Trump's nominees to the federal bench are gunning for same-sex marriage

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-nominees-to-the-federal-bench-are-gunning-for-same-sex-marriage/ar-AA1Kj41u?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=88e0ce43b1c44e57a0cb4b0ed3f4faf1&ei=112

John Gallagher (11 Aug 2025)

With so many weekly outrages from the Trump administration, it's easy to overlook its long-term plans. Chief among them is reshaping the federal judiciary. As the first batch of nominees wends their way through the Senate confirmation process, the stakes for marriage equality are incredibly high.

The nominees don't come out and say how much they hate Obergefell v. Hodges, the 10-year old Supreme Court decision that granted the right to marry to same-sex couples. But between their non-answers to direct questions about the ruling and their own anti-LGBTQ backgrounds, it's pretty clear that they would like nothing more than to see the ruling overturned.

Right now, there are 47 vacancies in the federal judiciary, and Trump has put fourth 11 nominees. The results has been, in the words of JP Collins, an associate professor at The George Washington University Law School, "a horror show." Collins, writing for the legal site Balls and Strikes, analyzed the nominees and found that they haven't been hiding their animus toward LGBTQ+ rights.

That the nominees are a collection of anti-LGBTQ extremists isn't surprising. But what is alarming is how cagey they are when asked about marriage equality. As Collins notes, when asked point blank about Obergefell as precedent, they issue a string of weasel words. Strikingly, several had no problem saying that Supreme Court rulings striking down school segregation (Brown v. Board of Education) and bans on interracial marriages (Loving v. Virginia) were correctly decided, but punted when asked about Obergefell.

New nominees to Federal courts are a concern.  However, sadly, the current Supreme Court may get the chance to derail equality marriage.  Kim Davis (the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple -- ten years ago) has applied to have her case considered by the Supreme Court.  She has ground to stand there as she was fired from her job and fined for refusing to follow Obergefell vs Hodge.  She has applied for the Supreme Court to review her case.  The first review is to see if the Court will consider reviewing her case.  Newsweek thinks there is little chance for the Court to actually take up her case.  Fox News thinks she will be heard.  <<shudder>>

I hope the Supreme Court lets well enough be.  I hope -- but it is 2025 and my guesses have not been good.


Erin

Quote from: ErinWDK on Yesterday at 04:58:08 PMShe has ground to stand there as she was fired from her job and fined for refusing to follow Obergefell vs Hodge. 

What it boils down to is the First Amendment. Previous Supreme Court rulings have said that citizens can claim a First Amendment right, but corporations, businesses, and the government cannot. The First Amendment rights are reserved to the People.

In Davis' case, she claimed she was acting under her First Amendment protection of religious freedom. But that falls apart because she was not acting as a private citizen. Her actions were on behalf of the government. She acted as an agent of the government, and those actions are not protected under the First Amendment.

If the Supreme Court hears the case, that is how I would expect them to rule.

But, as you said, this is 2025, and the courts have shown that they will do what Trump wants, not what the Founding Fathers wanted for us.