Judge Who Ruled Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Owns Piece of GOP Consulting Firm

[meegbear]

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 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-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm

[redirish28]

1. Conflict of interest! He should have excused himself from the case AND

the appeals court should overturn it ruling on that alone...



AHHH who the hell am I kidding. We are going to find OUT a lot of dirty little secrets of various judges by the time all is said and done.

[emulatorloo]

2. Right Wingers don't believe in the concept of "Conflict of Interest"

Either they can't wrap their brains around it (sociopaths) or they think it only applies to other people (sociopaths)

[Kolesar]

3. "Recused" , but your point is valid!

I think it is recused

[obxhead]

4. For once I don't care.

I'm learning that they all own a piece of something they are deciding on anyway. In this case this ruling could save me a significant hardship starting in 2014.

I'm not a cash cow and I'm tired of being used as one by our government to enrich private industry.

[usregimechange]

5. But made a very good decision

[Scurrilous]

6. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Historic NY]

7. It just gets deeper.

[glinda]

8. Throw out his judgement. This man is totally corrupt. Impeach!

[Abq_Sarah]

15. Let's do that with

Members of Congress who have gotten so power hungry they believe they have a right to force every citizen of this country to purchase products from private companies or face financial penalties all for "the greater good" (otherwise known as the enrichment of the insurance industry).

[TexasObserver]

9. GOP federal judges are party hacks.

They would never get appointed by the GOP if they weren't. That's why they deliver on political matters.

[obxhead]

17. close, but not quite.

Federal Judges are corporate hacks. They belong to both party affiliations as well.

[AC_Mem]

10. Why is this "judge" allowed to rule on this

When there is so clearly a conflict of interest?

If it is this easy for the public to uncover the truth, how did the ruling even get this far?

And one last question for those in the know, who should we forward this information to?

Thanks, DU is the best for getting to the truth!
Annette

[OHdem10]

11. Before he began he indicated he was conservative and his

inclination would be a ruling that the constitution
does not permit the government to force indiviuals
to buy things.

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. That was the inclination of many here, including myself, but hey, who'll know. nt

[Tx4obama]

13. K & R n/t

[DainBramaged]

14. he did not invalidate the entire bill for god's sake

He ONLY declared the portion that FORCES coverage by 2014 as unconstitutional.

[OHdem10]

16. If everyone does not particpate the plan collapses.

Universal plan demands everyone particpate otherwise,
it will not work.

[Kat45]

18. I don't think judges should be allowed to have interest in any political entity

Whether ownership, monetary interest, or participation in some way (including participation of a spouse). Judges are supposed to be impartial, correct?