President Biden has promised to nominate a black woman to the Supreme court. We look at three likely nominees’ stand on religious liberty.
While many conservatives are frustrated with Supreme Court justices not making sweeping enough changes, this cautious approach is ultimately what’s best for both conservatives and the country as a whole.
Changing the composition of the courts is straight from the authoritarian handbook, and the justification comes from a misunderstanding of history.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia will have significant implications for religious freedom.
When viewed as a tax credit to help those with young children, the new monthly payments for children makes sense even to a fiscal conservative.
Changes to Section 230 have been much in the news, but this section allows pornography websites to profit off of illegal content. It’s time to reconsider.
The recent Supreme Court opinion Tanzin v. Tanvir allows those harmed when their religious freedom was violated to seek monetary damages. This case plays a pivotal role in the effort towards restoring religious freedoms.
Much has been said about rescinding “Section 230.” What is this? And how does it affect the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
We can fully embrace our moral progress without rejecting the influential men and women of the past who failed to live up to the standards of today.
With the Supreme Court at the front of center stage in the American public eye, the upcoming religious liberty cases are seeing a lot of light.
Rather than reflecting a breakdown or departure from our established political system, as many have proposed, I would argue Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination is an outcome of long-standing efforts and hard work well within that system.
All Americans–regardless of religious affiliation–should care deeply about the plight of the opressed Uyghurs unable to practice their beliefs in China.
