Remember Richard Kopf, the senior United States district judge in Nebraska [he's from my home state; I'm embarrassed] who was so upset by the Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case? He was the judge who blogged, “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.” [Link to blog added by me.—ASL]Now Richard isn't so sure that was the right thing to do. [Do tell?] He blogged Monday afternoon that a lawyer cautioned him about his profanity-laced and vulgar blogging, which includes a post he wrote in March titled "On being a dirty old man and how young women lawyers dress," in which he warned female lawyers not to wear clothes that would trigger him to look down their blouses or up their skirts. ...
Got a news flash for you, Dick: The divisions were present long before Burwell v. Hobby Lobby hit SCOTUS' docket. If you're just now noticing them, don't blame SCOTUS; blame your own inattention.
Kopf has written, "I am going to give this letter serious consideration. It comes from someone I respect and whose judgment I trust. It also reminds me that, as a physician might say, I should always strive 'first to do no harm.' Blogging will be light while I figure this out." Yeah, go ahead and lock that barn door; maybe the horses can unlock it when they return.
In any event, Kopf has decided to take his own advice for awhile. I'm sure, if we put our heads together, we can think of other writers who could also benefit from a "time out", because in all candor the left's reaction to Burwell has been nothing shy of childishly hysterical and bigoted.
Corporations are more likely to drop insurance altogether, and simply give employees a stipend for their own purchase, rather than hold out against providing contraceptive coverage (some, such as [I think] IBM, were in the planning stages before the ruling was passed down). As I've pointed out here before, the most common contraceptives cost less than $25-$30 a month, not a penny of which you save by having insurance cover them. You can save a lot more by making sane, intelligent sexual decisions. But even if I believed in contraceptives, I'd have to say that if you can't afford to buy them directly, you can't afford to have sex — this goes for men and prophylactics as much as for women and pills.
Nevertheless, the Burwell decision didn't stop any company from covering contraceptives of their own volition. Contraceptives are not about to be taken off the shelf. Civil rights are not gonna be rolled back sixty years, or even six years. Women are not gonna be forced back into the kitchen; pace Jessica Valenti, "female purity" wasn't even a factor in the majority's decision, let alone an "obsession". No, SCOTUS isn't putting the toothpaste back in the tube; they've just put the cap on ... for a little while, at any rate.
And, by the way, remember that of the "all-male, all-Catholic, all-ultra-conservative" majority, two would uphold Roe v. Wade without flinching; one of them authored the majority opinion in United States v. Burwell which struck down DOMA. Anthony Kennedy an "ultra-conservative"? Seriously? All this focus on the religious and sexual identity of the majority simply tells us more about leftists and the bigotry inherent in identity politics than it does about the legal rigor of Burwell.
Since I don't labor under the same set of expectations as does Judge Kopf, let me draw a fine point on this:
Liberals: Get. A. F**king. Grip.