Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,587 posts)

4. They aren't really "considering" it

Reply to Coventina (Original post)

Fri Nov 7, 2025, 04:12 PM

Nov 7

The case lost unanimously in the country's 2nd most conservative appellate circuit (the 5th) and not a single judge was interested in hearing an en-banc appeal when it was requested. There's no reason to believe that it will end up as anything other than a single line on the "CERTIORARI DENIED" section of the orders. It's just that when someone files a petition for writ of certiorari, it goes on the list to be "considered" at the next conference.

This one isn't going anywhere.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme court considering taking up case challenging legality of same-sex marriage [View all] Coventina Nov 7 OP

Brought by the woman who's been married 4 times Ritabert Nov 7 #1

One wonders if.... ZDU Nov 7 #2

I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't think Thomas would touch it sakabatou Nov 7 #3

They aren't really "considering" it FBaggins Nov 7 #4

Her argument is that elected officials do not have to obey laws that run counter to their religious beliefs Buckeyeblue Nov 7 #5

She probably swore that oath to god, to defend the same idea that would Volaris Nov 7 #8

Aside from that, despite how she is framing it - it isn't about the legality of same gender marriage. Ms. Toad Nov 7 #6

No, she doesnt have to perform her job if she chooses so. Volaris Nov 7 #9

The article mischaracterizes both the passport case and the marriage case. Ms. Toad Nov 7 #7