this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
391 points (98.5% liked)

News

36201 readers
4393 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court on Monday declined an opportunity to overturn its landmark precedent recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, tossing aside an appeal that had roiled LGBTQ advocates who feared the conservative court might be ready to revisit the decade-old decision.

Instead, the court denied an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue marriage licenses after the court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges allowed same-sex couples to marry.

The court did not explain its reasoning to deny the appeal, which had received outsized attention -- in part because the court's 6-3 conservative majority three years ago overturned Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion that 1973 decision established. Since then, fears about Obergefell being the precedent to fall have grown.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PenguinTrinity@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Its distressing that they made it to the supreme court in the first place.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It didn't make it. It was rejected by the supreme court at a preliminary stage. The case was not heard by the court.

Anyone with a federal appellate ruling can appeal to the supreme court. That appeal is just a request. The supreme court refuses the vast majority of them.

All this says about the country is that one horrible woman can afford a lawyer, and refuses to take no for an answer.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Can't anything make it to the supreme court with enough money?

It doesn't mean they'll hear it, but you get to be declined like this?

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Pretty much.

You go to lower court, lose, go to appeals court, lose, and then you can petition the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court usually says no just because they get a thousand petitions a year, and have enough time for like ten. That's still true with this heavily conservative court.

Except for the fact that there was enough right-wing bankrolling to keep the case going, it doesn't mean much.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 3 months ago

What's more distressing IMO is people making disparaging comments when they clearly don't understand the U.S. legal system.

Essentially anyone who loses a case in a Federal Appellate court, like Kim Davis did in the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, has the right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then decides if they want to hear the case or not. It's a good thing.

I don't like Kim Davis nor her agenda but that's no reason to upend over two centuries of procedure.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Yah they're setting the stage so we stop paying attention. This one was never going to have traction, but who knows what made-up BS tomorrow will bring.