Thomas is already pretty much on record in favor of overturning Obergefell, and Alito never met a personal liberty he didn’t want to eliminate; I wonder who the third vote (assuming there was one) might have been? I’m guessing Kavanaugh, but — as noted — it’s immaterial.
Are there any more cases about this percolating up? Maybe they are waiting for what they perceive to be a better one.
Is there any reason to believe there were three votes to hear the case? The WSJ article doesn’t give a vote, but does say that this case has a lot of procedural issues that made it unlikely to prevail even if they heard it.
I would have to go searching for it, but the report I read said it was only Thomas in favor and no other Judge joined him.
Barrett is already pretty much a swing vote, and she’s getting close to being an honorary liberal justice (scroll down to the “IEEPA doesn’t actually say “tariff” anywhere in it” section).
Hmm, will Kim still get her fees waived? Yeah, I’m a cynic.
“Supreme Court endorses same-sex coitus; tells Kim Davis to go fuck herself.”
Someone on FB commented, “Kim Davis demanded to talk to the Supreme Court’s manager”.
That used to be funny…but now it might be a reference to Trump.
Can we pause for a brief moment of celebratory I told you so 
Did SCOTUS give a reason other than “It’s too soon, just 10 years, for us to overturn stare decisis?”
Nope - they just denied cert. They don’t normally give a reason for that. But there are plenty of reasons why they might turn this particular case down and wait for a better case if they are determined to overturn Obergefell. The actual appeal was about her claim that she was protected from liability by the First Amendment.
25-125 DAVIS, KIM V. ERMOLD, DAVID, ET AL.
The motion of Foundation for Moral Law for leave to file a
brief as amicus curiae out of time is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
They only agree to hear a small fraction of the cases bright to them. They don’t usually say why they won’t hear a case.
That sounds like a terrifying organization.
This is what I heard in an interview on PBS, expressed much more cautiously. This case was not likely to succeed in overturning Obergefell. PBS did not speculate that something else in the pipeline would, but that was the clear implication.
That’s what I’m wondering about: They’ve already demonstrated that they don’t care about precedent or anything besides getting the result they want. So why isn’t one case as good as another? It may not succeed under a court under rule of law, but why not make it succeed? They’ve done it before, repeatedly.
We don’t actually know that there are five who want to overturn it. We know there are three who definitely don’t want to overturn it and two who certainly want to overturn it. The other four - who knows? It’s not the sort of issue where you could say “Roberts believes in the unitary executive so he will vote this way” Or “Barrett doesn’t think abortion should be legal at all, so she will vote that way” Or “Gorsuch always votes for Native American interests”
Yeah, funny thing but the justices seem to care about the actual process.
I do wonder what sort of person or case would be considered to have legitimate “standing” for a case that sought to overturn Obergefell.
I imagine if somebody rich dies and leave the money to his husband, there might be quite a number of biological relatives interested in de-legimizing the marriage so they can dispossess the widower and take his stuff.
Edit: now that I think about it, this could happen to me—my gay spouse stands to inherit everything, but my nearest biological relatives in the US are a couple of cousins, whose children barely know me… one of them might think it worth going to court.