Henry Hudson, Virginia Federal Judge Who Ruled Against Health Care Reform, Has Deep Ties To GOP

The anti-health care reform decision passed down by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson this week was complicated Thursday when a reading of his self-published memoir turned up clear signs of the Virginia judge's yearning for fame and a deeply rooted link to the Republican Party.

Political Correction did a speed-read of Quest for Justice, Hudson's autobiography, and found that much of his political history was defined by his proud admission of "twenty years of active service to the Republican party."

As HuffPost Hill wrote Thursdsay, Hudson's account shows him to be "an unremarkable, media-chasing paleo-Tea Partier with a wildly outsized sense of importance who failed in Hollywood, radio and TV before settling on a judgeship."

Considering the recent wave of Tea Party and Republican fury toward the individual mandate, a provision that would require individuals to buy health care insurance starting in 2014 (and their subsequent rejoicing over the Virginia judge's ruling), Hudson's display of unabashed conservative activism in his book is raising additional questions about his already tenuous decision.

Here's a passage from Political Correction's report about Hudson's ties to the GOP:

In Quest for Justice, Hudson writes: "Campaigning for a federal judgeship is almost as challenging as running for political office. Rather than court voters, aspirants solicit endorsements from influential political activists with close ties to the senators, particularly the activists who raise the big money. That is where twenty years of active service to the Republican party, and helping in the various campaigns of each senator, paid dividends and gave me the edge." [p. 322, emphasis added]

And another about Hudson's admitted desire for the limelight:

In Quest for Justice, Hudson writes: "[T]he White House offered me the position of assistant secretary of Labor, with responsibility for overseeing enforcement of the nation's labor laws. I spent a day with the incumbent in that job and decided it was not for me. Perhaps it was ego, but I enjoyed being in the public eye--sound bites and press conferences. The Labor Department job was too confining." [p. 249, emphasis added]

Read Political Correction's extensive examination here.

Comments

[Kitte Ka'at]

07:30 PM on 12/27/2010

I got your activist judge right here.

[CeeCee]

05:40 PM on 12/23/2010

Judges should not be political appointees. Justice is not political. That goes for sheriffs and police chiefs too.

[RightWinger2]

05:33 PM on 12/22/2010

Why is this news that judges are tied to political parties, either Republican or Democrat? That doesn't cast any doubt on the decision that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

[localwonk]

04:16 AM on 12/21/2010

Interesting hit piece on the judge who made the difficult, nuanced, and painful decision to declare that the government has no enumerated right under the constitution to force citizens to purchase anything. Real difficult decision that was especially when you consider there isn't any such enumerated right in the constitution.

Huffingtonpost, did you write similar hit pieces on the judges who upheld liberal supported positions? This judge only did his job which is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Liberal justices uphold liberal positions and nuance the Constitution to mean whatever supports their liberal view.

You speak of the individual mandate as a matter of moral collective duty that we all bear as citizens to ensure everyone gets the safety net of health care. Interesting. You ignore the obvious issue that there is not right of the government to mandate that. Obamacare is intrusive. In order for the government to exercise it's constituional right to regulate interstate commerce, it assumes a right it does not have and that is to force citizens to engage in interstate commerce (individual mandate) so that it can exercise it's constitutional right to regulate that commerce.

Notice how liberal "feel good" positions that supposedly benefit everyone invoke force. People are forced to pay into social security, forced to pay into medicare, and forced to pay into health care.

Notice how these liberal "feel good" policies only cause poverty both to individuals and the country?

[Philclock]

05:46 PM on 12/20/2010

I just KNEW this website would find something on the judge that shows him less than human (OMG, he's a Republican! Hide the children!), that way "progressives" are excused from forming a thought or an argument supporting their health care atrocity on the public.

[JacksonJones]

02:54 AM on 12/21/2010

Noting a stark conflict of interest isn't exactly a "hide the children" sort of affair.

On heath care, haven't you heard? It's about better outcomes for less money with no death panels involved.

You misinterpret your failure to be informed with the failure of others to think.

Shouting "death panels" doesn't require much thinking, so I can see why you might think others had also dodged the thinking bit.

[Philclock]

04:28 PM on 12/21/2010

You miss my point: noting a stark conflict of interest does NOT rebut the substance of his argument, which was totally avoided, and which I claim is a typical "progressive" omission in response to most any argument.

The intent of Health Care legislation is irrelevant: the fact that it imposes the police power of government, run by self-anointed experts on health care, into the free markets, our free choices and individual responsibility, restricting our freedom, is the relevant issue. And your declaration that this imposition will result in "better outcomes for far less money" cannot be proven; I totally disagree, and say to you that we patients as consumers, making our own choices and directing where our money will be spent regarding health care, rather than leaving it to Big Government and its anti-trust protected regulatory lapdog Big Insurance, will like any other industry run by consumer choice, result in MUCH lower costs, and MUCH better service, as those health care providers that do NOT respond to we consumers as we shop for value will fail without your Big Government cronyism.

Very simple, if you think it through.

[CeeCee]

05:41 PM on 12/23/2010

Read the article. He's bragging about getting the job -- not because he merited it professionally, but because of his ties to the Republican Party.

[Philclock]

07:05 PM on 12/23/2010

I'm shocked, shocked to see ambition in a Judge, a desire to further his career!

They should all serve as bureaucrats or community organizers, so their hearts will be pure, simple and "progressive", and not tainted by the evil urges of human nature that adversely affect the "collective", like getting a job, or creativity, or setting and achieving individual goals; all these must be regulated by the State, and any person wishing to be a judge must have the leveling experience of working in or with the State, and not the wanton and unregulated path of private business. Just imagine a judge having been exposed to running a business, being responsible for making a profit or the business will fail, without the benevolent protection of the State! What a warped mind he or she would have, appreciating human freedom, free choice instead of "fairness" and "justice" of the collective!

[oldgraymare]

10:18 PM on 12/19/2010

Yep, yep....interested only in self promotion. Youbetcha!! get used to this.....its only going to get worse.

[Hillbilly49]

06:42 PM on 12/19/2010

Just one more right wing activist judge legislating from the bench.

[uniquindividual]

01:09 PM on 12/20/2010

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

T. Roosevelt

[Jazzycar]

08:55 PM on 12/24/2010

Smart guy, Teddy.

[Philclock]

04:29 PM on 12/21/2010

If only all judges were "left wing", then government could run EVERYTHING, just like Cuba, or the old Soviet Union, or Mao's China.

Wouldn't that be "progressive" nirvana?

[CeeCee]

05:43 PM on 12/23/2010

What are you going on about???

[jostasauce]

06:31 PM on 12/19/2010

"twenty years of active service to the Republican party."
=======
Damn. There goes our "fair and impartial" judiciary.

[katielady]

05:22 PM on 12/19/2010

I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.. that any justice be less than impartial and open?

[kinnycut]

04:22 PM on 12/19/2010

Now there is a shocker. A Republican judge siding with and ruling for the Republicans.

[Philclock]

04:30 PM on 12/21/2010

Almost as shocking as a Democrat judge siding with Democrats, isn't it?

[kinnycut]

04:21 PM on 12/23/2010

Well hopefully the Democratic judge is smart enough not to have any direct ties to the Democratic Party. Kind of stupid to feed ammunition to the other team isn't it.

[CeeCee]

05:42 PM on 12/23/2010

Deflection becomes you.

[astroblower]

03:09 PM on 12/19/2010

He looks like a trucky little prck.

[myrtle1909]

02:44 PM on 12/19/2010

Ties to the GOP now why does that not surprise me???

[3dtrix]

02:17 PM on 12/19/2010

As a persno whose ultra-liberal bona fides are impeccable, I don't care WHO strikes down the mandate - as long as it is struck down.

If the Federal government can force you to buy health insurance from a private-se­ctor for-profit company - they can force you to buy argyle socks, an electric guitar, or a butterscot­ch milkshake.

There is NO fundamenta­l difference - legally - among the different products.

This is so obvious as to be migraine-i­nducing.

If otherwise clear-headed people can't see this because the dubious carrot of a barely-improved health care insurance climate is dangled at the end of this particularly vicious stick - heaven help the nation...

[OldGabe]

03:28 PM on 12/19/2010

F&F

Without single-payer that was bargained away or never even given a chance while seeking bi-partisan support for the reform bill by forcing people to buy a policy from a private company was exactly the briar patch the rethugs wanted ol' Brer Bear to throw them into. I hope the link here is really not necessary but I suspect it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br'er_Rabbit

It is a sad state of affairs when legislation such as this with such an obvious flaw actually did pass. It kind of illustrates that large numbers of Americans are not all that "clear-headed" in their thinking. Until the day this gem emerged during the bill writing process, I supported reform. At that point I hoped every day it would not be passed. Now good-intentioned folks will end up suffering again the slurs of "those people" who do not, did not, and never will want government intrusion into their health insurance needs.

Again, without the single-payer feature in a nationally sanctioned Health Insurance plan, no health insurance reform is meaningful including banning pre-existing condition discrimination.

[localwonk]

04:31 AM on 12/21/2010

OldGabe, please review the constitution. Your lamenting for a benefit that the government has not right to impose on anyone since there is not ennumerated right that it has to compel citizens to purchase anything.

Thus, if there even is such a right it resides with the states to decide. The government really has it's right of interstate commerce to use and that should be invoked to ensure a healthy competitive business environment for health care. The states can then decide how best to help their citizens if that's what the people of those states want.

[Frederic]

03:32 PM on 12/19/2010

Isn't it a nice feeling that once you get sick, the others, especially those who earn much less than you, pay for your bills?

[OldGabe]

03:45 PM on 12/19/2010

I am trying to be generous here but honestly, what the ffffffff are you writing about. That you own a computing device of some kind and have been able to figure out some way to get it connected to the Internet (although a school mate or the library or someone at work might have done all that stuff) and found HP indicates to me you have some level of understanding reasonably complex issues. That written, would you mind telling me where you got the content of your statement as a response to 3dtrix? I mean, the thrust of that response seems to have been that forced purchase of health insurance from a private company is wrong. Are you one of those clear-headed people referred to?

[3dtrix]

04:36 PM on 12/19/2010

You are making absurd leaps of presumption - and have ZERO knowledge upon which to base this nonsense. Were I you, I would be embarrassed to post such drivel...

[chancetay]

02:07 PM on 12/19/2010

Is anyone surprised about this????

[onlyinvegas]

11:37 AM on 12/19/2010

just another activist judge for the getting old party.

[littleolwinemakerme]

12:53 PM on 12/19/2010

Typical Repub scambug.