Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
It is more than fear. It is more than uncertainty. It is even more than mere misinformation. The Coronavirus has some people making suicide runs with religious fervor such as we have not seen since Jim Jones and his poison-spiked Kool-Aid.
Although Luther wrote it nearly 500 years ago, his advice on how to handle an epidemic is still valid. Trust God and take precautions.
It is greater and more defining than the shootings of JFK, Reagan or even 9/11 because it is, for the first time, a global marker in time; one of a shared moment of terror they all experienced together.
My initial reaction to the news about this virus was that it was an overblown story. I was quite annoyed with the mainstream media reporting every new case and every death. The result seemed to be nothing other than mass hysteria.
esterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments (link to transcript) in the Louisiana abortion case, Russo v. June Medical Services. This case is a challenge to a new Louisiana state law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles. Because the admitting privileges requirements can be onerous, such as admitting at […]
The Supreme Court ruled today per curiam that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court erred when it determined that the "Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" was responsible for properly administering a pension plan for the employees of Catholic Schools Trust.
On February 24, 2020, the Supreme court agreed to hear an appeal brought against the city of Philadelphia by Catholic Social Services (CSS). The city has a standing policy of not referring foster children to CSS because CSS will not certify same-sex couples as foster parents.
The Supreme court has decided against hearing a workplace accommodation case involving a Seventh-day Adventist, but hints that it may revisit employer accommodation standards in the future.
This decision is a good primer on the actual harm element requirement needed in order to have standing in Federal Court.
Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet argues in an interview published in Harvard Law Today (1/21/2020) that if the Supreme Court requires funding to go to both religious and secular schools, voters might reject voucher programs altogether.