Christian Humanism

Christian Humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, rational inquiry and a commitment to the values taught by Jesus as a guide to the ethical life are not only compatible with Christianity, they are fundamental to a proper understanding and interpretation of Christian belief. Being a Christian means at the least feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, healing the sick, supporting the poor, comforting the lonely, seeking peace and standing with the powerless against the mighty.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

A Legal and Political Strategy To Oppose Trump Policies

Trump is a man without experience or integrity who is under the influence of evil and self-serving extremist right wing advisers intent on launching dangerous and destructive policies that are outside the mainstream of American, Christian and humanist values.  He must be stopped.  Here is a brilliant legal and political strategy from the New York Times that can be used to stop Trump's ill-conceived policies:     

How Antonin Scalia’s Ghost Could Block Donald Trump’s Wall
By DANIEL HEMEL, JONATHAN MASUR and ERIC POSNER
The New York Times JAN. 25, 2017

President Trump may stumble on an unexpected obstacle as he tries to build a wall along the Mexican border: Antonin Scalia.
This may seem surprising, considering that Mr. Trump has called him a “great” justice. But in one of his last opinions, Justice Scalia supplied a powerful weapon to resist Mr. Trump’s plans for a border wall.
Justice Scalia’s June 2015 opinion in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency may not seem helpful at first sight. It blocked an E.P.A. rule that would have limited mercury emissions from power plants. The Clean Air Act instructs the E.P.A. to issue “appropriate and necessary” regulations, and Justice Scalia said that language required the E.P.A. to consider the costs of its proposed rules, which it did not properly do. “No regulation is ‘appropriate’ if it does significantly more harm than good,” Justice Scalia wrote. And even though the final vote in the case was 5-4, all nine members of the court agreed that the E.P.A. could not ignore the costs of its actions when deciding whether or how stringently to regulate.

Read the Article


No comments: