Health Care Judge's Interest In Anti-Health Care PR Shop Raises Questions (ethics, illegal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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. 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.
Nope.. no conflict of interest..
How is his political firm, working on fighting an illegal bill, and him voting the bill is illegal, equate to a conflict of interest? The conflict would have been if he voted against the bill, THEN made money supporting it..
He made his position quite clear. It was up to those bringing the case before him to object. If they didnt object, then why not? Are you saying its a non issue, or are you saying Obama administration was so incompetent that they didnt object to what you claim is an obvious conflcit?
conflicts of interest. A conflict between a person's private interests and public obligations. ...
"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."
Time for some good ole fashioned left wing character assassination.
Character assassination for stating the facts?
Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration or manipulation of facts of which there has been none.
If the report is true then there is, at the very least, a perception of a conflict of interest in that his interest in a firm actively opposing the bill means that the judge has already formed an opinion and will be unable to judge the case on the facts.
The rules around professional independence for the law profession as well as for other professions are very strict. There does not have to be an actual conflict of interest. Perception is sufficient.
conflicts of interest. A conflict between a person's private interests and public obligations. ...
"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."
According to Title 28 of the US Code, a judge must recuse themself under the following.
1) "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Holding interest in a company that worked against the law dos not create an reason to question the impartiality. Yes, one can object to the creation of a law, and then rule differently on that legalities of the law once its in place. The lobbying was over, it was done.. there was no continuing interest in seeing the bill get passed or die. It had already passed..
2) The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
The judge has no financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, nor does he have any personal knowledge that is not public. The continued ownership in the organization which lobbied against the law ceased to be a conflict when the bill became law and they stopped being a lobbiest against the bill.
There is no conflict, even if you pretend there is one...
But even if there was, its up to the parties to file a motion to request the judge recuse themself and one wasnt filed. Again, is the Obama administration that incompetent that they dont know what to file?
According to Title 28 of the US Code, a judge must recuse themself under the following.
1) "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Holding interest in a company that worked against the law dos not create an reason to question the impartiality. Yes, one can object to the creation of a law, and then rule differently on that legalities of the law once its in place. The lobbying was over, it was done.. there was no continuing interest in seeing the bill get passed or die. It had already passed..
2) The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
The judge has no financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, nor does he have any personal knowledge that is not public. The continued ownership in the organization which lobbied against the law ceased to be a conflict when the bill became law and they stopped being a lobbiest against the bill.
There is no conflict, even if you pretend there is one...
But even if there was, its up to the parties to file a motion to request the judge recuse themself and one wasnt filed. Again, is the Obama administration that incompetent that they dont know what to file?
Thanks for taking the time to research and provide this FACTUAL information that shows there is no conflict of interest.
What are the Dems going to drag up about the members of the Supreme Court when they rule this health insurance law is unconstitutional?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
