OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE Options

[Tex]

I was hearing today that amid the giddyness of Republicans being able to overhaul the health care bill comes the sobering reality that plans are already underway to comply. The expense of complying, then changing to something new, could be a nasty little surprise to some folks.

Also

What does it say about an industry that is against a law that would dump millions of new paying customers in their laps?

[Balta1701]

Generally conservative/libertarian judicial commenter/scholar Eugene Volokh thinks that the judge's reasoning has a significant flaw.

Edit: The judge also owns a share of a Republican consulting firm that worked to oppose the Health Care bill, among other things. In the last reporting years (2006-2007) he took home something on the order of $10,000 a year from that consulting firm.

[StrangeSox]

Generally conservative/libertarian judicial commenter/scholar Eugene Volokh thinks that the judge's reasoning has a significant flaw.

Edit: The judge also owns a share of a Republican consulting firm that worked to oppose the Health Care bill, among other things. In the last reporting years (2006-2007) he took home something on the order of $10,000 a year from that consulting firm.

LOL, that seems like a pretty good reason to recuse yourself.

[Balta1701]

LOL, that seems like a pretty good reason to recuse yourself.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[kapkomet]

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.

Every judge has some investment interest, and it's only a problem when they disagree with you.

You see, the issues should be based on constutitionality and law, not some living and breathing ever changing standard. Otherwise, what is law besides baseless? At what point does it stop? For your line of thinking, never, the appetite is insatiable to the point where nothing is ever good enough but more government intervention.

[Balta1701]

Every judge has some investment interest, and it's only a problem when they disagree with you.

I disagree. I think that any time a judge has an investment interest in a case, it's a possible corrupting influence. If a judge is going to have investments, then they ought to be holding them in blind accounts, not actively working for an outside consulting firm. If there's some reason they can't do that, I don't see why they shouldn't recuse themself.

Note how Jenks asked it earlier...he asked (to paraphrase) why is it that every time there's a ruling I disagree with I immediately point out the judge's conflict of interest?

There's another way to ask that same question. Why is it that 17 judges have heard a similar case, and the only 1 who ruled the way you like also has remote but reasonable conflict of interest.

[southsider2k5]

I disagree. I think that any time a judge has an investment interest in a case, it's a possible corrupting influence. If a judge is going to have investments, then they ought to be holding them in blind accounts, not actively working for an outside consulting firm. If there's some reason they can't do that, I don't see why they shouldn't recuse themself.

Note how Jenks asked it earlier...he asked (to paraphrase) why is it that every time there's a ruling I disagree with I immediately point out the judge's conflict of interest?

There's another way to ask that same question. Why is it that 17 judges have heard a similar case, and the only 1 who ruled the way you like also has remote but reasonable conflict of interest.

So what to the judges who ruled for this have in their portolios?

[Balta1701]

So what to the judges who ruled for this have in their portolios?

You don't get to ask that, your side told me it's ok.

[southsider2k5]

You don't get to ask that, your side told me it's ok.

You have to ask that because your side said it wasn't.