Good. Fuck off, Kim Davis.
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
392 points (98.5% liked)
News
37103 readers
1050 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can’t believe this person is still in the news.
So happy for her to be in the news saying she still owe's $360K! "She was sued by multiple couples in the county, and a jury ordered her to pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees. " smh
I wish it was worse. I feel like she is probably still profiting from her bigotry.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Well, it's not 360,000. Post judgment interest has accrued during the civil case's appeals process, so it's a good bit more than $360,000.
Aww, you say the nicest things!
Nice? Yes. True? More so. In the criminal cases, an appeal is a matter of right. In civil cases, you have to put funds in escrow, which neither side can touch until after the appeal so as to satisfy the judgment if you lose the appeal.
True, it is nice to be reminded of that piece of shit's financial ruin. We just have to hope that any donations she got went to legal fees.
Take everything from her, and leave her penniless, homeless, and naked. She worked hard to earn that fate.
She is like a cicada you forget about them then after five years or so they show up and make a shit load of noise and annoy the hell out of everybody.
Given all the rest of the terrible shit going on, I can. In fact the big surprise is that they declined. Wonder how that might go with the Texas case
. . . for now
This one I can see lasting for a while. With abortion, there's at least a valid discussion about when existing rights begin to apply to a fetus. Even without the religious angle, there's some discussion to be had (ie at conception vs at viability vs at birth).
With same-sex marriage, they would have to justify taking away a right from adult citizens. That's going to be damn hard to do without resorting to a purely religious angle. I don't think they are ready to go full on theocracy yet. Maybe during Trump's third term.
That's going to be damn hard to do without resorting to a purely religious angle.
Trans people who just lost their (our) passports:
Yeah... I've said this before: they kicked all the trans soldiers out of the military already. They also fired a bunch of high-ranking female officers. Then Hegseth went on his rant about how he only wants "manly men" in the military. It's only a matter of time before they try to disqualify gay/lesbian people from serving, and probably all women at some point. And we will see more attempts like this one to overturn hard-won rights in other areas.
I'm abroad (most likely permanently) and I get the feeling I'm gonna have to fight to stay here on an expired passport. The silver lining is that the more they attack us the more of a case I have. My immigration lawyers are gonna love me.
Their play is that they don't allow renewals with the "wrong" marker, but they also don't allow gender marker changes so if you're trans you're fucked. The cruelty is the point. The recent SCROTUS ruling turns this from policy into law.
Last hired, first fired.
Truth.
Consider that the only difference between a woman marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman is the sex/gender of one of the people. They have to figure out how to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964 first. That's the one that says you can't discriminate based on sex/gender (not sure which term is most appropriate here).
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.
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.
Yeah, but the idea that respecting a woman's due process isnt allowed in abortion cases because it allows abortion is insane. Abortion hasn't been solidified as a right like the Trumpists argued. Due process is.
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!
Yeah, it's a real shame that they never got around to writing a 9th and 10th Amendment...oh...wait...
No problem:
- certain
- inalienable
There we go. All around, a good day's work.
If they can invent presidential immunity despite there being absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify it, I'm sure they have no problem writing an opinion that allows bans on gay marriage.
My best guess would be that they would frame it as being about the right of the states to regulate marriage. If the state can decide how many people can be in a marriage, how old you have to be to marry, how closely related you can be and still marry, the requirements for starting or ending a marriage, and so on, then what's one more criteria? Add some tangents about the history of marriage in the US, some comments about how government is involved in marriage specifically because of how it connects to issues relating to reproduction, cite some cases from the 19th century, and twist some more recent precedent to reverse its meaning so that you can pretend to be following existing case law and you have a pretty standard ruling for this court.
I’m sure they have no problem writing an opinion that allows bans on gay marriage.
Except they had the opportunity to do just that and refused. So obviously they have some kind of problem with it.
I never said they would actually do it, only that they wouldn't find it difficult to write that opinion. Seeing as they've had multiple cases in recent years where the opinion was completely untethered from law, precedent, and fact, there's basically no position so extreme that I would assume they can't rationalize it.
And yet we have a case right here that suggests they don't have a way to do that. There are too many gay couples who got married, and nobody wants to sort out the mess of them suddenly losing that.
They may not have felt that this was a good case for their purposes. Or enough of them may have felt that this was a bad time for it. Hell, maybe a couple of the conservative justices just don't care enough to want to revisit the issue.
But respect for the law, the constitution, and the rights and wellbeing of the people hasn't been evident in many of their recent opinions. Letting half the states pretend a fraction of marriages never happened wouldn't even be the most disruptive thing they've done. They endorsed racial profiling, made racial gerrymandering presumptively legal, made prosecuting bribery essentially impossible, overturned abortion rights, and crowned Trump as king and gave him a license to kill. And that's ignoring all the shenanigans happening on the shadow docket where they don't even bother justifying their decisions. That they've at least drawn something of a line against the Trump administration trying to eliminate due process altogether makes sense only because letting go of due process would mean giving up some of their own influence.
If they want to rule arbitrarily on this, then there's no reason to avoid this particular case. If they don't want to rule arbitrarily, then they need to think through the implications, and there is no getting around some major practical issues.
Thomas has explicitly signalled that he wants to revisit Obergefell, and Barrett probably would, too. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, though, probably want to leave it alone, and combined with the three liberal justices, they ended it all right here.
I’m going to have to disagree that personal, physical autonomy is a valid discussion up for debate in the public sphere.
The only discussion should be between the person carrying the fetus who bears all the risk and responsibility and their medical professional.
The fact that it is even considered valid to be debated shows just how much propaganda works.
You've missed my point. I don't actually care where you stand on when and how it's decided that a given abortion is allowed; my point was that you can have the discussion without resorting to religioun based arguments.
No, I got your point. But it shouldn’t be considered a discussion worth having either religious or humanist. Overall I agreed with it, just not the example.
Your conviction about one possible position being correct has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the conversation should be had. ~~If your position is so concrete, a discussion should be no issue for you, as you can never convince anyone else with a simple "my position is right, everything else is wrong."~~
Edit: that part is phrased awkwardly. What I think I'm trying to get at is that no matter how strong your personal conviction, the conversation still needs to be had, since not everyone agrees with you. Of the people who disagree, yes some are essentially lost causes on that topic, but others can still be convinced. You can't do that convincing if you always try to just shut down all conversation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Its distressing that they made it to the supreme court in the first place.
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.
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?
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Crazy that we're in this situation where the there's a question over whether a court will overturn its own precedent.
And as with the rest, there's just nothing to go on here: if your religion prevents you from doing a particular job, there can only be narrow parameters within which someone has to hire you, or keep you on, in this job. If it's because your religion requires you to wear certain clothing and the job requires you to wear an incompatible uniform, then yeah, they need to figure something out. If it's a key function of the job that you're not willing to do, then get on your bike.
Crazy that we’re in this situation where the there’s a question over whether a court will overturn its own precedent.
It's happened with SCOTUS before and at least sometimes it's a good thing. Dred Scott being an example.
Thank you for the example, it's not one I'd come across before. But am I reading it right - did it not take (a civil war and) several constitutional amendments to overturn the SCOTUS case?
Fuck that lady.
No thank you.
they will revisit ones no ones paying attention the news.
view more: next ›