Louisiana v. Callais

By Matthew Vadum

The Supreme Court seems poised to strike down race-based redistricting as unconstitutional, or at least rein in the practice, court experts told The Epoch Times.

The outcome of the high-profile racial gerrymandering case of Louisiana v. Callais could have an impact on the balance of power in the federal legislative branch. Gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor a particular party or constituency.

Currently, Republicans maintain a razor-thin majority over Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The congressional seat at the heart of the litigation is currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.). [pictured right]

Sheriff: EZ Pass-Style Buggy Alert System Could Save Amish Lives

By Erik Wesner

Following numerous serious car-buggy crashes in his state, a Virginia sheriff is proposing that a new light system – triggered by passing Amish buggies – could warn drivers of horse-drawn travelers on the roads ahead of them.

Similarly to how flashing lights draw attention to upcoming stop signs on secondary highways, a flashing light system could tell drivers to expect to see horse-drawn vehicles just ahead.

Cumberland County, Virginia Sheriff Darrell Hodges explains in the Farmville Herald:

Québec Constitutional Bill 2025 Would Create a "Right to be Killed"

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Québec National Assembly, on October 9, 2025; has proposed a bill to change the Québec constitution with - The Québec Constitional Bill 2025. The purpose of the bill is to "protect" Québec's identity as a secular society.

The Québec Constitutional Bill 2025 would also create "right to be killed"

An article by François Carabin and Marco Bélair-Cirino that was published by Le Devoir on October 9 stated:

The Bill amends the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to "protect the right of Quebecers to die with dignity and to receive medical assistance in dying when their condition requires it."

Fetterman Urges Democrats to Reopen Government, Says Shutdown Sends ‘Wrong Message’

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) said Democrats sent the wrong signal by allowing a government shutdown, arguing that Congress should reopen the government and negotiate health care policy. 

“I can’t ever or will ever vote to shut our government down,” Fetterman told Fox News.

 

“It was wrong if the Republicans did these things, and I led that charge back in March, saying it’s wrong to shut us down, and we kept it open. I said in March that when September comes, I’m going to be the one guy that says it’s wrong to do this. The losers are these poor Americans here that are going to get caught in the middle of this thing.”

 

A sticking point for Democrats has been health care, particularly wanting their Republican counterparts to extend the tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, which expire at year’s end. Fetterman rejected tying the debate over ACA credits to a shutdown.

Fueled by the Left: Canada’s Churches on Fire

Raymond Ibrahim, original publication:  Oct 5, 2025.

The Stream

In mid-September, two churches in Canada were hit by Islamic extremists. On September 16, Our Lady of the Snows in Colville Lake, Northwest Territories — the community’s only church — was torched to the ground. Just days earlier, vandals had smashed windows and damaged property at Saint Peter and Saint Paul Coptic Orthodox Church in Pointe-Claire, Quebec, while also defacing a nearby convent with graffiti and broken glass. Locals called the attacks “heartbreaking” and “a really big loss to the community.”

Such attacks are common; one of the more notable ones occurred on June 9, 2024, when Toronto’s historic St. Anne’s Anglican Church and its priceless artwork were set ablaze and reduced to ashes. The pastor, Rev. Don Beyers, said his congregation was “greatly devastated”:

I’m crushed, I feel for my people. You can’t imagine what this is like for a church community to come on Sunday morning to find that everything you worked so hard for and done so much for [is] gone in the matter of an hour.

‘Must Stay Gay’ Laws

Jennifer Roback Morse, 10/11/25

A case before the Supreme Court could end the left’s attempt to stifle dissent in the therapist’s office.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could reshape counseling freedom across America. The law at issue is one of several so-called “conversion therapy bans” that restrict what therapists may say to their clients.  

The Ruth Institute calls them what they are: “Must Stay Gay” laws.  These laws silence counselors and harm families, especially young people struggling with trauma, anxiety, and sexual confusion. The question before the court is simple: Does the First Amendment allow a state to dictate which viewpoints a licensed therapist may express?

A Strong Signal from the Court  

The central issue in Chiles is viewpoint discrimination. Colorado’s law allows therapists to affirm a child’s same-sex attraction or gender confusion — but forbids them from helping a client resist or change those feelings.  Justice Samuel Alito captured the absurdity in one hypothetical, which I paraphrase (the whole argument is here):

An adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist; he feels uneasy and guilty about feeling attracted to other boys. He asks the therapist to help him feel better as a gay man. Colorado law permits this. Another adolescent male goes to a licensed therapist and asks him to help him feel less attracted to other boys. Colorado law forbids this.

That’s government picking sides in a moral debate, not equality under the law.