in formulating the government’s litigating position.” Given that she appears to take an expansive view of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, the best possible outcome for opponents of ObamaCare would probably be for Kagan to join the Court but recuse herself from cases challenging that law.

That would also be the worst possible outcome for the administration. In fact, universal coverage is so important to the Left that if Kagan would leave them with one less pro-ObamaCare vote on the Court, I wouldn’t be surprised to see President Obama withdraw her nomination. He could then appoint someone as ideologically reliable as Kagan, but who could actually defend the president’s signature accomplishment.

This could get interesting

.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/senat...out-obamacare/

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

This Republican is wagging his head in disbelief.


The most eggregious attacks on our freedoms, the most eggregious offenses of our "system" seem to come from my party.


I hope I am wrong on this. I really hope that you guys are wrong and I've just been told some mistruths or something.

If that's how you really believe, then why on earth would you remain in such a political party?

[sandie]

Originally Posted by coadie

Supreme court Justice Elena Keagan has a conflict of interest on the matter. Her need to recuse herself from hearing this case was discussed at her nomination hearings.

.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/senat...out-obamacare/

Wonder what the chances of her actually doing so....I think they're none and slim just walked out the door.

Now, if there was anyone who should recuse themself....but, no...the left will defend her to the bitter end...wait and see.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by sandie

Wonder what the chances of her actually doing so....I think they're none and slim just walked out the door.

Now, if there was anyone who should recuse themself....but, no...the left will defend her to the bitter end...wait and see.

The term also marks the debut of Justice Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court and the first time three women are serving on the nine-justice panel.

Roughly 52 appeals are currently on the high court's schedule. About another two dozen are expected to be added in coming months.

But Kagan, 50, will recuse herself from at least 24 cases already on the docket. That means she will not sit in oral arguments or vote on the outcomes.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-04/p..._s=PM:POLITICS