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.

    • Hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      It didn’t make it. It was rejected by the supreme court at a preliminary stage. The case was not heard by the court.

      Anyone with a federal appellate ruling can appeal to the supreme court. That appeal is just a request. The supreme court refuses the vast majority of them.

      All this says about the country is that one horrible woman can afford a lawyer, and refuses to take no for an answer.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      What’s more distressing IMO is people making disparaging comments when they clearly don’t understand the U.S. legal system.

      Essentially anyone who loses a case in a Federal Appellate court, like Kim Davis did in the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, has the right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then decides if they want to hear the case or not. It’s a good thing.

      I don’t like Kim Davis nor her agenda but that’s no reason to upend over two centuries of procedure.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Can’t anything make it to the supreme court with enough money?

      It doesn’t mean they’ll hear it, but you get to be declined like this?

      • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Pretty much.

        You go to lower court, lose, go to appeals court, lose, and then you can petition the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court usually says no just because they get a thousand petitions a year, and have enough time for like ten. That’s still true with this heavily conservative court.

        Except for the fact that there was enough right-wing bankrolling to keep the case going, it doesn’t mean much.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yah they’re setting the stage so we stop paying attention. This one was never going to have traction, but who knows what made-up BS tomorrow will bring.