After the electoral events of Tuesday and Wednesday, multiple thoughts ran through my mind. I scoured the news, praying that I might be given something insightful to say that has not already been said. Whether my prayer was answered, you can judge, but for me, at least, it was.

I have searched high and low for legal arguments from lawyers explaining why the substance of Texas’ claim regarding the presidential electors clause in the U.S. Constitution was, in the words of many, baseless, absurd, and other like words. I did not find any. I did find two thoughtful commentaries from two really sharp legal experts on why the lawsuit should not have been heard. However, their arguments left me shaking my head.

Late Monday, Texas’ Attorney General filed a Motion with the United States Supreme Court asking it to take jurisdiction over a lawsuit the state wants to file against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Last week I said Chief Justice John Roberts needs to do his job or get off the Bench. Now, his lawlessness and lack of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution has come home to roost on the biggest stage ever—a divisive presidential election. There is no easy answer for him.

Chief Justice John Roberts has gotten on my last nerve. After violating his oath of office this summer to avoid controversy in a high-profile abortion case, he ducked out on another high-profile social issue type case last week. This one involved the Executive Order of New York Governor Cuomo that limited the number of persons who could attend religious services. It was nice to see two of his colleagues call him out, but now I will add my voice to theirs.

The presidential election is over. The results, however, are not final as a matter of law. I don’t know whether the voter fraud that accompanies all elections will prove sufficient to change the media-predicted results in this election, but something more than ballot integrity is on the line -- the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court. And it may do itself in for generations to come.

Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, and Amy Coney Barrett—you might call them the unholy trinity of American political views on religion and the Establishment Clause. Actually, Barrett isn’t “unholy” in the same sense as the other two. As I explained a couple of weeks ago, Judge Barrett’s Catholic views and view of the U.S. Constitution do not create an “Establishment Clause problem.” Biden and Feinstein actually do. Today, though, I want to share my thoughts on what I think is the real reason behind Biden, a Catholic, saying Barrett’s Catholicism is not an Establishment Clause problem for him.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued its latest travesty, this time a judgment holding unconstitutional an abortion-related law in Louisiana. But no one should be surprised that the Court failed to use the case to overrule Roe v. Wade. Even I predicted that back in February. Now, here is my prediction for what the decision means for the abortion law just enacted by the Tennessee General Assembly.

Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued a judgment based upon the word “sex” in Title VII, the federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination, having a meaning it did not have when it was enacted in 1964 and one that isn’t even its primary dictionary meaning now.