Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

groundloop

(13,274 posts)
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 12:22 PM Aug 12

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

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling (Original Post) groundloop Aug 12 OP
Kim Davis needs to be thrown in the dumpster and forgotten about. What a miserable POS that woman is. Initech Aug 12 #1
She is. I love the way you described her, in one short sentence, in seven words. Simple, to the point, and precise. SWBTATTReg Aug 12 #6
So well stated. TY! electric_blue68 Aug 12 #9
I don't understand how these Supremes can keep overturning former Supreme's rulings Bayard Aug 12 #2
Because they can. North Coast Lawyer Aug 12 #8
Ohhh, so THAT'S what -Marbury v. Madison- is about. (Not a lawyer) electric_blue68 Aug 12 #10
Marbury v. Madison is consistent with the Constitution's Article III, Specifically, "The judicial Power shall extend to 24601 Aug 12 #12
Two Edged Sword North Coast Lawyer Aug 12 #13
Marbury was required. Igel Aug 12 #16
Like Now? North Coast Lawyer Aug 13 #18
Lots of precedents were overturned. Igel Aug 12 #15
Religious extremism ZDU Aug 12 #3
But it's okay for drumpf to want to screw his daughter. greatauntoftriplets Aug 12 #4
A PANDORA'S BOX Jimvanhise Aug 12 #5
'Davis is seen as one of the only Americans Oeditpus Rex Aug 12 #7
Mind your own fucking business, Karen. LudwigPastorius Aug 12 #11
If the SC fucks this up, bluestarone Aug 12 #14
6-3. Count on it. Boomerproud Aug 13 #17
I'm gonna kill people who do fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire,,,,just for fun. chouchou Aug 13 #19
There's enough love in the world for you too, Karen. mahina Aug 14 #20

Initech

(106,323 posts)
1. Kim Davis needs to be thrown in the dumpster and forgotten about. What a miserable POS that woman is.
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 12:23 PM
Aug 12

SWBTATTReg

(25,700 posts)
6. She is. I love the way you described her, in one short sentence, in seven words. Simple, to the point, and precise.
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 01:13 PM
Aug 12

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.

Bayard

(26,974 posts)
2. I don't understand how these Supremes can keep overturning former Supreme's rulings
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 12:25 PM
Aug 12

Can somebody explain that?

North Coast Lawyer

(186 posts)
8. Because they can.
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 02:41 PM
Aug 12

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.

24601

(4,111 posts)
12. Marbury v. Madison is consistent with the Constitution's Article III, Specifically, "The judicial Power shall extend to
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 04:17 PM
Aug 12

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)
13. Two Edged Sword
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 06:45 PM
Aug 12

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)
16. Marbury was required.
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 08:17 PM
Aug 12

Otherwise a Congress and President could just trample the Constitution and nobody could stop them.

North Coast Lawyer

(186 posts)
18. Like Now?
Wed Aug 13, 2025, 02:26 PM
Aug 13

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)
15. Lots of precedents were overturned.
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 08:14 PM
Aug 12

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.

Jimvanhise

(507 posts)
5. A PANDORA'S BOX
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 12:40 PM
Aug 12

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)
7. 'Davis is seen as one of the only Americans
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 01:33 PM
Aug 12

...currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent."

How?

chouchou

(2,346 posts)
19. I'm gonna kill people who do fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire,,,,just for fun.
Wed Aug 13, 2025, 10:17 PM
Aug 13

"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)
20. There's enough love in the world for you too, Karen.
Thu Aug 14, 2025, 12:26 AM
Aug 14

What would ever open that hard little heart with love and understanding?

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court formally as...