Supreme Court Slams Kim Davis Appeal, Igniting Fears Over Next Constitutional Targets
The Supreme Court declined to revisit the 2015 *Obergefell v. Hodges* right to same-sex marriage, following an appeal from Kim Davis.
Commenters are split between those predicting a clear legal rollback and those analyzing the difficulty of such an attack. Yuritopiaposadism on politics points to a dangerous pattern, comparing this dismissal to the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*. Conversely, Teknevra dismisses the appeal as weak, asserting the Court likely lacks the five votes needed for a major challenge, calling the case an inappropriate vehicle.
The consensus appears to be an underlying anxiety that the *Obergefell* precedent is vulnerable. The core debate centers not on the ruling itself, but on the fragility of precedent law in the face of political maneuvers.
Key Points
#1The appeal itself was dismissed without reopening *Obergefell*.
This is the concrete action reported by MicroWave.
#2The ruling is viewed as following a pattern of rights being dismantled.
Yuritopiaposadism on politics explicitly draws a parallel to the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*.
#3The legal challenge vehicle is seen as inherently flawed or insufficient.
Teknevra argues the specific 'zombie case' is a terrible mechanism for attacking *Obergefell*.
#4The Court may lack the requisite votes to overturn a major precedent.
Teknevra notes the court likely lacks the five votes necessary to reconsider the ruling.
Source Discussions (3)
This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.