"It’s never been about whether or not I’m going to lose my tax-exempt status. It’s whether I’m going to lose my prophetic status."

"Let’s not be wussy about this. When we see sin, then name it. But I think it limits me, if somebody believes that I am tied to a candidate or political party."

So said Bonnie A. Perry, an Episcopal Bishop, quoted in a NYT article that's mostly about a Lutheran pastor,  Jonathan Barker, who resigned from Grace Lutheran (in Kenosha, Wisconsin) rather than give up on his plan to deliver a sermon about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, endorsing her as a Democratic Party candidate for President in the 2028 election.

The article is "He Tried to Endorse From the Pulpit. He Wound Up Without a Church. The I.R.S. says churches can now support candidates during services, but many denominations still forbid it. A Wisconsin pastor learned the hard way."

So is this about religion or tax exemptions? Bishop Perry refers to "my tax-exempt status," but it's about the ability of all the donors to her church to claim a tax exemption.

It used to be clear that endorsing a political candidate would disqualify a church from its tax-exempt status, but there was a lawsuit challenging that and the Trump administration settled the lawsuit and said that churches could endorse candidates "to their own congregations, in connection with a worship service."

That doesn't mean they should. They may, like Perry, wisely refrain from losing their clout, their fervor, their credibility. Who would go to church to be harangued about voting for the latest Democrat? And then on top of that, you have to worry that you might lose their tax deduction if your church strays beyond the limited concession made in settling that lawsuit.

The churches have good reason to maintain a wall of separation between "the garden of the church" and "the wilderness of the world," even if there's a loophole in the tax law.

"Tourism is a curse."

Tourism is a curse.
The place becomes unlivable. Real estate values rise but future generations priced out of the market. Convenience stores become luxury outlets. Natives move out, jet setters own empty apartments..

The planet is too small & everybody wants to go to Venice. pic.twitter.com/xFXyZVJmNb

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) July 7, 2024

Here's the article, "Barcelona residents protest against mass tourism/The city's rising cost of housing, up 68% in the past decade according to local authorities, is one of the main issues for the movement, along with the effects of tourism on local commerce and working conditions" (Le Monde).

Under the slogan "Enough! Let's put limits on tourism", some 2,800 people – according to police – marched along a waterfront district of Barcelona to demand a new economic model that would reduce the millions of tourists that visit every year.... The second most visited country after France, Spain received 85 million foreign visitors in 2023, an increase of 18.7% from the previous year, according to the National Statistics Institute. The most visited region was Catalonia, whose capital is Barcelona, with 18 million....

All you need is a high enough tourist tax, right? 

SCOTUSblog is live-blogging the announcement of new Supreme Court cases.

I'm keeping an eye on it, here.

Lots of cases left, and we're close to the end, so today could be very exciting, but it could also be one of those fizzles. We'll find out soon.

MORE: The first case is a tax case — a 16th Amendment case — Moore v. United States. Thomas and Gorsuch dissent, Barrett and Alito concur. As SCOTUSblog puts it: "Because the couple in the case here never actually received the investment gains that were subject to the tax, Thomas contends, they cannot be taxed as 'income' under the Sixteenth Amendment." In Thomas's words: "Sixteenth Amendment 'income' is only realized income. We should not have hesitated to say so in this case."

AND: "We have the second opinion. It is Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon. It is by Justice Kagan and the vote is 6-3. Thomas dissents, joined by Alito; Gorsuch has his own dissent." From the syllabus of the opinion: "The presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge."

ALSO: Diaz v. US. — "It is 6-3, with a Gorsuch dissent joined by Sotomayor and Kagan." "The court holds that expert testimony that 'most people" have a particular mental state is not an opinion about the defendant and therefore does not violate federal evidentiary rules."

FINALLY: Gonzales v. Trevino: "The per curiam opinion agrees with Gonzalez, the woman who was arrested, that the court of appeals took a view of Nieves that was too narrow. Requiring her to provide examples of people who also mishandled a government petition but were not arrested 'goes too far,' the court holds."