Skip to main content

View Diary: An Attack on Liberty: Judge Hudson’s Private Interests & Fox News' Political Messaging (17 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Comment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice

    I understand your point coffeetalk, but I'm not sure who you're directing your critique at. Do you know if the govt lawyers were aware/tried to raise the issue of conflict of interest? As far as the congresswoman who authored this piece, I doubt she has the time to sniff our conflicts of interest that exist in a low level court hearing on her own (since she has the job of representing a congressional district day to day). But she does have the pulpit (and ability) to raise these issues once someone catches on. COI is still COI - before or after the fact.

    •  I don't think it's appropriate for anyone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      to do an after-the-fact attack on the merits of a judgment by raising essentially a personal attack on a sitting federal judge when that issue, if it had merit, should have been raised as soon as the judge was assigned to the case.

      Here, the congresswoman was essentially represented by the Administration's counsel -- they were defending Congress' action.  Thus, this critique should be addressed to her own lawyers.  I think it is an inappropriate attack on our judicial system to raise an improper after-the-fact attack on the judgment because one's own lawyer failed to raise a recusal issue prior to the rendering of the judgment.

      If someone wants to critique the MERITS of the opinion, that is fine. Have at it. That is why we have appellate courts.  But this kind of personal attack on a sitting federal judge based on an issue that, if it has merit, one's own counsel should have raised prior to the rendering of judgment, is improper.  

      •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

        Fair I suppose. I just disagree. I feel its perfectly fine to raise these issues whenever you become aware of them. Unless you are the lawyer or direct litigant, I don't see why there should be a timeline on when you can raise hackles over such a conflict of interest.

        •  oktypos - raise the issue with the DoJ (0+ / 0-)

          The Justice Department lawyers on this case were very well aware of all the issues that have been raised. If you don't like the fact that they didn't petition to change the judge assigned to the case, be mad at them. The DoJ lawyers were the party with the information and responsibility here to act in the best interest of Congress. Given the limited facts that we know, it's very possible the case could have been moved if the DoJ had made the effort. If the DoJ had tried to have the case assigned to a new judge and lost, you would have a real issue here. However, at this time an attack on the judge is aimed at the wrong party.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 10:11:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site