If it had been treated properly as a “freedom of the press” case, then whether designing was for business or personal purposes would have been irrelevant.
The “Christian Web Designer Case” Could Have Been Much Easier Read More »
Read about the constitutional and legal issues in Twitter censorship.
The “Twitter Files” Scandal Read More »
Middle Americans are the givers. The professors and bureaucrats . . . are the takers. Gratitude is a rare commodity: It is human nature for the takers to resent the givers
University toxicity: America should stop nursing the viper Read More »
The state and would-be “customers” interfering with [a religious] business model have no more constitutional standing than a thug who disrupts a church service or shouts down a speaker.
SCOTUS should uphold the right of religious people to refuse to serve the LGBT agenda Read More »
When his fellow justices defend religious liberty only tepidly, Gorsuch’s concurring opinions stake out stronger positions. When his colleagues do not defend religious liberty at all, he dissents.
Justice Neil Gorsuch: religious freedom’s new champion Read More »
If the plaintiffs actually do uncover systematic efforts by the Biden administration and other Democratic officeholders to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press, this will be the most egregious abuse-of-power scandal in recent times.
Twitter v. Trump, Part 3: Trump’s best ‘free speech’ claim against Twitter Read More »
So, the theory goes, if Congress invited Twitter to exercise political censorship, then Congress violated the First Amendment. But this theory also has weaknesses . . . .
Trump v. Twitter, Part 2: Can a private company violate the First Amendment? Read More »
This case reflected an irony common these days: The majority the media calls “conservative” applying liberal precedent while the three most liberal justices argued against it!
New from the Supreme Court: A smashing victory for religious liberty Read More »
Judges have no special expertise in identifying or balancing social benefits and social losses. . . Their rules turned out to be flawed. One of their flaws is that they pushed down the standards for public discourse.
One reason public discourse is so vile: We’ve forgotten the 1st Amendment’s meaning Read More »
By the time ratification was complete, the Constitution’s implications for religion were understood: Religious faith was valuable for good government. But government was to treat individual religions equally, as long as they conducted themselves in an orderly manner.
A new Supreme Court case on establishment of religion Read More »
Two of the Supreme Court’s most liberal members effectively told us they want no part of this campaign of historical destruction.
Two liberal Supreme Court justices slap down the Left’s historical desecration Read More »
The Colorado Constitution’s ban on aid to “sectarian” institutions flatly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
