In a post prompted by Hobby Lobby, Judge Richard George Kopf comments:
In the Hobby Lobby cases, five male Justices of the Supreme Court, who are all members of the Catholic faith and who each were appointed by a President who hailed from the Republican party, decided that a huge corporation, with thousands of employees and gargantuan revenues, was a “person” entitled to assert a religious objection to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate because that corporation was “closely held” by family members. To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse.
There you have. Proof once again that (thinly veiled) anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice among the elites.
What would have happened if the Supreme Court simply decided not to take the Hobby Lobby cases? What harm would have befallen the nation? What harm would have befallen Hobby Lobby family members who would have been free to express their religious beliefs as real persons? Had the Court sat on the sidelines, I don’t think any significant harm would have occurred.
What harm, the dummKopf asks? Forcing the owners of a family-owned business to act against their beliefs is no harm?
Back to Kopf:
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 say, it is time for the Court to stfu.
Which brings me to my question. Would Judge Kopf have told the Supreme Court to shut up after Lawrence v. Texas? Roe v. Wade? Windsor v. US? Engel v. Vitale? Employment Division v. Smith? Why is it to people like this dummKopf that cases in which liberals win turn out to what Kopf calls "those rare 'fate of the nation' cases"?
I've got a suggestion for Judge Kopf: Why don't you STFU?
Update: I just learned that Judge Kopf is the same dummKopf who blogged about what one lawyer called the judge's "fondness for looking up the skirts and down the blouses of female attorneys who appear before him."
Here's what Judge Kopf wrote on that subject:
I have been a dirty old man ever since I was a very young man. Except, that is, when it comes to my daughters (and other young women that I care deeply about). And that brings me to the amusing debate about how (mostly) young female lawyers dress these days.
Editorial comment: Perhaps his proclivities as a dirty old man explain the intensity of his desire that Hooby Lobby provide its employees with all forms of contraceptives? After all, if there's a Hobby Lobby in his town, the Supreme Court decision narrows his targets.
Back to the dummKopf:
Around these parts there is a wonderfully talented and very pretty female lawyer who is in her late twenties. She is brilliant, she writes well, she speaks eloquently, she is zealous but not overly so, she is always prepared, she treats others, including her opponents, with civility and respect, she wears very short skirts and shows lots of her ample chest. I especially appreciate the last two attributes.
He goes on to offer some unsolicited advice as to how to avoid being deemed an "ignorant slut."
Dude, you really need to STFU.