If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Federal judge tells Supreme Court to STFU, wonders why they are further dividing the country by taking controversial cases they could avoid   (gawker.com) divider line 131
    More: Obvious, shut up, contraception mandate, George H. W. Bush  
•       •       •

5927 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jul 2014 at 3:48 PM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-07 01:25:14 PM
FTA: "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, it is time for the Court to stfu."
 
2014-07-07 01:26:19 PM
Wasn't there a split in the circuits?
 
2014-07-07 01:30:43 PM
Someone should notify that Federal judge that we don't have "a democracy."
We have a republic.

Donkus.
 
2014-07-07 01:35:32 PM

Honest Bender: Someone should notify that Federal judge that we don't have "a democracy."
We have a republic.

Donkus.


So THAT'S why we have to vote Republican, because we're all actually republicans. Why do we even have a Democrat party?

Oh, and one more thing - what's that got to do with what the judge had to say about SCOTUS?
 
2014-07-07 01:39:40 PM

MrBallou: what's that got to do with what the judge had to say about SCOTUS?


Nothing.
Literally nothing at all.

I'd just expect a federal judge to be better educated.
 
2014-07-07 01:57:00 PM

Honest Bender: MrBallou: what's that got to do with what the judge had to say about SCOTUS?

Nothing.
Literally nothing at all.

I'd just expect a federal judge to be better educated.


He was probably away at Librul Camp when they covered that in Federal Law School.
 
2014-07-07 01:58:07 PM

Honest Bender: MrBallou: what's that got to do with what the judge had to say about SCOTUS?

Nothing.
Literally nothing at all.

I'd just expect a federal judge to be better educated.


I expected the Supreme Court to be better educated also.
 
2014-07-07 02:03:29 PM
Looked it up myself. Yes, there was a split in the Circuits. Of course they took it up. They almost have to take up cases to resolve a split in the circuits. That doesn't mean they have to rule the way they did, but they needed to resolve it. What a silly thing to say.
 
2014-07-07 02:10:35 PM

Nabb1: Looked it up myself. Yes, there was a split in the Circuits. Of course they took it up. They almost have to take up cases to resolve a split in the circuits. That doesn't mean they have to rule the way they did, but they needed to resolve it. What a silly thing to say.


The federal judge blogger addressed the split circuits issue in the comments section of his post. An excerpt from that:

"What's the harm? In one Circuit, a closely held corporation could refuse to comply. In another Circuit, a closely held corporation would be required to comply. What would likely happen is that other Circuits would weigh in taking positions for or against requring compliance. The more Circuit opinions the more information the Court would have if the Court ultimely had to act. We might even see the Administration provide methods of accomodation that would satisfy most reasonable people."
 
2014-07-07 02:14:19 PM

Honest Bender: I'd just expect a federal judge to be better educated.


You've seen our politicians and our lawyers. What would make you think judges would be any less idiotic?
 
2014-07-07 02:16:34 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: Looked it up myself. Yes, there was a split in the Circuits. Of course they took it up. They almost have to take up cases to resolve a split in the circuits. That doesn't mean they have to rule the way they did, but they needed to resolve it. What a silly thing to say.

The federal judge blogger addressed the split circuits issue in the comments section of his post. An excerpt from that:

"What's the harm? In one Circuit, a closely held corporation could refuse to comply. In another Circuit, a closely held corporation would be required to comply. What would likely happen is that other Circuits would weigh in taking positions for or against requring compliance. The more Circuit opinions the more information the Court would have if the Court ultimely had to act. We might even see the Administration provide methods of accomodation that would satisfy most reasonable people."


Yes, they could have done that. But eventually splits in the Circuits have to be resolved at some point, especially on a major law like the ACA. I don't fault them for simply taking the case up and ruling. The Court shouldn't shy away from controversy for political reasons. Either we respect the rule of law or we just admit that's a fairy tale we tell law students and the reality is we really only recognize two rules: the rule of money and the rule of politics.
 
2014-07-07 02:20:35 PM

Nabb1: shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: Looked it up myself. Yes, there was a split in the Circuits. Of course they took it up. They almost have to take up cases to resolve a split in the circuits. That doesn't mean they have to rule the way they did, but they needed to resolve it. What a silly thing to say.

