Posted on 08/17/2025 4:31:31 PM PDT by Salman
The Supreme Court’s landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn’t the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall.
...
Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court’s conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump’s second term have only expedited its demise.
...
A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys’ fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court’s decision and decline to issue the licenses.
Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a “mistake” that “must be corrected.”
...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Lots of other stuff on the list beside what I excerpted. Well worth reading.
It neo-pagans who push to define two people of the same sex, living together, as a “marriage”.
It is a distinctly “modern” conception of marriage, with no history behind it.
I don’t see them rolling back gay marriage and I don’t think they should. (Wait for it...)
1. Why should not gay people have the opportunity to be as miserable as everyone else? and:
2. Forcing gay marriage licenses on unwilling red states under Full Faith And Credit plus Equal Protection then maintaining that means that the blue states have no grounds to complain when being forced to honor red states carry permits and perhaps even constitutional carry is forced upon them - among many other things, like NFA ownership. It’s an opportunity that we should be using.
Bad logic, one is literally in the constitution, the other is not.
While the whole gay marriage thing was going on, it was obvious to anyone who knew the proper role of the federal government, that marriage was a states issue and the federal court had no business taking the case.
While the whole gay marriage thing was going on, it was obvious to anyone who knew the proper role of the federal government, that marriage was the states 10th Amendment issue and the federal court had no business taking the case.
But I think stare decisis will make this an 8-1 or 7-2 in favor of keeping it, with Thomas being the only sure vote to overturn.
I think Kim Davis was deliberately targeted—the gays could have probably gotten their license in the next county without any trouble. Just like Christian bakers being targeted when there were plenty of other bakers who would be happy to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.
Absolutely reprehensible results-oriented crap decision.
I think Davis was actually wrong legally, though I agree that Obergefell was a terrible decision.
Every time I hear the term “independent agency,” I grind my teeth. I don’t remember being taught in civics that there is a fourth branch of government consisting of independent agencies
“Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons.” Which independent agencies are they referring to? Surely not the ones whose leaders openly and politically support democrats...
I’m being practical. I do know that marriage is not in the Constitution, but when you use their own logic against them, they have huge problems coping and you can often get what you need.
Unfortunately, the Defense Of Marriage Act made it a Fedgov issue. This was warned against at the time, but the Republicans dismissed these objections.
Not the first or the last time that this has happened.
This article combines unrelated things, the most important of which IMHO is the ability of the President to fire the heads of independent agencies.
To your point, Congress has the power to create regulatory agencies outside of the Executive Branch, through legislation. In order to become law, such legislation must have been signed by a President and stand up to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. So maybe we will now see that done.
Just remember, it took overt action by the other three branches of government for these agencies to come into existence, and stay that way.
That is what happens when you decide to hand marraige over to the “state.” The State sees the union as a matter of contract law. They really should call it something else. As such, “turning it over” is silly at this point.
I got married in a church and made vows before God. That means a lot more to me than whatever the Commonwealth of Massachusetts put on their little piece of paper.
because we don’t need ‘married’ fagggots adopting kids and molesting them. Society needs to have standards of decency and should not institutionalize depravity.
Regarding marriage, I never hear anyone point out that in 2022, Congress passed , and Joe Biden signed , the Respect For Marriage Act. That law explicitly legalizes homosexual marriage under federal law.
So even if the Supreme Court overturned their decision from 2015, same sex marriage is recognized in federal law.
Even if the court would decide now that there really is no constitutional right to same sex marriage, such a decision would not invalidate the law passed in 2022. It seems to me that would be a completely separate issue. And another court case might have to be brought to try to overturn that law, if anyone wants to try to do that.
I also never hear anyone mention that there are many aspects of federal law in which marital status is an issue. So there are federal issues ,in addition to individual state law issues ,regarding how we define marriage.
If we’re going to make a 10th amendment argument about marriage, we would have to then say that the federal government cannot define marriage at all.
Is that really going to happen in this country?
Kennedy flipped after his lesbian niece pressed him hard. So we are stuck with all this BS because Kennedy was afraid he would not be invited to Thanksgiving dinner.
The job of the court is to look at the law and first to say, "is this even something that the government, federal, state or local, should be involved with?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.