Two thoughts:
- I'm genuinely surprised. What's the catch? Are they just waiting for a better case like the one in Texas?
- Eat shit, Kim Davis.
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
386 points (100.0% liked)
politics
26409 readers
2273 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What's the catch?
That was my immediate thought. Good things don't happen anymore, so how is it going to sour? Do they need gay people to get married so they can build a registry or something?
The catch is that this was always a non-starter. I said it yesterday in a thread about this.
Gorsuch literally wrote the majority opinion on Bostock. As far right as he is on everything else, he's actually pretty good on LGBT stuff. Between him, Kagan, Roberts, KBJ, and Sotomayor, there wasn't even going to be a debate.
This was simply conservative groups taking pot shots with cases. This never had a chance to go anywhere.
The catch is that they struck down making emergency SNAP payments. If you pay attention, they always do this stuff in 2’s. They punch you in the gut and then they wind up to do it again, but it’s a fake, and they smile and pat you on the back, and you let out a sigh of relief because they stopped beating on you.
Thiel told them how to rule.
Prolly. Why are republicans so obsessed with what’s in peoples pants? It’s weird.
Because they are pedophiles?
It's projection, they feel deep insecurities and discomfort with sexuality, especially their own, so they're either assuming everyone else must be some kind of heinous deviant or they're trying to keep the attention on other people.
That guy is just so weird. There are xtians that literally think that people like Thiel should be put to death, by the government. And Thiel has aligned himself with weirdo xtian mythology.
People like Thiel used to have to stand out on a corner with a sign and some pamphlets and most people would steer clear. Maybe cross the street, point and snicker a bit.
Now crazies like him have billions and can buy politicians outright and have access to platforms to lie and distort in a narrowcasting way...
load more comments
(2 replies)
Davis' case was poor and she is intrinsically unlikable. I would expect a case with a novel argument to be taken up.
Most likely, she is so toxic that they knew overturning it on her case would hopefully destroy them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The justices 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.
That hateful cunt just won't go away...
Her lawyers repeatedly invoked the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, who alone among the nine justices has called for erasing the same-sex marriage ruling.
And never forget Joe Biden is the reason Clarence Thomas is even on the bench.
When Joe talked about how "we all used to get along" he means when Republicans pretended to like him so he'd be their useful idiot.
Here’s the thing I never understood about Thomas. You know they wouldn’t stop with same-sex marriage and eventually go for interracial marriage. Is he just playing the long game of wanting an annulment or does he not think that’ll happen?
It's not just him, lots of minorities think they won't be subject to the consequences because "they're one of the good ones".
Hell, Biden isn't a minority but he's a Dem, and he was constantly surprised from 2008 to today that republicans stopped treating him different than other Dems the second they no longer needed him.
Republicans will drop Thomas just as fast as they dropped Biden when he's not needed.
Like, none of this is new, it's the same as the guy who wrote "first they came for" when the Nazis were in power.
Niemöller was initially an anti-Communist, anti-semite and supported Adolf Hitler. But when Hitler rose to power and insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler.
In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. He was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a cleric and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II.
It's not just him, lots of minorities think they won't be subject to the consequences because "they're one of the good ones".
Tgere's a term for that: "pickme" girls and boys.
load more comments
(2 replies)
9 Republican Senators voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, 5 voted for Elena Kagan, and 3 voted for Ketanji Brown Jackson, which was necessary to grant her a majority.
Apart from McConnell refusing to bring Garland up for a vote, parties have been confirming their opposition's nominees for decades.
You can make specific arguments for why Thomas was unfit due to harassment accusations, but merely not blocking new Justices from appointment because they hold ideologies of the party nominating them has long been the standard.
You can push for someone less ideological than Bork, but don't fault people for working together in the past to keep the government functional.
Ok...
Did you read that link and your take away was that Biden just voted for Clarence?
It's ok if you did t already know how involved Biden was, I mean, I guess it is, it's come up a lot since his last election...
But the link's right there bro.
If you read it, and that was seriously you're take away tho...
I don't know how I can explain it in a way that would be any different. Like, I can't simplify it anymore than that article does, that's why I linked it.
I think you just didn't even click it, let alone read it, and that's the most charitable interpretation of your comment.
But essentially:
but merely not blocking new Justices from appointment because they hold ideologies of the party nominating them has long been the standard.
Thomas was a serial sexual abuser, and Biden swept it under the rug.
Normalizing that behavior (and worse) for futer SC picks. Thomas was the begining of the end for the SC, and Biden is why he ever made it there.
....this Wednesday. But Thursday is looking pretty good?
We need non alienable rights and not rights that depend on who's in charge this week.
although I agree with you. any state of government system set to ensure those rights, can easily take them away.
they shouldn't, and they should lose they heads if they try. but I don't think you can theoretically have "absolute inalienable rights".
There is no system of governance that can withstand a critical mass of the people operating it choosing not to do what they're supposed to. It's why ohio ignored its supreme court and constitution on gerrymandering and why Trump gets away with shit.
The judiciary was slowly captured alongside the media because they were supposed to be the counterbalances to congress (who's become afraid of their own shadows) and the presidency (a revolving door of business as usual centrists and caligula level lunatics)
Not as long as we tolerate the presense of those willing to take those rights away
IE, public solidarity is key. atomised people don't care when they erode people's rights because they don't care about "those" people, "first they came for..."
John Roberts: We look so illegitimate and hateful, especially after allowing the denial of food stamps. What do we do?
Clarence Thomas: Double down! Fuck the gays!
Amy Comey Barrett: We can't do anything. It might upset Daddy Trump.
John Roberts: OK newbie. What do you think?
Ketanji Brown: Ummm... Tell Kim Davis to eat shit?
John Roberts: Perfect! We will look creditable again!!!
Ketanji Brown: 🙄
Brett Kavanaugh : BBBBEEEEEEEERRRR!!!!
Wait, they're not overturning same sex marriage? How is it possible the supreme clownshow is doing anything good?
Deciding to not do something bad yet is not the same as doing something good.
Good point
Maybe they're starting to realize what a bad look all of this is.
Too bad it's too little too late, they won't be respected by anyone for a long time.
Why would they care about how it looks? It's not like they can ve voted out
Oh, there are ways to replace Justices all right.
I doubt I'd be allowed to say them out loud, but they exist.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Breaking News: "6 Supreme Court justices suddenly found dead on the early morning of November 11. Senate to hold confirmation hearings later this afternoon."
👀
Although I am not married myself, I have many friends who are. For our government to tell them that their marriages are meaningless, would have been the last motherfucking straw.
The 40 million starving’s not a last straw?
These issues are not mutually exclusive, and it is legitimately okay for one marginalized group to be concerned more for things that directly affect them. That does not in any way negate the urgency or importance of any other issues.
We need to stop treating everything going on as a binary (black and white) problem. That’s what they want us to do, and why we’re being bombarded with so many bad things all at once. They are purposely dividing us, and so far it’s working.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
If Jabba the Huts mother was a member of the Bene Gesserit.
God, ironically, go the fuck away you damn ugly wench.
Weird
That massive hair do from the 20's tells you everything you need to know.
I said in my local group how she's on about things being against God's while that hair is being brushed against God's will and good taste.
I’m always surprised when they actually do their job.
This makes me think they're about to give Trump a massive win on something.
the court declines the vast majority of appeals. The executive branch wasn't behind this appeal. It means a lot less than you or many in this thread think.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›