The Supreme Court on Monday declined an opportunity to overturn its landmark precedent recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, tossing aside an appeal that had roiled LGBTQ advocates who feared the conservative court might be ready to revisit the decade-old decision.

Instead, the court denied an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue marriage licenses after the court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges allowed same-sex couples to marry.

The court did not explain its reasoning to deny the appeal, which had received outsized attention – in part because the court’s 6-3 conservative majority three years ago overturned Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion that 1973 decision established. Since then, fears about Obergefell being the precedent to fall have grown.

  • Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    8·
    7 hours ago

    That’s exactly the argument that Roe v Wade made.

    We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

    A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the (due process rights of the mother).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

    When Trump’s activist judges overturned it, they argued that not criminalizing abortion gave women rights that the constitution did not explicitly protect(?)

    Because according to incompetent/corrupt Trump judges, that’s how the constitution works now.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      1·
      4 hours ago

      they argued that not criminalizing abortion gave women rights that the constitution did not explicitly protect(?)

      No they didn’t. They decided that the question of legality should be returned to the States because Roe v Wade was decided based on a 14th Amendment Right of Privacy through Due Process. Your comment is about the practical outcome of their decision in some places.

      Frankly I still think RBG had the correct legal argument and that Roe should have been decided on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    • d00phy@lemmy.world
      2·
      5 hours ago

      If only the framers had realized that they couldn’t possibly list all the rights people have. I mean, one might say the list would be innumerable!