Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Says Supreme Court Should Just 'STFU'
Huffington Post ^

Posted on 07/07/2014 11:24:55 AM PDT by TigerClaws

A federal judge thinks it's time for the Supreme Court to just "stfu."

Writing on his personal blog in response to the high court's recent 5-4 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, U.S. District Judge Richard George Kopf harshly criticized the justices for taking what he sees as a too active role in controversial cases.

"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," Kopf, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote. "As the kids says, it is time for the Court to stfu."

(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
If it's defense of marriage, by all means be active.

If it's pro abortion funding by Christians, STFU.

Btw, any judicial reprimand coming this judge's way for conduct unbecoming a judge?

1 posted on 07/07/2014 11:24:55 AM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Roe? More Please!

Hobby Lobby? STFU!


2 posted on 07/07/2014 11:28:18 AM PDT by WKTimpco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
Btw, any judicial reprimand coming this judge's way for conduct unbecoming a judge?

Wondering that myself...

3 posted on 07/07/2014 11:28:58 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Related...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3176935/posts


4 posted on 07/07/2014 11:29:55 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Please Support Free Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Just how does this guy think the balance of powers works anyway?

It’s the SCOTUS job to settle legal issues.

Who knew?


5 posted on 07/07/2014 11:30:11 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

He’s just another attention whore who hasn’t gotten enough attention lately. We do live in The Age of the Attention Whore...


6 posted on 07/07/2014 11:32:09 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Sure seems like it.


7 posted on 07/07/2014 11:32:57 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001; DoughtyOne

“...now causing more harm (division) to our democracy...”

Clearly someone neglected to tell him we’re a Republic...

But hey... what the hell, right...


8 posted on 07/07/2014 11:34:08 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

A course in anger management or anxiety meds?


9 posted on 07/07/2014 11:36:05 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

What respectable jurist would have his own personal blog?


10 posted on 07/07/2014 11:37:33 AM PDT by John W (Summer of Recovery VI: This Time We're Serious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

The role of the Supreme Court is to protect the people (including a minority who are being abused by a majority) from unconstitutional infringements of their rights by the government. Even (especially?) if unpopular, the Court must rule on conflicts between legislation and fundamental God-given rights that are detailed in the Constitution. For the Court to remain silent would risk a messy resolution to the widespread governmental overreach.


11 posted on 07/07/2014 11:39:28 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
A federal judge thinks it's time for the Supreme Court to just "stfu."

Right on. It would be something different if the Supreme Court were all Constitutionalists. Most on the court are not. Sick liberals that feelgood beyond believe regardless of that little thing called the Constitution and what Government is allowed to do and not to do. The Court is to place checks on what the Presidency, Senate or House attempts to do if questionable.

12 posted on 07/07/2014 11:41:57 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
In other words, this "judge" is saying that the SCOTUS should not rule against his personal opinions on controversial issues.

I wonder if he's say the same thing about Brown VS Board of Education, or Roe VS Wade. Those were certainly controversial in their time, and even today!

Mark

13 posted on 07/07/2014 11:49:46 AM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

The stupidity of people in the field of law like this guy is very frightening. If we take his thesis at face value, that a decision is damaging because it touches on a controversial “hot button” issues, then by that definition any government decision in those areas is bad. Or are we to be rule solely by the executive branch, unrestrained by guiding principles, by decree that changes by the whim of each administration?

Does this guy even h secret and the implication of the Court avoiding such cases as he suggests?


14 posted on 07/07/2014 11:49:50 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

That got butchered! “Does this guy even understand the implications” is what I supposed to write.


15 posted on 07/07/2014 11:51:56 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

All you GW Bush fans out there love this guy he appointed to the federal bench, of course?? I am a Reagan Republican, with no admiration for: the Bush family, their crazy foreign wars, establishment Republicans, the types they appointed to top jobs with the left establishment that like this judge, are far too cozy with the “left establishment” and who will do and say anything to get good press in dubious dumps like the Washington Post, New York Times.


16 posted on 07/07/2014 12:06:50 PM PDT by laconic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
Dear Judge Kopf,

It requires courage to take on difficult, controversial subjects but sometimes it has to be done for the sake of freedom. Apparently this is a concept with which you're unfamiliar,

Regards,

SCOTUS

17 posted on 07/07/2014 12:09:57 PM PDT by Renkluaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laconic

You think Reagan never appointed a bad judge?


18 posted on 07/07/2014 12:16:53 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Everybody knows that taking too active a role in controversial cases is a right reserved only for the tyrannical, black robed Feral “judges”.


19 posted on 07/07/2014 12:32:37 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (The future must not belong to those who slander bacon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NFHale

The person who appointed him should have told him we’re a republic. Oh, well. Just another gift that keeps on giving. And another reminder of a mistake I made when voting.


20 posted on 07/07/2014 1:38:05 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Liberals were raised by women or wimps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson