The Supreme Court’s Day of Reckoning is Coming

By: John Green

American Thinker

June 18, 2021

(emphasis added)


The election of 2020 is going to lay bare the dereliction of the Supreme Court for all to see. 
The COVD-19 pandemic gave numerous state election officials an excuse to implement far-reaching changes to our election processes. Those changes obviously made our systems vulnerable to fraud. States implemented massive mail-in balloting at the same time they relaxed ballot security and voter identification. They even extended the voting periods — to give the criminals more time to commit their fraud.All these changes were unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly gives the various state legislatures the authority to define how their elections will be conducted — not state election officials. Election officials are only empowered to conduct elections within the rules set forth by their respective legislatures — except, apparently, during a pandemic. There must be a pandemic emanation hidden in a penumbra of the Constitution we didn’t know about. Alarmed that the changes would invite fraud, various organizations filed lawsuits to stop the changes. 
The Supreme Court declined to get involved. It ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing because nobody had been harmed — yet. Since the election hadn’t happened, nobody was damaged, and there was no case to be heard. They were thinking like a civil court, not the defenders of the Constitution they are sworn to be. It was a cowardly way to stay out of the political controversy. Unfortunately, it also missed an opportunity to defend the Constitution, which was clearly under attack.
After all the ad-hoc changes had been allowed to stand, the election of 2020 saw an unprecedented number of irregularities — too many to ignore. ●  Election observers were banned from observing the election. 
●  Counting stopped in the middle of the night and then restarted after boxes of ballots were mysteriously found. 
●  There are reports of ballots being driven across state lines — by the truckload. 
●  There were even precincts that counted more ballots than there were registered voters! ●  A number of states filed lawsuits against the states in which these irregularities occurred.
Even though the Supreme Court is supposed to be the arbiter of cases between states, it again refused to get involved. They ruled that Texas couldn’t sue Pennsylvania because Texans had their votes accurately counted and therefore were not harmed by Pennsylvania. Apparently having the wrong president crammed down the throats of Texans is not considered “harm.” Given the flood of illegal aliens President Asterisk has invited — and the crime that has accompanied them — would the justices consider Texas “harmed” now?
A number of other cases were dropped because the court considered them “moot.” The election had been certified and nothing was going to change that — hence no need to look at the evidence. In the immortal words of Hillary Rodham Clinton, “At this point what difference does it make?”
The court seems to have three distinct voting blocs:The oath keepers — These are the justices that are willing to stand up and defend the Constitution even if it means they’ll have to endure attacks. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch make up this bloc.The jellyfish — These are the justices that lack the spine to face controversy. They’re more concerned about defending the court than the Constitution. Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh make up this bloc.The subversives — These are the justices that have been using penumbras and emanations to rewrite the constitution in pursuit of social engineering. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer make up this bloc.
It’s rumored that only three justices wanted to hear the 2020 election lawsuits. Does anyone doubt that it was those who comprise the “oath keepers” bloc?
Now, Chief Justice Roberts has placed his court in a trick-box. By choosing to stay out of the election controversy, John Roberts has bet the court’s reputation that the mysteries of the election would remain mysteries. As wagers go, it was not a particularly smart one. The election involved millions of ballots, tens of thousands of election workers, and thousands of counties. If there was fraud, there is too much evidence, in too many hands, to stay hidden.
Tellingly, the Democrats are scrambling to keep the truth hidden, but it’s slowly coming out. State-sponsored forensic audits, as well as private investigations, are turning over the stones. We’ll likely know the truth by the end of this year. If it turns out that the election was stolen, the Supreme Court will be exposed as derelict, weak, and useless. It will all be because the jellyfish bloc doesn’t understand the psychology of bullies.
The Supreme Court avoided involvement in the election because they wanted to stay out of the controversy — they didn’t want to be bullied by the Democrats or the media. There are other possible motives, but they’re even more disturbing. Cowing to bullies will not avoid conflict. Bullies prey on weakness. One has to either stand up to them eventually or accept servitude. Every kid on the playground has learned that lesson by the 8th grade. Apparently, John Roberts hasn’t. Each time Chief Justice Roberts has acceded to the bullies, he’s made the court’s future challenge greater.
Ruling that last-minute ad-hoc election changes were unconstitutional would have been relatively straightforward — but the court didn’t. 
Hearing the election fraud evidence and adjudicating the result would have created a political crap-storm — but it would have been the right thing to do. 
What will become of the court’s reputation if it becomes obvious that the election was stolen and rather than stand up, it sat down?
An April poll by Rasmussen Reports found that 51% of the population believes that fraud affected the election outcome. Does Roberts grasp the significance of that number? It’s the percentage of the population who believe the Supreme Court was derelict in defending the Constitution. If John Roberts wanted to defend the court, perhaps he should have considered pursuit of the truth rather than avoidance of controversy.
A recent Ipsos poll found that 63% of the public thinks it’s time to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices. The public isn’t stupid.  It recognizes that the Supreme Court needs to be taken to the woodshed. 
The next few months will say a lot about the Supreme Court. Will it correct course, or will it embrace servitude to the mob?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Historian’s Corner: Assessing America in the Age of Woke Part One


By: Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson // Private Papers

June 15, 2021

Hat Tip: Rip McIntosh


Wokism took off in June 2020. It became institutionalized after Joe Biden became president. We have now had nearly five months of the radical Biden political agenda to seep through the larger popular culture. So where are we now in this suddenly strange and nearly unrecognizable land?
EconomicallyFor all Biden’s socialist talk, so far the Trump deregulation and tax cuts are still in effect. Their fumes should fuel a short recovery boom, given pent-up demand and post-Covid mania to eat out, to travel, to splurge, and to buy. Eventually, most Americans will leave their home lotus-eating pads and re-climatize back to work.
But the continuance of recessionary stimulus packages has created near-permanent trillion-plus-dollar deficits. We will see very soon a $30 trillion national debt. Incentives for the unemployed still discourage work — at the very time producers are wary and for good reasons. We learned in seventh grade that too many dollars chasing too few goods results in inflation and eventually economic recession, stagflation, or collapse.
Indeed, inflation may be growing at an annualized rate of six to nine percent, depending on whether one counts housing prices, fuels, appliances, cars, other big-ticket commodities, and services as part of the general rise in the cost of living. Biden has frightened producers with Draconian anti-fossil fuel executive orders, ranging from canceling pipelines to putting Anwar off-limits again and discouraging frackers to take risks to meet spiraling gasoline demand. Talk of huge increases in income, corporate, capital gains, payroll, and estate taxes further will dampen producers’ confidence—even if they are not immediately implemented. The idea of 30-year mortgages at the current 2.5 to 3.0 percent interest, as money annually erodes in value by eight percent, is untenable. And the Fed may intervene in the fall—cautiously at first, in panic thereafter. Add it all up: we are entering a new sort of socialist economy, restrained only by the tenuous check of a 50/50 Senate. It is no exaggeration that, economically at least, the US is now headed to the left of the EU. 
In 1980, I began farming and by year’s end thought a 14-percent interest ag loan was a godsend, and farm supplies that went up only one-percent a month were a steal. That surrealism can return, although generations that have enjoyed mostly a subsequent 40-years of low inflation and reasonable interest rates are clueless about what is on the horizon.
PoliticallyThe country is divided 50/50, or so we are told. No one knows, however, the volatile views of 10-15 percent of the electorate. On this teeter-totter are the mystical swing suburban voters, the Independents, the Never Trumpers, and the vestigial Blue Dogs. So far, they are clinging to the myth of Old Joe Biden From Scranton who is neither Donald Trump tweeting nor a puppet of the hard left. 
But violent crime is rising and spreading into the suburbs—without much evidence that criminals are being arrested, indicted, convicted, and locked up. Race in a myriad of ways is defining how crime is massaged and adjudicated, by the media and the police. The godhead of Critical Race Theory is not Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream,” but a flip progressive version of Bull Connor, in which race alone defines us and expressing hatred of one race is the pastime of the woke elite. 
Woke mandatory brainwashing and reeducation are spreading throughout the workforce. Our major institutions such as the campus, the military, the corporate boardroom, Wall Street, and K-12 are in chaos. Would-be opportunistic and careerist Maoists come out of the woodwork to insist on using these platforms to reinvent us along the lines of the 1619 vision. 
So will Biden get a strong rebuke in 2022, as do most presidents in their first midterms? 
I think he will. But the question is will the backlash be large enough to defeat the progressive/deep-state/media fusion? Can the pushback overcome the huge influxes of leftwing corporate money of the Zuckerberg sort that were bragged upon by the Left as so effective in 2020 in targeting precincts to “incentivize” (some) voters? And can the reaction overcome changes in voting laws that are making Election Day balloting mostly an anachronism? 
If Biden were to keep the House and Senate, many of the unwoke are not confident about the future viability of the US, at least as envisioned over the last 232 years as a constitutional republic by our founders.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Pontius Pilate “Conservative” SCOTUS Justices “‘No Standing’… in the Election… the Same Pernicious, B.S. Doctrine was just used to Excuse Obamacare”

Constitutional lawyer Robert Barnes said it best about our RINO “right-leaning establishment legal commentators” and Pontius Pilate “conservative” SCOTUS justices:Robert Barnes@barnes_lawI wonder if all the right-leaning establishment legal commentators that celebrated #SCOTUS “no standing” decisions to play Pontius Pilate in the election cases are feeling good now that the same pernicious, b.s. doctrine was just used to excuse Obamacare? [https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1405591178976796672]

Again, the Pontius Pilate “conservative” Supreme Court justices apparently broke their constitutional oaths to uphold the constitution as they did in the December Texas election case. Scholar William Briggs said the SCOTUS cowardly justices didn’t “have to deal with having all the evidence about the elections bruited from a non-ignorable source. How much better to pretend it [the Biden Unconstitutional Steal] never happened”: 

SCOTUS cucked. There is no other word for it. Their entire argument for rejecting the suit brought by Texas and joined by almost half the States was Nyah nyah nyah!

Think I’m joking? Here it the Order in its entirety:

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting) [the dashes are sic]. I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

No argument. Just “Nyah nyah nyah.” With the cringe word cognizable. Plus, Article III? The one that says “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”? The one that applies to Biden selling the office of the Vice Presidency to the Chinese?

Nah, not that Article III.

Roberts aligned with Breyer, Gorsuch was lost after discovering the right for men to be women hidden in the interstices of the Constitution, Kavanaugh was still assembling his all-female staff, and you were warned about Barrett. The other non-entities voted exactly how they were either told or expected to. Only Alito and Thomas stayed strong. 

Don’t bother disagreeing. Everybody reading knows with moral certainty that if this was Pennsylvania suing Texas on behalf of Tony Bobulinksi—excuse me, Joe Biden—the vote would have been in favor of taking the case, probably unanimously. 

“Conservative” justices like Gorsuch and Roberts are more than willing to make law when it aligns with the interests of our ruling elite. But they quail when they have chances to strike return blows.

The left ignores the law and does what it wants. When the right follows their example, the left screams “You must follow the law!” And the right cowers and mews and surrenders. The right uses the term, but never understood the war part of Culture War.

One of the rumors before yesterday’s order was that so many states joined with Texas, so that when SCOTUS finally ruled against Texas, the right would be left with no weapons. The media would say “IT’S OVER.” Well, they’re still saying that. But now the court is doesn’t have to deal with having all the evidence about the elections bruited from a non-ignorable source. How much better to pretend it never happened. [https://wmbriggs.com/post/33854/]

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: 
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: 
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. SHARESHARECommentssaid…Aqua We are intended to be a Republic of, by and for the People. Political problems will be solved by us. Not by the Black Robes. The Black Robes were, by design, the weakest of the “co-equal” Branches.Big problems will not be solved by the Black Robes. Nor must we necessarily submit to them if they try to assert their Black Robe authority above that which emanates from We The People (compulsory conscience violating cake baking).This is a good lesson for us. *Stop looking at the Black Robes as ultimate authority*. Our problems will be solved at the grass-roots and we will inform the Black-Robes of the legal terrain in which we *permit* them to rule.We are a self-governing People. We must take back authority the Black Robes usurped from us. Their rulings are good reminders they were never intended to govern. They advise. We consent.






7:25 PM

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Pontius Pilate “Conservative” SCOTUS Justices “‘No Standing’… in the Election… the Same Pernicious, B.S. Doctrine was just used to Excuse Obamacare”

Constitutional lawyer Robert Barnes said it best about our RINO “right-leaning establishment legal commentators” and Pontius Pilate “conservative” SCOTUS justices:Robert Barnes@barnes_lawI wonder if all the right-leaning establishment legal commentators that celebrated #SCOTUS “no standing” decisions to play Pontius Pilate in the election cases are feeling good now that the same pernicious, b.s. doctrine was just used to excuse Obamacare? [https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1405591178976796672]

Again, the Pontius Pilate “conservative” Supreme Court justices apparently broke their constitutional oaths to uphold the constitution as they did in the December Texas election case. Scholar William Briggs said the SCOTUS cowardly justices didn’t “have to deal with having all the evidence about the elections bruited from a non-ignorable source. How much better to pretend it [the Biden Unconstitutional Steal] never happened”: 

SCOTUS cucked. There is no other word for it. Their entire argument for rejecting the suit brought by Texas and joined by almost half the States was Nyah nyah nyah!

Think I’m joking? Here it the Order in its entirety:

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting) [the dashes are sic]. I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

No argument. Just “Nyah nyah nyah.” With the cringe word cognizable. Plus, Article III? The one that says “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”? The one that applies to Biden selling the office of the Vice Presidency to the Chinese?

Nah, not that Article III.

Roberts aligned with Breyer, Gorsuch was lost after discovering the right for men to be women hidden in the interstices of the Constitution, Kavanaugh was still assembling his all-female staff, and you were warned about Barrett. The other non-entities voted exactly how they were either told or expected to. Only Alito and Thomas stayed strong. 

Don’t bother disagreeing. Everybody reading knows with moral certainty that if this was Pennsylvania suing Texas on behalf of Tony Bobulinksi—excuse me, Joe Biden—the vote would have been in favor of taking the case, probably unanimously. 

“Conservative” justices like Gorsuch and Roberts are more than willing to make law when it aligns with the interests of our ruling elite. But they quail when they have chances to strike return blows.

The left ignores the law and does what it wants. When the right follows their example, the left screams “You must follow the law!” And the right cowers and mews and surrenders. The right uses the term, but never understood the war part of Culture War.

One of the rumors before yesterday’s order was that so many states joined with Texas, so that when SCOTUS finally ruled against Texas, the right would be left with no weapons. The media would say “IT’S OVER.” Well, they’re still saying that. But now the court is doesn’t have to deal with having all the evidence about the elections bruited from a non-ignorable source. How much better to pretend it never happened. [https://wmbriggs.com/post/33854/]

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

EPPC President Ryan T. Anderson released the following statement on Fulton: “A 9-0 win at the Supreme Court is not something to take lightly. Yes, the holding was likely narrower than it would have been had it been decided 5-4 or 6-3. Yes, there are many other questions that remain to be answered by the Court as far as the extent of the Constitutional protections for Americans who believe marriage unites husband and wife. Still, the Court ruled unanimously in favor of the free exercise of Catholic Social Services of Philadelphia. It ruled unanimously against the religious bigotry of the city of Philadelphia. This is a big win for religious liberty and for all Americans who support the truth about marriage. It also seriously undermines the leading argument from many on the Left: that support for man-woman marriage is akin to racist bigotry. Note there were not many 9-0 wins for Bob Jones University.”

EPPC Fellow Andrew T. Walkerwrites: “While religious liberty proponents will undoubtedly wish that the Court had chipped away at the Smith test that has hobbled religious liberty for over two decades now, we should still celebrate today’s ruling as a significant win…we should pray that it has cascading effects elsewhere in demonstrating the intrinsic reasonableness of Christian viewpoints about sexuality and family.”

And EPPC Senior Fellow Roger Severino praised the decision on Twitter, noting that “the constitution requires space for people of good will to live according to their views of marriage, family, and human flourishing in their daily lives even today, when it has fallen out of favor with some woke governments.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Quick Guide to Today’s Opinions in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

Like Tweet Email

Published in National Review Online on June 17, 2021

Edward Whelan

BY EDWARD WHELAN
Share

In one of the most-watched cases of the term, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled today in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia that the city of Philadelphia violated the free-exercise rights of Catholic Social Services, a Catholic foster-care agency, by conditioning CSS’s continued provision of foster-care services on its agreeing to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.

