Sanity and the U.S. Supreme Court

By Christopher Harper

At least the U.S. Supreme Court brings a bit of sanity to the otherwise chaotic state of Washington politics.

The court recently blocked a California order that restricted religious services that limited the study of the Bible. The ruling arose from a California prohibition on gatherings of people from more than three households and affected specific Bible study and prayer meetings held in a home.

“California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise,” the 5-4 majority said in the order, “permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.”

Referring to the lower appellate court that had permitted the California household restriction, the majority added, “This is the fifth time the (Supreme) Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise.”

Those in the majority were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett.

Thank God for the three justices appointed under Donald Trump!

But the court rankles Joe Biden, who wants to change the structure of the highest judicial body in the land. He ordered a commission to study Supreme Court changes, such as adding seats, an idea pushed by progressives in his party.

The 36-member commission is charged with completing its findings within 180 days of its first public meeting.

The White House said topics before the commission would include “the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”

It’s somewhat ironic that one of the liberal justices on the court, Stephen Breyer, thinks the whole thing is a bad idea.

In a presentation at Harvard University, Breyer said proposals to restructure the Supreme Court could damage its reputation as an apolitical body. The court’s eldest justice at 82, Breyer said he hoped “to make those whose initial instincts may favor important structural (or other similar institutional) changes, such as forms of ‘court-packing,’ think long and hard before embodying those changes in law.”

It’s rare that I agree with Breyer, but his fellow liberals should take his message to heart.

Activists Win Democrat Cities Lose Under the Fedora

The more I see of what is happening to Democrat run cities in terms of crime the more I’m convinced that the left has been fighting a culture war against Black Americans…and won.


Of course there are some winners of color in the left culture war against black Americans, such as the Black Lives Matter leader Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a self proclaimed “Marxist” who now owns multiple million dollar properties under her corporations name far away from the people she supposedly is serving.

As always Marxist leaders end up in luxury while the people they are supposedly defending end up poor.


In fairness this activist is not alone, folks like Rebekah Jones have learned the ancient lesion that it’s a lot easier to convince people to give you money as pretending to leading a cause rather than actually doing or creating something. It’s all playacting & Illusion which likely explains why Hollywood where people play make believe for a living so loves such folk.

PT Barnum would be proud.


Of course some people are young and naïve enough to think that being an “activist” makes them smart enough to actually run a company that creates things, like David Hogg. He thought he could make pillows and discovered that activism does not translate well into real world practical knowledge about making things. Or to put it another way because Mike Lindell makes it look easy doesn’t mean it is.

I’ve found that to most people the easiest job in the world is one somebody else is doing.


Finally 33 years ago today my new wife and I were in Vancouver Washington (right next to Portland OR) for our honeymoon as Citi-travel messed up our London Trip and DaWife’s aunt who came to the wedding graciously offered the use of her guest house as her son was in Australia for several months along with the use of a car.

The two weeks we spent in the area were wonderful. Her father family were there and we traveled as far north as Victoria Canada, down the Oregon coast, west up the Columbia river and got lost in Seattle while driving.

We seriously considered moving there at the time. Recent events have shown that not doing so is likely remains the single best decision that we ever made as a couple.

The royal standard

Americans are republicans, so it seems perhaps not entirely an American thing, to be pro-monarchy.  But there is something to be said for the British royals, at least as they used to pull it off. True, there is something inherently “unfair” about a system that elevates someone by virtue of the family to which they are born. But is there really so much difference, between a Prince Harry and a Prince Hunter? They both have opportunities presented to them due solely to their names, but at least Prince Harry hasn’t sold out to China.

It’s a natural human inclination to admire or hold up someone in a group as someone somehow superior in certain respects, at least, to others, someone to perhaps model ourselves after. Every high school in America crowns each autumn a Homecoming King and Queen. But homecoming royals notwithstanding, in high school and beyond, pop culture predominates, and tends to hold up celebrities and athletes as these models for ourselves. It’s not entirely clear this is an advancement over royalty.

The very word “royal” is synonymous with the highest possible standards. From getting the royal treatment to booking the royal suite, use the word “royal” as a descriptor and it’s referring to the grandest, the biggest, the highest, the best. There’s a reason the royal straight flush is the highest possible poker hand (unless you’re the type who plays with jokers).

Unfortunately, all too often, the British royals, the world’s most prominent, fail spectacularly to live up to even decent standards, let alone royal standards. From King Edward VIII to Prince Charles to Princess Margaret to Prince Andrew to Prince Harry, the Windsors have steeped themselves in a miasma of sex scandals, mostly. With evidence like Edward VIII’s abdication of the throne in favor of a tarty American divorcée and Prince Andrew’s apparent Jeffrey Epstein-fed taste for underage children, an argument that royals can set standards tends to end with the question, how low?

Which makes Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, stand even taller, even from six feet deep in his newly dug grave, as the great British royal, the one-time Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, has finally, at the age of 99, passed to the next world.

Adventurer, pilot, sailor and yachtsman, consort of the Queen, Prince Philip helped sink Italian cruisers and destroyers as a 19-year-old midshipman during World War II, in a battle in the Mediterranean Sea opposite the ruins of the ancient Greek city of Taenarum, and he was the first British royal to cross the Antarctic Circle, on an expedition aboard the Royal Yacht Britannia in 1956-57.

He was also patron to some 800 organizations, helping to found the World Wildlife Fund, for which he served as UK president for over twenty years.

He carried himself with distinction and class and humor, and truly did set a royal standard. It’s a standard his grandson, Prince William would do well to imitate, if there’s to be any hope for the Windsors.

Otherwise, well, there must be other European royals capable of setting a royal standard. I mean, this is the land of fairy tale castles, right?

Is there a Hapsburg in the house?