Federal Judge Tells U.S. Supreme Court to ****!

[hadit]

Kopf argued that the Supreme Court should have left the case alone, and should stay far away from controversial issues.

So a judge's official position is that the Supreme Court should refuse to handle cases that cause controversy.

Yet, there is controversy in this particular matter because a provision of one law (the ACA) was thought to violate another, higher law (the Constitution).

Is it, then, his belief that the Supreme Court should simply ignore cases where their rulings are most needed? Isn't this exactly the kind of case the Supreme Court was meant to handle?

"Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent–this term and several past terms has proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids says [sic], it is time for the Court to stfu," he wrote.

So now he's saying that the Supreme Court SHOULD rule on this issue--just not right now, because some people get offended over it--and the time to rule on this will somehow be during the NEXT president's first term, not Obama's. Civil rights violations need to be the next guy in line's problem, and we shouldn't stop them now because some people would get upset.

This was literally the reasoning behind the SC's ruling in the Dred Scott case.

Apparently, a judge, who should know better, believes that being non-controversial is more important than following the law. I wonder if he rendered any of his rulings using that criteria?

 

[peach174]

Sebelius is the one who wrote those 4 drugs into the health care bill, that move in and of itself is illegal.

Prove it? Good luck trying...

Note- An interim rule
Sebelius: Religious insurers must cover birth control by Aug. 1, 2013

Law-Interim-Final Rules

Interim-final rules are binding norms federal agencies adopt and make immediately effective without inviting prior public comment on a rulemaking proposal. The Administrative Procedure Act ordinarily requires the use of notice and comment procedures to adopt legislative rules, but agencies justify omitting the pre-adoption comment period by invoking the impracticability or public interest prongs of the APA's good cause exception to this requirement.
Interim-Final Rules by Michael Asimow :: SSRN

 

[peach174]

He should be fired.

You evidently don't know that a Federal Judge is appointed to the bench For Life as is a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

They can be impeached.
But someone else says that he is retired so it doesn't matter.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

He should be fired.

You evidently don't know that a Federal Judge is appointed to the bench For Life as is a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

They can be impeached.
But someone else says that he is retired so it doesn't matter.

That person who said he was retired was misinformed. He is still an active judge.

 

[The Rabbi]

"To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse," he wrote. "The decision looks misogynist because the majority were all men. It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception."

Kopf argued that the Supreme Court should have left the case alone, and should stay far away from controversial issues.

"Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent–this term and several past terms has proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids says [sic], it is time for the Court to stfu," he wrote."

Well, that's one way to take a stand...

It's this administration and Obama who is causing the division.
Sebelius is the one who wrote those 4 drugs into the health care bill, that move in and of itself is illegal.

Right. Any normal person who isn't a loyal partisan, would easily see that the division/polarization has been driven by both parties.
The right has gone even further to the right, the left has gone even further to the left. What this has done is create a huge segment of the population, who are sick to their stomachs of both the right and left.
Now that's the reality of the entire picture.

"They all do it." That's for weak minded people.
The truth is Obama is the most radical president in history perhaps, and is supported by the most radical members of Congress, like Pelosi and Reid. The GOP is reacting to that, pulling right to counteract the Democrats' lurch to the Left.
Any normal person with two functioning brain cells could understand that. Who wrote No Child LEft Behind?

 

[whitehall]

Has anyone in the history of the great republic ever seen a federal judge criticize the decision of the Supreme Court? Maybe back in FDR's day when he tried to stack the Court and appointed a former KKK member.

 

[OKTexas]

Kopf argued that the Supreme Court should have left the case alone, and should stay far away from controversial issues.

So a judge's official position is that the Supreme Court should refuse to handle cases that cause controversy.

Yet, there is controversy in this particular matter because a provision of one law (the ACA) was thought to violate another, higher law (the Constitution).

Is it, then, his belief that the Supreme Court should simply ignore cases where their rulings are most needed? Isn't this exactly the kind of case the Supreme Court was meant to handle?

"Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent–this term and several past terms has proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids says [sic], it is time for the Court to stfu," he wrote.

So now he's saying that the Supreme Court SHOULD rule on this issue--just not right now, because some people get offended over it--and the time to rule on this will somehow be during the NEXT president's first term, not Obama's. Civil rights violations need to be the next guy in line's problem, and we shouldn't stop them now because some people would get upset.

This was literally the reasoning behind the SC's ruling in the Dred Scott case.

