Perchoutofwater Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 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 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 of 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. Link If this bill is so good, why do the leaders of the Democrat party have to bribe their own members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 I agree Scott M. Matheson, Jr is not qualified for that position. good job perch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 4, 2010 Author Share Posted March 4, 2010 I agree Scott M. Matheson, Jr is not qualified for that position. good job perch. Actually I think he probably is qualified for the job, though from what I've read he has no judicial experience. I find it hard to believe Obama couldn't find anyone else more qualified that actually had judicial experience. I also find the timing very suspicious. I also think whether there is any impropriety here or not, there is surely the perception of impropriety based on his brothers voting record so far on Obama's signature piece of legislation. EGOP, can you honestly say this passes your smell test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Actually I think he probably is qualified for the job, though from what I've read he has no judicial experience. I find it hard to believe Obama couldn't find anyone else more qualified that actually had judicial experience. I also find the timing very suspicious. I also think whether there is any impropriety here or not, there is surely the perception of impropriety based on his brothers voting record so far on Obama's signature piece of legislation. EGOP, can you honestly say this passes your smell test? I'm guessing he's had to hold his nose so ofter he's killed off his olfactory glands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Hell, this graft and corruption is small potatoes compared to the sh!t they normally pull. I've all but given up at this point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Where there's smoke... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 I've all but given up at this point... really, you guys are reaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Convenient, I wonder if any stimulus money is going to handed out at this little Party. Maybe thats why they couldn't use it to pass the unemployment extension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Have to agree here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Actually I think he probably is qualified for the job, I agree... oh wait, what's the problem again? I'm confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Apparently that liberal Senator from Utah Orrin Hatch is in on the plot too... Matheson, a Democrat and former dean of the University of Utah School of Law, is known for his expertise in constitutional and evidentiary law. News of the nomination drew applause from both sides of the political aisle. "I approve of that nomination. Scott is a very fine fellow," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "He is well equipped and I think very learned for that position." Hatch said he would help shepherd Matheson through the Senate confirmation process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Apparently that liberal Senator from Utah Orrin Hatch is in on the plot too... Well, Hatch is from Utah - Utah has trees - the Obama family bought a Christmas Tree last December. So, you're just being a typical liberal who can't connect the dots here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 This doesn't exactly belong here, but why start another political thread...just exactly who is crazy in politics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Perch you are REALLy reaching here . . the guy is obviously qualified. This a conspiracy theory that I expect more from Lady Hawke than from you . . . Apparently Deans of Law Schools, and Harvard Law School constitution-specific professors arent "qualified" ? C'mon now . . . pretty sure that Appeals Court is 99% academic review of points of law and case law . . its not like he was nominated to the Supreme Court here . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 There is no conspiracy theory. There are facts. 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. Now right before Obama is to meet with Matheson to try to "encourage" him to change his vote, He gives the congressman's brother who has no judicial experience an appointment to the appeals court. You can't tell me there wasn't someone who was as qualified if not mor so who didn't have a relative Obama was trying to bribe ur encourage.There is no conspiracy theory, it is all right out there in the open. It is the arrogance of this administration that thanks nobody will call them on it. Unfortunately it appears all to many people are either naive or too blinded by partisanship to call this what it is. The only difference between this and the Louisiana Purchase and Corn Husker Kickback is that the other two bribes at least help their constituents, where as this doesn't. I stand amazed at what some of you choose to ignore and in so many cases defend. It wasn't too long ago y'all would be reaching for pitchforks, of course that was when Shrub was in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 There is no conspiracy theory. There are facts. 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. Now right before Obama is to meet with Matheson to try to "encourage" him to change his vote, He gives the congressman's brother who has no judicial experience an appointment to the appeals court. You can't tell me there wasn't someone who was as qualified if not mor so who didn't have a relative Obama was trying to bribe ur encourage.There is no conspiracy theory, it is all right out there in the open. It is the arrogance of this administration that thanks nobody will call them on it. Unfortunately it appears all to many people are either naive or too blinded by partisanship to call this what it is. The only difference between this and the Louisiana Purchase and Corn Husker Kickback is that the other two bribes at least help their constituents, where as this doesn't. I stand amazed at what some of you choose to ignore and in so many cases defend. It wasn't too long ago y'all would be reaching for pitchforks, of course that was when Shrub was in office. Seriously Perch . . . this is expected from lady hawke, not you. Do you think judges become judges when they fall out of the womb? They all start as judge somewhere . . William Rehnquist (former Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court) first crack at being a judge was when he was nominated FOR THE SUPREME COURT. Perch if there REALLY is under the table stuff, dont you think it would come to light? Or only by Faux News? Not ignoring it all . . just waiting for some REAL proof before you spin off into Area 51 territory . . The timing is very questionable, but dont deride his credentials as a very qualified candidate . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 Seriously Perch . . . this is expected from lady hawke, not you. Do you think judges become judges when they fall out of the womb? They all start as judge somewhere . . William Rehnquist (former Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court) first crack at being a judge was when he was nominated FOR THE SUPREME COURT. Perch if there REALLY is under the table stuff, dont you think it would come to light? Or only by Faux News? Not ignoring it all . . just waiting for some REAL proof before you spin off into Area 51 territory . . The timing is very questionable, but dont deride his credentials as a very qualified candidate . . . If Matheson changes his vote after voting against this horrible health care bill twice, it is pretty good indication that something has gone on under the table, wouldn't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 If Matheson changes his vote after voting against this horrible health care bill twice, it is pretty good indication that something has gone on under the table, wouldn't you agree? And if he doesn't change his vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) And if he doesn't change his vote? I don't have a problem with it, though I still think there is probably a more qualified person that isn't related to a congressman to be appointed. I'd also think the that if the President was as smart as you and your buddies think he is he would have avoided the appearance of impropriety that this has caused. Edited March 5, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 If Matheson changes his vote after voting against this horrible health care bill twice, it is pretty good indication that something has gone on under the table, wouldn't you agree? Or the bill has been changed enough to satisfy him? Either way without proff you are just tilting at windmills perch. If the guy was inherently unqualified, you would have a lot more support from me. But until then . . . I will wait for proof first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Bah. The 10th Circuit serves irrelevant states like New Mexico, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. That's like being appointed the ambassador to Luxembourg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 Or the bill has been changed enough to satisfy him? Either way without proff you are just tilting at windmills perch. If the guy was inherently unqualified, you would have a lot more support from me. But until then . . . I will wait for proof first. And people call me partisan. My Kool-Aid isn't that strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 One thing's for sure, this guy is no Harriet Miers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 One thing's for sure, this guy is no Harriet Miers. One things for sure, the conservatives on this board had enough intellectual honesty to admit she was a bad appointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 And people call me partisan. My Kool-Aid isn't that strong. Not all all Perch . . the guy is VERY qualified for his job, and you are insinuating the only reason he got the appointmnet is some sleazy political payoff. If that is true, then it will be widely panned and investigated. If it is you grasping at straws, then it wont be. I dont know how you can insinuate that this guy is only getting his job because of a political payoff. The guy is qualified . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.