Blogging will be light while I figure this out," U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf of Nebraska said this week after coming under fire from fellow jurists and legal experts for writing a blistering criticism of the high court's recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.He should have waited to "figure it out" before he posted the blog entry. While most of the people are concerned about his tone, I'm concerned about two things: 1) His blatant sexism and religious bigotry:
n 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 partyCan you imagine if the decision or a decision of great controversy were decided by 5 female justices who were Catholic were written about in such a manner by a sitting judge? The misandry is clear, men cannot make proper, just and constitutionally sound decisions in regards to healthcare (of women or anyone else) because they are men. And lets be clear, it is the men part because had they all been protestant and decided the same way, he would have dropped the "Catholic" part. But I already know the deal, if you do something a woman finds objectionable, it's because you're a man, not because you thought about it. 2) He clearly didn't read or understand the ruling:
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,” Kopf wrote in the entry posted Saturday. “To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse.”Sorry to break it to the judge but the average person is woefully uninformed and misinformed in regards to the law. And the average person hasn't bothered to read the decision, even though it's on the internet, for free, 24-7. The average person reads a newspaper, usually with the same bias they have, and trusts that the reporting they are getting is accurate. More to the point is that the judge got the point wrong. This decision was not, I repeat not decided under the assumption of corporate person-hood. It was decided as a matter of a closely held corporation is the creation of it's founders and that said corporation may be formed for any legal purpose, including making money in a manner proscribed by it's founders. Here's the relevant section:
the laws of those States permit for-profit corporations to pursue “any lawful purpose” or “act,” including the pursuit of profit in con - formity with the owners’ religious principles. 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §1301 (2001) (“Corporations may be incorporated under this subpart for any lawful purpose or purposes”); Okla. Stat., Tit. 18, §§1002, 1005 (West 2012) (“[E]very corporation, whether profit or not for profit” may “be incorporated or organized . . . to conduct or promote any lawful business or purposes”); see also §1006(A)(3); Brief for State of Oklahoma as Amicus Curiae in No. 13–354.So the real issue is, why is there a judge on the bench who:
1) Apparently doesn't read.
2) Is biased against males (doesn't matter that he is male himself).
3) Lacks respect for his profession and fellow judges.