Actually the ruling had nothing to do with the Constitution, they said that the HHS mandates violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and struck them down only on that basis.

 

[blackhawk]

I believe the Supreme Court out ranks him he's entitled to his opinion of course but there is a reason he is not on the high court.

 

[boilermaker55]

But, clive "f*ck the laws state/federal owned lands" bundy is a hero to you.
You can't have it both ways but it seems like the right loves to do that so often.

 

[Contumacious]

You evidently don't know that a Federal Judge is appointed to the bench For Life as is a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

They can be impeached.
But someone else says that he is retired so it doesn't matter.

That person who said he was retired was misinformed. He is still an active judge.

Excuse me dick head, I'm NEVER wrong

Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judgehttp://www.ned.uscourts.gov/attorney/judges-information/richard-g-kopf



In office
May 26, 1992 – December 1, 2011http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_G._Kopfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_G._Kopf

.

 

[Contumacious]

Has anyone in the history of the great republic ever seen a federal judge criticize the decision of the Supreme Court? Maybe back in FDR's day when he tried to stack the Court and appointed a former KKK member.

Yes, but not publicly.

Sixth Circuit Court Judge Danny Julian Boggs accused then-Chief Judge Boyce Martin of violating Sixth Circuit procedural rules by assigning himself to panels and manipulating the timing of an order.

.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

"To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse," he wrote. "The decision looks misogynist because the majority were all men. It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception."

Kopf argued that the Supreme Court should have left the case alone, and should stay far away from controversial issues.

"Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent–this term and several past terms has proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids says [sic], it is time for the Court to stfu," he wrote."

Well, that's one way to take a stand, and he does have a fair point...

Is this judge 12 years old? Does he even understand what the SC does? Does he even understand what the fuck his job is?

The case was based on religion, to ignore the complaintant would have been a failure on the courts.

And now the SC is supposed to avoid controversy? That's their fucking job is taking the biggest most controversial cases and making a judgement on them. This guy want's the SC to fucking judge on parking tickets?

This is why we need judges ton have term limits. This guy is an idiot.

 

[tinydancer]

"To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse," he wrote. "The decision looks misogynist because the majority were all men. It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception."

Kopf argued that the Supreme Court should have left the case alone, and should stay far away from controversial issues.

"Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent–this term and several past terms has proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids says [sic], it is time for the Court to stfu," he wrote."

Well, that's one way to take a stand, and he does have a fair point...

He actually called America a democracy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is the same judge that described himself as a dirty old man, and told women lawyers how to dress for court.

On being a dirty old man and how young women lawyers dress « Hercules and the umpire.

Funny how he actually approved of a pretty lawyer that liked to show off her legs and breasts. isn't it?

Even funnier that a idiot sites him to support his ridiculous position.

 

[reconmark]

Look at all the progressives, cheering anarchy.

WHAT.....Clive Bundy is at it again???!!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

WOW!! How about that!! This Federal Judge should be sitting on the Supreme Court right now! Let's Hear It For the Judge who was appointed by the elder daddy Bush!! And that's one of their own Republicans socking it to them!

Hobby Lobby Ruling Prompts Federal Judge To Tell Supreme Court To 'STFU'

Talking points memo?
You people have to be reminded by schmuck sites such as this as to what to say and think?
UGH....
Hey genius, here's a newsflash....Nobody gives a fuck what this crotchety old fuck thinks.

 

[itfitzme]

He should be fired.

Ah for speaking his opinion. ...goods times

For putting partisanship into it.
A Judge is suppose to be neutral.

He was being neutral. He didn't insert his personal belief beyond his conclusion of stfu. The rest simply objective categorization of attrubutes of each judge and a description of how these attributes are commonly percieved.

Male/female lines on decisions are always noticed and interpreted without much second thought. Conservatrive/liberal splitt decisions are glaring obvious as wel

All I see is a very objective assessment followed by his opinion about how they might have better delt with it.

 

[Listening]

Do you think the SCOTUS will listen to him ?

No.

Then who gives a flying f**k ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So some dumb ass says the supremes should have stayed quiet and allowed HHS to violate federal law, sounds to me he should seek a new profession.

If only because such behavior is undignified and unbecoming to a judge.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He should be fired.

You evidently don't know that a Federal Judge is appointed to the bench For Life as is a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

You evidently don't know that any government official can be removed from office. The public is not compelled to suffer ANY fool without recourse.