High court won’t take up ex-Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’ case

[signit]

article

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving in place a decision that allowed a lawsuit to move forward against a Kentucky clerk who was jailed in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Another article:

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is “found nowhere in the text” of the Constitution and threatens “the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.”

[edit]

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance.

 

[Rockoh22]

I was just reading about this. I wonder what does it mean for religious liberty, and ACB confirmation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance.

Oh that would be messy. Get ready for the protests if it does.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

From the 1st link

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas wrote for himself and Justice Samuel Alito that while he agreed with the decision not to hear the case,

 

[Nepperhan]

If they were not going to take up the case, Thomas and Alito had no business going off on a long peroration about what they thought of the subject. That’s irrelevant dicta.

 

[Nepperhan]

Maybe it was a signal to conservative Christians to push for Bennett, but it will more likely act as a signal to Democrats to fight it.

They are not supposed to send signals or to give advisory opinions. I think they were out of line.