Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling
Source: ABC News
Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.
More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong."
Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-formally-asked-overturn-landmark-same-sex/story?id=124465302

Initech
(106,323 posts)
SWBTATTReg
(25,700 posts)I always wondered how one person alone can decide that, they alone have God's blessings to prevent others from joyful marriage/unions. I suppose that she would still oppose mixed marriages, ethic marriages, etc. too. Some people are just so hateful, so spiteful, so inhuman, to not just the two seeking marriage, but also to their families, their kids, etc.
Didn't the bible state be compassionate? I guess being hateful in this manner is somehow allowed. I just hope one day, that true justice will come and burn her in a manner that she'll realize then how wrong she is.
electric_blue68
(23,874 posts)Bayard
(26,974 posts)Can somebody explain that?
North Coast Lawyer
(186 posts)In the seminal 1803 case Marbury v. Madison the Court declared that the Constitution means what the court says it means. Every law student learns about this case their first day of constitutional law class. It was basically a power grab by the Supreme Court that has been exploited from time to time over that last 200+ years. The current Court seems hell bent on pushing this power grab to levels previously unimaginable.
electric_blue68
(23,874 posts)24601
(4,111 posts)all Cases, in Law and Equity,...."
Without judicial review, including determining the constitutionality of legislation, the USSC's judicial power would not extend to all cases in law and equity.
Plessy v. Ferguson was the 1896 case upholding racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. If precedent were binding instead of one of many factors the court uses to decide cases, Brown v. Board of Education would have kept schools segregated.
Congress can limit appellate, but not the USSC's original jurisdiction which is defined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
North Coast Lawyer
(186 posts)The power grabbed by the Court in Marbury v. Madison was been used for both good and evil over the last 200+ years.
Cut through all the legal mumbo jumbo and it becomes clear that the Court has as much power as it can wrest from the other branches. Anyone who thinks "the law" is not political is deluding themselves.
Igel
(37,103 posts)Otherwise a Congress and President could just trample the Constitution and nobody could stop them.
North Coast Lawyer
(186 posts)The current Court is actively assisting in the trampling of our rights.
For too long liberals have relied on the court to block the authoritarian impulses of conservatives. The was naive in the extreme. The judiciary is ultimately just as political as the other branches of government.
Igel
(37,103 posts)Anti-miscegenation laws upheld had precedent overturned.
Ferguson overturned precedent.
Griswold overturned precedent.
Roe overturned precedent.
Obergefell overturned precedent.
Lots of precedents were overturned to general cheering in some quarters.
It's odd that overturning Roe was an unconscionable overturning of precedent--which is sacred!--but the overturning of precedent that was Roe is, also, sacred.
ZDU
(773 posts)... here we go again
greatauntoftriplets
(178,236 posts)Jimvanhise
(507 posts)In the 1960s the Supreme Court ruled that religious beliefs could not be used to justify racism and refusing to give equal rights to blacks. The Mormon church once claimed that they could discriminate against blacks because being black was the mark of Cain as described in the Bible. The Supreme Court said no. Religion could not be used to justify discrimination. In the 1960s universities were established for whites only, based on religious beliefs. Those were deemed illegal discrimination. This is what the Supreme Court could open up if religion is accepted to justify discrimination. Whites only schools. Whites only businesses. I'm amazed they agreed to hear this case.
Oeditpus Rex
(42,737 posts)...currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent."
How?
LudwigPastorius
(13,403 posts)..I mean...Kim.
bluestarone
(20,287 posts)LOOK OUT!!
Boomerproud
(8,952 posts)
chouchou
(2,346 posts)"Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry"
mahina
(20,050 posts)What would ever open that hard little heart with love and understanding?