Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was not on the court in 2015, has said that there are times when the court should correct mistakes and overturn decisions, as it did in the 2022 case that ended a constitutional right to abortion.Ok, Rabbit Cone, you're about halfway there but what the fuck is wrong with you
But Barrett has suggested recently that same-sex marriage might be in a different category than abortion because people have relied on the decision when they married and had children.
Expected. Hard to find 4 solid votes to grant cert and then find a 5th to overturn.They have lifetime appointments. They can wait until after the next election cycle.
The resulting situation would have created a clusterfuck of states struggling to honor existing licenses and those from other states while ceasing to issue their own. And then businesses themselves would pretend that they only have to honor opposite sex marriages.
I don't think there was any real risk to the respect for marriage Act, but the justices didn't even want to touch the Pandora's box.
Expected. Hard to find 4 solid votes to grant cert and then find a 5th to overturn.
The resulting situation would have created a clusterfuck of states struggling to honor existing licenses and those from other states while ceasing to issue their own. And then businesses themselves would pretend that they only have to honor opposite sex marriages.
I don't think there was any real risk to the respect for marriage Act, but the justices didn't even want to touch the Pandora's box.
Unexpected but wonderful.
Roberts is very cautious about the court's rep and he does consider that at times.
The justices, without comment, turned away an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky court clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the high court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
I got into a rabbit hole on Clarence Thomas a while ago. His claimed thing seems to be "this is/isn't what the law says, regardless of what it should be. If you want it changed, do it through legislation". Which I think is compelling as a viewpoint, but I get the impression it's a selectively applied justification more than anything else.And even if Congress passes legislation ( like the voting rights Act or the ACA) he and the rest of cretins will just make it mean nothing anyway.
I got into a rabbit hole on Clarence Thomas a while ago. His claimed thing seems to be "this is/isn't what the law says, regardless of what it should be. If you want it changed, do it through legislation". Which I think is compelling as a viewpoint, but I get the impression it's a selectively applied justification more than anything else.Clarence Thomas has exactly one viewpoint, and it's "How Can I Turn This Into Profit For Clarence Thomas?"
Roberts is very cautious about the court's rep and he does consider that at times.
The societal chaos this would cause would be enormous. It's not feasible at all
I hope Kim Davis stubs her toe every single day for the rest of her life, what a horrible person.I saw a headline that she has to pay $360,000 in damages, so thats basically life over anyway.
Glad that SCOTUS can make braindead obvious decisions sometimes
I saw a headline that she has to pay $360,000 in damages, so thats basically life over anyway.
Who knows, it's not exactly a group of people prone to take care of those no longer useful for them. Hasn't she exhausted all her legal levers?