How about a paper written in school about how Catholics must recuse when the law conflicts with dogma?

First, the judge who sentences the defendant must be the one who has conducted the sentencing hearing. . . . This means that the Catholic judge must recuse himself before the hearing, not after it.

Do we really want to wind up with another Sessions-like scenario when she bows out during a hearing on immigration because the Pope says we should let illegal immigrants do whatever they want? Or recusing herself on 2A claims because the Pope has an opinion on "weapons of war"? It's precisely the globalist desires of the corrupted Catholic church that we need to defend against, and I say this as a former Catholic.

How about the ruling that the lockdowns are totally fine? Sorry in advance for the trash politico link, but it was the only full pdf of the ruling that I could find in my browser history. Sure, it was under Wood, but she's there too.

Underenforcement claims are hard to win, however, as we know from cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). It is also difficult to prevail in a case accusing the police of racial profiling. See, e.g., Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2001). Although we do not rule out the possibility that someone might be able to prove this type of favoritism in the enforcement of an otherwise valid response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the record in this case falls short.

The appeals court could have remanded the case to let them at least try to prove this "difficult to prevail case". Anyone with eyes can see it happening, so the evidence exists. And, look, I get it, appeals court generally upholds cases as a matter of course, so successful appeals that change outcomes are rare. But that's pretty wishy-washy IMHO.