OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE Options

[kapkomet]

I know, there's always something evil (EEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL) whenever someone who has any attachment what-so-ever to anything that might be against what you think is right.

/I gets no respect!

[Balta1701]

I know, there's always something evil (EEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL) whenever someone who has any attachment what-so-ever to anything that might be against what you think is right.

/I gets no respect!

Leave it to Kap to tell us how conflicts of interest are a good thing. The more judges on the take, the more they'll make the right decision.

[Jenksismybitch]

It's a bit murky here because he's not actively part of the group bringing the lawsuit (i.e. it's not that consulting group that brought the suit), but a reasonable system might consider that a reason for recusal, since the group that did bring the suit had employed him in the past.

That said, he didn't vote to overturn it because of the money.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL in Virginia brought the case, not some private conservative group hell bent on destroying the world. Why do you keep making this up?

[Balta1701]

The ATTORNEY GENERAL in Virginia brought the case, not some private conservative group hell bent on destroying the world. Why do you keep making this up?

Ok, now you're the one putting words in my mouth. Do you think that the AG is the only lawyer who worked on the case, or do you think that the Virginia AG may employ other lawyers who helped argue the case? If the latter is the case, the word "Group" is entirely accurate, as is the fact that the AG had contracted with the PR Firm in the past.

Let's put it this way...the rest of you'd have a problem with it, although not a huge one, if the roles were reversed here, and it was a Democratic consultant ruling positively on this case after having contracted for PR duties with the Obama administration and made money advising him on Health Care policy.

[Jenksismybitch]

Ok, now you're the one putting words in my mouth. Do you think that the AG is the only lawyer who worked on the case, or do you think that the Virginia AG may employ other lawyers who helped argue the case? If the latter is the case, the word "Group" is entirely accurate, as is the fact that the AG had contracted with the PR Firm in the past.

Yeah, other assistant attorney generals in his office helped him, since that's their job. He didn't hire some group of lawyer consultants from some outside firm. This is just nonsense.

[Jenksismybitch]

Ok, now you're the one putting words in my mouth. Do you think that the AG is the only lawyer who worked on the case, or do you think that the Virginia AG may employ other lawyers who helped argue the case? If the latter is the case, the word "Group" is entirely accurate, as is the fact that the AG had contracted with the PR Firm in the past.

Let's put it this way...the rest of you'd have a problem with it, although not a huge one, if the roles were reversed here, and it was a Democratic consultant ruling positively on this case after having contracted for PR duties with the Obama administration and made money advising him on Health Care policy.

LOL. Judge = GOP consultant. I get it.

Love that you give Kap crap, but you consistently find a conspiracy lurking behind the shadows with every group that doesn't agree with your opinions.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, other assistant attorney generals in his office helped him, since that's their job. He didn't hire some group of lawyer consultants from some outside firm. This is just nonsense.

No, but he did in the past employ the same PR firm that is paying the judge a salary, and he has been advised on health care policy by that PR firm.

[Balta1701]

LOL. Judge = GOP consultant. I get it.

WTF else would you call a person who gets a $15,000-ish a year consulting fee from a PR Firm?

[Jenksismybitch]

No, but he did in the past employ the same PR firm that is paying the judge a salary, and he has been advised on health care policy by that PR firm.

Link? and how does a PR firm help an AG make a constitutional argument? So he might have gotten some statistical information they've gathered. So what?

And 10k is not a "salary." He could have made that making 2-3 speeches a year. Gimme a break. These guys have government salaries well into the 6 figures.

Edit: This is all nonsense. According to the link provided by strangesox, he's an INVESTOR in the firm, not a consultant. And his decision didn't completely kill the bill. It killed one aspect of it. How does this make any sense that he's benefiting from the decision? If anything he just closed a door on what the firm is trying to accomplish.

This post has been edited by Jenksismybitch: Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:53 AM

[Balta1701]

Link?

I already gave you the link above before y'all started telling me why it's ok.

[Jenksismybitch]

oops, sorry, it was your link, not strangesox's

[Balta1701]

Edit: This is all nonsense. According to the link provided by strangesox, he's an INVESTOR in the firm, not a consultant. And his decision didn't completely kill the bill. It killed one aspect of it. How does this make any sense that he's benefiting from the decision? If anything he just closed a door on what the firm is trying to accomplish.

It doesn't officially benefit him...however, it's close enough that I'd be damn uncomfortable if it was a ruling on my side. Judges who get salaries from consulting firms that they are part-owners of, who consult on bills for people who later appear before them, who then rule on that same bill?

It's not illegal, but it's not exactly anything I'd call clean, and it's not something I'd want to be defending as a great thing for democracy.

[Jenksismybitch]

It doesn't officially benefit him...however, it's close enough that I'd be damn uncomfortable if it was a ruling on my side. Judges who get salaries from consulting firms that they are part-owners of, who consult on bills for people who later appear before them, who then rule on that same bill?

It's not illegal, but it's not exactly anything I'd call clean, and it's not something I'd want to be defending as a great thing for democracy.

Well it's a good thing the Canons of Judicial Ethics are written for the real world. Based on your concerns, Judges should never be able to invest in anything because of the potential that their decisions might impact their portfolios. The reality is that unless there's a direct connection that impacts their decision making (still not sure how interpreting that one provision in the health care bill does that), there's not an issue.

[Balta1701]

Well it's a good thing the Canons of Judicial Ethics are written for the real world. Based on your concerns, Judges should never be able to invest in anything because of the potential that their decisions might impact their portfolios. The reality is that unless there's a direct connection that impacts their decision making (still not sure how interpreting that one provision in the health care bill does that), there's not an issue.

Then you know what? Someone from Organizing for America ought to go out and get Anthony Kennedy under a 6-figure consulting gig. After all, it's just a campaign organization, there's no direct benefit to the group if he happens to rule in favor of a policy that the President also favors.

[Y2HH]

Thread has devolved into pointlessness.