The federal judge blogger addressed the split circuits issue in the comments section of his post. An excerpt from that:

"What's the harm? In one Circuit, a closely held corporation could refuse to comply. In another Circuit, a closely held corporation would be required to comply. What would likely happen is that other Circuits would weigh in taking positions for or against requring compliance. The more Circuit opinions the more information the Court would have if the Court ultimely had to act. We might even see the Administration provide methods of accomodation that would satisfy most reasonable people."

Yes, they could have done that. But eventually splits in the Circuits have to be resolved at some point, especially on a major law like the ACA. I don't fault them for simply taking the case up and ruling. The Court shouldn't shy away from controversy for political reasons. Either we respect the rule of law or we just admit that's a fairy tale we tell law students and the reality is we really only recognize two rules: the rule of money and the rule of politics.


Well then you just disagree with him, which is a far cry from saying his position was silly.
 
2014-07-07 02:22:26 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: Looked it up myself. Yes, there was a split in the Circuits. Of course they took it up. They almost have to take up cases to resolve a split in the circuits. That doesn't mean they have to rule the way they did, but they needed to resolve it. What a silly thing to say.

The federal judge blogger addressed the split circuits issue in the comments section of his post. An excerpt from that:

"What's the harm? In one Circuit, a closely held corporation could refuse to comply. In another Circuit, a closely held corporation would be required to comply. What would likely happen is that other Circuits would weigh in taking positions for or against requring compliance. The more Circuit opinions the more information the Court would have if the Court ultimely had to act. We might even see the Administration provide methods of accomodation that would satisfy most reasonable people."

Yes, they could have done that. But eventually splits in the Circuits have to be resolved at some point, especially on a major law like the ACA. I don't fault them for simply taking the case up and ruling. The Court shouldn't shy away from controversy for political reasons. Either we respect the rule of law or we just admit that's a fairy tale we tell law students and the reality is we really only recognize two rules: the rule of money and the rule of politics.

Well then you just disagree with him, which is a far cry from saying his position was silly.


Writing "STFU" is never not silly.
 
2014-07-07 02:33:26 PM
It's nice to see a judge that totes doesn't agree with SCOTUS.  KWIM?
 
2014-07-07 02:37:51 PM

Nabb1: Well then you just disagree with him, which is a far cry from saying his position was silly.


Writing "STFU" is never not silly.


Which is why he qualified it with "as the kids say...." I'm just pointing out that you and one or two other farkers seemed to dismiss the guy's entire argument based on the mistaken assumption that he had not even considered that the split circuits were an issue. He had considered it, and he still felt Hobby Lobby, and numerous other cases (because he was not only talking about Hobby Lobby in his post - he references that last couple of Supreme Court sessions as being divisive and problematic) were not essential for the Supreme Court to weigh in on. And let's not forget that this is a Bush Sr. appointee in Nebraska - not exactly a libby lib with an agenda.
 
2014-07-07 02:52:54 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: Well then you just disagree with him, which is a far cry from saying his position was silly.


Writing "STFU" is never not silly.

Which is why he qualified it with "as the kids say...." I'm just pointing out that you and one or two other farkers seemed to dismiss the guy's entire argument based on the mistaken assumption that he had not even considered that the split circuits were an issue. He had considered it, and he still felt Hobby Lobby, and numerous other cases (because he was not only talking about Hobby Lobby in his post - he references that last couple of Supreme Court sessions as being divisive and problematic) were not essential for the Supreme Court to weigh in on. And let's not forget that this is a Bush Sr. appointee in Nebraska - not exactly a libby lib with an agenda.


That's fine. I just don't necessarily agree with the notion that the Supreme Court should avoid taking up cases because they are controversial.
 
2014-07-07 02:58:37 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: Well then you just disagree with him, which is a far cry from saying his position was silly.


Writing "STFU" is never not silly.

Which is why he qualified it with "as the kids say...." I'm just pointing out that you and one or two other farkers seemed to dismiss the guy's entire argument based on the mistaken assumption that he had not even considered that the split circuits were an issue. He had considered it, and he still felt Hobby Lobby, and numerous other cases (because he was not only talking about Hobby Lobby in his post - he references that last couple of Supreme Court sessions as being divisive and problematic) were not essential for the Supreme Court to weigh in on. And let's not forget that this is a Bush Sr. appointee in Nebraska - not exactly a libby lib with an agenda.


With split circuits and a nationwide corporation, you're looking at a federal law that could fine Hobby Lobby in one state and ignore it in another. Split circuits, IMO, is an issue of equal protection under the law.
 
2014-07-07 03:19:30 PM
I thought it was part of the Supreme Court's job to take on controversial cases.
 
