Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 11:13 pm
You last visited January 22, 2017, 9:22 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

"Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

Published:

"Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.

BY John McCormack

March 3, 2010 6:15 PM

Source Weeklystandard.com 

"Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said.  “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering.  I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.” 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985.  He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006.  He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990. 

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah.  In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission.  He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989.  Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn.  He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?

Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. "The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus," Matheson's press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. "It’s too early to know if that will occur." Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: "I would not infer anything.  I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday."

The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job."

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes

Entry #1,668

Comments

1.
Rick GComment by Rick G - March 4, 2010, 8:10 am
He's trying to re-invent health care instead of concentrating on the obvious problem - cost. This is not the appropriate time to re-invent health care. We have much more pressing issues. Nothing has been done to create jobs, manufacturing or to improve our crumbling infrastructure. A $17 billion "jobs bill" is not a solution. Extending unemployment benefits continuously is not a solution. And government jobs are non-productive jobs. These are tiny bandaids on a gushing artery and they full well know it. In the face of this stupidity, what are we to conclude? It must be intentional "stupidity" because these people are not that stupid.

2.
konaneComment by konane - March 4, 2010, 8:39 am
Thanks Rick! I have great faith in American people to see the legacy he's attempting to force upon us just so he can have a name in history. 'Pride goeth before the fall' if I remember the Bible correctly.

Logical way is too obvious, too easy, not sufficiently convoluted. Tax revenues down, gotta rake in that money from somewhere.

I agree with what Todd posted in his blog about in his blog emphasizing Tort Reform and Choice.

"What a Republican Health-Care Reform Bill Would Look Like

Interstate Sale of Insurance: In order to aid in the expansion of interstate commerce in intangible goods, it shall be permissible for persons licensed to sell health insurance in any state to sell health insurance through a licensed insurance broker in the state in which the policy is purchased. The state from which the product originates must allow the policy to be sold to its citizens and must guarantee the solvency of the issuing company through an insurance guarantee fund utilized by all that state's admitted carriers.

Tort Reform: In order for any state to receive existing funding for schools of medicine, it must limit the liability of health-care providers to no more than $250,000 for noneconomic damages such as "pain and suffering." This amount shall be adjusted upward or downward each Jan. 2 based upon the rise or fall of the Consumer Price Index.

More Tort Reform: In order for states to receive existing federal funding for schools of medicine: (1) No attorney in the state may collect as his fee more than 25 percent of a medical malpractice settlement award; (2) No amount of damages may be collected from any negligent health-care provider except in the proportion to the actor's percentage of negligence; and (3) If a plaintiff commences an action for medical malpractice, the parties that prevail shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney fees from the non-prevailing party.

Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions/No Cancellation: Any medical insurance policy written by a company involved in commerce shall not exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions as long as the insured has been continually insured for the previous year. If not insured for the previous year, the insured shall have coverage for pre-existing illnesses not more than one year after insurance commences. And no insurance policy in force for one year or more may be canceled or contested for any reason except nonpayment of premium.

http://blogs.lotterypost.com/todd/2010/02/what-a-republican-health-care-reform-bill-wou.htm

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.