The unanimity on the bottom-line judgment is a big surprise. But it masks a deep divide over whether the Court should have used this case to revisit Employment Division v. Smith, the controversial 1990 case in which a five-justice majority, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, ruled that laws that are neutral and generally applicable do not violate the free-exercise clause even if they burden religious liberty.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the 15-page majority opinion, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. The Chief concludes that it was unnecessary to revisit Smith because Philadelphia’s contractual nondiscrimination requirement incorporated a system of discretionary exemptions that rendered it not generally applicable and thus outside the scope of Smith.

In a three-paragraph concurring opinion, Justice Barrett offers her view that the “textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling” than the historical arguments against it. But, asking “what should replace Smith?” if it were to be overruled, she says that she is “skeptical about swapping Smith’s categorical antidiscrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime.” Justice Kavanaugh joined Barrett’s opinion in full. Justice Breyer joined two of its paragraphs, but not the one expressing doubts about the correctness of Smith.

In a 77-page opinion concurring in the judgment — an opinion that I have not yet been able to read with care — Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, calls for Smith to be overruled and laments that the Court has instead “emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state.” Alito observes that the Chief’s ruling rests “on what appears to be a superfluous (and likely to be short-lived) feature of the City’s standard annual contract” and that, once the city eliminates that feature, “the parties will be back where they started.” Further, the Court’s ruling “provides no guidance regarding similar controversies in other jurisdictions” and “will be even less significant in all the other important religious liberty cases that are bubbling up.”

As to what should replace Smith, Alito responds:

The answer that comes most readily to mind is the standard that Smith replaced: A law that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise can be sustained only if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

In his own concurrence in the judgment, Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito, criticizes the majority for a “dizzying series of maneuvers” that enable it to avoid addressing Smith.

Overall, there would appear to be at least five justices ready (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch) or disposed (Barrett and Kavanaugh) to overturn Smith. But Barrett and Kavanaugh are not yet confident what rules should replace Smith.

Edward Whelan is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and holds EPPC’s Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cardinal Pell at Eighty

Like Tweet Email

Published in George Weigel’s weekly column The Catholic Difference on June 16, 2021

George Weigel

BY GEORGE WEIGEL

Fifteen months ago, it looked as if Cardinal George Pell might spend his eightieth birthday in prison. A malicious trolling expedition by the police department of the State of Victoria in his native Australia had led to the cardinal’s indictment on manifestly absurd charges of “historic sexual abuse.” His first trial ended with a hung jury heavily in favor of acquittal; but because of a court-imposed media blackout on the trial, the public did not know that the defense had shredded the prosecution’s case by demonstrating that the alleged crimes couldn’t have happened how, when, and where the complainant said they’d happened. The cardinal’s retrial ended in an incomprehensible conviction, which was followed by an even more incomprehensible (and feckless) rejection of the cardinal’s appeal. Happily—for the sake of an innocent man’s liberty and the reputation of Australia’s justice system—the country’s High Court unanimously quashed the guilty verdict on April 7, 2020, and entered a judgment of “innocent” in the case of Pell v. The Queen.

Cardinal Pell did not waste his 404 days in prison, most of them in solitary confinement. He wrote a daily journal that has become something of a modern spiritual classic; Ignatius Press has been publishing it in three volumes, the last of which will appear in October. Through his Prison Journal, thousands of people around the world have discovered the real George Pell: a man of rock-solid faith, keen intelligence, deep compassion for the confusions that beset the human race, and a determination to live out the priestly ministry to which he committed himself when he was ordained by Cardinal Gregory Peter Agagianian (runner-up to John XXIII in the conclave of 1958) on December 16, 1966.

I’m happy that so many others have now discovered the truth about this good and great man, not least because he and I have been friends since he spent his post-ordination summer in my Baltimore parish, in between his Roman theological studies and his doctoral work at Oxford. Over that half-century, we’ve discussed just about everything. And while the cardinal has not converted me to the virtues of cricket, we are of one mind on so many other things that we’ve worked in close harness on several occasions.

Thus it strikes me as providential that Cardinal Pell’s eightieth birthday falls while the universal Church is being roiled by the German “Synodal Way”: a process that, absent a decisive Roman intervention (and perhaps even in the face of that), seems likely to confirm that institutional Catholicism in Germany is in a state of apostasy. Providential because, without George Pell’s leadership as archbishop of Melbourne and then cardinal archbishop of Sydney, Australia might well have become the kind of ecclesiastical disaster area Germany is today—although the Aussies would have gotten there twenty-five years earlier.

His enemies will never admit it, but Cardinal George Pell saved the Church in Australia from dissolving into a Liquid Catholicism indistinguishable from Liberal Protestantism. He did so by his defense of Vatican II as renewal within tradition; by his reform of the priesthood and his care for sexual abuse victims in the dioceses he led; by his unwavering support of Catholic orthodoxy in the teeth of fierce cultural headwinds that cowed many of his brother bishops; by championing serious Catholic intellectual life in a variety of initiatives; and by hosting Sydney’s World Youth Day 2008, which evangelically energized young Australian Catholics as Denver’s World Youth Day 1993 had done for young American Catholics. Without George Pell’s leadership and his willingness to stand for the truth against vicious criticism, Catholicism Down Under in 2021 might well look like the moribund Church in much of Germany today, but absent the Germans’ vast, tax-supported wealth.

Cardinal Pell’s work to clean the Augean stables of Vatican finance remains to be completed and questions about possible links between that work and his prosecution remain to be answered. Nonetheless, the cardinal’s grace under extraordinary pressure and the dignity with which he conducted himself before, during, and after his imprisonment have made him one of the most influential elders in the Catholic Church today. That he lost his vote in a future conclave on June 8 does not mean that he will be sidelined in the really consequential discussions of the Church’s future. He will be very much at the center of those conversations, now wielding the moral authority he has rightly won as a contemporary confessor.

The man I have known and cherished since the summer of 1967 was not built for quiescence. His voice will be heard. And it will be heard where it counts.

George Weigel is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

WHEN WILL THE PERSECUTION OF PRIESTS BY BISHOPS CEASE? WHEN THERE ARE NO MORE PRIESTS? I DON’T BELIEVE THAT JESUS WILL ALLOW THAT. RATHER, IT WILL STOP WHEN THERE ARE NO MORE BISHOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ABUSED FATHERS

NEWS:COMMENTARY

Print Friendly and PDF

   by Rodney Pelletier  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  June 17, 2021    2 Comments

Priests speak out against abuse by their bishops

You are not signed in as a Premium user; we rely on Premium users to support our news reporting. Sign in or Sign up today!

Nine priests gathered on Tuesday at Church Militant studios to reveal how egregiously they’ve been treated by their bishops. It’s called the Persecuted Priest Summit.

It’s the first time so many priests have gone public to expose how they’re being persecuted for speaking out and preaching the unvarnished gospel. The following is a list of the priests who were at the gathering and a short description of their respective situations:

  • Father Michael Suhy (was booted from his parish for reporting a Detroit archdiocesan employee who was grooming and sexually harassing a young man at his parish) 
  • Father Eduard Perrone, a well-loved Detroit Archdiocese priest (was allegedly framed by Msgr. Michael Bugarin, delegate for clergy misconduct for the archdiocese of Detroit; Bugarin fabricated a sodomy charge against Perrone in July 2019)
  • Father James Altman (gained notoriety last fall for releasing a video titled “You cannot be Catholic and a Democrat. Period.” Since then his criticism has gotten him in hot water with the bishop of his diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, William Patrick Callahan; in May, Callahan demanded Altman’s resignation as pastor of St. James parish)
  • Father Paul Kalchik (was a pastor in Chicago till he was forced out of his parish on orders of Cdl. Blase Cupich for burning a sacrilegious banner that once hung over the high altar of Resurrection Parish)