2014-07-07 03:27:40 PM
A good piece, but not nearly as iconic as his commentary on the Citizens United Decision in which he noted" "TOGTFO"

A stunning legal mind.
 
2014-07-07 03:28:42 PM
I just want to point out that the judge's name is Richard Kopf.

/danke
 
2014-07-07 03:29:30 PM

Nabb1: shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1:

"STFU" is never not silly.

qualified it with "as the kids say...."  .... not exactly a libby lib with an agenda.

That's fine. I just don't necessarily agree with the notion that the Supreme Court should avoid taking up cases because they are controversial.


Shower's right that the judge has a defensible position, but Nabb is also right, the judge's position is badly misguided.  Misguided positions can be seriously defended, and federal judges with life tenure can say what they want.

Federal courts should not hesitate to take on controversial cases, because of the three branches only the judicial branch offers the actual or corporate 'person' a direct path to redress an injury purportedly perpetrated by the po-po (or other state actor).  Even not-fans of the current direction of the court in areas such as corporate personhood should want judges to be judicial activists.
 
2014-07-07 03:47:18 PM

ArkAngel: With split circuits and a nationwide corporation, you're looking at a federal law that could fine Hobby Lobby in one state and ignore it in another. Split circuits, IMO, is an issue of equal protection under the law.


And there's that. On company may be looking at two or three different rules at once.
 
2014-07-07 03:59:03 PM

Nabb1: ArkAngel: With split circuits and a nationwide corporation, you're looking at a federal law that could fine Hobby Lobby in one state and ignore it in another. Split circuits, IMO, is an issue of equal protection under the law.

And there's that. On company may be looking at two or three different rules at once.


effectively that isn't much different than many other regulations.
 
2014-07-07 04:01:40 PM

ArkAngel: With split circuits and a nationwide corporation, you're looking at a federal law that could fine Hobby Lobby in one state and ignore it in another. Split circuits, IMO, is an issue of equal protection under the law.


So, equal protection for business = good, but equal protection for citizens = bad?
 
2014-07-07 04:03:53 PM
Agree or disagree with his point, this was not a judicious use of language.

Hopefully a Judicial Disciplinary Committee will warn Judge Kopf to cease farking that chicken.
 
2014-07-07 04:04:33 PM
I'm still waiting for the inevitable assassination attempt on Antonin Scalia. He's way overdue.
 
2014-07-07 04:05:32 PM

CheetahOlivetti: I just want to point out that the judge's name is Richard Kopf.

/danke


Dick Head?
 
2014-07-07 04:05:54 PM
If only he would have gone with DIAF.
 
GBB [TotalFark]
2014-07-07 04:06:26 PM
Stay
Tuned
For
Updates
?
 
2014-07-07 04:06:38 PM
Shorter judge:  "I'd be happier seeing a few people with their rights violated than having all these other people upset about it."

If that doesn't pour cold water on any faith in that person as a judge, I don't know what could.
 
MFK
2014-07-07 04:06:46 PM
wow, this must be a troll thread. I walked in here and over 1/3 of the comments disappeared.
 
2014-07-07 04:07:42 PM

AurizenDarkstar: ArkAngel: With split circuits and a nationwide corporation, you're looking at a federal law that could fine Hobby Lobby in one state and ignore it in another. Split circuits, IMO, is an issue of equal protection under the law.

So, equal protection for business = good, but equal protection for citizens = bad?


Hush. You'll upset him.
 
2014-07-07 04:08:20 PM

Captain Dan: Agree or disagree with his point, this was not a judicious use of language.


Using the phrase STFU is what got his blog post attention.
 
2014-07-07 04:09:10 PM

browneye: I thought it was part of the Supreme Court's job to take on controversial cases.


Nope.  The Court abides by the Rule of Four when accepting cases; otherwise, Article 3 defines the duties of the Supreme Court.

Article III
Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2
1:  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;10   --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
2:  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.  In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
3:  The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
 
2014-07-07 04:09:20 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Captain Dan: Agree or disagree with his point, this was not a judicious use of language.

Using the phrase STFU is what got his blog post attention.


Which is sad, because pointing out that the SCOTUS was acting like partial assholes did not.
 
2014-07-07 04:11:54 PM
THe judge sure has a case of the goo now doesn't he.
 
2014-07-07 04:22:20 PM

rjakobi: I'm still waiting for the inevitable assassination attempt on Antonin Scalia. He's way overdue.


