Dec. 14th, 2010
by F. Grey Parker
My goodness. Such hullabaloo over Judge Henry E. Hudson's decision striking down the so-called "personal mandate" provision of the new health care law. Let's ignore, for the moment, his obvious and actionable conflict of interest in even presiding over the case as evidenced here, here, here, here and here. Let's also ignore the fact the the provision is a regressive tax and forces no one to "buy" anything.
Let us instead look at his reasoning yesterday and his history.
Hudson's decision contended that the element of the law in question overstepped the powers granted to the federal government under the interstate commerce clause. This is particularly interesting to anyone looking into his career of political activity under the bar. I direct your attention to this choice highlight.
"While judge Hudson was Commonwealth's Attorney, United States Attorney General Edwin Meese appointed him as Chairman of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. The Commission subsequently produced a document frequently referred to as "The Meese Report." The Commission report made several recommendations designed to restrict the distribution of pornography, arguing that congress only requires proof that the distribution of the obscene material "affects" interstate commerce in order to regulate it." emphasis mine
I would like to hear his explanation of this now. He either will defend the position that the distribution of pornography "affects" interstate commerce and our national healthcare industry does not, or he will admit that he was willing do anything for a moralistic and ideological crusade in spite of the constitution.
You can't have it both ways, Henry. You can't have it both ways.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Henry E. Hudson - Radical Activist Judge
Labels: Liberal opinion, the hand that feeds you
activist judge,
health care repeal,
Henry e hudson,
judge henry hudson,
judge hudson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Conservative activists always try to have it both ways. First it's states' rights, until it's time to overturn an unfavorable vote count in a presidential election, then run to the Supreme Court. There are so many other examples, this just being the latest.
ReplyDeleteIf this guy's decision isn't overturned on appeal, the judicial system is near broken. We'll see.
Indeed. It's just not often I get so convenient a petard with which to hoist our enemies.
ReplyDeleteLet's get all the facts out in the open.No spin.No grandstanding,hyperbole(death panels!)politics.The cold hard facts.Many will realize they are on the wrong side of the issue,with the wrong people.Let's go straight to the SC,Henry.
ReplyDelete