Free clip from CHURCH MILITANT PremiumWATCH THE FULL EPISODE

  • Father Mark White (was suspended by Bp. Barry Knestout of Richmond, Virginia; White became upset when high-ranking homosexual abuser Theodore McCarrick was outed since White was ordained by McCarrick; he rightly blamed the bishops for allowing a sexual predator free reign in the Church)
  • Father Ryszard Biernat, a Polish priest (was the secretary to disgraced Buffalo, New York bishop Richard Mallone; he was forced into silence when he complained to the diocese that a priest had sexually assaulted him)
  • San Antonio, Texas’ Fr. Clay Hunt (ran afoul of his archbishop, Gustavo García-Siller, in 2020 when he warned the infamously flamboyant homosexual mayor of his town of the spiritual dangers of his very public lifestyle of supporting sodomy; García-Siller revoked his faculties for merely upholding the gospel)

It’s the first time so many priests have gone public to expose how they’re being persecuted for speaking out and preaching the unvarnished gospel.GabTweet

  • Father Stephen Lefort from the diocese of Houma-Thibodaux, Louisiana (spent years preparing for the priesthood; he was canned by his bishop after being in a parish for six months and also ordered to get psychological counseling; his “great sin” was helping a penitent examine his conscience in the confessional; Lefort has resorted to working at a hardware store in order to make a living)
  • Father Jeff Fasching of the diocese of Wichita, Kansas (is being sidelined by his bishop simply for preaching the Faith: Several parishioners complained to his bishop, Carl Kemme, who ultimately took Fasching out of ministry due to their complaints; he has never been told who is complaining or what they are complaining about)

These priests can be supported by clicking here.

Learn more by watching The Download — Abused Fathers.

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.
We rely on you to support our news reporting. Please donate today.

RELATED STORIES

WATCHFormer Seminarian’s Landmark Case Moving ForwardBy Church Militant   •   38 CommentsWATCHPrairie State Priest HomelessBy William Mahoney, Ph.D.   •  242 CommentsWATCHStraight Priests PersecutedBy Bradley Eli, M.Div., Ma.Th.   •  43 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


An Angel of the Lord

July 1, 2020

“Nothing now happens that has not been foretold, 

But much that was foretold has been hidden.  

So what seems to be unexpected 

Is unexpected only by those who trusted 

That all had been shown.  

But those who find these things not to be unexpected at all 

Are the very ones who have hidden them away.  

There are secrets that now must be unfolded 

And brought out into the light, 

But they are secrets that will not know the light 

Without blood being shed, 

And therefore count these secrets not as trivial things.  

There are things that have been claimed 

As a king claims a throne, 

But as claims on a throne can only be made 

By one who is the true heir, 

These things can only be claimed 

By one who has truly been chosen.  

But in this case, who has done the choosing 

Is of the utmost importance.

There are secrets that reveal 

The arrival of an imposter 

Who has claimed what can not be claimed, but only given.  

And what is given must be given 

Only to the one who has been chosen 

By the means of what has been set in place 

By the one who has set all things in place.  

These secrets will be contained only until called forth.  

And now is the time of the calling forth.”

-S

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sexual orientation (at least when it is behaviorally operative) and sexual identity are achieved, and to that extent they are normative, thereby making them legitimate categories for moral judgment.


High Court Rules 9-0 For Religious Liberty

June 17, 2021

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on today’s ruling by the Supreme Court on a seminal religious liberty case:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that Catholic foster care agencies can reject gay couples from adopting children. This is a huge victory for religious liberty and a resounding defeat for LGBTQ activists.
It was these activists who launched a contrived assault on the rights of Catholic social service agencies—no gay or transgender couple had ever complained that they were discriminated against by these Catholic entities—and now their effort to impose their secular beliefs on Catholics has been rejected.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the six members who joined his majority opinion (others offered their own opinions), noted that the Catholic agency named in the lawsuit only sought “an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else (my italics).”
The First Amendment guarantees religious liberty, and that provision means little if it only means the right to worship. The right to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs in the public square is central to religious liberty, and while that right—like all other constitutional rights—is not absolute, it must be seen as presumptively constitutional.
This decision makes it more difficult for LGBTQ activists to argue that sexual orientation and sexual identity are analogous to race. They are not. Race is an ascribed characteristic, and as such it is an amoral attribute. Sexual orientation (at least when it is behaviorally operative) and sexual identity are achieved, and to that extent they are normative, thereby making them legitimate categories for moral judgment.
We await all the anti-Catholic bigots who will maintain that we have too many Catholics on the Supreme Court. Hope they notice that two Jews and one Protestant were on the same side as the Catholic justices.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment