“When an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the constitution must win out,” the judges wrote. “The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.”

Now Davis wants the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court to overturn that ruling. Much of her petition to the high court focused on her contention that she deserves some form of protection from liability. “Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time,” her brief declared.

The brief also urged the supreme court to overturn Obergefell entirely. As part of their argument, attorneys for Davis praised the court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v Wade and claimed that Obergefell is “not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions” – a paraphrase of the reasoning that the court used to demolish Roe and erase the federal right to abortion. Davis is being represented by Liberty Counsel, an organization that has previously represented anti-abortion activists.

While at least one advocacy group is planning to protest outside the supreme court on Friday, some legal experts have cautioned that the case remains a legal long shot. Because most of Davis’s arguments deal with the narrower question of her liability rather than the broader debate over same-sex marriage, the justices do not necessarily need to touch Obergefell to reckon with the questions at the heart of her case.

There is no guarantee that the supreme court will take up Davis’s case after its conference. Each term, the court receives somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 requests to consider cases, but ultimately hears oral arguments in about 80 and issues orders in another 100, according to official estimates released by the supreme court. Justices also usually consider dozens of cases at each conference and tend to consider cases at multiple conferences before deciding to take them up. Four justices must agree in order for a case to be heard at oral arguments.

If the justices do use this case to tamper with Obergefell, Ermold and Moore’s brief in the case argued that it would entice other officials to break laws they do not support in the hopes of being bailed out by the high court.

“A decade since Obergefell, there are now nearly 800,000 married same-sex couples living across the United States,” their brief argued. “Overruling Obergefell could call into question the constitutional status of existing same-sex marriages and disrupt the lives of those who aspire to, plan their affairs around and benefit from same-sex marriage.”

If they take up the case and overturn the right to gay marriage, it would all but ensure judicial reform would be happening when the democrats take over given it was the republican Roberts court that legalized it in the first place
Judicial reform needs to happen anyway with how openly corrupt the republican supreme court is.

>>1455587
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are hard nos
Roberts voted in favor of same sex marriage a decade ago, he's not going to suddenly change his mind. So that's four "Nay" votes
Barrett has proven to be moderate liberal on everything except abortion. Five "Nays". That's ballgame.

>>1455597
>he's not going to suddenly change his mind
I don't think you can say this for sure.

>>1455597
>Barrett has proven to be moderate liberal
LOL, she's a far right conservative like the rest of the republicans packed onto the court.

What will most likely happen is Roberts either personally makes sure they don't take up the case, or pressures enough of his fellow Republican judges to vote it down. Because if they do ban gay marriage, he's all but ensured the democrats will add 3+ seats to the court relive him of his control since overturning his own ruling would be a smoking gun he's just a political operative masquerading as a judge.
I mean we all know he is one given how he just gave trump a blank check to be a tyrant and is doing everything to help republicans rig elections.
But this would be a smoking howitzer level move.

>>1455601
>she's a far right conservative like the rest of the republicans packed onto the court.
Its not that she is far right, its that you're an extremist.

>>1455637
>Trying to gaslight
>on /news/
Oh, the Election tourists are over extending. Again.

>>1455637
She is objectively a far right christian nationalist selected by The Federalist Society, a right wing judicial activism think tank.

>>1455714
Christian supremacist.
An affront to the founding fathers.

>>1455587
I don't care too much. But fags are nearly all insufferable pricks so let's shove the jerks back in the closet.

>>1455721
Gays getting married has nothing to do with being in the closet.

I can't stand troons and fags, but what exactly is the legal reasoning to doing this? The marriage system is already a joke and gays have higher divorce rates than straight couples and the lesbian domestic violence rates are almost 80%. Let the fags be miserable too

>>1455728
Fags are gay.

>>1455728
For future Sharia law and Democrats will unironically support it at that point in the future

>>1455728
>but what exactly is the legal reasoning to doing this?
The legal reasoning is that the basis of the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is deeply flawed. Same with Roe v. Wade and Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage). The current court does not like the fact that the due process clause and the right to privacy has been interpreted by prior liberal courts to be "whatever the fuck we say it is".

The current court is composed of originalists and textualists. Since the original constitution had no specific intention to expand the rights of same sex marriage and abortion, and is silent on interracial marriage they don't to expand the const beyond its plain language and the original intent behind the language.

Its not that they hate gays or interracial marriage (Thomas who hates the ruling in Loving v. Virginia is in an interracial marriage) its that they take their jobs, and the law, seriously.

There you go. You got an effortpost.

>>1455759
Next time you pat yourself on the back please do it into an active volcano, lying shill faggot

>>1455761
Is somebody throwing a tantrum because grown-ups started using words their smooth little brain can’t process, and now they’ve got nothing but drool and hurt feelings to reply with?

>>1455759
I enjoyed your post, because I'm not a syphilis addled euro homo like, >>1455761, who is a crippled Canadian dyke tranny named Sukdeep.

>>1455763
>>1455764
BTW we all know you're here posting now because no one else is. Why are you too scared to post when you might get backlash for your obvious lies

>>1455766
What?

Esl shill who posts on dead boards at the deadest hours so his feelings don't get hurt says what

>>1455767
Its a bot or a literal schizo, note the repetitive phrases
>your obvious lies

>>1455770
Why are you here? I'm here to talk about the news, but all I ever see is you completely spazzing out. I dont think I have ever seen you post anything other than
>SHILLS!

>>1455759
>deeply flawed
According to whom?
>prior liberal courts
Top kek
>>1455773
>I'm here to talk about the news
He's right. No you aren't. You're here to post damage control like >>1455759 when no one else is usually here.

>>1455841
>According to whom?
A huge body of law and the majority of the Supreme Court.

>>1455846
Source?
(inb4 your far right programming)

>>1455869
You're on a roll this Friday! Keep it up!

>>1455759
>Originalist
Ah yes, I remember when the founding fathers wrote that corporations are people and bribes are free speech like the republican supreme court declared.
Just admit it, conservatives, have and always will be bigots so they want to take as many rights away as possible.
The fact you want to ban interracial marriage really gives the game away too.

>>1455759
>The current court does not like the fact that the due process clause and the right to privacy has been interpreted by prior liberal courts to be "whatever the fuck we say it is".
Explain to me how the 14th Amendent wouldn't require a state to issue a marriage license to a woman that they would issue to a man in the exact same position?

>>1455883
There's no issue there. Men can marry women and women can marry men.

>>1455889
And nobody will ever touch you chandala

''For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support'
-George Washington
There are those who demean themselves as good citizens. And then there's the subhuman homophobes

>>1455759
Originalists would be actively trying to dismantle Citizens United, the Patriot Act, and all the hellspawn decisions and laws following them.

>>1455906
Citizens United is a really good ruling, actually. I want trade unions, NGO's and other groups to be allowed to engage in political speech. Its also legally sound.

The problem is that you've been taught to hate it, because you're a midwit who struggles with critical thinking.

>and >>1455889 can't even get a wife via arranged marriage
Shill incel & /r9k/-reject status: confirmed.

>>1455910
Nice headcannon.

2026 is going to be a ruthless redpill to swallow. Not as ruthless as the AOC 46 state sweep of '28 tho. That'll lead to mass suicides

>>1455926
It probably won't be like that. At best the dems will win back the House and a 50/50 split in the senate. That only means more congressional gridlock for the next 2 years, and probably impeachment trials that go nowhere.

>>1455883
Explain to me how the 14th Amendment is compatible with minority hiring quotas

>>1455934
At the very least, it'll make trump's next self coup harder because he can't just use congress to block the results like he attempted to in 2021.

>>1455968
I'll be happy to see Comer forced to quit his stupid Hunter Biden hearings and Mike Johnson become a minority leader.

>headcannon
It's a 155mm one that's very lethal against those it's targeted very precisely at - as proved by the reaction to >>1455910 or said target wouldn't have replied so self-destructively the way it did - so thanks for asking, 1455916
>headcannon
In your head, you thinking you're American - by claiming to spell English correctly - is just your headcanon, sure.

>Kim Davis
Reminder that this hag is a 3 time divorcee on her 4th marriage who cheated on all of her husbands and had multiple children out of wedlock. So by her own religious beliefs she already has a reserved seat in Hell.

>>1455759
Oh no! I had thought that a challenge the legality of same-sex marriage was part of a transparently bigoted agenda. But look! You've reframed the discussion to make it about the constitution: I'm meant to care about defending that, because of the many ways in which the current administration is ignoring it. How wily you are! Now I'll have to choose between my enmity for bigotry and my other enmity for authoritarianism, since it's so clearly impossible to maintain both!

>>1455908
Absolutely pathetic. The degree to which any entity is capable of engaging in political speech should not depend on their capacity to pay for that engagement. That's in opposition to democracy. It's the imposition of opinion by weight rather than by quality.

>>1456011
Retarded ESL

>>1455587
Davis has been divorced three times but she thinks she knows what traditional marriage is

>>1455999
Are you sure, Reverend ballicker?

>>1456018
You're confused.

>>1455967
>Explain to me how the 14th Amendment is compatible with minority hiring quotas
It isn't. The government cannot and does not engage in hiring quotas. Hell, private businesses can't even engage in hiring quotas except as a penalty for discriminatory hiring practices imposed by a court to reverse the impact of their own quotas. It's otherwise a violation of civil rights law.

>>1455889
>There's no issue there. Men and women have separate but equal rights.
Uh huh.

This is up for review and debate by a group of adultery commiting christians... do they understand what marriage is about? I don't think so.