Monday, December 13, 2010

Another GOP win in gamesmanship

Admit it, Democrats, those Republicans have found the perfect solution to having their own unapologetic way to game any issue with which they disagree. They file their grievance with a judge who is guaranteed to rule in their favor. That seems to be the case with Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson of Virginia, shown at left, who has decided that the new health care law is (I'll whisper it) unconstitutional. The challenge was entered by Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli, and although it won't change anything for the moment, it will satisfy all of the Ken Cuccinellis of the world, including Ohio attorney general-elect Mike DeWine, who has promised to file his own suit against Obamacare.

Meantime, Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, is reported to have been a contributor to Campaign Solutions, a tank which has been a staunch opponent of health care reform and has a number of Republican clients. Is that a problem for Hudson? Not at all. His office said the judge has no idea what Campaign Solutions does for a living because he is a "passive investor." But apparently the thrill is already spreading around GOP circles. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Idaho couldn't contain himself. "It's a great day for liberty," he exclaimed. If this involved Democrats, they would find dozens of ways to apologize for the negative image projected to the public. What did I tell you?


Anonymous said...

The Ken Cuccinelli types are all shopping for the judges that will give them the decision they want. In Henry Hudson, they found one after striking out twice before in federal court. What should be of greater concern is the increasing stories on the financial entanglements of judges and a complete disregard by them in not recusing themselves.

Mencken said...

FNF84 and Elena, here's another mindless comment for you to chew on.

I don't know whether it (healthcare) is constitutional or not. But I do know that it's against the law not to have car insurance because those who don't have it raise the cost for those who do. Is that socialism?

I do know that I can't work for certain Fortune 500 companies unless I have $3 million worth of liability coverage for myself and my employees. Is that constitutional?

I also know I can't finance rental properties unless I have them insured. There's also a list of 20 other conditions have to sign off on. Is that constitutional?

How about the Worker's Comp and Unemployment Insurance contributions I make ? They're not optional you know, but the fact that all businesses must pay them keeps the cost lower.

Mindless enough for y'all?

Anonymous said...

Did Sen. Hatch move to Idaho?

Grumpy Abe said...

Nope, only my mind moved to Idaho. We always welcome corrections. Thanks.

FoxNewsFan84 said...


You can choose not to drive a car. You can choose not to work at Fortune 500 companies. You can choose not to finance rental properties. You cannot, however, choose not to carry health insurance coverage under Obamacare.

There is no way for an individual to avoid this new government mandate, and that is the key difference.