The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

ElNaranja · Nov 8, 2025

They'll pay it to corporations "most impacted" is suck up and willing to bribe Trump

soccernutter · Nov 10, 2025

From the AP live feed.

Kim Davis - DENIED!!!

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

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.

Davis had been trying to get the court to overturn a lower-court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to a couple denied a marriage license.

Not sure what this actually means for Obergfell and gay marriage, but it is a good thing...and a surprise.

Sounders78 · Nov 10, 2025

soccernutter said: ↑

From the AP live feed.

Kim Davis - DENIED!!!

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

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.

Davis had been trying to get the court to overturn a lower-court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to a couple denied a marriage license.

Not sure what this actually means for Obergfell and gay marriage, but it is a good thing...and a surprise.
Click to expand...

My brother and his husband celebrated their 38th anniversary of being a couple yesterday. This is good news.

yossarian · Nov 10, 2025

soccernutter said: ↑

From the AP live feed.

Kim Davis - DENIED!!!

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

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.

Davis had been trying to get the court to overturn a lower-court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to a couple denied a marriage license.

Not sure what this actually means for Obergfell and gay marriage, but it is a good thing...and a surprise.
Click to expand...

Not really a surprise. This wasn't a good vehicle for overturning Obergefell. But still a good thing, yeah.

https://www.stevevladeck.com/i/178430000/hot-topic-kim-davis-and-same-sex-marriage

Kryptonite · Nov 10, 2025

soccernutter said: ↑

From the AP live feed.

Kim Davis - DENIED!!!

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

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.

Davis had been trying to get the court to overturn a lower-court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to a couple denied a marriage license.

Not sure what this actually means for Obergfell and gay marriage, but it is a good thing...and a surprise.
Click to expand...

Has she denied her right to get a hair cut?

Kryptonite · Nov 10, 2025

Cascarino's Pizzeria · Nov 10, 2025

Kryptonite said: ↑

Has she denied her right to get a hair cut?
Click to expand...

On Earth 2, this wench would be a host on a bigoted version of The Magic Garden kids show.

Sounders78 · Nov 10, 2025

Kryptonite said: ↑

Has she denied her right to get a hair cut?
Click to expand...

You don't want to piss off gays - who do you think cuts hair in small towns?

Cascarino's Pizzeria · Nov 10, 2025

Sounders78 said: ↑

You don't want to piss off gays - who do you think cuts hair in small towns?
Click to expand...

Why MAGA says in the good ol days before all the gays and trans athletes and stuff, this guy handled the haircutting duties:

rslfanboy · Dec 4, 2025 at 6:25 PM

Surprise!

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/04/poli...se-trump-backed-congressional-map-in-midterms

SCOTUS lets TX use their gerrymandered maps.

Cascarino's Pizzeria · Dec 4, 2025 at 6:35 PM

rslfanboy said: ↑

Surprise!

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/04/poli...se-trump-backed-congressional-map-in-midterms

SCOTUS lets TX use their gerrymandered maps.
Click to expand...

From NBC News article:

The unsigned order said that Texas is “likely to succeed on the merits of its claim,” including that the lower court “failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith” when assessing the state Legislature’s motives.

The ruling appeared to be 6-3, with the three liberal justices dissenting

So does the California redistricing effort offset the 5 Texass seats?

soccernutter · Dec 4, 2025 at 6:41 PM

Cascarino's Pizzeria said: ↑

From NBC News article:

The unsigned order said that Texas is “likely to succeed on the merits of its claim,” including that the lower court “failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith” when assessing the state Legislature’s motives.

The ruling appeared to be 6-3, with the three liberal justices dissenting

So does the California redistricing effort offset the 5 Texass seats?
Click to expand...

There's been discussion elsewhere that the Texas gerrymandering might be leaving some of those districts open to flipping as the Latino vote seems to have changed.

Yoshou · Dec 4, 2025 at 9:33 PM

soccernutter said: ↑

There's been discussion elsewhere that the Texas gerrymandering might be leaving some of those districts open to flipping as the Latino vote seems to have changed.
Click to expand...

Yup. They used precinct results from 2024 to determine how to draw the districts. Since Latinos have shifted hard towards Democrats since 2024, those 2024 precinct results aren’t that great…

Sounders78 · Dec 4, 2025 at 9:55 PM

Cascarino's Pizzeria said: ↑

From NBC News article:

The unsigned order said that Texas is “likely to succeed on the merits of its claim,” including that the lower court “failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith” when assessing the state Legislature’s motives.

Click to expand...

Yes, they failed to honor the presumption of good faith because it was made clear it wasn't done in good faith! Good grief.

rslfanboy · Dec 4, 2025 at 10:10 PM

Sounders78 said: ↑

Yes, they failed to honor the presumption of good faith because it was made clear it wasn't done in good faith! Good grief.
Click to expand...

Ironic how they ruled against discrimination in the affirmative action case against Harvard, but then said it is totally cool in immigration arrests and gerrymandering.

Calvinball
Heads I win. Tails you lose.

SCOTUS reform should be on the dem platform.

superdave · Dec 5, 2025 at 12:54 AM

The stated reason is that this lawsuit is too close to the election.

But the appeal was done as expeditiously as possible considering when the legislation was passed. Plus the Supremes’ definition of “too soon” depends entirely on which party benefits from the change.

Democratic governors should unilaterally close all polling places in red areas like 2 days before the election. Too late to change! Oopsie!

rslfanboy · Dec 5, 2025 at 1:11 AM

superdave said: ↑

The stated reason is that this lawsuit is too close to the election.

But the appeal was done as expeditiously as possible considering when the legislation was passed. Plus the Supremes’ definition of “too soon” depends entirely on which party benefits from the change.

Democratic governors should unilaterally close all polling places in red areas like 2 days before the election. Too late to change! Oopsie!
Click to expand...

Also, it is a year away! Utah also had an issue with a deadline in deciding its case. I’m sure an appeal to this SCOTUS would overturn it if it could happen in time.

Pønch · Dec 5, 2025 at 3:22 AM

Funny how similar that is to McConell's argument to deny Obama a SC pick

At least they are consistent!