Imagine a liberal Federal Judge who moderated a political debate, invested in a Democratic campaign consulting firm and then ruled in favor of the Democratic politician in the debate with regards to a liberal law, what do you think would happen. Cries of liberal judicial activism would be a good guess.
But if a conservative judge committed the same egregious ruling?
Washington Post: Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli (R) wasn't kidding when he told reporters months ago that he's appeared before U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, who Monday gave Cuccinelli a legal win when he ruled that a key portion of the federal health care law is constitutional … he could well have been recalling an October 2009 debate hosted by the Richmond Bar Association between he and Steve Shannon, Cuccinelli's Democratic opponent in the attorney general's race.
Yes, that's right -- the Richmond association tapped Hudson to moderate a debate between Cuccinelli and Shannon in the months leading up to the 2009 election.
His role in the political event might raise eyebrows from advocates of the health care law, who've said that George Bush appointee is a partisan who should have recused himself from ruling on health care because he owns a stake of a Republican campaign consulting firm. (Hudson has said he invested before joining the bench and has no day-to-day role with the group.)