Today we filed our second brief in support of the Bladensburg Cross in Maryland. We earlier filed a brief at the petition stage on July 27, 2018. Our brief attacks existing Supreme Court Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and calls upon the Court not to end the judicial assault on Christianity.
Jeremiah Morgan wrote this interesting take on why Michael Cohen would plead guilty to a non-crime. First, he explains why there is no campaign finance law violation here, and then discusses how this case provides a precedent to support the ever-increasing criminalization of politics in America.
Today we filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to correct a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court which gave state courts jurisdiction over a matter of church policy — public baptism.
The Article quotes Bill Olson, saying “Not only is it an effort to have a societal sanction for an immoral lifestyle, but it’s being accomplished by unelected judges who are admitting they are changing the law,”
Our brief argued that the Court should take the case to revisit the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which has been roundly criticized since it was decided. We urged the Court to apply an interpretive test suited to the Establishment Clause’s original text. Our brief proposes the proper test that the Court should adopt, which focuses not on whether the monument uses religious symbolism, but the use of the religious symbol , which here was to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, not to proselytize. As we have done in many prior briefs, we explain that the Religion Clauses establish a jurisdictional barrier to the the actions of federal government, including the federal judges.
The facts of the case involve a homosexual skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired for his sexual orientation. Our brief explains that he was fired not because he was a homosexual, but because of his inappropriate behavior towards female clients. But even if he had been fired for his “sexual orientation,” that is not a basis to bring a suit under Title VII which only sanctions discrimination based on “sex.”
American Thinker published our analysis of the Trump v. Hawaii decision, issued yesterday.
American Thinker published our analysis of the Carpenter v. United States decision, issued yesterday.