There were eight amendments tabled, ensuring that the debate would last the whole five hours. Many of them were predictable—from revisionists wanting to amplify the apology, and delete the idea that LLF is over, and some from orthodox wanting to amend or delete the possibility of continuing discussion.

There were two exceptions to that, though, the first from Christopher Landau simply recognising that the ‘LGBTQI+ people’ were actually a diverse lot with different views. This is, of course, anathema to revisionists, who repeatedly talked as though all such people were a monolith who agreed with them—despite the number of gay women and men in the chamber who were orthodox and gave very clear speeches to that effect (I include several below).

The other was a cross-party proposal from Lis Goddard, agreed with Helen King, aiming to bring the fruitful learning of the ‘Leicester’ discussion groups into the proposed working groups. No sooner had Lis proposed this, than Helen King misused a point of order to deny her support for it! It was a clear sign that even the minimum of collaboration is not politically expedient for revisionists.

But we had been told ahead of time that that House of Bishops, having painfully thrashed this motion out as the only way forward for them, would resist every amendment—and the procedure of calling for a ‘vote by Houses’ meant that they effectively had a veto, and used it fairly consistently. I did wonder whether some of the revisionist bishops would break ranks, and perhaps vote for one of the revisionist amendments, but a maximum of six out of the 38 or so present did so.

It was clear that the revisionists really did not want to vote for the unamended motion, because it said clearly that LLF had ended. But if they voted it down, they would also be voted down clause (d) offering a chink of light of continued discussion, so they held their noses and voted ‘for’. Orthodox felt similarly ambivalent for the opposite reasons, and in the end some voted for (drawing a line under LLF) and others voted against (because we don’t want further damaging discussion).

Read it all.

Campaigners with contrasting views of Living in Love and Faith (#LLF) have responded to the General Synod’s decision on the process after last week’s five-hour debate on a motion from the Archbishop of York.

Read more below 👇 #GeneralSynod #churchnewshttps://t.co/wdaGVd4zjI

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) February 16, 2026

In his first speech on the Senate floor, in November 2015, Sasse essentially gave a lesson on the Constitutional order and on the abject failure of modern-day Congress to assert its authority against the administrative state and the executive branch. It’s a remarkable speech, given only after he’d spent a year in the chamber and spoken with many of his colleagues to understand what was going on. 

No one in this body thinks the Senate is laser-focused on the most pressing issues facing the nation. No one. Some of us lament this fact; some are angered by it; many are resigned to it; some try to dispassionately explain how they think it came to be. But no one disputes it. 

As a result, he also said, “The people despise us all.” 

The point of the Senate’s long terms, Sasse concluded, is to “shield lawmakers from obsession with short-term popularity to enable us to focus on the biggest long-term challenges our people face.” And the character of the chamber matters, he explained, “precisely because it is meant to insulate us from short-termism . . . from opinion fads and the short-term bickering of 24-hour-news-cycles. The Senate was built to focus on the big stuff. The Senate is to be the antidote to sound-bites.”

Read it all.

Former senator Ben Sasse is battling cancer.

Losing him would be one more sign that a certain kind of conservatism—and a certain kind of politics—is disappearing, writes @MikeCosper.https://t.co/5clU0XfODE

— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) February 20, 2026

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on Friday wiping out a chunk of President Donald Trump’s tariff regime is a triumph for the Constitution’s separation of powers and the individual liberty that it protects.

The decision by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. says nothing about whether the tariffs are good or bad policy. But it recognizes that they are a major tax, and that raising revenue is a “distinct” power that belongs to Congress. There’s a reason the 18th century American revolutionary slogan was “no taxation without representation.” Taxing citizens without consent from their elected representatives is antithetical to the American project.

Congress never approved the worldwide tariffs at issue in the case. Trump told the court they were authorized by a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. No president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs, but it contains the phrase “regulate … importation.” Trump said that was sufficient authorization for him to throw out the rest of the tariff schedules and set import taxes however he pleased.

Roberts saw the flimsiness of that reasoning. “Based on two words separated by 16 others,” he wrote, “the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.” Indeed. The executive branch can’t be allowed to grab hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people on such a thin legal basis.

Read it all.

The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the Trump administration’s broad tariffs strips the president of a central instrument of his foreign policy, undercutting his ability to coerce global leaders and reshape world order in his second term.https://t.co/mktSe8eQIw

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 20, 2026

Starting with the 2024 decision that gave President Trump substantial immunity from prosecution and continuing through a score of emergency orders provisionally greenlighting an array of his second-term initiatives, Mr. Trump has had an extraordinarily successful run before the Supreme Court.

That came to a sudden, jolting halt on Friday, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for six members of the court, roundly rejected Mr. Trump’s signature tariffs program. It was the Supreme Court’s first merits ruling — a final judgment on the lawfulness of an executive action — on an element of the administration’s second-term agenda. It amounted to a declaration of independence.

It also served as another in a series of clashes between the leaders of two branches of the federal government cut from very different cloth: the controlled, cerebral chief justice and the biting, brazen president.

Read it all.

The Supreme Court’s Declaration of Independence https://t.co/c3j3a7tlnQ via @NYTimes

— Luba Howard 🇺🇦 (@marynlm) February 20, 2026

Almighty God, we bless thy Name for the witness of Frederick Douglass, whose impassioned and reasonable speech moved the hearts of people to a deeper obedience to Christ: Strengthen us also to speak on behalf of those in captivity and tribulation, continuing in the Word of Jesus Christ our Liberator; who with thee and the Holy Spirit dwelleth in glory everlasting. Amen.

20 Feb 1895: #Abolitionist and former #slave Frederick Douglass dies in Washington, D.C. He wrote several books including "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave" in 1845. #History #HistoryMatters #OTD #ad https://t.co/bFA6EuTO3O pic.twitter.com/SwBFvZtjXo

— Today In History (@URDailyHistory) February 20, 2026

O Lord our God, who art of purer eyes than to behold iniquity: Have mercy upon us, we beseech thee, for our sins accuse us, and we are troubled by them and put to shame.  We have done wrong to ourselves in ignorance, and to our brethren in willfulness, and by our selfish and faithless ways have grieved thy Holy Spirit.  Forgive us, we humbly pray thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

—Prayers for the Christian Year (SCM, 1964)

Happy Friday. pic.twitter.com/k5So5YfUc5

— Juha Auvinen (@Zehov) February 20, 2026

Therefore, my brethren, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm thus in the Lord, my beloved.

I entreat Eu-o′dia and I entreat Syn′tyche to agree in the Lord. And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let all men know your forbearance. The Lord is at hand. Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

–Philippians 4:1-9

A beautiful morning in the Manifold Valley, the winter sunlight dappling the country lanes and lighting up all those ancient ridge and furrow patterns on the fields ahead. The little footpath on the right takes you down through the hills to Larkstone Lane, over the stone bridge… pic.twitter.com/jB7cSiTUbd

— peaklass (@peaklass1) February 20, 2026