“Judge in health care case known as tough - Washington Post” plus 1 more |
| Judge in health care case known as tough - Washington Post Posted: 13 Dec 2010 02:49 PM PST RICHMOND, Va. -- The federal judge who struck down the very centerpiece of the Obama administration's health care law Monday is a George W. Bush appointee who earned the nickname "Hang 'Em High Henry" for his tough-on-crime stand as a prosecutor and on the bench. Among those who have felt U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson's wrath is NFL star Michael Vick, who in 2007 received a nearly two-year sentence - and a dressing-down - for running a dogfighting ring. Hudson rejected Vick's plea for leniency, questioned whether the athlete was truly remorseful and chastised him for failing to apologize to children who looked up to him as a role model. "You were instrumental in promoting, funding and facilitating this cruel and inhumane sporting activity," the judge said, adding: "I'm not convinced you've fully accepted responsibility." The health care ruling could make Hudson, 63, a hero to political conservatives, just as the Vick case did among animal rights activists. Hudson declared unconstitutional the requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance. "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance - or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage - it's about an individual's right to choose to participate," he said. Whether health care will replace Vick as Hudson's most memorable case remains to be seen. "If his decision is ultimately vindicated by the Supreme Court, his original opinion may actually stand out for quite a long time," said Paul McNulty, a Washington lawyer who served as U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia from 2001 to 2006. Even before the Vick case and the health care lawsuit landed in his court, Hudson had experienced enough drama to write an autobiography two years ago, "Quest for Justice: From Deputy Sheriff to Federal Judge ... and the Lessons Learned Along the Way." He served as a deputy sheriff and went to law school at American University at night. Fresh out of law school in 1974, Hudson became a state prosecutor and then a federal one. Long active in Republican politics, he was appointed U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan. In 1986, he headed the pornography investigation by the Meese Commission, named for Reagan's attorney general. The commission said sex crimes could be linked to hardcore pornography - a finding disputed by some researchers who said there was no demonstrable link. The panel called for a campaign against the porn industry. Hudson said at the time that he wished the commission had taken an even stronger stand. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Virginia health-care ruling strikes down key provision of Obama's plan - Washington Post Posted: 13 Dec 2010 10:38 AM PST RICHMOND - A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional for the government to compel Americans to buy health insurance, marking the first time a court has struck down any facet of the massive new law to overhaul the nation's health-care system. Although the opinion by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson gives significant political ammunition to the law's opponents, it does not invalidate the entire law or force federal and state officials to stop the work of putting it into effect - steps Virginia had asked him to take. The ruling by Hudson, named to the bench by George W. Bush, sets up a conflict with opinions by two Democratic-appointed judges who have concluded recently that the law is constitutional. The cases are among two dozen in federal courts across the country that challenge many aspects of the law. The final word is widely expected to come from the U.S. Supreme Court. In his 42-page opinion, Hudson concluded that requiring most people to get insurance or pay a fine - as the law mandates starting in 2014 - is an unprecedented expansion of federal power and cannot be justified under Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. The ruling elated Virginia's Republican governor and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), who brought the case, and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill, who are vowing to try to take apart all or pieces of the law. "I am gratified we prevailed," Cuccinelli said in a statement. "This won't be the final round . . . but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution." But the opinion is a partial win and a partial loss for the law's foes and supporters alike, according to legal and health-policy specialists. Its immediate practical effects - on patients, the health-care industry or regulators writing the fine print of how the statute will be carried out - will probably be slight, specialists say. "It's important to distinguish between the theater and the politics, and the implementation [of the law], which is still being carried out," said Drew E. Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health-care research and policy organization. White House officials played down the ruling's impact. They hinted that they will appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but did not indicate how quickly they might act. Meanwhile, Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell has begun trying to enlist fellow governors to press the Justice Department to skip over the customary step of bringing the case before federal circuit judges - and take it directly to the nation's highest court. The lawsuit challenged the 2,000-page legislation that Congress adopted in March at the urging of President Obama, setting in motion the broadest changes to the U.S. health-care system in 41/2 decades. The legislation is designed to widen access to private and public health insurance and, to some degree, slow medical spending. Heralded by Democrats as a signature advance in domestic policy, the law continues to be disputed by Republicans, who will gain power in the new Congress in January, and GOP-led statehouses, as well as in the courts. Hudson's ruling largely traced the reasoning he had followed when he issued an opinion over the summer, declining to dismiss the case at an earlier stage. In the Virginia case, as in others across the country, the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate, as the provision is known, hinged primarily on an interpretation of the clause in the U.S. Constitution that relates to the government's powers to regulate commerce. Virginia argued that people who choose not to carry health insurance are not engaging in any type of commerce. For that reason, the commonwealth contended, Congress exceeded its powers by enacting a law that requires most Americans to buy coverage. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Add Images to any RSS Feed To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment