2 replies
  1. Mary Jo
    Mary Jo says:

    The people of this country want to be free from religion, arguably the reason the founding fathers included this in the constitution, as well as freedom of religion. The church shows its true colors here and they aren’t a rainbow.

    DON E SIEGAL says:

    Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al.

    The specifics of this case are extremely tricky if one has not read at least the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and the and the plaintiffs/petitioners petition for a writ of certiorari.

    As soon as the suit was initially filled in the U. S. District Court, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction against the City of Philadelphia. The court dismissed the motion. The plaintiffs on the same day filled an appeal with the Third Circuit. The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the motion. The plaintiffs prepared a writ of certiorari asking the U. S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for an emergency hearing in favor to the original motion. SCOTUS denied the emergency hearing but took the petition for certiorari in the ordinary course of business. For months, SCOTUS neither granted of denied the writ certiorari; they keep relisting the case for the next private conference. Finally, on 24-February-2020, the Court granted certiorari for the case to be heard next session this fall. So, this is all about the motion for a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. The U. S. District Court has not yet heard the case on the merits.

    As for the Archdioceses of Philadelphia withdrawing from the case, the Archdioceses is not a party in the suit. I don’t know the organizational chart of Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia. Are they part of the Archdioceses or a totally separate entity?
    The first footnote of the Third Circuit’s opinion states: “That being said, District Judge Tucker commented that she ‘would prefer that the [p]arties seek … some compromise to their current dispute without court intervention.’ Id. at 667. We agree, especially given the long and constructive relationship between the parties.”
    Catholic Social Services is the party that needs to withdraw from the case.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *