Federal judge refuses to dismiss Virginia challenge to ObamaCare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bugscoe, Aug 2, 2010.

  1. Breaking: Federal judge refuses to dismiss Virginia challenge to ObamaCare

    The federal bench giveth … and the federal bench taketh away. Federal judge Henry Hudson has refused to dismiss a challenge from Virginia on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in ObamaCare. The case will have to move to trial, and could imperil the entire overhaul:

    Expect the Left to go after Judge Hudson. George W. Bush appointed him to the federal bench in 2002, following a career in the state bench and also in the US Marshal Service as director during Bush 41’s administration. The Right showed no reluctance to point out Susan Bolton’s appointment by Bill Clinton, and turnabout is not just fair play but de rigueur by now.

    It matters little, anyway. Virginia wasn’t the only state preparing a challenge to this law, nor was it even first to file a challenge. This law will go to the Supreme Court from many directions, and there are more than enough constitutional grounds for judges to allow hearings on it, regardless of what Pete Stark thinks.

    Besides, Hudson only refused to dismiss the lawsuit. He hasn’t yet ruled on any of the arguments in the case, except to rule that Virginia has a case to argue that the federal government overreached. What we know now is that at least one court will hear that case — and that’s the first step to checking the power of Washington.
  2. But nothing like this is going to happen.

    Hate mail, threats flood Arizona judge's office

    U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton received hundreds of threats at her court offices within hours of her ruling on Arizona’s tough and controversial immigration law.
    “She has been inundated,” said U.S. Marshal David Gonzales, indicating his agents are taking some seriously. “About 99.9 percent of the inappropriate comments are people venting. They are exercising their First Amendment rights and a lot of it is perverted. But it’s that 0.1 percent that goes over the line that we are taking extra seriously.”
    Gonzales would not say if any threats were coming from recognized hate groups or if Bolton had received threats at her home. Nor would he discuss any extra security measures, which U.S. marshals routinely provide federal judges.
    “It is policy at a juncture like this to increase security at the courthouse. Beyond that, I cannot discuss security matters,” Gonzales said.
    Last year, The Arizona Republic reported that the number of threats nationwide against federal judges and prosecutors, plus jurors and witnesses, more than doubled in the past six years, from 592 to nearly 1,300. Gonzales indicated at the time the federal judges in Arizona get three to four threats a week. One federal prosecutor in Tucson revealed she had round-the-clock protection for 10 days after one threat. Federal judges reported that some threat-makers posted personal information about them on websites.
    Gonzales said the increase in threats coincides with more online use and the proliferation of blogs. On Thursday he said his agents were aware of hateful threats made about Bolton online since her ruling Wednesday morning. A quick scan shows numerous sites and discussion forums where Bolton is called traitor or other unprintable names.

  3. Until Obama starts issuing Executive Orders to set aside judge's rulings.