Bankruptcy Judge Calls Stern v. Marshall “Absurd” and “Ironic”

December 3rd, 2011

I don’t suspect the Chief is particularly plussed from this ruling.

Many lower courts and commentators are struggling to understand [Stern’s] broader implications,” Houser wrote in a Nov. 28 ruling in a case called Soporex, Inc., v. Reed. “The arguments are interesting, and in some instances, mind-numbing.” And in a decision that proceeds to use the words “absurd” and “ironic,” the longtime bankruptcy judge explored just how knotty Stern analysis can be.

A bankruptcy judge in New York also said it was absurd:

“It would be absurd to conclude that the bankruptcy courts are deprived of jurisdiction over matters designated by Congress as core when [in matters reserved for final determination by federal district courts] Congress gave jurisdiction to bankruptcy courts to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-core matters,”

Judges really don’t like when their jurisdiction is stripped!