There would not be a bag of popcorn large enough for the threads regarding the assassins party affiliation.
 
2014-07-07 04:22:49 PM
Maybe the courts wouldn't need to be so divisive if the legislature would get off their asses and do their job. The courts clarify rules, the legislature makes the rules.

We haven't had a good constitutional amendment for nigh 40 years now. Let's sort out this birth control and gun control business once and for all.
 
2014-07-07 04:23:13 PM
He is also credited with one of the best quotes about doctors I have heard in a while: "There is an entitlement mentality in the medical profession that is just astounding."
 
2014-07-07 04:23:54 PM
Is it possible for everyone to adopt blinkered dictionary quibbles on this issue? Gosh I sure hope so.
 
2014-07-07 04:27:22 PM

Nabb1: ."

 But eventually splits in the Circuits have to be resolved at some point, especially on a major law like the ACA.


What a load of nonsense. Splits do not have to be resolved and in many cases the country is better off when they go unresolved, even when this lasts forever. It is beyond my comprehension the abject terror towards diversity I sense in your post. It's as if you think that if different parts of the country do it differently then BOOM next thing one knows another Civil War. My own view is that your attidude is the height of barbarism.
 
2014-07-07 04:27:30 PM
This bullshiat is just as silly and pedantic as when the right wingers were saying the exact same thing about the SCOTUS when they ruled on Obamacare in the first place.

Y'all mad.
 
2014-07-07 04:30:15 PM

worlddan: Nabb1: ."

 But eventually splits in the Circuits have to be resolved at some point, especially on a major law like the ACA.

What a load of nonsense. Splits do not have to be resolved and in many cases the country is better off when they go unresolved, even when this lasts forever. It is beyond my comprehension the abject terror towards diversity I sense in your post. It's as if you think that if different parts of the country do it differently then BOOM next thing one knows another Civil War. My own view is that your attidude is the height of barbarism.


Federal law should apply equally, and enforced equally, in all parts of the country. To do otherwise is to violate the equal protection clause.

State laws can be different - within the parameters of the incorporated constitutional amendments.
 
2014-07-07 04:35:53 PM

Nabb1: shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: shower_in_my_socks: Nabb1: Looked it up myself. Yes, there was a split in the Circuits. Of course they took it up. They almost have to take up cases to resolve a split in the circuits. That doesn't mean they have to rule the way they did, but they needed to resolve it. What a silly thing to say.

The federal judge blogger addressed the split circuits issue in the comments section of his post. An excerpt from that:

"What's the harm? In one Circuit, a closely held corporation could refuse to comply. In another Circuit, a closely held corporation would be required to comply. What would likely happen is that other Circuits would weigh in taking positions for or against requring compliance. The more Circuit opinions the more information the Court would have if the Court ultimely had to act. We might even see the Administration provide methods of accomodation that would satisfy most reasonable people."

Yes, they could have done that. But eventually splits in the Circuits have to be resolved at some point, especially on a major law like the ACA. I don't fault them for simply taking the case up and ruling. The Court shouldn't shy away from controversy for political reasons. Either we respect the rule of law or we just admit that's a fairy tale we tell law students and the reality is we really only recognize two rules: the rule of money and the rule of politics.

Well then you just disagree with him, which is a far cry from saying his position was silly.

Writing "STFU" is never not silly.


STFU.

/sorry, couldn't help it
 
2014-07-07 04:39:19 PM
What an odd notion; that judges, selected because of their ability to judge, should exercise their sound judgment.
 
2014-07-07 04:42:27 PM

Honest Bender: Someone should notify that Federal judge that we don't have "a democracy."
We have a republic.

Donkus.



we don't have a Democracy or a Republic or a Democratic Republic.  We have a Plutocratic Republic.  the only ones being represented are the wealthy plutocrats and their big business needs. that eliminates about 98% of the population.

you're welcome.
 
2014-07-07 04:43:11 PM
it has been obvious for years that the U.S. Supreme Court is bought and paid for.
 
2014-07-07 04:45:29 PM

Linux_Yes: it has been obvious for years that the U.S. Supreme Court is bought and paid for.


With corporate money.
 
2014-07-07 04:45:42 PM

Honest Bender: Someone should notify that Federal judge that we don't have "a democracy."
We have a republic.

Donkus.


Paging Dr Pedant...Dr Pedant please report to the STFU ER.
 
2014-07-07 04:49:14 PM
Isn't this the same judge that presides over the Obamacare Death Panels?  Yeah, I thought so.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report